2025-07-01 City Council PacketAgenda
Edmonds City Council
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JULY 1, 2025, 6:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
July 1, 2025
Page 1
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE,
COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39.
TO ATTEND VIRTUALLY, CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB
BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 BY PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH
(SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME
IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE
RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR
SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER.
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
5. PRESENTATION
1. Mayor's Finance Update (10 min)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT REGARDING ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE
AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO
THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. IF USING A
COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE, RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. IF USING A DIAL-
UP PHONE, PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. Written Public Comments (0 min)
2. Outside Boards and Committee Reports (0 min)
Edmonds City Council Agenda
July 1, 2025
Page 2
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Committee B Minutes June 17, 2025
2. Approval of Council Committee W Minutes June 17, 2025
3. Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
9. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing on a Resolution Providing for the Submission to the Voters at the General
Election a Proposition Authorizing the City to Increase its Regular Property Tax Levy Above the Limit
Otherwise Allowed by State Law (60 min)
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Residential Parking Code Update - Discussion and Final Revisions (AMD2025-0005) (20 min)
2. Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study – Project Update (45 min)
3. Amend Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.70 Street Vacations (45
min)
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(I)
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSSION
ADJOURNMENT
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Mayor's Finance Update
Staff Lead: Mayor Rosen
Department: City Council
Preparer: Beckie Peterson
Background/History
On July 2, 2024 the council voted to have a Mayor Update as an ongoing item on all regular meeting
agendas. This was in response to a recommendation from the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel.
Staff Recommendation
No action, informational
Narrative
The Mayor, or another member of the administration, will answer questions about City finances that
have been requested by council in advance and will also share actions related to the fiscal emergency
that have transpired since the last update.
When there is nothing new to report, this agenda item will be the opportunity to share that there is
nothing new to report.
5.1
Packet Pg. 3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Written Public Comments
Staff Lead: City Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Teresa Simanton
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of written public comments.
Narrative
Public comments submitted to the web form for public comments
<https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment>
between May 29, 2025 and June 17, 2025.
Attachments:
Public Comment July 1 2025
7.1
Packet Pg. 4
Edmonds City Council Public Comments – July 1, 2025
Online Form 2025-06-18 01:19 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 6/18/2025 4:19:30 PM
(GMT-07:00) US/Arizona
Name Value
FirstName Stan
LastName Johnson
Email
CityOfResidence Edmonds
AgendaTopic Property tax increase
Comments
The City needs to reign in their frivolous spending habits and decrease
taxes, not increase!! We're already on the hook for $1,000 for the RFA
annexation. Now you want to add more?? Where's Elon when you need
him?
To view this form submission online, please follow the link below:
https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=20883553&contextId=18452053&returnt
o=submissions
Online Form 2025-06-23 10:02 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 6/23/2025 1:02:52
PM (GMT-07:00) US/Arizona
Name Value
FirstName
LastName
Email
Karen
Hayes
CityOfResidence Edmonds
AgendaTopic emergency preparedness
Comments https://seattleemergencyhubs.org/about-us/mission Do we have any
such department set up to prepare for emergencies? As a blockwatch
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
J
u
l
y
1
2
0
2
5
(
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Edmonds City Council Public Comments – July 1, 2025
captain, I find these volunteer groups to be the first line of help. Thank
you for any information.
To view this form submission online, please follow the link below:
https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=20887429&contextId=18452053&returnt
o=submissions
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
J
u
l
y
1
2
0
2
5
(
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Outside Boards and Committee Reports
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Teresa Simanton
Background/History
Outside Boards and Committee Reports will be submitted to the Received for Filing portion of the
agenda for last meeting of the month.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Council is asked to review the attached committee reports/minutes from the following
organizations:
SnoCom 911
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Port of Edmonds
Snohomish County Tomorrow
Community Transit
WRIA Salmon
SeaShore Transport
Attachments:
PFD Minutes April 24 2025
PFD Minutes June 10 2025
PFD Minutes May 29 2025
PFD Minutes Special June 16 2025
Port Commission Minutes April 28 2025
Port Commission Minutes May 12 2025
Port Commission Mintues May 27 2025
SCT Minutes April 23 2025
SNO911-Board-Agenda-May 15 2025
WRIA 8 Salmon Minutes May 15 2025
Seashore FMWC26 Presentation June 6 2025
SeaShore Minutes May 2 2025
Seashore Reg Transport Plan May 2 2025
SeaShore Transportation Forum June 6 2025
SeaShore Transportation Forum June 6 2025
7.2
Packet Pg. 7
CT Board Packet June 6 2025 pg 4 - 17
CT CEO Report Final June 5 2025
CT CEO Report May 1 2025 CEO Report
7.2
Packet Pg. 8
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
4
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
4
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
4
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
4
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
4
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
4
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
J
u
n
e
1
0
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
J
u
n
e
1
0
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
2
9
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
2
9
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
2
9
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
2
9
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
2
9
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
J
u
n
e
1
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
F
D
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
J
u
n
e
1
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
t
u
e
s
M
a
y
2
7
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
t
u
e
s
M
a
y
2
7
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
t
u
e
s
M
a
y
2
7
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
t
u
e
s
M
a
y
2
7
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
i
n
t
u
e
s
M
a
y
2
7
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
C
T
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
3
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
C
T
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
3
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
C
T
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
p
r
i
l
2
3
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.i
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
N
O
9
1
1
-
B
o
a
r
d
-
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.i
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
N
O
9
1
1
-
B
o
a
r
d
-
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
W
R
I
A
8
S
a
l
m
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
1
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
2026 FIFA Men's
World Cup Transit
Planning
June 6, 2025
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Agenda
1.Event Overview
2.World Cup in Context
3.Planning Structure
4.Services
5.Passenger Experience
6.Safety-Security
7.Operational Readiness
8.Questions
2
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
FIFA Men’s World Cup by the numbers…
Global Local
3 Host Countries—up from 1
16 cities
48 teams—up from 32
104 matches—up from 64
5,000,000 + traveling attendees
Minimum 200 million viewers per match
15% bigger than Olympics
7x larger audience than the Super Bowl
6 matches at Lumen Field – 60k+ expected attendance
(reduced capacity for media footprint)
Up to 24 Official Fanfest activations at Seattle Center –
15-30k expected attendance
Up to 750k unique visitors
70% of which are expected to be from out of country
Unknown number of unofficial watch parties
3
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
World Cup In Context
6
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Focus
•Special events have become a core part of the service that King County
Metro provides to the region.
•FIFA Men’s World Cup presents both a unique challenge and
opportunity.While World Cup will entail unavoidable impacts to Metro’s
service, it will also be an opportunity to introduce transit to new riders, and
to position public transit as a premier mobility solution.
•Our planning for World Cup will build upon all the lessons learned from
large events, enhance regional partnerships, and center on our core
values of equity, sustainability, and safety.
7
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Why are people using transit?
2019 Rider Non-Rider Report (March 2020 Report update)
2022-23 Rider Non-Rider Report (March 2024 update)
20242019
8
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Event Support Strategy
EVENT TIER EVENT SIZE LEAD TIME EXAMPLE
ANY EVENT ANY SIZE No lead time needed All events
TIER 1 EVENT <15,000 attendees > 1+ month lead time Performances, conferences and
community gatherings
TIER 2 EVENT 15,000 – 40,000
attendees
>1-3 months lead
time
Fourth of July, Ballard Seafood
Fest, and the Capitol Hill Block
Party
TIER 3 EVENT 40,000 – 80,000
attendees
> 3-6+ months lead
time
Pride Parade, Bumbershoot,
Taylor Swift and Seafair.
CUSTOMIZED
APPROACH
40,000 – 80,000+
attendees
>3-6+ months lead
time
FIFA World Cup, Olympics, MLB
All-Stars, professional sports
seasons
9
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
World Cup ‘26 in context
•Torchlight Parade
•Seattle Pride Parade
•University of Washington Huskies
•MLB All-Star Week 2023
•Taylor Swift 2023
•NHL Winter Classic NY 24’
10
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
151
200
50
100
80
200
110.6
72
219.8
111.83
420.5
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Torchlight Parade Pride Parade MLB All-Star Taylor Swift Huskies World Cup
Event comparison of attendance and
service hours added
Attendance Service Hrs Added
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Lessons Learned from Previous Events
•Adding service vs the burden it places on
operations
•Mitigation strategies:
•Spring 2026 Service Change
•Hybrid standby-scheduled service
•Focusing on the highest "return on
investment service": downtown shuttle
•Custom special service must be communicated
early and clearly
•Queuing and Stadium Station overload
12
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Planning Structure
13
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
GM &
Sponsors
Decision making &
escalation
Program
Director
Overall coordination
Services &
Workforce
Reliable regional
mobility
Passenger
Experience
Seamless & legible
Safety-
Security
Safe, clean services
& facilities
Operational
Readiness
Preparedness &
impact mitigation
14
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Q3 2024 Q4 2024 Q1 2025 Q2 2025 Q3 2025 Q4 2025 Q1 2026 Q2 2026 Q3 2026 Q4 2026
Key Milestones
Service,
Operations,
Overall
Coordination
•Service levels
•Special service
•Workforce
•FTA Charter Rule
•Kimley-Horn
deliverables
•Coordination w/
SPD, SDOT,
WSDOT, SFD,
other partners
•TMP, TMF, TCP
Safety & Security
•Venue security
perimeters
•Evac routes
•Tabletop exercises
Passenger
Experience
•Wayfinding,
navigation, trip
planning
•Fares
•Multimodal and
accessible
comms
FIFA Men’s World Cup 2026 - Timeline & Milestones
Brainstorm ideas for special services
and workforce optimization
Meet with Metro leaders and partner agencies to assess
feasibility of special service and workforce proposals
Draft TMP Draft TMF
Fixed route documentation
& analysis for service to
stadium and other event
locations. Deliverable for
Kimley-Horn.
Teams
announced
Finalize special service
plan for possible
inclusion in Spring Pick
Operator
Spring Pick
Spring SC
Begins
6/11/26 Opening
match in Mexico
6/15/26 First
match in Seattle
Develop
Drill/exercise/training
plans
Conduct full scale drill
Develop Incident
Response Action Plan
Recommendation for
security SOPs and
staffing
EOC/DOC Activation
After Action
Review and
Lessons
Learned/Correc
tive Actions
EOC/DOC Activation
and Response Staffing
Plan
Preparedness
Drill with
TransLink
Security
Staffing and
Deployment
Plan
Security Staff
Budget
Fanfest
location
announced
Practice
fields
announced Match times
announced
First Line
Pick –
SQ/TCC
Duties must
be finalized
Agency-wide
After Action
Wayfinding maps for stadiums & Fanfest highlighting special shuttle service
First Agency-
wide update
Second Agency-
wide update
Third/Final
Agency-wide
update
Security perimeter/TCPs
for stadiums & Fanfest
Fare strategy announced, Design and development starts for
open payment and new virtual card
Multi-Channel Marketing & Comms Campaign
Brainstorm ideas for improved passenger
experience , Begin regional coordination Budget requests for 2026
Final TMP &
TMF
Construction Moratorium
Capital project tracking list and assessment of temporary transit-supportive
roadway improvements for special and fixed-route services
Train and staff up positions to meet rider needs
Coordinate with ST on contingency planning for unexpected rail outages
Coordinate with ST to document max
transit capacity pre & post match through
the downtown core
Comprehensive
written review
submitted to
MLT
Incorporating
lessons learned
– future mega-
events, event
planning at
Metro, ESIT
Budget requests for 2026
More working groups – Bus Ops
EOC/DOC/match day staffing plan Match day staffing
Document customer feedback
After-action report out
Contribute to
comprehensive review
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Services
16
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Serving the needs of event attendees while also mitigating impacts to regular riders
Identifying
deficiencies
in capacity
Adding
capacity &
frequency to
existing
service
Coordinating
with partners
to improve
efficiency—
signal timing,
bus priority
Custom,
event-
specific
service
All modes
working
synergistically
Ensuring
workforce
can
support
added
service
17
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transit Capacity Analysis
18
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Metro Downtown Circulator in
Development
•Builds upon similar services implemented during
MLB All-Star Week and the Taylor Swift concerts of
2023, as well as UW Husky shuttles
•These previous operations provide a proven model
that can be scaled and adapted for the specific
needs of World Cup visitors and venues
•The circulator will connect Lumen Field with Seattle
Center, providing service to high-value areas in the
downtown core
•Distinct match day and non-match day operations
19
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Passenger Experience
20
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Seamless, accessible, and welcoming
Digital,
physical, and
on-site
wayfinding
Open
payment,
promotional
Orca cards
Trip planning Translated and
Language-neutral
communications
Street teams
21
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Passenger map for Lumen Field events
22
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Safety and Security
23
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Safe, clean, reliable mobility for all
Enhanced
transit
security
presence
Physical
security
measures at
downtown
bases
Crowd
management
training for front
line staff
Coordination with
partners in law
enforcement &
emergency
services
Emergency
Operations Plan
24
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Operational Readiness
workforce, event staffing, coach preparation, service impact mitigation, training
25
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Maintaining service excellence through comprehensive planning and strategic resource management
Service
impact
mitigation
Staffing &
deployment
strategies
Ensuring vehicle
readiness &
managing coach
staging
Designing &
executing
workforce
training
Contingency
planning
26
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Closing & Questions
27
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
F
M
W
C
2
6
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
SeaShore Minutes 05.02.2025
The meeting was called to order at 7:34am.
Amanda Pleasant-Brown shared that Metro has new data showing that drug-related incidents on or near
Metro decreased by more than one-third from 2023 to 2024. They also shared that the Water Taxi
summer sailing schedule began on Saturday, April 12, and will run through Friday, October 10. Lastly,
they described three opportunities that they hoped members would share with constituents including
openings on the King County Transit Advisory Commission, King County Access Paratransit Advisory
Committee, and Metro’s Summer Youth Transit Internship (deadline and links below).
Genevieve Jones shared that the ordinance to renew the transportation board agreements is on track
and will be submitted to the Executive in the next few days. She also shared that the Regional Transit
Committee will be meeting on May 21 with updates on youth transit and service recovery.
Co-Chair Goldman shared that Sound Transit is considering policies to allow dogs on buses. This would
align with Metro policies.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
Kelly McGourty of PSRC began the Regional Transportation Plan Development Process presentation. The
plan lays out the region’s long-term transportation needs and planned investment. It’s updated every
four years. The basis for the scops of the next Regional Transportation Plan is Vision 2050. Particularly
the goal: “The region has a sustainable, equitable, affordable, safe, and efficient multimodal
transportation system, with specific emphasis on an integrated regional transit network that support the
Regional Growth Strategy and promotes vitality of the economy, environment, and health.”
Staff consulted PSRC boards in 2024 for direction on scope of work and policy priorities. Additional
significant elements of the next plan include: reevaluation of the financial strategy, maintenance and
preservation first, analysis of changing travel behavior, regional transit access assessment, emerging
stormwater issues and mitigation, growth targets and investments from 2024 comprehensive plans.
Staff gathered information on the current transportation system with a particular focus on where
people and jobs are today and planned for 2050. That report will be out soon. Information was also
gathered on available revenues and planned expenditures from comprehensive plans.
Upcoming work will include a comparison of available revenue. There will be a gap between revenue
and levels of funding needed. The board will discuss what investments may need to be pared back. By
July, the board will give direction to staff on one or more draft plan scenarios to move into analysis.
PSRC hopes to release a draft plan by end of year for public comment and then take to board for
adoption in May of 2026. They will be reaching out at community events, through community
interviews, an online engagement hub, regional public meetings, focus groups, PSRC Board/Committee
briefings, public comment process, and a public opinion survey.
7.2.l
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Councilmember Paine asked whether there was a schedule for community events? A – Not yet. Starts
with May 10 Downtown Redmond Link Extension opening. Schedule will be on website and will send to
Genevieve.
Co-Chair Goldman asked about how PSRC collaborates with other agencies. A – Great question. Posing
to the board in the coming months. Transit operators committee. Work closely with transit agencies.
Look at their long-range plans. Trying to identify gaps in a more granular way, a change from previous
plans. Will be asking boards to look at gaps that have been left out of comprehensive plans and long-
term transit/transportation plans. For example, the current transportation plan called for a regional
safety action plan.
Genevieve asked whether the comparison of revenue included assumptions of federal revenue and if so,
how is PSRC making those assumptions? A – We are looking at growth rates in the long term. Long
history. Fairly stable and routine growth over time. Try not to react too much to things in the current
moment.
Co-Chair Goldman asked how do you make sure you’re getting useful feedback from the public when
they might not know about PSRC or the Regional Transportation Plan? A – Sensitive to being a
government agency in a time when people may be feeling wary of government. Will go out and ask – we
are planning for transportation, what are your needs and priorities. Still working on the script.
Breakout rooms: As the weather improves, there are more people walking, biking, and scooting. What
multimodal strategies or projects is your city doing this year?
Room 1 discussed crossings over SR 104 and Seattle waterfront. Room 2 discussed Shoreline and Lake
Forest projects and a Shoreline study about bike connections to light rail station. They also talked about
abilities to manage speeds. Room 3 discussed sidewalks and funding sources. They also discussed traffic
cameras. Room 4 discussed Shoreline’s scooter pilot. They also talked about conflicting needs from city,
cost increases, and the future of funding. There was also mention of PSRC’s data dashboard.
In good of the order, Co-Chair Goldman asked if the board if they enjoyed the breakout rooms. A few
people shared that they enjoyed them. He also asked if the board wanted to meet in-person in June. The
board agreed to meet in-person on June 6 at Shoreline City Hall. Genevieve shared that there would be
enough funding for coffee but not food and she would bring up the issue of dues in the June meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:38am.
Attendees:
Amanda Pleasant-Brown (she/they), King County Executive Braddock
Brock Howell, Snohomish County Transportation Coalition
Eben Pobee, Shoreline Councilmember and SeaShore Co-Chair
Elsa Brown, Seattle Office of Intergovernmental Relations
7.2.l
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Elizabeth Evans Webb, Office of King County Councilmember Dembowski
Genevieve Jones (she/her), King County Metro
Jim Hammond, Shoreline
Kelly McGourty, PSRC
Kyoko Matsumoto-Wright, Mountlake Terrace Mayor
Larry Goldman, Lake Forest Park Councilmember and SeaShore Co-Chair
Matthew Kenna, WSDOT
Phillip Hill, Lake Forest Park
Rebecca Dickinson, Lake Forest Park
Ryan Packer, Urbanist
Susan Paine, Edmonds City Council
Tricia Juhnke, Shoreline
Links:
• SeaShore Transportation Forum Website
• King County Access Paratransit Advisory Committee – applications due May 12
• King County Transit Advisory Commission – applications due May 12
• Metro Youth Transit Internship – applications due May 11
• Metro Water Taxi Summer Sailing Schedule
7.2.l
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
We are leaders in the region to realize equity for all. Diversity, racial
equity and inclusion are integrated into how we carry out all our work.
psrc.org/equity
We are leaders in the region to realize equity for all. Diversity, racial
equity and inclusion are integrated into how we carry out all our work.
psrc.org/equity
Regional Transportation Plan
Development Process
SeaShore Forum
May 2, 2025
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Today’s Discussion
•What is the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP)?
•RTP 2026-2050 Scope of
Work and Policy Priorities
•Key Activities to Date
•Milestones and Next Steps
2
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
What is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)?
3
•Lays out the region’s long-term
transportation needs and planned
investments.
•Developed collaboratively with
cities, counties, transportation
agencies and the public.
•Updated every four years according
to state and federal requirements.
•Must include a reasonable financial
strategy to fully fund all investments.
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Next RTP: 2026-2050
First and foremost, the primary basis for the scope of the next RTP
is VISION 2050, which has the following Transportation goal:
The region has a sustainable, equitable, affordable, safe,
and efficient multimodal transportation system, with
specific emphasis on an integrated regional transit network
that supports the Regional Growth Strategy and promotes
vitality of the economy, environment, and health.
4
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
RTP Scope of Work and Policy Priorities
5
Board feedback on policy priorities for the next plan have
confirmed the commitment to:
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
RTP Scope of Work and Policy Priorities
Additional significant elements of the next plan include:
•Reevaluation of the Financial Strategy
•Maintenance and preservation first
•Analysis of changing travel behavior
•Regional transit access assessment
•Emerging stormwater issues and mitigation
•Growth targets and investments from 2024 comprehensive
plans
•Identify actions and outcomes6
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Current Transportation System Report
7
•Information gathered on the current
transportation system
•Looking at where people & jobs are
today and planned for 2050 – at
varying densities
•Identifying potential gaps in the
transportation system supporting
those places
•Interim report on the current system
to be published in early May
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Upcoming Work
8
•Information also gathered on available revenues and
planned expenditures out to 2050
•Expenditures include:
•Maintenance, preservation and operations of the existing
system
•Projects adding or changing capacity to the regional
system, across all modes
•All other system investments – safety, active
transportation, local investments
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Upcoming Work
9
•Board will discuss the comparison of available revenues – i.e.,
“current law” – to proposed expenditures beginning in May
•Discuss potential new revenue sources and levels of funding
that may be feasible to “fill the gap” by 2050; or
•Discuss what investments may need to be pared back
•By July, board direction to staff on one or more draft plan
scenarios to move into analysis
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Plan
AdoptionDraft Plan
Future
System
Development
Current
System
Report
Community Engagement Informs the Plan
Transportation Needs & Priorities
2025 2026
Regional Transportation Plan Update Process
10
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Community
Events &
Interviews
Planned RTP Public Engagement
Focus Groups
Online
Engagement Hub
PSRC Board/
Committee
Briefings
Public Opinion
Survey
11
Regional Public
Meetings
Public Comment
Process
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Thank You!
12
Kelly McGourty
Director of Transportation Planning
KMcGourty@psrc.org
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
M
a
y
2
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
We are leaders in the region to realize equity for all. Diversity, racial
equity and inclusion are integrated into how we carry out all our work.
psrc.org/equity
Federal & State Policy Updates
SeaShore Transportation Forum
June 6, 2025 Updated
6/5/2025
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Federal Budget Updates
•Reconciliation
•President’s Budget Release/FY
2026 Appropriations
•Recission
•Surface Transportation
Reauthorization
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Budget Reconciliation - Transportation
•Budget reconciliation proposal released
•$10 million in cuts
•Increases budget to coast guard for border
control
•Invests $15b in FAA for air traffic control
modernization
•Rescinds unobligated funds for several
Inlfation Reduction Act programs
•Includes a $250 EV fee and $100 hybrid
electric vehicle fee
Complete List of Everything in the Republican Bill, and
How Much It Would Cost or Save (NY Times)
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
President's Budget
4
Increases:
•Defense and homeland security
•Transportation:
o FAA air traffic control facility
upgrades
o Infrastructure for Rebuilding America
Program (INFRA)
o Rail Safety
o Port Infrastructure
Reductions $163b non-defense discretionary
•Climate and renewable energy
•Housing and Urban Development
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Other Federal Updates
•Building Resilient
Infrastructure &
Communities
(BRIC) grants
termination
•PSRC reporting
form
•Executive Order
Tracking
5
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
2025 State Legislative Session
•Over 2,300 bills introduced
•Legislators faced $12b-16b
budget deficit over 4 years
•Sine Die April 27
•Passed Operating, Capital
and Transportation
Budgets
•Governor signed budgets,
some vetoes
6
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Operating Budget
7
•$77.8b 2025-2027 biennial budget
•Cuts to early learning & childcare
•Education funding for special
education and materials, supplies
and operating cost increased
•$100m for grant program to hire new
police officers
•No state employee furloughs
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Revenue Bills
8
Raise $9.4b over 4 years
HB 2081 B&O tax surcharge
SB 5814 Taxes on Services & Nicotine
Products & Prepayment of Sales Tax
SB 5813 Capital Gains and Estate Taxes
SB 5794 Eliminating Tax Preferences
HB 2077 Tax on surplus generated by Zero
Emission Fuel Program
Five tax bills lawmakers passed to underpin
Washington’s next state budget (WA State Standard)
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Rejected Revenue Proposals
•Financial Intangibles Tax
(aka wealth tax) on
financial intangibles
With symbolic vote, WA
Democrats say wealth-tax fight
is not over (Seattle Times)
•Property tax growth
flexibility
Plan to raise cap on property
tax growth collapses in WA
Legislature (WA State Standard)
9
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Capital Budget
•$975m Education
•$827m Natural Resources
•$375m Climate Commitment
Act Investments
•$463m Behavioral health
•$362m Human Services
•$114m Broadband
•$22.1m World Cup Public
Safety
•$605m Housing Trust
Fund
Other housing related
investments:
•$100m for Connecting
Housing to Infrastructure
•$8.2m for 3 TOD projects
•$11m affordable housing
cleanup program
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transportation Budget
11
$15.5b for the 25-27 biennium
•$125m increase for fish passage barrier
removal for total of $1b for biennium
•Preservation level funded for biennium,
but adds $200m for 27-29
•$49.7m additional funding for local
governments in 25-27 and increase of
$101m in the 27-29 biennium
•$30 million to support driver safety
•$7.6m for traffic & $14m for transit
during the 2026 World Cup
Transportation Budget one-pager
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transportation Budget: Project Delays
12
Projects funded with Move
Ahead Washington not
under contract were
delayed
•SR 167 SR 410 to SR 18 -
Congestion Management
•SR3/Gorst Area –
Widening funding
•Delayed to beyond 2027-
2029 to future
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transportation Budget: Revenue SB 5801
13
•Fuel Tax 6 cent increase
in FY 26 and 2% increase
each year
•Special Fuel (Diesel)
3 cent increase in special
fuel tax
•Vehicle Registration fees
Truck weight, Passenger
vehicle weight, filing, title
& registration,
abandoned recreational
vehicle
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transportation Budget: Revenue SB 5801
14
Sales and Use Taxes
•Motor vehicle sales and
use tax from .3 to .5%,
•Rental car tax 5.9 to 11.9%
•Peer to peer car sharing
•Recreational Vessels,
Luxury Vehicle, Luxury
Aircraft
Other Fees
•Tire disposal
•Large Event Facility
•WSDOT Work Zone Violations
•Driver’s License and
Identicards
•Remove toll exemption for
transit and ride share
vehicles
Revenue Summary SB 5801
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
SSB 5802
Transfers .1 % sales
tax to transportation
budget
Transportation Revenue 7.2.n
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Washington State Ferries Transportation Budget
•$894m for capital projects - new vessel
construction, preservation of vessels and
docks
•Delays Jumbo Mark II vessel conversions
(decision on conversion will be made after World Cup)
•Requires WSF to contract for 5 or more
new vessels (was up to 5)
•$38.5m workforce development,
overtime incurred by engine, deck and
terminal staff, increase deck & engine
positions across system
•Raises vessel replacement surcharge
and requires recover credit card fees
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
•HB 1902 Streamlining
Permitting for Transportation
Projects
Delivered to Governor
•HB 1837 Intercity Passenger
Rail
Delivered to Governor
•HB 1774 Lease of Unused Land
Signed to Governor
•HB 1970 Alternative
Contracting Procedures
Signed by Governor
Transportation Bills 7.2.n
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Housing Supply: Transit-Oriented Development
Promoting Transit Oriented Housing
Development Delivered to Governor
HB 1491 (Reed)
Creates density requirement in station areas
•3.5 FAR w/in .5m of rail (.25m in cites
<15,000 people)
•2.5 FAR w/in .25m of BRT
Affordability for 50 yrs
•10% of units if rents are 60% AMI & below
•20% of units if rents are 80% AMI & below
Requires adoption of 20 yr MFTE program in
station areas
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Robin Koskey
Director, Government Relations and Communications
Rkoskey@psrc.org
Thank You!
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
We are leaders in the region to realize equity for all. Diversity, racial
equity and inclusion are integrated into how we carry out all our work.
psrc.org/equity
Federal & State Policy Updates
SeaShore Transportation Forum
June 6, 2025 Updated
6/5/2025
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Federal Budget Updates
•Reconciliation
•President’s Budget Release/FY
2026 Appropriations
•Recission
•Surface Transportation
Reauthorization
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Budget Reconciliation - Transportation
•Budget reconciliation proposal released
•$10 million in cuts
•Increases budget to coast guard for border
control
•Invests $15b in FAA for air traffic control
modernization
•Rescinds unobligated funds for several
Inlfation Reduction Act programs
•Includes a $250 EV fee and $100 hybrid
electric vehicle fee
Complete List of Everything in the Republican Bill, and
How Much It Would Cost or Save (NY Times)
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
President's Budget
4
Increases:
•Defense and homeland security
•Transportation:
o FAA air traffic control facility
upgrades
o Infrastructure for Rebuilding America
Program (INFRA)
o Rail Safety
o Port Infrastructure
Reductions $163b non-defense discretionary
•Climate and renewable energy
•Housing and Urban Development
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Other Federal Updates
•Building Resilient
Infrastructure &
Communities
(BRIC) grants
termination
•PSRC reporting
form
•Executive Order
Tracking
5
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
2025 State Legislative Session
•Over 2,300 bills introduced
•Legislators faced $12b-16b
budget deficit over 4 years
•Sine Die April 27
•Passed Operating, Capital
and Transportation
Budgets
•Governor signed budgets,
some vetoes
6
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Operating Budget
7
•$77.8b 2025-2027 biennial budget
•Cuts to early learning & childcare
•Education funding for special
education and materials, supplies
and operating cost increased
•$100m for grant program to hire new
police officers
•No state employee furloughs
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Revenue Bills
8
Raise $9.4b over 4 years
HB 2081 B&O tax surcharge
SB 5814 Taxes on Services & Nicotine
Products & Prepayment of Sales Tax
SB 5813 Capital Gains and Estate Taxes
SB 5794 Eliminating Tax Preferences
HB 2077 Tax on surplus generated by Zero
Emission Fuel Program
Five tax bills lawmakers passed to underpin
Washington’s next state budget (WA State Standard)
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Rejected Revenue Proposals
•Financial Intangibles Tax
(aka wealth tax) on
financial intangibles
With symbolic vote, WA
Democrats say wealth-tax fight
is not over (Seattle Times)
•Property tax growth
flexibility
Plan to raise cap on property
tax growth collapses in WA
Legislature (WA State Standard)
9
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Capital Budget
•$975m Education
•$827m Natural Resources
•$375m Climate Commitment
Act Investments
•$463m Behavioral health
•$362m Human Services
•$114m Broadband
•$22.1m World Cup Public
Safety
•$605m Housing Trust
Fund
Other housing related
investments:
•$100m for Connecting
Housing to Infrastructure
•$8.2m for 3 TOD projects
•$11m affordable housing
cleanup program
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transportation Budget
11
$15.5b for the 25-27 biennium
•$125m increase for fish passage barrier
removal for total of $1b for biennium
•Preservation level funded for biennium,
but adds $200m for 27-29
•$49.7m additional funding for local
governments in 25-27 and increase of
$101m in the 27-29 biennium
•$30 million to support driver safety
•$7.6m for traffic & $14m for transit
during the 2026 World Cup
Transportation Budget one-pager
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transportation Budget: Project Delays
12
Projects funded with Move
Ahead Washington not
under contract were
delayed
•SR 167 SR 410 to SR 18 -
Congestion Management
•SR3/Gorst Area –
Widening funding
•Delayed to beyond 2027-
2029 to future
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transportation Budget: Revenue SB 5801
13
•Fuel Tax 6 cent increase
in FY 26 and 2% increase
each year
•Special Fuel (Diesel)
3 cent increase in special
fuel tax
•Vehicle Registration fees
Truck weight, Passenger
vehicle weight, filing, title
& registration,
abandoned recreational
vehicle
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Transportation Budget: Revenue SB 5801
14
Sales and Use Taxes
•Motor vehicle sales and
use tax from .3 to .5%,
•Rental car tax 5.9 to 11.9%
•Peer to peer car sharing
•Recreational Vessels,
Luxury Vehicle, Luxury
Aircraft
Other Fees
•Tire disposal
•Large Event Facility
•WSDOT Work Zone Violations
•Driver’s License and
Identicards
•Remove toll exemption for
transit and ride share
vehicles
Revenue Summary SB 5801
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
SSB 5802
Transfers .1 % sales
tax to transportation
budget
Transportation Revenue 7.2.o
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Washington State Ferries Transportation Budget
•$894m for capital projects - new vessel
construction, preservation of vessels and
docks
•Delays Jumbo Mark II vessel conversions
(decision on conversion will be made after World Cup)
•Requires WSF to contract for 5 or more
new vessels (was up to 5)
•$38.5m workforce development,
overtime incurred by engine, deck and
terminal staff, increase deck & engine
positions across system
•Raises vessel replacement surcharge
and requires recover credit card fees
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
•HB 1902 Streamlining
Permitting for Transportation
Projects
Delivered to Governor
•HB 1837 Intercity Passenger
Rail
Delivered to Governor
•HB 1774 Lease of Unused Land
Signed to Governor
•HB 1970 Alternative
Contracting Procedures
Signed by Governor
Transportation Bills 7.2.o
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Housing Supply: Transit-Oriented Development
Promoting Transit Oriented Housing
Development Delivered to Governor
HB 1491 (Reed)
Creates density requirement in station areas
•3.5 FAR w/in .5m of rail (.25m in cites
<15,000 people)
•2.5 FAR w/in .25m of BRT
Affordability for 50 yrs
•10% of units if rents are 60% AMI & below
•20% of units if rents are 80% AMI & below
Requires adoption of 20 yr MFTE program in
station areas
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Robin Koskey
Director, Government Relations and Communications
Rkoskey@psrc.org
Thank You!
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
e
a
S
h
o
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
u
m
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
To: Board of Directors
From: Davor Gjurasic, Community Transit State Lobbyist
Date: June 5, 2025
Subject: 2025 Washington State Legislative End of Session Report
BACKGROUND
Each year, the Community Transit Board reviews a state legislative agenda in advance of the
legislative session and receives a summary report at the end of session with highlights that relate to
public transportation, Public Transportation Benefit Areas (PTBAs) and Community Transit in particular.
Please see the attached report for a full analysis of budget and policy changes with impacts to
Community Transit and a copy of Community Transit’s 2025 legislative agenda.
STATUS
The state legislature adjourned the 2025 session on April 27 and Governor Ferguson finished signing
bills on May 20. The state transportation budget and its revenue bills addressed the decreasing fuel tax
collections and the projected inflationary pressures that made it a challenge to fund the queued
transportation infrastructure projects. Investments were made to preserve and maintain transportation
funding and the results were positive for Community Transit.
The State fiscal year begins on July 1, 2025, when the new biennium budget will take effect. Other
changes will become effective as specified by the individual laws.
BUDGET IMPACT
The award of competitive state grants and transportation funding becomes part of Community Transit’s
revenue and is reflected in the agency’s Transit Development Plan and budget approved by the Board.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational item.
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
2025 STATE LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Community Transit 2025 Legislative Report Summary
By Davor Gjurasic, State Lobbyist –May 21, 2025
Overview
The Legislature convened its budget-year session on January 13, 2025. The 105-day session was
dominated by financial constraints and economic uncertainty at the state and federal level. Over 2,000
bills were introduced, some of which had impacts to public transit. Community Transit utilized its
legislative agenda to guide engagement with state legislators throughout the session and a partnership
with the Washington State Transit Association (WSTA) provided support with research, industry
alignment and advocacy. Community Transit participated in multiple meetings and visits with Snohomish
County legislators, transportation committee leaders and state legislative staff. On February 20, CEO Ric
Ilgenfritz testified before the Senate Transportation Committee, along with King County Metro’s General
Manager Michelle Allison and WSTA Executive Director Justin Leighton, regarding transit safety and
security efforts.
The Legislature adjourned the 2025 legislative session on Sunday, April 27, the 105th and last day of the
regular session. The House and Senate were able to pass the operating, transportation and capital
budgets. On May 20, Governor Ferguson signed into law all three budgets.
The transportation budget, SB 5161, and its revenue bills, address the decreasing fuel tax collections,
and the projected inflation pressures that made it impossible to complete many of the projects
associated with the Connecting Washington and the Move Ahead Washington transportation packages.
This budget should allow those projects to go forward, provide about $1 billion for fish passage barrier
removal, and help fund the State Ferry improvements, while also funding public transportation
programs.
SB 5801: Transportation Resources. This bill raises the gas tax by 6 cents and has an inflator on that
increase of 2% yearly. It also has weight fee increases, rental car and Peer-to-peer car sharing tax
increases, and a luxury vehicle tax, among other revenue increases. Here is a summary of the bill, which
raises about $3.2 billion over 6 years.
SB 5802: Rebalancing statutory fund transfers and revenue dedications for transportation. This bill
changes the general fund transfers that helped fund the Move Ahead Washington transportation
funding package, transfers funds from the transportation multimodal account and the public works
account to the general fund, which supports the operating budget, and authorizes a 1/10th of 1 percent
transfer of the state’s 6.5% sales and use tax to the multimodal account, starting in the next biennium
(2027-29). This will transfer about $600M biennially. Here is a summary of the transfers.
Funding
Key funding sources that Community Transit relies on were preserved through the budget process.
Notably, the Transit Support Grants were untouched and will continue to provide critical support to
agencies with zero youth fare policies. The Regional Mobility Grant, which has been significant for our
efforts to build out the SWIFT network, continues to support all of our projects on schedule with the
amount of funding we expected. However, Green Transportation Grants, Transit Coordination Grants,
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
2025 STATE LEGISLATIVE REPORT
and Rideshare grants are significantly reduced. Additionally, there are no new planned Regional Mobility
Grants after 2027.
A proposal for a $100M transit safety and security grant failed to advance. This program would have
provided aid to any transit authority for safety and security enhancements that include the built
environment (lighting, fare gates, etc.), cleaning and fixing damage, improving conditions for frontline
workers such as installing barrier doors, safety personnel such as transit safety officers or behavioral
health specialists, and supporting education.
Community Transit Funded Projects
The budgets included substantial funding for key projects that kept consistent with the amount and
disbursement schedule we expected:
• $15M—Swift Gold Line BRT Project
o The fifteen-mile Swift Gold Line will provide fast, frequent service between Everett,
Marysville, and Arlington along one of three potential routes, connecting to Community
Transit’s Swift Blue Line and Sound Transit’s regional Sounder commuter rail service at
Everett Station.
• $1.04M—CT CTR Program
o Maintains funding from the Regional Mobility Grant for executing our Commute Trip
Reduction program.
• $9M—CT Infrastructure at Hardeson Campus
o Funding from the Green Transportation Program to build infrastructure to support
battery electric fleet transition.
• Move Ahead WA
o $10M Swift BRT-Green Line Extension
o $10M Swift BRT-Gold Line
o $10M Swift BRT-Silver Line
• $1.914M—CT DART Paratransit Replacement Vehicles
Community Transit Related Budget Provisos
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project
$2.5M is provided solely to Community Transit for a hydrogen fuel cell demonstration project.
PTBA Annexation
SB 5801 included language that would allow a county wide PTBA and an adjacent city operating a transit
system within the county it operates to annex, subject to an interlocal agreement adopted by both
parties. This method of annexation is an alternative method and is additional to all other methods
provided.
World Cup Funding
$9M is appropriated for funding for enhanced services between June 1 and July 30, 2026. Based on the
regional distribution, staff estimates Community Transit would be eligible to receive just under $1M.
Enhanced services are defined in the statute to include increased frequency on regular routes, creating
temporary shuttle services, enhancing on-demand services, increasing frequency of water taxi services,
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
2025 STATE LEGISLATIVE REPORT
and supporting incentives to encourage transit use; and enhancing customer experience by temporarily
increasing operations, cleanliness, rider communications, wayfinding, and safety and security.
Transit Support Grants
The Transit Support Grant program was maintained for FY 2025-27 and $188,900,000 is appropriated for
those agencies that continue to have zero-fare youth policies and maintain their sales tax levels.
Notable Bills Passed by the Legislature
PTBA Governing Boards:
HB 1418 – Allowing for the addition of two voting members that are transit users to governing body of
a PTBA.
Allows for the appointment of two transit-using members to the governing body of public transportation
benefit areas (PTBAs) as voting members. Requires one of the transit-using members to represent a
community-based organization, if possible. It requires meetings of the governing body of certain PTBAs
to be reasonably accessible by transit and that certain training be provided to transit-using members.
Compliance is optional, at the discretion of the PTBA board. Goes into effect January of 2026.
Employee/Workplace:
HB 1213 – Expanding the protections for workers in the state paid family and medical leave program.
Makes several changes to the State PFML laws. This bill lowers employee thresholds, helps prevent
stacking of certain employment protections, expands health coverage, and expands access to small
employer grants.
SB 5501– Concerning employer requirements for driving.
Unless a hiring agency determines driving is one of the essential job functions or is related to a
legitimate business purpose for a position, it is unlawful to require a valid driver's license as a condition
of employment; or include a statement in a job posting for a job opening that an applicant must have a
valid driver's license. Includes fines for noncompliance and goes into effect July 27, 2025.
SB 5101 – Expanding access to leave and safety accommodations to include workers who are victims
of hate crimes or bias incidents.
An employee may take reasonable leave from work or request a reasonable safety accommodation if
the employee or the employee's family member is a victim of a hate crime.
Public Disclosure:
HB 1308 – Concerning access to personnel records.
Makes changes to requirements and procedures in the Public Records Act regarding responses to
request for employee or former employee records.
Transit-Oriented Development
HB 1491 – Promoting transit-oriented housing development.
Setting new state requirements for mixed-income housing development near transit and incentivizing
this kind of construction. Requires Washington cities to allow housing development in what are called
bus and rail “station areas.” A “bus station area” is defined in the statute and includes designated bus
rapid transit stops. The entirety of the existing SWIFT line, as well as the future SWIFT lines and
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
2025 STATE LEGISLATIVE REPORT
extensions, would meet the requirements that trigger the law’s density thresholds. Community Transit
routes with less frequent service would not. The legislation takes effect in late July, but implementation
of the new requirements wouldn’t come until 2029 for cities that updated their comprehensive plans
last year.
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
COMMUNITY TRANSIT PRIORITIES
2025 Washington State Legislative Session
Safety and Security
Community Transit supports policies, funding opportunities, and collaborative partnerships to advocate as appropriate to
continue protecting the safety and security of employees and riders.
Zero Emission Fleet Transition
Community Transit has begun its long-term conversion to a zero emission fleet, utilizing both battery electric and hydrogen
fuel cell technologies. State investment is critical in this effort, and Community Transit supports incentives, policies, and
funding opportunities for fleet transition and associated infrastructure and workforce.
New Transportation Funding
Community Transit supports a transportation revenue package that balances the demands of maintenance, new project
funding and service delivery, and increases funding to support growing operational and capital needs such as on-demand
services and investments in zero emission fleet transition and infrastructure.
Preserve and Maintain
Community Transit supports preserving and maintaining funding included in the 2022 Move Ahead Washington revenue
package and Connecting Washington by fully funding current grant programs and investments programmed for expansion of
Community Transit’s Swift Bus Rapid Transit Network.
Move Ahead Washington Transit Grant Programs:
● Fare Free Youth/Transit Support Grant ● Transit Coordination Grant Program
● Bus & Bus Facilities Grant Program ● Transit Project Grants
● Green Transit Grant Program
Swift Bus Rapid Transit Network:
Community Transit continues to expand its Swift bus rapid transit network providing more communities with fast frequent
service and easy connections to light rail. Community Transit supports preserving fiscal commitments made included in the
Connecting Washington and 2022 Move Ahead Washington revenue packages for the continued buildout of the Swift network.
Move Ahead Washington
● $10 M Swift Gold Line
● $10 M Swift Green Line Extension
● $10 M Swift Silver Line
Connecting Washington
● $5 M Swift Orange Line
● $5 M Swift Gold Line
Workforce Development
Community Transit supports workforce development initiatives, policies, and funding opportunities to help support the
recruitment and training of transit employees as well as addressing skills in emerging technologies.
State and Regional Support
Community Transit supports regional/local partnerships and projects that are beneficial to the delivery of public transportation
services, including the Washington State Transit Association agenda.
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
To: Board of Directors
From: Sophie Luthin, Manager – Strategic Planning
Date: June 5, 2025
Subject: Information: Draft 2025-2030 Transit Development Plan (TDP)
BACKGROUND
Community Transit is required by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to
adopt a six-year Transit Development Plan (TDP) that is updated annually. Annual updates include
activities, accomplishments and performance reports from the previous year, and a refreshed six-year
forecast of agency financials, service levels and capital projects. The TDP represents an important
forum for communicating goals and helps set the tone for many agency work programs.
Community Transit’s 2025-2030 Transit Development Plan is focused on delivering excellent service
and building for the future. The agency roadmap for the next six years centers on its strategic priorities:
attracting and retaining customers, strengthening the employee experience, and prioritizing
sustainability. Customers will have access to more reliable service, better connections, and flexible new
ways to get around their community. Key initiatives outlined in the plan include:
• Continued service expansion: Service growth will continue to build on the Transit Changes in
2024 and Beyond network, a significant initiative launched in September 2024 that will be
implemented in phases through 2026. This foundational network is being further enhanced
during the 2025-2030 period by the continued expansion of the Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Network. Key projects advancing include the Swift Green Line Extension and the new Swift
Gold Line with service beginning in 2031. Additionally, following the successful launch of three
Zip Shuttle pilot zones in 2024, Community Transit is planning for an additional two to three Zip
Shuttle zones in the 2025-2030 period. This will further expand flexible, on-demand transit
options for local communities.
• Transitioning to a zero emissions fleet: Key activities in support of the agency’s zero
emissions fleet transition will focus on continued pilot operations, infrastructure planning, fleet
scaling, alternative propulsion analysis for the BRT fleet, long-term Battery Electric Bus
capability modeling, and Information Technology / Operational Technology product suite road
mapping.
• Enhanced customer experience: The agency will continue to enhance the customer
experience by developing a safer, more accessible transit system, including improved bus
stops, digital signs on buses and at stops, and updated online tools.
Updated financial forecasts based on sales tax revenues, grant funding, and current economic
conditions affirm Community Transit’s financial position to deliver on its service growth and expansion
commitments. The agency is also monitoring potential economic challenges: concerns over continued
inflation, waning consumer confidence, and a potential economic downturn in the upcoming year.
Consequently, financial projections remain conservative, balanced by an optimistic and future-focused
outlook.
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Page 2
STATUS
An overview of the draft Transit Development Plan was presented to the Strategic Alignment and
Capital Development Committee on May 21, 2025 and again at the June 5, 2025 Board of Directors
Meeting. Public review takes place throughout June and concludes after a public hearing on July 3,
2025. The final draft Transit Development Plan will be presented to the Committee at the July 16
meeting with recommendation for Adoption of the Plan at the August 7 Board of Directors’ Meeting.
Throughout the review process, comments should be directed to engage@commtrans.org
BUDGET IMPACT
None. The 2025 Board-adopted budget includes funding for current year projects and the financial
assumptions and forecasts for this TDP are consistent with the 2026 Budget development process.
RECOMMENDATION
Information only at this time.
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Consent
Agenda
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
*Arrived in progress
**Names of those who were confirmed as attendees are included, others who attended remotely without submitting their names are not included.
Board of Directors’ Meeting
Thursday, May 1, 2025
Hybrid Meeting - 3 p.m.
Board Members Present
Council Member Kim Daughtry City of Lake Stevens
Council Member Megan Dunn Snohomish County
Mayor Christine Frizzell City of Lynnwood
Mayor Joe Marine City of Mukilteo
Council Member Tom Merrill City of Snohomish
Mayor Jon Nehring City of Marysville
Dani Julien Labor Representative, non-voting
Mayor Sid Roberts City of Stanwood
Council Member Strom Peterson* Snohomish County
Council Member Jan Schuette City of Arlington
Others Present**
Gemma Ardiente CT-Senior Accountant
Mary Albert CT- Director, Fin Planning, Budget & Systems
Naunihal Batth CT-Transportation Supervisor
Roland Behee CT-Chief Operating Officer
Samantha Bowes CT-Senior Director Employee Engagement
Kristin Bruington CT-Procurement & SBE/DBE Specialist
Melissa Cauley CT-Chief Planning & Development Officer
Ryan Chase CT-Senior Procurement SBE/DBE Specialist
Lori Fox Self
Michael Gallagher City of Brier, Board Alternate
Sara Gillis CT-Senior Analyst Budget
Scott Glassman CT-Sr. Graphic Designer
Cristina Gruber CT-Budget & Data Analyst
Deb Hagge CT-Payroll Manager
Colleen Hansen CT-Sr. Financial Analyst
Jennifer Hass CT-Product & Service Innovation Director
Al Hendricks CT-Legal Counsel
Stuart Hogge CT- Transportation Supervisor
Edna Hurst CT-Employee Communication Manager
Ric Ilgenfritz CT-CEO
Sarah Logsdon CT-Transportation Supervisor
Samantha Lushtak CT-Sr. Director Safety, Security & Sustainability
Molly Marsicek CT-Chief Innovation & Customer Exp. Officer
Cherrill Mears Self
Matthew Muller CT-Director Planning
Martin Munguia CT-Sr. Manager External Communications
Deb Osborne CT-Chief of Staff & Public Affairs Officer
David Parshell City of Lynnwood
Geoff Patrick CT-Chief Communications Officer
Lela Perkins CT-ATU
Ariel Piedmont CT-Environmental Health & Safety Mgr.
Robert Rich CT-Speed & Reliability Manager
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Board of Directors’ Meeting
May 1, 2025
Page 2
2
Stacey Root CT-Administrative Manager
Alexa Russo CT-Program Manager Stainability
Amber Sherman CT-Analyst II - Budget & Finance
Jason Smith CT-PEC Manager
Melody Smith CT-Executive Support Specialist
Chas Stearns CT-Chief Information Officer
Sally Stopher CT-Senior Director Finance & Procurement
Kris Stover CT-Financial Systems Functional Analyst
Sara Sowa CT-Director Facilities
Mike Swehla CT-Sr. Director Maintenance
Hunijan Tan CT-Sr. Planning Project Mgr. Ops Design
Sarah Reeder CT-Project Manager III - IT
Olivia Woods CT-Research and Analytics Manager Rachel
Woods CT-Executive Programs Manager
Denise Gregory Wyatt CT-Employee & Labor Relations Director
Call to Order
Chair Roberts called the May 1 2025, Board of Directors’ meeting to order at 3 p.m. The meeting was held
at 2312 W. Casino Road, Everett, WA 98204 and by Zoom. The meeting was recorded and livestreamed.
Roll Call of Members
The Executive Programs Manager called roll. Attendance was as noted above. A quorum was present.
Presentations
Employee Service Awards
CEO Ilgenfritz recognized Colleen Hansen, Senior Financial Analyst, for her 30-year anniversary with the
agency and Naunihal Batth, Transportation Supervisor, for his 40-year anniversary.
Chief Executive Officer’s Report
CEO Ilgenfritz provided a summary of recent activities including a tour of Kitsap Transit with peer transit
executives. He attended the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County annual meeting and awards event
and participated in a roundtable hosted by Representative Rick Larsen on April 17.
The agency was monitoring federal policy guidance and executive orders and was focused on assessing
possible cost increases due to tariffs.
The state legislature adjourned its session on time the prior Sunday. Final bills, including the
transportation package, were with the Governor for approval. The state budget outcome was looking
positive for the agency and funded all nine of the grant programs that we were following. An additional
$2.5 million was included for Community Transit’s Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration project. A bill had
passed allowing the option for two transit riders to join PTBA boards.
An updated was provide on the April 20 shooting that struck a Swift Blue Line coach. No one was injured
and the men involved were in custody. The Lynnwood Policy Department and employees in the field were
thanked for their response, most notably he driver who responded quickly and stayed calm and
professional during the event.
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Board of Directors’ Meeting
May 1, 2025
Page 3
3
Sound Transit would open the Redmond Link Extension on May 10. The Swift Gold Line project continued
to advance and Phase 2 of community outreach would take place later this summer.
Public comments shared at the April Board meeting about the Zip Shuttle service regarding Via
transportation were addressed. Via was taking action to improve communication with drivers and their on-
site presence. This would continue to be a standing topic at the weekly meetings with the vendor.
The FTA Triennial review audit was close to completion and the auditors were expected to be onsite early
June. The annual state audit was kicking office with an entrance conference scheduled for Friday, May 9.
Matt Chomjak, Coach Operator, took first place in the American Public Transportation Association’s
International Bus Road in Austin, TX in April.
Committee Reports
Executive Committee
Chair Roberts reported on the April 17, 2025, meeting. The CEO report was provided. The next meeting was
scheduled for May 15 at 11:30 a.m.
Finance, Performance, and Oversight Committee
Mayor Frizzell reported on the April 17, 2025, meeting. Resolution No. 06-25, Mid-year Budget
Amendment was reviewed and recommended to the action agenda. The March 2025 expenditures and
payroll vouchers were reviewed and forwarded to the Board’s consent agenda. Staff provided the Q1 2025
Security Services Quarterly Update, the March 2025 Sales Tax Report and the Diesel Fuel Report. The
next meeting was scheduled for May 15 at 2 p.m.
Strategic, Alignment and Capital Development Committee
Council Member Merrill reported on the April 16, 2025, meeting. The Committee reviewed and forwarded
three items to the action agenda:
• Award: RFP #2025-026 Coach Operator Barrier Doors
• Award: RFQ #2024-121 Bus Stop Improvement Design
• 2025-2028 Title VI Program Update
The next meeting was scheduled for May 21 at 2 p.m.
Consent Calendar
Council Member Merrill moved to approve items A through F on the consent calendar. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Nehring and passed unanimously.
a. Approve minutes of the April 3, 2025 Board Meeting
b. Approve vouchers dated March 07, 2025 in the amount of $5,297,283.32
c. Approve vouchers dated March 14, 2025 in the amount of $4,993,945.10
d. Approve vouchers dated March 21, 2025 in the amount of $3,111,085.89
e. Approve vouchers dated March 28, 2025 in the amount of $896,872.80
f. Approve March 2025 Payroll:
i. Direct Deposits Issued, #478122-480102 in the amount of $5,267,926.02
ii. Paychecks Issued, #112903-112964 in the amount of $58,867.60
iii. Employer Payroll Tax Deposits in the amount of $621,697.82
iv. Employer Deferred Compensation for IAM in the amount of $12,891.57
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Board of Directors’ Meeting
May 1, 2025
Page 4
4
Action Items
Approve Resolution No. 06-25, Mid-year Budget Amendment
Mary Albert, Director, Financial Planning, Budget & Systems, presented Resolution No. 06-25, mid-year
budget amendment. Included in the mid-year amendment was a budget request to cover the costs of
additional transportation and other staffing needs related to transitioning in-house the bus service that was
currently delivered by a contractor. It reflected updates to Exhibit C to Resolution No. 05-24, the salary
and wage schedule for administrative employees. No cost was associated with this schedule update.
Additionally, the budget for two capital projects was requested to be transferred between two capital
project funds. The Board asked questions.
Council Member Daughtry moved that the Board of Directors approve the proposed amendments
to the 2025 budget as presented in Resolution No. 06-25. Mayor Marine seconded, and the item
passed unanimously.
Award RFP #2025-026, Coach Operator Barrier Doors
Mike Swehla, Senior Director of Maintenance, provided an overview the Coach Operator Barrier Doors
procurement. Background for the project was reviewed. The agency convened a focus group including
ATU representatives, Sound Transit and department subject matter experts to develop specifications for
the barrier doors. Over 300 buses would be retrofitted. The goal was to retrofit the Swift fleet by the end of
205 and the complete fleet by the end of 2026. The Board asked questions.
Mayor Marine moved that the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate
and award Contract RFP #2025-026 Coach Operator Barrier Doors to Vision Systems Canada for a
not-to-exceed amount of $3,800,000, including tax and an approximate 25% potential tariff for the
initial contract year, contingent upon successful acceptance of the demo door. Mayor Frizzell
seconded, and the item passed unanimously.
Award RFP #2024-121, Bus Stop Improvements Design
Robert Rich, Speed & Reliability Manager, provided an overview of the bus stop improvement program.
There were over 1600 stops and the objective was to improve bus stop amenities and/or accessibility.
There would be three annual consecutive cycles, and 150 stops would be improved in total. Cycle one
would include 25 stops. The Board asked questions.
Council Member Merrill moved that the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Executive Officer to
negotiate an award contract RFP #2024-121 to KPFF, Inc. for not to exceed amount of #731,463.59
for Bus Stop Improvements Design Project. Council Member Daughtry seconded, and the item
passed unanimously.
Adopt Community Transit, 2025-2028 Title VI Program
Matthew Muller, Director of Planning, provided updates on the 2025-2028 Title VI Program to submit to the
FTA. A public hearing was held on April 3 and the public comment period took place March 6 through April
4. Themes of the public’s feedback and revisions to the plan were reviewed. The Board asked questions.
Mayor Nehring moved the Board of Directors adopt the 2025-2028 Title VI Program. Mayor Marine
seconded, and the item passed unanimously.
Chair Report
Chair Roberts reported that the next Board meeting was scheduled for June 5, 2025 at 3 p.m. The Audit
Entrance Conference was scheduled for May 9, 2025 at 1 p.m.
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Board of Directors’ Meeting
May 1, 2025
Page 5
5
Board Communication
Council Member Daughtry shared a report of Zip Shuttle activity in Lake Stevens.
Mayor Frizzell commented on the recent bus shooting incident in Lynnwood. Lynnwood Police reported
the driver was calm and provided a caring environment for riders.
Labor Representative Julien acknowledged the earnest effort behind the barrier door project and thanked
the Board for their support of the item. Regarding the shooting incident, she acknowledged good
communications took place between the agency and union as the event unfolded.
Mayor Marine congratulated the two service award recipients.
Council Member Merrill shared that the Snohomish State of the City would take place on May 3.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m.
Rachel Woods
Executive Programs Manager
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
B
o
a
r
d
P
a
c
k
e
t
J
u
n
e
6
2
0
2
5
p
g
4
-
1
7
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
To: Board of Directors
From: Ric Ilgenfritz, Chief Executive Officer
Date: June 5, 2025
Subject: CEO Report
Agency/CEO Activities
Last month I attended the APTA Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C., where I had the
opportunity to connect with peers from across the country, elected officials, Secretary of Transportation
Sean Duffy, and key agency and congressional staff. The week prior, Chief of Staff Deb Osborne
participated in the EASC Fly-In with Snohomish County leaders, including Mayor Frizzell, who met with
our Congressional delegation on issues of importance to our County, including investments in public
transit.
I had the opportunity to attend a preview ride ahead of Sound Transit’s May 10 extension of its 2 Line
service 3.4 miles further east into Downtown Redmond, a precursor to opening the full 2 Line early next
year. I attended the EASC Board of Trustees meeting last week. We also recently hosted student
groups from Scriber Lake High School and the Tulalip Vocational Program to provide a behind-the-
scenes looks at our agency and share information about careers in transit.
Legislative Update
Federal
Last week, the Department of Transportation posted the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal
for the agency. For surface transportation programs the budget proposed a slight increase in spending
with relatively minor adjustments up and down in a few programs. For public transit, the budget would
allow formula funding to increase to the fully authorized levels and holds the Capital Investment Grants
(CIG) program to the same level as FY 2024 and 2025. The CIG program has been important to
Community Transit’s Swift expansion, providing funding for both the Green and Orange Line projects.
We have been in contact with members of our federal delegation as they request input on the Surface
Transportation reauthorization process. Our messages have been consistent: maintain funding levels
from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, address permitting reform, keep out non-transportation related
requirements from federal grants, and invest into Micro-Transit and Safety/Security with any new
funding opportunities.
State
Davor Gjurasic, State Lobbyist, is providing an end of session report at the June 5, Board of Directors’
meeting. Please reach out if you have any additional questions about our final session report and
presentation.
Regional Partnerships and Projects
Sound Transit
I had my first meeting with Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine. We are setting up regular check-ins.
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
C
E
O
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
n
a
l
J
u
n
e
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Page 2
Revive I-5
For four weeks starting on July 21, two northbound I-5 lanes across the Ship Canal Bridge in Seattle
will close on a 24/7 basis for necessary rehabilitation. The I-5 Express Lanes will remain open in the
northbound direction during these lane reductions and weekend closures. This summer’s work will
prepare for further Revive I-5 work during 2026 and 2027. We will communicate with customers and
have external messaging on all our channels with information about public transit options.
Agency Update
2026-2027 Budget
The budget planning process has begun, and departments are now working toward submitting their
budgets for internal review. The guidance I provided staff was to prepare for uncertain external factors,
including slower sales tax growth and increases in costs due to possible tariffs. Due to prudent financial
stewardship over many years, our agency is well reserved and positioned to continue to deliver on its
capital and service plans. We will be watching economic conditions carefully between budget reviews
this summer and when we bring a balanced budget proposal forward to the Board in October.
Contracted Services Transition
In May we welcomed the first three Transdev coach operators to Community Transit, and five more are
scheduled to join us on June 9. From there our hiring will ramp up after September and will include
additional job classifications. The increased costs associated with bringing these operations in house
were approved by the Board in the 2025 Midyear Budget Amendment. We will also need to make an
additional one-time capital investment to establish the two base operations and that will be part of
Facilities Master Plan (FMP) 4, starting with an action on today’s consent agenda to award a task order
for early design work. Additional details on the capital investment will be proposed in the 2026/2027
budget process.
DART Focus Groups
To enhance our DART paratransit service, our Customer Experience and Operations teams are actively
seeking insights into the customer journey using DART. In May, we heard from approximately 40 DART
customers in five focus groups. Our goal is to understand their experiences, learn how DART fits into
their daily routines, and pinpoint areas for improvement.
Federal Transit Administration Triennial Review
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is conducting a triennial review of CT this year. The FTA was on
site this week for their final assessment and shared positive comments about our agency’s
responsiveness, including praising several departments for their detailed processes and compliance,
reflecting great work by our finance and grants staff supporting this effort. We have a close-out
conference next week.
Marketing Campaigns
June marketing campaigns are in full swing. June is Ride Transit Month, and we will be engaging with
the communities we serve to help people get started riding transit and show how transit benefits
everyone in the community. We are also geared up to staff multiple summer events and share
information about our key initiatives and promote our service. Community Transit is now an official
sponsor of the Everett AquaSox. Throughout the season, baseball fans will see and hear about
Community Transit during local games. And finally, we have launched a new campaign with Jeopardy!
Host Ken Jennings. The campaign, called “The Transit Effect,” highlights the history and benefits of
public transit. The first installment is easily accessible on the agency website and social media
channels.
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
C
E
O
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
n
a
l
J
u
n
e
5
2
0
2
5
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
To: Board of Directors
From: Ric Ilgenfritz, Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 1, 2025
Subject: CEO Report
Agency/CEO Activities
Last week I had the opportunity to spend some quality time with leaders of partner agencies by joining a
tour of Kitsap Transit ferry facilities, base expansion, and electric charging infrastructure. The tour was
led by General Manager John Clauson and also included Metro Transit General Manager Michelle
Allison and CEO Mike Griffus. This is an example of a strong collaboration among our agencies and our
work to stay in touch on best practices and future plans. I will host a similar visit this spring.
I attended the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County’s annual meeting and awards event. Community
Transit hosted the April SCCIT meeting, where Secretary Meredith joined to provide a WSDOT update.
Representative Rick Larsen held a roundtable on April 17 in Lynnwood at which Mayors Frizzell and
Marine and I were invited panelists. Rep. Larsen is beginning work on the surface transportation
reauthorization to fund roads, bridges, highways, transit, etc. He was interested in hearing about
transportation needs in Snohomish County, and it was an honor to share Community Transit’s future
plans and emphasize the importance of federal investment.
Legislative Update
Federal
We continue to monitor executive orders and policy guidance from the Administration and the
Department of Transportation. Areas of focus include tariffs and possible resulting cost increases,
recessionary impacts, and supply chain interruptions. On today’s agenda is a contract to purchase
coach operator barrier doors, and you will note the addition of a tariff contingency This is the first
contingency of this type that we’ve put on a contract award to reflect uncertainty in total product cost.
We are expecting the notice of funding opportunity for federal bus programs imminently. Community
Transit applied last year and was highly rated, and we plan to resubmit again this year. We also
submitted applications to our federal delegation for FY26 Congressional Directed Spending to support
the Swift network expansion and bus replacement.
State
The Legislature adjourned its 2025 session on time on Sunday, sending final bills, including the
transportation package, to the Governor’s desk. The Governor will have 20 days to act on these bills.
He can either sign them or veto them in full or in part.
We set modest goals at the start of session in light of the state budget situation, which were mainly to
hold our designated funding intact. Overall, the outcome was positive for Community Transit, and we
received strong support from our state delegation and leadership in both the House and Senate. The
transportation package passed the Legislature with bipartisan support and retains or provides future
funding for all nine of the grant programs we were following. It includes an additional $2.5 million for our
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project.
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
C
E
O
R
e
p
o
r
t
M
a
y
1
2
0
2
5
C
E
O
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
Page 2
A bill passed to allow PTBA boards to add two transit riders to serve as voting members. This is a
“permissive” bill, meaning it would be at the Board’s discretion to change the Board composition,a
process that occurs every four years. Community Transit’s State Lobbyist, Davor Gjurasic, will provide
and full report at the Board’s June meeting. By then we will know the outcome the bills and budgets
awaiting the Governor’s signature.
Safety and Operations
The men involved in the April 20 shooting that struck a Swift Blue Line coach are now in custody. We
are grateful to the Lynnwood Policy Department and our employees in the field who responded, and
thankful no one was injured. Nothing is more important than the safety of our passengers and staff, and
we especially appreciate the actions of our driver, whose professional and calm reaction in getting the
bus away from the scene helped protect people from potential harm.
Regional Partnerships and Projects
Sound Transit
Sound Transit will open its Redmond Link Extension on May 10, which is another milestone toward the
full activation of the Link 2 Line across I-90, significantly increasing system capacity for Snohomish
County.
Swift Gold Line
The Swift Gold Line project continues to advance, with jurisdictional partnership briefings for the City of
Everett and presentations at area events and meetings, including the recent Marysville Business
Summit. Phase 2 of community outreach will take place this summer, providing valuable input as the
project enters into the design and engineering phase by September.
Via – Zip Shuttles
Public comments were shared at the April Board meeting about Zip Shuttle service contracted with Via
Transportation. We’ve been in discussion with Via regarding communication with drivers and their on-
site presence. Via is scheduling a virtual town hall for all drivers to address issues we heard about and
establish stronger communication channels. They are holding office hours at each location every two
weeks and are starting a safety committee, which will be a standing topic at the weekly meetings
Community Transit has with the vendor.
Agency Update
Federal and State Audits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Triennial Review is underway, with all answers to the
auditor’s questions submitted. The audit is focused on financial management, procurement and
maintenance. The auditors are scheduled to be onsite in early June.
The annual state audit process is kicking off. The audit entrance conference is scheduled for Friday,
May 9 at 1 p.m. All Board members and the public are invited to attend.
APTA Roadeo Competition
Congratulations to driver Matt Chomjak, who took first place at the American Public Transportation
Association’s International Bus Roadeo in Austin, TX on April 6. Matt competed against 74 other drivers
from across the U.S. and Canada in the 40-foot bus division. Matt is now a two--time champ, as he took
first place back in 2006. The Vehicle Maintenance team also finished strong, earning 13th place out of
52 teams. It was the first time the group competed at this level, and they performed very well.
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
T
C
E
O
R
e
p
o
r
t
M
a
y
1
2
0
2
5
C
E
O
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
B
o
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Approval of Council Committee B Minutes June 17, 2025
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
2025-06-17 Council Committee B Minutes Draft
8.1
Packet Pg. 178
Minutes
COUNCIL COMMITTEE B MEETING
June 17, 2025
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Nand (Chair)
Councilmember Eck
Councilmember Olson
Council President Pro Tem Paine
(ex-officio)
Shane Hawley, Police Commander
Rod Sniffen, Acting Police Chief
Mike DeLilla, Acting City Engineer
Phil Williams, Interim Public Works Director
Scott Passey, City Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Edmonds City Council Committee B meeting was called to order virtually and in the City Council
Conference Room, 121 – 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, at 3:00 pm by Councilmember Nand.
2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. Community Engagement Vehicle Donation (Lynnwood Honda)
Shane Hawley, Police Commander, provided the recommendation to extend the lease agreement and
received council questions and feedback.
Committee recommendation: Consent
2. Presentation of an Interlocal Agreement for Commute Trip Reduction Plan and Programs
Mike DeLilla, Acting City Engineer, and Phil Williams, Interim PW Director, presented the 2025-2029
Commute Trip Reduction Plan and received council questions and feedback.
Committee recommendation: Consent
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:14 pm.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
5
-
0
6
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
B
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
r
a
f
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
B
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
J
u
n
e
1
7
,
2
0
2
5
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Approval of Council Committee W Minutes June 17, 2025
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
2025-06-17 Council Committee W Minutes Draft
8.2
Packet Pg. 180
Minutes
COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
June 17, 2025
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Council President Tibbott (Chair)
Councilmember Dotsch
Councilmember Paine
Councilmember Chen
Councilmember Eck
Councilmember Olson
Councilmember Nand
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Brad Shipley, Senior Planner
Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Director
Todd Tatum, CCED Director
Scott Passey, City Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Edmonds City Council Committee of the Whole meeting was called to order virtually and in the City
Council Conference Room, 121 – 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, at 6:00 pm by Council President Tibbott.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Council President Tibbott announced that the council would recess into executive session to discuss
pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) until 6:20 p.m. At 6:20 pm, CP Tibbott announced
the executive session would be extended until 6:30 pm. The executive session concluded at 6:30 pm.
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. City Administrator Position
Director Neill Hoyson presented the proposal to create a City Administrator position.
Council questions and discussion focused on needs, comparators, mayor responsibilities, transition,
merits, accountability and evaluation of success, mayor’s right to make changes, oversight, supervision
and reporting, economic development needs, costs, and timeline.
Committee recommendation: For information only
2. 2025 Legislative Wrap-Up Report
Director Tatum and Deborah Munguia provided an overview of the 2025 Legislative Session.
Council questions and discussion touched on transit oriented development (TOD), Climate Commitment
Act revenues to capital budget, tax exemption for municipal bonds, revenue sharing ideas, property tax
reform, and B&O tax changes.
3. Middle Housing Code Update: Discussion
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
5
-
0
6
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
W
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
r
a
f
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
r
t
e
e
W
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
J
u
n
e
1
7
,
2
0
2
5
)
6/172025 Committee of the Whole Minutes, Page 2
Brad Shipley, Senior Planner, provided an overview of the key changes and requirements of the
Middle Housing Code amendments.
Council questions and discussion focused on the following issues:
• cottage housing
• affordability
• townhouse design standards
• 4th- unit incentive
• frontage types
• staffing for affordability
• MFTE grants
• reference change of Single Family to Low Density Residential
• code enforcement
• ADB involvement
• Staff resources for affordability program
• ADUs as a means to achieve affordable housing
• graphic design examples
• impact fees
• open space
• tree retention incentives
MEETING EXTENSION
AT 8:54 PM, COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 9:30 PM.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. City Budget Scenario Discussion
Director Tatum outlined a portfolio of potential revenue sources outside of the property tax levy.
MEETING EXTENSION
AT 9:34 PM, COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:00 PM.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council questions and discussion focused on non-property tax revenue sources, timelines and phases,
levy types and approaches, comparables, and a potential levy amount. There was council consensus
to direct the city attorney to draft a permanent, multi-year levy with exemptions for low-income seniors
and disabled and tied to CPI.
MEETING EXTENSION
AT 9:52 PM, COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 PM.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council discussion continued.
MEETING EXTENSION
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
5
-
0
6
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
W
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
r
a
f
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
r
t
e
e
W
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
J
u
n
e
1
7
,
2
0
2
5
)
6/172025 Committee of the Whole Minutes, Page 3
AT 10:15 PM, COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:20
PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON A MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 1ST ON THE LEVY
LID LIFT RESOLUTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 pm.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
5
-
0
6
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
W
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
r
a
f
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
r
t
e
e
W
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
J
u
n
e
1
7
,
2
0
2
5
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
Staff Lead: Richard Gould
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #267801 through #267864 dated June 25, 2025 for $293,306.95 and wire
payment of $8,194.46.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
Narrative
The Council President shall be designated as the auditing committee for the city council. The council
president shall review the documentation supporting claims paid and review for approval by the city
council at its next regular public meeting all checks or warrants issued in payment of any claim, demand
or voucher. A list of each claim, demand or voucher approved and each check or warrant issued
indicating the check or warrant number, the amount paid and the vendor or payee shall be filed in the
city council office for review by individual councilmembers prior to each regularly scheduled public
meeting.
Attachments:
Claim cks 06-25-25 Agenda copy
8.3
Packet Pg. 184
6/24/2025 3:05:45PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 1
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
076040 911 SUPPLY INC 267801 949.386/25/2025
079813 A VIABLE SOLUTION LLC 267802 557.286/25/2025
070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 267803 350.006/25/2025
075132 AERZEN USA CORP 267804 1,546.546/25/2025
001528 AM TEST INC 267805 560.006/25/2025
078237 ARIAS, ADRIAN 267806 260.006/25/2025
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 267807 2,106.006/25/2025
075217 BASLER, ANTHONY C 267808 130.006/25/2025
069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 267809 22,061.906/25/2025
072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 267810 47.556/25/2025
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 267811 2,597.676/25/2025
077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 267812 3,900.006/25/2025
069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 267813 1,733.666/25/2025
063615 CH MURPHY CLARK-ULLMAN INC 267814 52,817.496/25/2025
072746 CONSOR NORTH AMERICA INC 267815 5,227.506/25/2025
006635 DEPT OF LICENSING 267816 590.006/25/2025
079614 DRY BOX INC 267817 165.756/25/2025
076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 267818 43.086/25/2025
008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 267819 69.666/25/2025
075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR 267820 130.006/25/2025
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 267821 1,293.846/25/2025
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 267822 22.366/25/2025
075673 FARMER, MARIA 267823 146.256/25/2025
079805 FLOW CONTROL PLUMBING 267824 1,491.756/25/2025
078226 GEIGLE SAFETY GROUP INC 267825 191.916/25/2025
079800 GUPTA, PREMCHAND 267826 130.006/25/2025
078272 HARRINGTON, SHEILA ANNE 267827 130.006/25/2025
074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 267828 210.006/25/2025
061013 HONEY BUCKET 267829 290.956/25/2025
075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 267830 2,766.676/25/2025
076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG 267831 600.006/25/2025
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 267832 170.066/25/2025
069366 ISSAQUAH HONDA KUBOTA 267833 97.516/25/2025
079573 JUVVAL TECH LLC 267834 200.006/25/2025
079524 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 267835 45,367.506/25/2025
075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER 267836 14,800.006/25/2025
018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 267837 291.286/25/2025
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 267838 1,869.596/25/2025
018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 267839 57.936/25/2025
079722 NIELSON, LEAH CLAIRE 267840 348.006/25/2025
072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 267841 96.906/25/2025
078127 OWENS PUMP & EQUIPMENT 267842 373.136/25/2025
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS INC 267843 374.416/25/2025
027450 PAWS 267844 250.006/25/2025
073231 POLYDYNE INC 267845 4,625.536/25/2025
078800 POPA & ASSOCIATES 267846 600.006/25/2025
067568 PSOMAS 267847 5,874.006/25/2025
070955 R&R STAR TOWING 267848 328.486/25/2025
074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 267849 750.006/25/2025
062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 267850 1,512.406/25/2025
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 267851 336.546/25/2025
079607 ROMERO, STACEY F 267852 260.006/25/2025
065708 SCCIT 267853 500.006/25/2025
Page: 1
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
5
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
.
)
6/24/2025 3:05:45PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 2
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
036955 SKY NURSERY 267854 635.006/25/2025
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 267855 26,530.916/25/2025
063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 267856 68,172.536/25/2025
006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 267857 47.006/25/2025
076419 TRUE NORTH ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP 267858 20.406/25/2025
076946 TSERENDAVAA, ARIUNTULGA 267859 220.006/25/2025
063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 267860 1,600.006/25/2025
069751 VESTIS 267861 156.646/25/2025
069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 267862 12,875.446/25/2025
011900 ZIPLY FIBER 267863 718.586/25/2025
079705 ZUBELLI, CHRISTINA 267864 130.006/25/2025
Total count: 64
GrandTotal: 293,306.95
Page: 2
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
5
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
.
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Public Hearing on a Resolution Providing for the Submission to the Voters at the General Election a
Proposition Authorizing the City to Increase its Regular Property Tax Levy Above the Limit Otherwise
Allowed by State Law
Staff Lead: City Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Teresa Simanton
Background/History
At the 6/17/25 Committee of the Whole, the city attorney was directed to draft a resolution for a multi-
year levy lid lift which includes exemptions for certain senior, low income, and disabled groups, and an
escalator using CPI. Council also voted to place a public hearing regarding the levy lid lift on July 1st City
Council meeting. This public hearing was noticed by the City Clerk, in accordance with RCW 84. 55.120.
At the 6/24/25 Council meeting, Council further clarified the resolution, detailing the amount to be
levied, and directed the City Attorney to update the resolution with this and more clarified language
regarding the purpose of the levy. This updated resolution is attached, as well as supportive presentation
slides of levy lid lift mechanics.
Recommendation
Open public hearing and receive public testimony regarding the resolution.
Council will have the opportunity to discuss Resolution following the public hearing.
Narrative
The Resolution (attached) is the legislative action the City Council would use to place a proposition of a
levy lid lift onto the November 5, 2025 ballot.
The Resolution attached indicates the proposed levy lid lift amount of $14,500,000
This amount was motioned by Council President Neil Tibbott, who determined this amount from the
Mayor's recommendation, less $5,000,000 of non-property tax revenue initiatves. (Revenue
Opportunities, attached). These revenue initiatives are under development, and specific items have
been placed on the Council extended agenda planner for implementation before the end of 2025.
The Resolution indicates the proposed levy lid lift would be a multi-year, permanent levy.
The ballot title (section 5 of the resolution) must indicate the purpose of the levy lid lift. The indicated
purpose is stated as police, parks and safe streets.
The ballot title must also indicate the total tax rate for the first year only. This is the combined rate of
9.1
Packet Pg. 187
the current property tax levy plus the levy lid lift. The current property tax levy rate is $.72/1000 AV, the
proposed levy lid lift of $14,500,000 is $.91 / 1000AV. The resulting anticipated rate would be $1.63 /
1000AV. For the purposes of the ballot title, stating a maximum of up to $1.65 / 1000AV would allow for
exemptions for qualifying seniors, low income and disabled residents, while still producing the
anticipated $14,500,000 of addition property tax collected.
Attachments:
2025-06-26 resolution for LLL ballot measure - clean
07-01-25 Public Hearing Notice - Levy Lid Lift
LLL Public Hearing RCW 84. 55.120
Levy Lid Lift Discussion PP
Revenue Opportunities
9.1
Packet Pg. 188
RESOLUTION NO. 1574
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS AT
THE GENERAL ELECTION A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
TO INCREASE ITS REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY ABOVE THE LIMIT
OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY STATE LAW.
WHEREAS, Initiative 747 was a voter-approved measure in 2001 that limited annual increases
in regular property tax levies to 1% unless voters approved a higher amount; and
WHEREAS, prior to I-747, local governments could increase levies by up to 6% annually under
state law; and
WHEREAS, although the Washington Supreme Court struck down the initiative in 2007, the
legislature quickly reinstated the 1% cap that same year; and
WHEREAS, the 1% cap is still in effect today; and
WHEREAS, the city has not had a levy lid lift approved by voters since 2001; and
WHEREAS, inflation has averaged approximately 2.5% per year since 2001; and
WHEREAS, this gap between the 1% cap and the 2.5% historic inflation average has contributed
significantly to the city’s structural budget deficit, especially considering the compounded effect
of those different percentages over time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 1570, expressing their understanding of
operational budget impacts if the general property tax collected for 2026 is less than the
budgeted, seeking to be as transparent as possible with the City’s residents about the City’s likely
future financial needs and ability to provide services; and
WHEREAS the Council’s adopted biennial budget for 2025-2026 resulted in impactful
reductions of staffing, services and programs for Police, Parks and Recreation and Public Works
departments, including eliminating six line-officers and one assistant police chief, evident cuts in
Parks maintenance and elimination of Recreation programs, and further postponed street and
safety improvements; and
WHEREAS, various different perspectives have been shared with the city council related to the
cost of government in similar jurisdictions, the particular needs of the City of Edmonds, the
desires of the Edmonds residents, and the property taxes paid by Edmonds taxpayers compared
to similar jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, relatedly, the following proposed levy lid lift amounts have been presented to the
city council from various sources:
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
5
-
0
6
-
2
6
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
L
L
L
b
a
l
l
o
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
-
c
l
e
a
n
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
• $22,181,279 was suggested by city staff;
• $16,513,457 was suggested by Mike Bailey derived from comparable cities;
• $11,703,000 was suggested by Keep Edmonds Vibrant;
• $19,347,368 was suggested by Mayor Rosen; and
WHEREAS, regardless of the amount of the levy lid lift, the city council prefers using a
permanent multi-year lid lift to allow the city’s levy to keep pace with inflation; and
WHEREAS, the city council asks its community to support this levy lid lift for the limited
purposes of funding police, parks, and safe streets; and
WHEREAS, the city council prefers to allow qualifying low-income senior and disabled
homeowners a deferral or exemption from the impact of the levy lid lift; and
WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on this resolution on July 1, 2025; NOW
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above recitals are adopted as findings in support of this Resolution.
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and declares that it is in the best interests of the residents
of Edmonds to provide additional funds for the purposes of police, parks, and safe streets.
Section 3. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050(2)(a) and RCW 29A.04.330, a proposition shall be
included in the general election within the City of Edmonds on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, for
the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the city, for their ratification or rejection, a
proposition to permanently increase the city's regular property tax levy, exceeding the limit factor
provided in RCW 84.55.005 - .0101, as more specifically described in Section 4 below.
Section 4. The proposition would authorize the city to increase the regular property tax levy to be
collected in 2026 by $14,500,000 at a rate not to exceed $1.65 per $1,000 of assessed value on
property in the city . For the five years following 2026 (i.e., the years 2027 - 2031), the proposition
would also authorize use of a limit factor of 100% plus the percentage change in the 12-month
August-to-August Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Seattle-
Tacoma-Bellevue Area or the equivalent successor index as determined by the City Council. The
proposition also would approve the use of the dollar amount of the 2031 levy for computing the
maximum levy that may be imposed in years after 2031. Revenues from the property tax increases
that would be authorized by the ballot proposition shall be used for the limited purposes of police,
parks, and safe streets.
Section 5. The proposition to be submitted to the electorate of the City shall read substantially as
follows:
Name of Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
5
-
0
6
-
2
6
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
L
L
L
b
a
l
l
o
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
-
c
l
e
a
n
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Proposition Number: Proposition 1
Short Title: PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR POLICE, PARKS, AND
SAFE STREETS
Ballot Title: The Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1574
concerning a property tax levy. This proposition would
authorize the Edmonds City Council to increase the
regular levy in 2026 up to $1.65 per $1,000 of assessed
value; use the annual Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue CPI-U to
adjust levies in 2027-2031; dedicate proceeds to police,
parks, and safe streets; exempt qualifying senior and
disabled homeowners under RCW 84.36.381; and set the
2031 levy as the base for computing future levy limits.
Should this proposition be approved?
Yes___________
No___________
Section 6. A local voters’ pamphlet is requested and the City Attorney is hereby authorized
to draft the explanatory statement in conformance with requirements of the Snohomish County
Auditor.
Section 7. The City Attorney is authorized to make such minor adjustments to the
formatting and/or wording of the ballot measure as may be recommended or required by the
Snohomish County Auditor, as long as the intent of the measure remains clear and consistent with
the intent of this Resolution.
Section 8. The City Clerk is authorized to file any necessary documents with the
Snohomish County Auditor to fulfill the purposes of this Resolution.
Section 9. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures
hereon.
RESOLVED this _____ day of July, 2025.
CITY OF EDMONDS
_______________________
MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
5
-
0
6
-
2
6
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
L
L
L
b
a
l
l
o
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
-
c
l
e
a
n
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO. ____
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
5
-
0
6
-
2
6
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
L
L
L
b
a
l
l
o
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
-
c
l
e
a
n
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Contact the City Clerk at (425) 775-2525 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
On July 1, 2025, the Edmonds City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the
following issue:
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS AT THE
GENERAL ELECTION A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO INCREASE
ITS REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY ABOVE THE LIMIT OTHERWISE ALLOWED
BY STATE LAW
The meeting will be held in the Council Chamber of Edmonds Public Safety Complex,
250 5th Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington. The Council meeting is scheduled to start at
6:00 p.m. All interested persons are encouraged to attend and provide oral and/or
written comments. Meeting attendance is also possible via the Zoom Platform. Citizens
may connect using a computer or smart phone at: https://zoom.us/j/95798484261 or join
the meeting by phone at: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 957 9848 4261. Written
comments are welcome prior to the public hearing,
https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment.
If the item is continued to another date because it is not completed, or further
information is needed, the date of the continuation will be announced only at the
meeting.
____________________________ Scott Passey Edmonds City Clerk
Published: June 18, 2025
Posted: June 18, 2025
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER July 1, 2025
WARNING! THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE
BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MEETING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT.
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
0
7
-
0
1
-
2
5
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
c
e
-
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
RCW RCW 84.55.12084.55.120
Public hearingPublic hearing——Taxing district's revenue sourcesTaxing district's revenue sources——Adoption of tax increase byAdoption of tax increase by
ordinance or resolution.ordinance or resolution.
*** CHANGE IN 2025 *** (SEE *** CHANGE IN 2025 *** (SEE 5801-S.SL5801-S.SL) ***) ***
(1) A taxing district, other than the state, that collects regular levies must hold a public hearing on(1) A taxing district, other than the state, that collects regular levies must hold a public hearing on
revenue sources for the district's following year's current expense budget. The hearing must includerevenue sources for the district's following year's current expense budget. The hearing must include
consideration of possible increases in property tax revenues and must be held prior to the time the taxingconsideration of possible increases in property tax revenues and must be held prior to the time the taxing
district levies the taxes or makes the request to have the taxes levied. The county legislative authority, or thedistrict levies the taxes or makes the request to have the taxes levied. The county legislative authority, or the
taxing district's governing body if the district is a city, town, or other type of district, must hold the hearing. Fortaxing district's governing body if the district is a city, town, or other type of district, must hold the hearing. For
purposes of this section, "current expense budget" means that budget which is primarily funded by taxes andpurposes of this section, "current expense budget" means that budget which is primarily funded by taxes and
charges and reflects the provision of ongoing services. It does not mean the capital, enterprise, or specialcharges and reflects the provision of ongoing services. It does not mean the capital, enterprise, or special
assessment budgets of cities, towns, counties, or special purpose districts.assessment budgets of cities, towns, counties, or special purpose districts.
(2) If the taxing district is otherwise required to hold a public hearing on its proposed regular tax levy, a(2) If the taxing district is otherwise required to hold a public hearing on its proposed regular tax levy, a
single public hearing may be held on this matter.single public hearing may be held on this matter.
(3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection (3), no increase in property tax revenue may be(3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection (3), no increase in property tax revenue may be
authorized by a taxing district, other than the state, except by adoption of a separate ordinance or resolution,authorized by a taxing district, other than the state, except by adoption of a separate ordinance or resolution,
pursuant to notice, specifically authorizing the increase in terms of both dollars and percentage. Thepursuant to notice, specifically authorizing the increase in terms of both dollars and percentage. The
ordinance or resolution may cover a period of up to two years, but the ordinance must specifically state forordinance or resolution may cover a period of up to two years, but the ordinance must specifically state for
each year the dollar increase and percentage change in the levy from the previous year.each year the dollar increase and percentage change in the levy from the previous year.
(b) Exempt from the requirements of (a) of this subsection are increases in revenue resulting from the(b) Exempt from the requirements of (a) of this subsection are increases in revenue resulting from the
addition of:addition of:
(i) New construction;(i) New construction;
(ii) Increases in assessed value due to construction of wind turbine, solar, biomass, and geothermal(ii) Increases in assessed value due to construction of wind turbine, solar, biomass, and geothermal
facilities, if such facilities generate electricity and the property is not included elsewhere under this section forfacilities, if such facilities generate electricity and the property is not included elsewhere under this section for
purposes of providing an additional dollar amount. The property may be classified as real or personalpurposes of providing an additional dollar amount. The property may be classified as real or personal
property;property;
(iii) Improvements to property;(iii) Improvements to property;
(iv) Any increase in the value of state-assessed property; and(iv) Any increase in the value of state-assessed property; and
(v) Any increase in the assessed value of real property, as that term is defined in RCW (v) Any increase in the assessed value of real property, as that term is defined in RCW 39.114.01039.114.010,,
within an increment area as designated by any local government in RCW within an increment area as designated by any local government in RCW 39.114.02039.114.020 provided that such provided that such
increase is not included elsewhere under this section. This subsection (3)(b)(v) does not apply to levies byincrease is not included elsewhere under this section. This subsection (3)(b)(v) does not apply to levies by
the state or by port districts and public utility districts for the purpose of making required payments of principalthe state or by port districts and public utility districts for the purpose of making required payments of principal
and interest on general indebtedness.and interest on general indebtedness.
[ [ 2021 c 207 s 112021 c 207 s 11; ; 2014 c 4 s 52014 c 4 s 5; ; 2006 c 184 s 62006 c 184 s 6; ; 1997 c 3 s 2091997 c 3 s 209 (Referendum Bill No. 47, approved (Referendum Bill No. 47, approved
November 4, 1997); November 4, 1997); 1995 c 251 s 11995 c 251 s 1.].]
NOTES:NOTES:
ApplicationApplication——2014 c 4:2014 c 4: See note following RCW See note following RCW 84.55.01084.55.010..
SeverabilitySeverability——Part headings not lawPart headings not law——Referral to electorateReferral to electorate——1997 c 3:1997 c 3: See notes following See notes following
RCW RCW 84.40.03084.40.030..
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
L
L
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
R
C
W
8
4
.
5
5
.
1
2
0
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 195
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
L
L
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
R
C
W
8
4
.
5
5
.
1
2
0
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Agenda item 2.4
City Budget Scenarios
Levy Lid Lift options
From MRSC
1
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
What is a Levy
Lid Lift?
2
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 197
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Single-Year
Levy Lid Lifts
Temporary Single-Year
•This lifts the levy lid above the 1%, and that amount is used to
determine the 1% levy limits until the measure expires.
•The temporary lid lift can be used for any purpose and can last
for any number of years (except if used for debt service, then it
cannot exceed 9 years).
Permanent Single-Year
•The levy lid is lifted by an amount of more than 1% in the first
year and that amount is used to calculate all future 101% levy
limitations.
•The measure never expires and never reverts. However, future
annual increases may not exceed 1% without going to the
voters.
3
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 198
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Single-Year
Levy Lid Lifts
Temporary Permanent
4
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 199
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Multi-Year Levy
Lid Lifts
The multi-year levy lid lift option authorizes a city to exceed the
1% limitation each year for up to 6 consecutive years.
A multi-year levy lid lift must state the limited purposes for which
the increased levy will be used.
Examples are:
Governmental services, public safety, parks & rec, replenishing the
reserve, restoring eliminated services.
There are no supplanting restrictions.
Process –
The lift must state the total tax rate for the first year only;
For all subsequent years, the ballot measure must define the
maximum “limit-factor” which the total levy may not exceed
Examples could include – 3% annually, 6% for the first 2 years and
then4% annually thereafter, or the annual local CPI (inflation rate).
Multi-year lid lifts may be temporary or permanent. Debt service
lid lifts are for up to 9 years.
5
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 200
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Multi-Year
Levy Lid Lifts
Temporary Multi-Year
•This lifts the levy lid above the 1%, subject to the limit factor
for up to 6 years.
•When the lid lift expires, the levy lid reverts to what it would
have been if the lid lift had never existed (called the levy
“cliff”).
Permanent Multi-Year
•Similar to the temporary multi-year levy lid lift, the
permanent lid lift bumps up the levy for 6 years, and does
not revert. That amount is used to calculate all future 1%
levy limitations.
6
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 201
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Multi-Year
Levy Lid Lifts
Temporary Permanent
7
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 202
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Other considerations:
If Council decides to go to the voters with this proposition, we
may also want to consider including specific exemptions or
deferrals from this levy. This could include seniors and people
with disabilities.
8
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 203
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
9
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 204
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
v
y
L
i
d
L
i
f
t
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
P
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Estimated Cost Est. Gross Revenue
TAX
Law enforcement and criminal justice sales tax $30,000 $ 1,300,000
Cultural Access Sales Tax $130,000 $ 130,000
B&O tax $0 $ 1,500,000
SUBTOTAL $160,000 $ 2,930,000
OPERATIONS/ENTERPRISE REVENUE
Extend hours for Schools Zone drop off and pick up $ 270,000
Utilize School cameras for speeding 7am-9pm other than drop off and pick up $ 120,000
Add red light cameras to two more intersections 4 cameras total $486,000 $ 1,847,966
Increase business license rate $ 50,700
Escalate fines based on speed in school zones $ 100,000
Increase fees for code violations $ 10,000
Charge for parking $20,000 $ 250,000
Cost recovery for legal fees related to Hearing Examiner cases $ 5,000
Increase pet license fee $ 3,000
Short List of Non-Levy Revenue Opportunities
1
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 205
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
Increase motor vehicle license fees from $40 to $50 $ 350,000
SUB TOTAL $506,000 $ 3,006,666
TOTAL $666,000 $ 5,936,666
2
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
LONG-TERM ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
Annex Esperance - property tax at curent Edmonds rate $ 914,584
Sales tax credit for annexing (If done in two phases)
*Costs require a
comprehensive
planning process
$ 2,600,000
Other revenues from annexation
99 development within the three districts
Centers and hubs
TIF financing
SUB TOTAL $0 $ 3,514,584
TOTAL $666,000 $9,451,250
FROM PREVIOUS SHORT LIST
Transportation Multi-modal Impact Fees $35,000 $ 116,600
Increase development fees $10,000 $ 40,000
Require a landlord license that applies to every rental house and apartment $ 60,000
Raise wireless lease for Five Corners reservoir Appraisal $ 20,000
Introduce a Commercial Parking Tax $ 2,000
SUB TOTAL $45,000 $ 238,600
3
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
L
L
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Residential Parking Code Update - Discussion and Final Revisions (AMD2025-0005)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Michael Clugston
Background/History
The Legislature passed several bills recently which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) and
municipal code requirements for residential parking. The laws require local governments like Edmonds
to update parking requirements for ADUs, multifamily residential, and related standards to facilitate
housing construction. Excessive off-street parking requirements create unnecessary expense and
consume valuable land that could otherwise be devoted to the development of dwelling units.
The Planning Board reviewed the proposed updates to the City’s Off-Street Parking Regulations in
Chapter 17.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) on March 26, May 7 and May 14.
The Board unanimously approved the proposed language in Attachment 1 on May 14 after considering
several public comments that had been received during their review process (Attachment 2). The draft
language in Attachment 1 is focused on previous bills and does not include any changes consistent with
SB 5184, which was signed into law in May 2025.
City Council heard an introduction about the parking code update on May 6. There were some questions
about whether to include more in this update regarding pavement or impervious surface limits from a
design or stormwater perspective. While good topics for future discussions, this code update is focused
on codifying residential parking standards to achieve compliance with state legislation.
Council held a public hearing on the proposed updates on June 24 - no public comments were received.
Staff Recommendation
No action is requested. Discuss the draft code and any possible revisions, giving particular consideration
to the decision item noted below. Staff will make any final changes based on this discussion and put an
ordinance on the July 8 consent agenda for Council approval.
Narrative
1. SB 6617 (2020) prohibited cities from requiring parking for ADUs within 0.25 miles of a major transit
stop. This was extended to 0.50 miles through HB 1337 (RCW 36.70A.681). Edmonds has been
complying with the latter requirement since 2023 but is now codifying the language in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. The definition of “major transit stop” from RCW 36.70A.030(25)
would be added to ECDC Title 21 (Definitions).
2. HB 2343 (2020) contains limits on parking for affordable, senior, and market rate multifamily
housing for units constructed after July 1, 2019.
10.1
Packet Pg. 208
Some minor changes to the multifamily parking requirements in ECDC 17.50.020 are included to
implement these requirements. Definitions for “affordable housing”, “low income household”, “very
low income household”, and “extremely low-income household” from RCW 36.70A.030 would also
be added to ECDC Title 21 - Definitions.
Based on initial research, the regular Community Transit bus routes through Edmonds make at least
two stops per hour. The BRT stops along Highway 99 make at least four stops per hour. Each of
those stops is in the process of being mapped and added to the City’s GIS for reference, particularly
during permitting so that the appropriate parking requirements can be determined.
3. SB 6015 (2024) requires the City’s parking regulations to be analyzed for consistency with some
additional dimensional and materials standards (Attachment 3). In preparing the draft
redline/strikeout code for Planning Board review in Attachment 2, staff found that the code changes
needed to implement SB 6015 would only be needed in Chapter 18.95 - Parking Lot Construction.
Because the code language in Title 18 does not require Planning Board analysis, Engineering staff
reviewed ECDC 18.95 and has proposed revisions to address the new requirements for Council.
The redline/strike out language in Attachment 4 addresses the dimensional and materials
requirements of SB 6015 in Chapter 18.95 ECDC. In addition, there are two figures in ECDC 18.95
that are proposed to be removed from the code for cleanup. The first (Figure 18-1) is a parking lot
design drawing that is proposed to be removed from the code and added to Public Works’
transportation standard details (Attachment 5). The draft figure is included here for reference only
as transportation standard details are approved by the City Engineer. Figure 18-2 was used by the
former Edmonds Fire Department but is no longer needed since Edmonds joined South County Fire.
South County Fire now manages those requirements.
4. On May 7, 2025, SB 5184 was signed into law (Attachment 6). SB 5184 will require various changes
to the parking code in Edmonds by May 2028. These changes include:
ü Requiring no more than 0.5 parking spaces per multifamily dwelling unit
ü Requiring no more than 1 parking space per single-family home
ü Requiring no more than 2 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of commercial space (1 space per
500 sq. ft)
ü In addition, a city cannot require any minimum parking requirements for the following uses:
• existing buildings undergoing change of use from a nonresidential to a residential use or a
change of use for a commercial use
• residences under 1200 square feet
• commercial spaces under 3000 square feet
• affordable housing
• senior housing
• child-care facilities
• ground-level nonresidential spaces in mixed-use buildings
Decision Item
Staff presented these new parking mandates to the Planning Board and City Council in May. Neither
10.1
Packet Pg. 209
group was in favor of adopting all of the elements of SB 5184 at this time. However, given the
shortage of affordable housing, senior housing, and multifamily units generally, staff would like
additional feedback from Council on whether those three elements could be adopted with this
residential parking code update.
Adopting the flat 0.5 stall per multifamily dwelling unit requirement and the prohibitions on parking
for affordable and senior units would eliminate the need to adopt the changes that are proposed for
consistency with HB 2343 described in #2 above. Further, adopting these restrictions now would
make it less expensive to develop multifamily units, whether affordable, senior, or market rate and
would further streamline residential parking requirements.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Draft 17.50 Parking Code Changes PB recommended
Attachment 2 - Public comments on parking code amendment May 14
Attachment 3 - SB 6015 - Residential parking bill summary
Attachment 4 - DRAFT Chapter 18.95 ECDC
Attachment 5 - DRAFT TR-568 - Minimum Parking Lot Requirements detail
Attachment 6 - SB 5184 - Parking requirements bIll summary
10.1
Packet Pg. 210
ECDC 16.20.050, Site development standards – Accessory dwelling units Page 1 of 3
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
Chapter 16.20
RS – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
16.20.050 Site development standards – Accessory dwelling units.
A. General. Accessory dwelling units must meet all of the standards of Chapter 16.20 ECDC
except as specifically provided in this section. Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited
in critical aquifer recharge areas as defined in ECDC 23.40.005 until six months after the
jurisdiction’s next periodic comprehensive plan update required under RCW 36.70A.130 or June
30, 2025, whichever occurs first.
B. Number of Units. A principal dwelling unit may have two accessory dwelling units in one of
the following configurations: one attached and one detached accessory dwelling units, two
attached accessory dwelling units, or two detached accessory dwelling units.
C. Table of ADU Development Standards.
Sub District
Maximum ADU
Gross Floor
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Minimum DADU
Rear Setback1,2
Maximum
DADU Height
Minimum
Parking Spaces5
RS-20 1,200 25' 24' 04
RS-12 1,200 25' 24' 04
RS-10 1,200 20' 24' 04
RS-8 1,000 10'3 24' 04
RS-6 1,000 10'3 24' 04
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 211
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
ECDC 16.20.050, Site development standards – Accessory dwelling units Page 2 of 3
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
1 No rear setbacks are required for detached accessory dwelling units from the rear lot line if that lot line
abuts a public alley, regardless of detached accessory dwelling unit size; provided, that separation from
overhead electrical facilities and vehicular sight distance requirements can be met.
2 Standard street and side setbacks per ECDC 16.20.030 apply.
3 The normally required rear setback may be reduced to a minimum of five feet for a detached accessory
dwelling unit 15 feet in height or less.
4 The first accessory dwelling unit on a lot does not require an additional parking space. A second accessory
dwelling unit on a lot requires one additional off-street parking space.
5 No parking is required for ADUs located within 0.50 miles of a major transit stop.
D. Types of Building. A manufactured or modular dwelling unit may be used as an accessory
dwelling unit. Detached accessory dwelling units are allowed to be created in existing legally
permitted buildings, including detached garages. Legal nonconforming buildings converted for
use as an accessory dwelling unit must meet the requirements of ECDC 17.40.020(D).
E. Driveways. Access to the principal unit and any residential units shall comply with city codes
and policies as established by ECDC Title 18.
F. Utilities.
1. Utility Access. Occupants of accessory dwelling units and the primary unit must have
unrestricted access to utility controls for systems (including water, electricity, and gas) in
each respective unit or in a common area.
2. Water. Only one domestic water service and meter is allowed per parcel to serve the
principal unit and each accessory dwelling unit. Private submetering on the property is
allowed, but the city is not involved with installing or reading the submeter.
3. Sewer. Only one sewer lateral is allowed per parcel to serve the principal unit and each
accessory dwelling unit. Separate connections to the main trunk line will not be permitted.
4. Septic System. Refer to Chapter 18.20 ECDC.
5. Storm. Refer to Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
6. Other Utilities. All new or extended utilities must be undergrounded in accordance with
ECDC 18.05.010.
Commented [MC1]: Consistent with SB 6617 (2021), as
subsequently amended in RCW 36.70A.681
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 212
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
ECDC 16.20.050, Site development standards – Accessory dwelling units Page 3 of 3
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
7. Mailboxes. Additional mailboxes may be added for each permitted unit as approved by
the U.S. Postal Service.
G. Health and Safety. Accessory dwelling units must comply with all the applicable
requirements of the current building codes adopted by ECDC Title 19 and must comply in all
respects with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Accessory
dwelling units will be required to have separate ingress/egress from the principal dwelling unit.
H. Previously Approved Accessory Dwelling Units. ADUs that were previously approved by the
city of Edmonds may continue and are not subject to the standards of this section. If expansion
or modification to an approved unit is proposed, the ADU must come into full compliance with
the requirements of this section. [Ord. 4360 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024].
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed
January 14, 2025.
Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed
subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.edmondswa.gov
Hosted by General Code.
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 213
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations Page 1 of 5
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
Chapter 17.50
OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
Sections:
17.50.000 Purposes.
17.50.010 Off-street parking required.
17.50.020 Parking space requirements.
17.50.030 Calculations.
17.50.040 Location.
17.50.050 Standards.
17.50.060 Joint use.
17.50.070 Downtown business area parking requirements.
17.50.075 Parking requirements for sexually oriented businesses.
17.50.090 Temporary parking lots.
17.50.100 Commercial vehicle regulations.
17.50.020 Parking space requirements.
(Refer to ECDC 17.50.010(C) and 17.50.070 for standards relating to the downtown business
area.)
A. Residential.
1. Single-family and multifamily.
a. Single-family dwellings: two spaces per principal dwelling unit, except:
b. Multiple residential according to the following table:
Type of multiple
dwelling unit
Required parking
spaces per dwelling
unit
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 214
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations Page 2 of 5
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
Type of multiple
dwelling unit
Required parking
spaces per dwelling
unit
Studio 1.2
1 bedroom 1.5
2 bedrooms 1.8
3 or more
bedrooms
2.0
Unless one or more of the following exceptions applies:
1) For affordable housing units that are affordable to very low-income or
extremely low-income individuals and located within 0.25 miles of a transit
stop receiving transit service at least two times per hour for 12 or more hours
per day, minimum residential parking requirements may be no greater than
one parking space per bedroom or 0.75 spaces per unit. The City requires a
covenant that prohibits rental to anyone other than the qualified tenants.
2) For housing units specifically for seniors or people with disabilities that are
located within 0.25 miles of a transit stop that receives transit service at least
four times per hour for 12 or more hours per day, minimum residential
parking requirements may not be imposed, with exceptions. The City requires
a covenant that prohibits rental to anyone other than the qualified tenants.
3) For market rate multifamily housing units that are located within 0.25 miles of
a transit stop that receives transit service from at least one route that
provides service at least four times per hour for 12 or more hours per day,
minimum residential parking requirements may be no greater than one
parking space per bedroom or 0.75 space per unit.
Commented [MC1]: Consistent with HB 2343 (2020)
and RCW 36.70A.620
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 215
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations Page 3 of 5
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
2. Boarding house: one space per bed.
3. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, residential social welfare facilities: one
space per three beds.
B. Business.
1. Retail stores, including art galleries, convenience stores, department stores, discount
stores, drug stores, grocery stores, supermarkets: one space per 300 square feet;
2. Furniture, appliances, and hardware stores: one space per 600 square feet;
3. Services uses, including barber shops, beauty shops, dry cleaners, laundries, repair
shops: one space per 600 square feet;
4. Medical, dental and veterinarian offices, banks and clinics: one space per 200 square
feet;
5. Business and professional offices with on-site customer service: one space per 400
square feet;
6. Offices not providing on-site customer service: one space per 800 square feet;
7. Bowling alley: four spaces per bowling lane;
8. Commercial recreation: one space per 500 square feet, or one space for each customer
allowed by the maximum permitted occupant load;
9. Car repair, commercial garage: one space per 200 square feet;
10. Drive-in restaurants, automobile service station, car dealer, used car lot: one space per
500 square feet of lot area;
11. Restaurant, tavern, cocktail lounge: if less than 4,000 square feet floor area, one per
200 square feet gross floor area; if over 4,000 square feet floor area, 20 plus one per 100
square feet gross floor area in excess of 4,000 square feet;
12. Plant nurseries (outdoor retail area): one space per 500 square feet of outdoor retail
area;
13. Motels and hotels: one space per room or unit;
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 216
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations Page 4 of 5
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
14. Retail warehouse, building materials yard: one space per 1,000 square feet of lot area
or one per three employees;
15. Manufacturing, laboratories, printing, research, automobile wrecking yards, kennels:
one space per two employees on largest shift;
16. Mortuary: one space per four fixed seats or per 400 square feet of assembly area,
whichever is greater;
17. Marina: to be determined by the hearing examiner, using information provided by the
applicant, and the following criteria:
a. The type of storage facility (moorage, dry storage, trailer parking) and intended use
(sailboats, fishing boats, leisure boats),
b. The need to accommodate overflow peak parking demand from other uses
accessory to the marina,
c. The availability and use of public transit;
18. Storage warehouse: one space per employee;
19. Wholesale warehouse: one space per employee;
20. Adult retail store: one space per 300 square feet;
21. Sexually oriented business (except adult retail store): one space for each customer
allowed by the maximum permitted occupant load.
C. Community Facilities.
1. Outdoor places of public assembly, including stadiums and arenas: one space per eight
fixed seats, or per 100 square feet of assembly area, whichever is greater;
2. Theaters: one space per five seats;
3. Indoor places of public assembly, including churches, auditoriums: one space per four
seats or one space per 40 square feet of assembly area, whichever is greater;
4. Primary and secondary schools: see ECDC 17.100.050(M) for parking standards relating
to primary and secondary schools;
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 217
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations Page 5 of 5
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
5. Residential colleges and universities: six spaces per classroom, or one space per
daytime employee, whichever is greater;
6. Nonresidential colleges and universities: one space per daytime employee;
7. Museums, libraries, art galleries: one space per 250 square feet;
8. Day care centers and preschools: one space per 300 square feet, or one per employee,
plus one per five students, whichever is larger;
9. Hospitals: three spaces per bed;
10. Maintenance yard (public or public utility): one space per two employees.
D. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC
for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. [Ord. 4360 § 6 (Exh.
A), 2024; Ord. 4333 § 15 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4314 § 57 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4251 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 3496 § 2,
2004].
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 218
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
ECDC Title 21, Definitions Page 1 of 4
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
Chapter 21.05
“A” TERMS
Sections:
21.05.005 Repealed.
21.05.010 Accessory buildings.
21.05.015 Accessory dwelling unit.
21.05.020 Accessory use.
21.05.021 Adult definitions.
21.05.022 Repealed.
21.05.023 Repealed.
21.05.024 Affordable housing.
21.05.025 Alley.
21.05.030 Animal hospital.
21.05.035 Repealed.
21.05.040 Alteration(s).
21.05.050 Repealed.
21.05.055 Repealed.
21.05.060 Auto wrecking.
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 219
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
ECDC Title 21, Definitions Page 2 of 4
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
21.05.024 Affordable housing.
Consistent with RCW 36.70A.030(5), as amended, affordable housing means residential
housing whose monthly costs, including utilities other than telephone, do not exceed thirty
percent of the monthly income of a household whose income is: (a) For rental housing,
sixty percent (60%) of the median household income adjusted for household size, for the
county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of
housing and urban development; or (b) For owner-occupied housing, eighty percent (80%)
of the median household income adjusted for household size, for the county where the
household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban
development.
Chapter 21.25
“E” TERMS
Sections:
21.25.010 Easement.
21.25.020 Equipment shelter or cabinet.
21.25.100 Expressive dance.
21.25.110 Extremely low-income housing.
21.25.110 Extremely low-income housing.
Consistent with RCW 36.70A.030(17), as amended, extremely low-income household
means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose adjusted
income is at or below thirty percent (30%) of the median household income adjusted
for household size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the
United States department of housing and urban development.
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 220
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
ECDC Title 21, Definitions Page 3 of 4
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
Chapter 21.55
“L” TERMS
Sections:
21.55.005 Repealed.
21.55.007 Local public facilities.
21.55.010 Lot.
21.55.015 Lot of record.
21.55.020 Lot area.
21.55.030 Lot depth.
21.55.040 Lot line.
21.55.050 Lot width.
21.55.060 Landslide hazard area and earth subsidence.
21.55.070 Low impact development (LID).
21.55.080 Lot income household.
21.55.080 Low income household.
Consistent with RCW 36.70A.030(24), as amended, low-income household means a
single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose adjusted income
is at or below eighty percent (80%) of the median household income adjusted for
household size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the
United States department of housing and urban development.
Chapter 21.60
“M” TERMS
Sections:
21.60.002 Repealed.
21.60.004 Repealed.
21.60.006 Repealed.
21.60.008 Major transit stop.
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 221
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
ECDC Title 21, Definitions Page 4 of 4
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
21.60.010 Mobile home.
21.60.020 Mobile home park.
21.60.030 Moorage.
21.60.040 Motel.
21.60.045 Repealed.
21.60.046 Repealed.
21.60.050 Multiple dwelling.
21.60.060 Multiple dwelling units.
21.60.008 Major transit stop.
Consistent with RCW 36.70A.030(24), as amended, major transit stop means: (a) a stop on a
high capacity transportation system funded or expanded under the provisions of chapter
81.104 RCW; (b) commuter rail stops; (c) stops on rail or fixed guideway systems; or (d) stops on
bus rapid transit routes, including those stops that are under construction.
Chapter 21.110
“V” TERMS
Sections:
21.110.010 Vacation.
21.110.020 Very low income household.
21.110.020 Very low income household.
Consistent with RCW 36.70A.030(46), as amended, very low-income household means a single
person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose adjusted income is at or below fifty
percent (50%) of the median household income adjusted for household size, for the county
where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and
urban development.
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 222
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
1
7
.
5
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
P
B
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
1
Clugston, Michael
From:Mo <mjeude@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:29 AM
To:Planning
Subject:Don’t rush parking decisions
1
Clugston, Michael
From:CC Dery <dery.cd@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:30 AM
To:Planning
Subject:New Parking Regulations
1
Clugston, Michael
From:Karen Haase Herrick <karenherrick@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:41 PM
To:Planning
Subject:Parking code Update
Chair Hankins and members of the Planning Board -
I will not be at the 5/14 Planning Board meeting because of other obligations but wish to share my thoughts
about the new parking requirements passed by the legislature and signed into law.
ESSB 5184 stipulates new minimum parking requirements that cities are allowed to place in code. Section 3 of
this law enumerates circumstances in which cities may stipulate higher minimums by seeking a variance to the
law. The process does require empirical studies so a cost in involved.
When Mike Clugston presented the fact of this law's passage during the 5/7 Planning Board meeting, he did
not make you all aware of the variance option. He simply stated that the changes were passed, would need to
be included in the city code, and was seeking approval to include these 2025 law changes in the current code
update. It is my experience that when legislators include a variance option in a law, they do so because they
are aware that, in some circumstances, the provisions of the law may not be feasible or may harm public
safety and welfare. They make an allowance for that with a variance option.
So, I feel the wise course of action is to not update code immediately to conform to the new minimums as per
ESSB 5184 but to discuss the new law, the stated reasons for seeking a variance and those reasons'
applicability to the realities of parking in Edmonds and then recommend to Council a course of action. If
studies are needed, and monies are required to secure the empirical justification, the rationale for spending
those tax dollars would have to be for the safety of the public not because public feedback is against the law's
new minimums. Public safety is one of the few reasons why Edmonds, in this time of fiscal shortfall, should
even consider expending extra monies outside the approved budget.
I personally think there are many areas in Edmonds where moving parking out streets will not be the ideal but
will work. But I also think that many of our narrow streets without sidewalks and our cul-de-sac
subdevelopments with very close-together curb cuts just could not accommodate more or any street parking. I
also think that moving parking to streets on some of our side streets and narrow streets will preclude
emergency vehicles from accessing homes to attend to fires and health emergencies. All of these issues need
to be looked at carefully before blanketly implementing the new law without careful consideration.
I do understand the cost concerns behind wanting to lessen the off-street parking requirements. I also
understand the desire to get us driving less, walking more and riding transit. But even my family and friends
who switched to transit commuting for work kept their vehicles for weekends, for travel, or simply because
they wanted to have a car "in case". I think we have to acknowledge this behavior as a reality for the near
future - like it or not.
So, please, proceed intentionally and thoughtfully with the implementing the minimums of ESSB 5184. Thank
you for your time in reading this.
10.1.b
Packet Pg. 225
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
M
a
y
1
4
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
2
Karen Haase Herrick
Edmonds Resident
10.1.b
Packet Pg. 226
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
M
a
y
1
4
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
1
Clugston, Michael
From:Gary Holton <garyh01@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 1:42 PM
To:Planning
Subject:Planning Board parking requirements
1
Clugston, Michael
From:ROBERT A LINDER <onlinderpond@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:01 PM
To:Planning
Subject:Pause button on RCW5184
Greetings,
It has come to my attention via letters to the editor on the MyEdmondsNews.com website that a
proposed zoning plan for parking in metro areas will greatly impact the street congestion in Edmonds.
As a resident of the Edmonds Bowl, I want to voice my concern about this proposal and ask the
Edmonds Planning Department to give very thoughtful consideration of this zoning ruling.
Thank you,
Robert Linder
811 Alder Street
Some people who received this message don't often get email from onlinderpond@comcast.net. Learn why this is important
10.1.b
Packet Pg. 228
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
M
a
y
1
4
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
1
Clugston, Michael
From:Judy McCoid <mccoidjudy@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:12 AM
To:Planning
Subject:Housing plans
Dear Planning Commission,
Thank you for doing such a difficult, probably thankless, job. I realize it must be frustrating trying to
incorporate the new state standards and neighborhood concerns. I agree that we should be planning for
increased density. However, I think Edmonds should implement the parking law after a thorough traffic
assessment to find those areas where the new minimums would risk safety for pedestrians, bicyclists,
and drivers. We can meet the three-year time limit but also be intentional about the welfare of our
residents in the process.
I aldo think we should only meet what is required by law and see how that level of development
affects our city.
Thank you,
Judy McCoid
Some people who received this message don't often get email from mccoidjudy@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
10.1.b
Packet Pg. 229
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
M
a
y
1
4
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
FINAL BILL REPORT
SSB 6015
C 274 L 24
Synopsis as Enacted
Brief Description: Concerning residential parking configurations.
Sponsors: Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs (originally
sponsored by Senators Shewmake, Kuderer and Liias).
Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs
House Committee on Local Government
Background: Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act (GMA) is the
comprehensive land use planning framework for counties and cities in Washington. The
GMA establishes land-use designation and environmental protection requirements for all
Washington counties and cities. The GMA also establishes a significantly wider array of
planning duties for 28 counties, and the cities within those counties, obligated to satisfy all
planning requirements of the GMA. These jurisdictions are sometimes said to be fully
planning under the GMA.
The GMA also directs fully planning jurisdictions to adopt internally consistent
comprehensive land use plans. Comprehensive plans are implemented through locally
adopted development regulations, and both the plans and the local regulations are subject to
review and revision requirements prescribed in the GMA. A comprehensive plan must be
reviewed and, if necessary, revised every ten years to ensure that it complies with the GMA.
When developing their comprehensive plans, counties and cities must consider various
goals set forth in statute.
Minimum Residential Parking Requirements. Minimum residential parking requirements
mandated by municipal zoning ordinances of cities and counties planning under the GMA
are subject to the following requirements:
for affordable housing units that are affordable to very low-income or extremely low-
income individuals and located within one-quarter mile of a transit stop receiving
transit service at least two times per hour for 12 or more hours a day, minimum
residential parking requirements may be no greater than one parking space per
•
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative
members in their deliberations. This analysis is not part of the legislation nor does it
constitute a statement of legislative intent.
SSB 6015- 1 -Senate Bill Report
10.1.c
Packet Pg. 230
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
S
B
6
0
1
5
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
b
i
l
l
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
bedroom or a three-quarter space per unit;
for housing units specifically for seniors or people with disabilities and located within
one-quarter mile of a transit stop receiving transit service at least four times per hour
for 12 or more hours a day, a city may not impose minimum residential parking
requirements for the residents of such housing units;
a city may require a developer to record a covenant that prohibits the rental of a
unit subject to this parking restriction for any purpose other than providing
housing for seniors or people with disabilities; and
1.
•
for market rate multifamily housing units located within one-quarter mile of a transit
stop that receives transit service from at least one route that provides service at least
four times per hour for 12 or more hours per day, minimum residential parking
requirements may be no greater than one parking space per bedroom or a three-
quarter space per unit.
•
A city may establish a requirement for the provision of additional parking space per
bedroom or per unit if the jurisdiction has determined a particular housing unit to be in an
area with a lack of access to street parking capacity, physical space impediments, or other
reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible for the unit.
Minimum Parking Standards for Middle Housing Types. Cities that are required or choose
to plan under the GMA may not:
require off-street parking as a condition of permitting development of middle housing
within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop;
•
require more than one off-street parking space per unit as a condition of permitting
development of middle housing on lots smaller than 6000 square feet; and
•
require more than two off-street parking spaces per unit as a condition of permitting
development of middle housing on lots greater than 6000 square feet.
•
These minimum parking standards do not apply:
if a local government submits to the Department of Commerce an empirical study that
clearly demonstrates the application of the parking limitations will be significantly
less safe for vehicle drivers or passengers, pedestrians, or bicycles; or
•
to portions of cities within a one-mile radius of a commercial airport in Washington
with at least 9 million enplanements.
•
Cities and counties that are required or choose to plan under the GMA are subject to the
same off-street parking standards when permitting the development of accessory dwelling
units (ADUs). A city may not require the provision of off-street parking for ADUs within
one-quarter mile of a major transit stop unless the city has determined the ADU is in an area
with a lack of access to street parking capacity, physical space impediments, or other
reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible for the ADU.
Summary: Cities and counties must enforce the following land use regulations for
residential development:
SSB 6015- 2 -Senate Bill Report
10.1.c
Packet Pg. 231
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
S
B
6
0
1
5
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
b
i
l
l
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
garages and carports may not be required as a way to meet minimum parking
requirements for residential development;
•
parking spaces that count towards minimum parking requirements may be enclosed or
unenclosed;
•
parking spaces in tandem count towards meeting minimum parking requirements at a
rate of one space for every 20 linear feet, with any necessary provisions for turning
radius;
•
the existence of non-conforming gravel surfacing in existing designated parking areas
may not be a reason for prohibiting the use of existing space in the parking area to
meet local parking standards;
•
parking spaces may not be required to exceed 8 feet by 20 feet, except for required
parking for people with disabilities; and
•
parking spaces that consist of grass block pavers may count towards minimum
parking regulations.
•
Existing parking spaces that do not conform to these requirements are not required to be
modified or resized, except for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Existing paved parking lots are not required to change the size of existing parking paces
during resurfacing if doing so will be more costly or require significant reconfiguration of
the parking space locations.
Any county planning under the GMA, and any city within the county with a population
greater than 6,000, may not require off-street parking as a condition of permitting a
residential project if compliance with tree retention would otherwise make a proposed
residential development or redevelopment infeasible.
Portions of cities within a one-mile radius of a commercial airport with at least 9 million
annual enplanments are exempt from the requirements of this act.
Votes on Final Passage:
Senate 30 19
House 95 1 (House amended)
Senate 28 21 (Senate concurred)
Final Passage Votes
Effective:June 6, 2024
SSB 6015- 3 -Senate Bill Report
10.1.c
Packet Pg. 232
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
S
B
6
0
1
5
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
b
i
l
l
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 1 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
Chapter 18.95
PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION
Sections:
18.95.000 Permit required.
18.95.010 Application.
18.95.020 Requirements.
18.95.030 Tandem parking prohibited.
18.95.000 Permit required.
No person shall construct, modify and/or expand a parking lot without first obtaining approval
from the city engineer and a building permit. Except for parking areas intended for not more
than four vehicles and accessory to a single-family dwelling, all plans and specifications first be
approved by the architectural design board before a permit be issued. [Ord. 2428 § 1, 1984].
18.95.010 Application.
A. Filing. An application shall be filed with the building official, along with the plans for
the building or use which the parking lot will serve. In the event that the parking lot is not being
constructed for use in conjunction with a building, a site plan shall be submitted which provides
the following. shows any and all existing buildings on the lot on which the parking lot is to be
constructed as well as all structures within 15 feet of the boundary line of the lot.
B. Required Information. The plan shall be drawn on a scale of 1" = 20' and shall include the
following:
1. North point and scale;
2. All adjacent streets, alleys, sidewalks and curbs;
3. Existing and proposed landscaping improvements. Existing trees over one foot
diameter, in or near the parking lot;
4. Entire ownership of lot or parcel being developed;
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 233
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 2 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
5. The outline location of all existing and proposed structures, including points of
ingress and egress;
6. Dimensions and height of building in number of stories or feet and total floor area,
existing and proposed;
7. Completely dimensioned parking layouts, clearly showing all spaces and drive aisles;
8. Existing and proposed land contours;
9. Existing and proposed Provisions for stormwater management facilities.drainage
control. [Ord. 2471, 1984; Ord. 2428 § 2, 1984].
18.95.020 Requirements.
A. Dimensions. Parking lot layout shall comply with construction standards as set forth by the
Public Works Director.
1. Cars. The applicant must provide an aggregate parking area of sufficient size to provide
all the required parking spaces at the full width dimensions. If the applicant satisfies this
condition, the applicant has the following two choices for meeting the minimum standards
for off-street parking dimensions within this aggregate area: a) all at full width method, or
b) mixture of full width/reduced width method.
a. All at Full Width Method. The A full width parking space shall be no less than eight and
one-half feet in width and 16-1/2 feet in length. Minimum standards for off-street parking
space dimensions shall not be less than as shown on Figure 18-1, Minimum Parking Lot
Requirements for One- and Two-Way Traffic.
b. Mixture of Full Width and Reduced Width Method.
1. The applicant must be able to demonstrate that sufficient parking area is available
to provide all required parking spaces at the full width dimensions as defined in
subsection (b)(2) below.
2. Full Width Parking Stall Size. The full width parking space shall be eight and one-half
feet in width and 16-1/2 feet in length. Minimum standards for off-street parking space
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 234
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 3 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
dimensions shall not be less than as shown on Figure 18-1, Minimum Parking Lot
Requirements for One- and Two-Way Traffic.
3. If the conditions of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) above have been satisfied, and
the applicant selects this methodology, a maximum of fifty percent of the total
provided parking spaces may be sized at reduced width per the parking space
dimensions specified in subsection (b)(4) below.
4. Reduced Width Parking Stall Size. The reduced width parking space shall be
eight feet in width and 16-1/2 feet in length. Minimum standards for off-street
parking space dimensions shall not be less than as shown on Figure 18-1,
Minimum Parking Lot Requirements for One- and Two-Way Traffic.
2. Trucks. Parking areas for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight exceeding 8,000 pounds
shall be designed to meet sound, commonly accepted specifications necessary for parking
such vehicles as designated by the city engineer.
3. Drive aisles.
a. One-Way. Minimum width shall not be less than 12-ft.
b. Two-Way. Minimum width shall not be less than 24-ft.
a.c. Additional width may be required as established by the Fire Department to comply
with fire fighting or rescue operations.
B. Control Devices. Hard-surfaced parking lots shall use painted stripes to designate spaces.
Gravel parking lots shall use durable raised rails and wheelstops and signs to designate spaces.
Pedestrian walks shall be distinguished through striping or other means approved by the city
engineer. in parking lots shall be protected by curbs or raised rails.
C. Pavement. Parking lots shall be hard-surfaced.
a. The city engineer may allow gravel parking lots for temporary parking lots, or where
parking is primarily long term.
b. Driveway approaches for gravel parking lots shall be hard-surfaced from the edge of the
existing street a distance of 20 feet or to the edge of the property line, whichever is
greater.
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 235
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 4 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
a.c. The existence of legally nonconforming gravel surfacing in existing designated parking
areas may not be a reason for prohibiting utilization of existing space in the parking
area to meet parking standards, up to a maximum of six parking spaces.
D. Grades. Maximum parking slopes shall be six percent; minimum slope shall be one percent.
The city engineer may waive the maximum slope requirement, up to a maximum of 14 percent,
if the applicant can demonstrate that an increase in the slope maximum will not result in
conditions that may pose a hazard or otherwise endanger the public’s health, safety or welfare.
1. The city engineer shall consider the following criteria, where applicable, in reviewing an
application for waiver:
a. The waiver request is not made for the sole purpose of circumventing other
requirements of the community development code, general convenience, or to reduce
routine construction cost compared to similar projects.
b. Site conditions or other city requirements necessitate the request. Site conditions
may include but are not limited to the protection of streams, trees and vegetation;
addressing storm drainage and ground water concerns; minimizing impacts on
adjacent properties; and avoidance of excessive grading or retaining walls.
c. Mitigating safety measures as proposed or required by the city engineer can be
included in the design and realistically constructed as designed.
d. The public welfare will be enhanced. Examples include the enhancement of the
aesthetic environment, reduction in potential pollutants, noise, dust or odor, public
convenience, and/or the general safety of the public during construction.
e. Utilization of existing parking lots with similar profiles to the proposed lots can be
shown to operate safely and efficiently.
f. The request complies with barrier free design standards and other handicap
accessibility related laws, requirements and standards.
g. The waiver decision would not be otherwise detrimental to the city.
2. If a waiver is granted, the city engineer will place in the appropriate city file a signed,
written statement of findings, reasons and conditions for authorizing the waiver of the
parking slip requirement.
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 236
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 5 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
E. 3. Driveways and curb cut requirements and aisles shall conform to the standards of ECDC
18.80.060. [Ord. 4085 § 8 (Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 3585 § 1, 2006; Ord. 3121 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2737 § 1, 1989; Ord.
2428 § 3, 1984].
18.95.030 Tandem parking prohibited.
Any required off-street parking space, whether by the requirements of ECDC Title 18 or any
other provision of the code, shall be individually accessible.. Tandem or stacked parking may
not be utilized to provide any required parking space; except that tandem parking may be
permitted in the following instances:
A. Tandem spaces may be provided outside of residential development Wwhere an applicant
proposes to provide additional parking spaces for the benefit of visitors and residents in
addition to those required by the code. , the staff may approve the use of tandem or stacked
parking where such tandem parking will not block or impede access to any required space, or
present a safety hazard. In no event shall tandem or stacked parking be permitted where its
use would increase the permitted density of development.
B. On a residentially zoned single-family (RS-zoned) lot, one tandem spaces may be provided in
order to meet the minimum required parking on the property.
C. Requirements.
a. Parking spaces in tandem apply at a rate of one space for every 20 linear feet.
b. Provisions for turning radius shall be accounted for.
c. Tandem parking shall not block or impede access to any other required spaces, or
present a safety hazard
An application to provide additional parking spaces as set forth above shall be processed in
accordance with the provisions of ECDC 18.00.020. [Ord. 3788 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3344 § 1, 2001; Ord.
2794 § 1, 1990].
Figure 18-1.
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 237
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 6 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
FIGURE 18-1 REMOVED FROM CODE AND REPLACED WITH UPDATED CITY STANDARD DETAIL
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 238
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 7 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
Figure 18-2.
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 239
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 8 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
FIGURE 18-2 REMOVED FROM CODE – FIRE MANAGES THESE REQUIREMENTS
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 240
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Chapter 18.95 ECDC, Parking Lot Construction Page 9 of 9
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025.
The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed
January 14, 2025.
Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed
subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.edmondswa.gov
Hosted by General Code.
10.1.d
Packet Pg. 241
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
D
R
A
F
T
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
8
.
9
5
E
C
D
C
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
10.1.e
Packet Pg. 242
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
-
D
R
A
F
T
T
R
-
5
6
8
-
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
d
e
t
a
i
l
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
FINAL BILL REPORT
ESSB 5184
Brief Description: Concerning minimum parking requirements.
Sponsors: Senate Committee on Housing (originally sponsored by Senators Bateman, Trudeau,
Frame, Krishnadasan, Liias, Nobles, Pedersen, Salomon, Shewmake and Stanford).
Senate Committee on Housing
House Committee on Local Government
Background: Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act (GMA) is the
comprehensive land use planning framework for counties and cities in Washington. The
GMA also establishes a significantly wider array of planning duties for 28 counties, and the
cities within those counties, that are obligated to satisfy all planning requirements of the
GMA. These jurisdictions are sometimes said to be fully planning under the GMA.
The GMA also directs fully planning jurisdictions to adopt internally consistent
comprehensive land use plans. Comprehensive plans are implemented through locally
adopted development regulations, and both the plans and the local regulations are subject to
review and revision requirements prescribed in the GMA. A comprehensive plan must be
reviewed and, if necessary, revised every ten years to ensure that it complies with the GMA.
Minimum Residential Parking Requirements. In counties and cities fully planning under
the GMA, minimum residential parking requirements mandated by municipal zoning
ordinances are subject to certain requirements. Requirements are dependent upon:
whether the housing units are offered as affordable to very low-income people or
extremely low-income people, are specifically for seniors or people with disabilities,
or are market rate multifamily housing units; and
•
the proximity of the housing units to a transit stop that receives a certain frequency of
transit service.
•
Limits on Minimum Residential Parking Requirements. For affordable housing units that
are affordable to very low-income or extremely low-income individuals and located within
0.25 miles of a transit stop receiving transit service at least two times per hour for twelve or
more hours a day, minimum residential parking requirements may be no greater than one
parking space per bedroom or 0.75 space per unit.
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative
members in their deliberations. This analysis is not part of the legislation nor does it
constitute a statement of legislative intent.
ESSB 5184- 1 -Senate Bill Report
10.1.f
Packet Pg. 243
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
S
B
5
1
8
4
-
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
I
l
l
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
For housing units that are specifically for seniors or people with disabilities and located
within 0.25 miles of a transit stop receiving transit service at least four times per hour for
twelve or more hours a day, a city may not impose minimum residential parking
requirements for the residents of such housing units. A city may require a developer to
record a covenant that prohibits the rental of a unit subject to this parking restriction for any
purpose other than providing housing for seniors or people with disabilities.
For market rate multifamily housing units that are located within 0.25 miles of a transit stop
that receives transit service from at least one route that provides service at least four times
per hour for twelve or more hours per day, minimum residential parking requirements may
be no greater than one parking space per bedroom or 0.75 space per unit.
A city may establish a requirement for the provision of additional parking space per
bedroom or per unit if the jurisdiction has determined particular housing unit to be in an
area with a lack of access to street parking capacity, physical space impediments, or other
reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible for the unit.
A city that is required or chooses to plan under the GMA may not:
require off-street parking as a condition of permitting development of middle housing
within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop;
•
require more than one off-street parking space per unit as a condition of permitting
development of middle housing on lots smaller than 6000 square feet; and
•
require more than two off-street parking spaces per unit as a condition of permitting
development of middle housing on lots greater than 6000 square feet.
•
State Building Code Council. The State Building Code (SBC) provides a set of statewide
standards and requirements related to building construction. The SBC is comprised of
various international model codes, including building, residential, fire, and plumbing codes
(model codes) adopted by reference by the Legislature. The model codes are promulgated
by the International Code Council.
The State Building Code Council (SBCC) is responsible for adopting, amending, and
maintaining the SBC. The SBCC must regularly review updated versions of the model
codes and adopt a process for reviewing proposed statewide and local amendments.
Summary: A city, including code cities, or county may not require more than 0.5 parking
space per multifamily dwelling unit or more than one parking space per single-family
home.
A city or county may not require more than two parking spaces per 1000 square feet of
commercial space.
A city or county may not require any minimum parking requirements for:
ESSB 5184- 2 -Senate Bill Report
10.1.f
Packet Pg. 244
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
S
B
5
1
8
4
-
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
I
l
l
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
existing buildings undergoing change of use from a nonresidential to a residential use
or a change of use for a commercial use;
•
residences under 1200 square feet;•
commercial spaces under 3000 square feet;•
affordable housing;•
senior housing;•
child care facilities; and•
ground-level nonresidential spaces in mixed-use buildings.•
Cities and counties with a population between 30,000 and 50,000 must implement the
requirements within three years of the effective date of the bill. Cities and counties with a
population of 50,000 or greater must implement the requirements of this act within 18
months of the effective date of the bill.
Exceptions. Parking restrictions do not apply to the following:
accessible parking spaces in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA);
•
portions of cities and counties within a one-mile radius of a commercial airport in
Washington with at least 9 million annual enplanements;
•
cities or code cities with a population of 30,000 or less.•
The parking limitations also do not apply if a city or county submits to the Department of
Commerce (Commerce) an empirical study prepared by a credentialed transportation or
land use planning expert that clearly demonstrates, and Commerce finds and certifies, that
the application of the parking limitations will be significantly less safe for vehicle drivers or
passengers, pedestrians, or bicyclists than the jurisdiction's current parking requirements.
A city or county may require parking in excess of these limitations for religious
organizations and parking requirements for carpools.
A city or county that has adopted substantially similar policies to these requirements may
apply to Commerce for a determination of compliance.
Jurisdictions may submit a request for a variance from the limitations and prohibitions on
parking to Commerce if compliance with the requirements would be hazardous to the life,
health, and safety of residents as confirmed by a building official or fire marshal, or their
designees.
A city or county may also submit a request for a variance from the prohibitions and
limitations on minimum parking requirements to require additional parking spaces
permanently marked for the exclusive use of individuals with disabilities beyond those
required for compliance with the ADA based on the planned or likely population, location,
or safety of a building, using objective standards
ESSB 5184- 3 -Senate Bill Report
10.1.f
Packet Pg. 245
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
S
B
5
1
8
4
-
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
I
l
l
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
Cities or counties are not prohibited from requiring temporary or time-restricted parking.
Cities and counties are encouraged to consider the adequacy of drop-off space, waiting
space, and accessibility in the design review process when considering the limitations on
parking requirements.
Counties may require off-street parking if the county's roads are not developed to the
standards for streets and roads adopted by the cities within that county.
Other Provisions. Current minimum residential parking requirements for cities planning
under the GMA are repealed.
SBCC shall research, and if necessary, adopt by rule updated accessible parking space
requirements in the SBC to align with current research on disability rates among drivers.
Votes on Final Passage:
Senate 40 8
House 64 31 (House amended)
Senate 36 13 (Senate concurred)
Final Passage Votes
Effective:Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
ESSB 5184- 4 -Senate Bill Report
10.1.f
Packet Pg. 246
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
S
B
5
1
8
4
-
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
I
l
l
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study – Project Update
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Emiko Rodarte
Background/History
On March 12, 2024, this project was presented to the Parks and Public Works Committee and forwarded
to the consent agenda for approval.
On March 19, 2024, this item was approved to enter the grant agreement with National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation Grant.
Staff Recommendation
Project Update - no Council action requested at this time.
Narrative
The Edmonds Marsh Planning Study was initiated to support the long-term vision of reconnecting the
Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound and restoring estuarine habitat. The project’s goals include reducing
community flood risk, supporting the Puget Sound food web, and creating critical rearing habitat for
salmon, forage fish, birds, and other wildlife.
The City of Edmonds currently owns the 22-acre Edmonds Marsh as well as Marina Beach Park, which
lies along the shoreline to the west. Additionally, the City holds a first right of refusal to purchase the
adjacent 22-acre Unocal property, a former industrial site located between the marsh and the beach.
Restoration of the estuary would involve reconnecting the marsh to Puget Sound through Marina Beach
Park, potentially incorporating the Unocal site as a key part of the habitat corridor. The Unocal property
is known to be contaminated and is currently undergoing cleanup under the supervision of the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
The study scope was organized into three primary tasks:
1) Hydrologic Evaluation and Hydraulic Modeling - assessing flow dynamics and reconnection
scenarios.
2) Contamination Impact Analysis - evaluating legacy contamination and restoration feasibility.
3) Planning and Public Engagement - coordinating community input and regulatory alignment
Work is ongoing toward a consolidated summary of findings to inform the next phase of planning and
project development.
Attachments:
10.2
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment 1 - Draft Hydraulic Modeling Report
Attachment 2 - Draft Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Attachment 3 - Presentation
10.2
Packet Pg. 248
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
Hydraulic Analysis Report
DRAFT
Prepared for City of Edmonds
Prepared by Blue Coast Engineering LLC
May 2025
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 249
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 i
Table of Contents
1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Description and Background .................................................................................... 2
3 Data Compilation ....................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Bathymetry and Topography .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Site Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Tides and Storm Surge ...................................................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Sea Level Rise ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
4 Model Development ................................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Model Grid ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
4.2 Boundary Conditions ......................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Hydraulic Simulations ........................................................................................................................................ 8
4.4 Existing Conditions Model ............................................................................................................................... 9
4.5 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.5.1 Restoration Features ....................................................................................................................... 11
4.5.2 Resiliency Features ........................................................................................................................... 12
4.5.3 Excavation Within the Former UNOCAL Site ......................................................................... 13
4.5.4 Sea Level Rise Features .................................................................................................................. 13
5 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Flood Resiliency ................................................................................................................................................ 14
5.2 Water Surface Elevations in Edmonds Marsh ........................................................................................ 15
5.3 Water Surface Elevations in Shellabarger Marsh ................................................................................. 16
5.4 Effects of Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................................. 16
5.5 SR-104 Stormwater (Simulation 5) ............................................................................................................ 17
5.6 Impacts to the Unocal Site ........................................................................................................................... 18
5.7 Inlet Geomorphology and Hydrodynamics ............................................................................................ 19
6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 22
7 Closure ....................................................................................................................................... 24
8 References ................................................................................................................................ 25
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 250
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 ii
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Model Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Model Simulations ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Table 3: Alternatives Features ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 4: Predicted Velocities at the Railroad Bridge Constriction .............................................................................. 20
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 Existing Conditions Model Terrain
Figure 3 Timeseries of Tidal Data and Predictions
Figure 4 Model Domain and Boundary Condition Locations
Figure 5 Alternative 1 Hydraulic Model Terrain
Figure 6 Alternative 2 Hydraulic Model Terrain
Figure 7 Existing Conditions Predicted Flooding - Simulation 2
Figure 8 Alternative 1 Predicted Flooding - Simulation 2
Figure 9 Edmonds Marsh Predicted Water Surface Elevation Comparison - Simulation 2
Figure 10 Alternative 1 Predicted Flooding - Simulation 4
Figure 11 Shellabarger Marsh Predicted Water Surface Elevation Comparison – Simulations 3
and 4
Figure 12 Edmonds Marsh Predicted Water Surface Elevation Comparison - Simulations 4 and 5
Figure 13 Maximum Predicted Velocity Comparison at the Railroad Bridge – Simulation 3
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 251
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 1
1 Purpose
Blue Coast Engineering LLC (Blue Coast) and Anchor QEA, referred to herein as the design team, were contracted to assist the City of Edmonds (City) with a planning study in support of proposed restoration work at Edmonds Marsh (Project). The purpose of the Project was to collect information to inform the planning process for reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound and restoring estuary habitat—a plan that could reduce community flood risk, support the Puget Sound food web, and create habitat for salmon, forage fish, birds, and wildlife.
Work completed by the design team included hydraulic modeling of existing and proposed conditions within the Project area (and near vicinity), a contamination impact analysis, and planning and public outreach/engagement activities. This report summarizes the results of the hydraulic modeling work. The results of the contamination impact analysis and planning and public outreach are documented in separate reports (Anchor QEA, 2025 and Blue Coast & Anchor QEA, 2025).
The hydraulic modeling work completed by Blue Coast for this project builds upon previous modeling work completed by Anchor QEA and Shannon & Wilson for the project (Shannon & Wilson, 2015 and 2019). The existing 2D HEC-RAS model developed by Shannon & Wilson was refined and validated using updated flooding information from 2022. The updated model was used to simulate flood events for existing conditions due to a combination of high tides and high rainfall events. The existing conditions model was modified to reflect two proposed alternatives for reconnecting Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound, including flood protection elements. The model was then used to compare flood extents, water surface elevations, and flow velocities in the marsh and proposed channel connection to Puget Sound between existing conditions and the two proposed alternatives for both current and
climate-change scenarios.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 252
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 2
2 Project Description and Background
Edmonds Marsh (marsh) is a tidally influenced saltwater estuary located in Edmonds, Washington. The area is bounded on the north by Harbor Square and downtown Edmonds, to the east by SR-104, to the west by the BNSF railroad corridor, and to the south by a UNOCAL property, which was the site of a recent sediment remediation project. The primary sources of freshwater inflow to the marsh are Shellabarger Creek and Willow Creek. Shellabarger Creek is connected to the marsh via a twin culvert under SR-104, which can restrict flow during larger runoff events and result in flooding of upstream areas and adjacent sections of SR-104. Willow Creek is connected to the marsh through a single culvert under Pine Street. Several smaller stormwater flows from Harbor Square and other adjacent developed areas also discharge into the marsh. Figure 1 provides a site map of the Marsh and key locations of interest referenced in this report.
The marsh is tidally influenced through a series of culverts that are connected to a deep-water outfall offshore of Marina Beach Park. This system limits the amount of tidal inundation into the marsh and also limits the amount of water that can drain out through the outfall during periods of high freshwater input. Water surface elevations in the marsh do exhibit a small daily tidal variation, but flooding in the marsh is currently dominated by freshwater inflows.
Restoration of Edmonds Marsh would include reconnecting the marsh directly to Puget Sound through an open channel that would run beneath a previously constructed BNSF railroad bridge that is located near the southwest corner of the marsh system just upland of Marina Beach Park. The channel under the bridge is currently not used to convey any fresh or tidal waters and is currently backfilled with sediment. This would restore full tidal inundation to the marsh and restore fish passage, which is currently not possible through the outfall and culvert system. The restoration effort would also include other project elements that would reduce flooding from the marsh into adjacent areas at higher tides, and improvements to channel conveyance in the marsh and through the Shellabarger Creek culverts.
Significant work has been completed by others to evaluate the hydraulics, habitat restoration benefits, and flooding implications of the proposed restoration (Shannon & Wilson, 2015 and 2019). The current hydraulic modeling work builds on this previous work and is focused on evaluating potential improvements to address existing flooding concerns and future flood resiliency for adjacent areas
within the City of Edmonds from the proposed restoration alternatives.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 253
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 3
3 Data Compilation
This hydraulic modeling evaluation builds upon the work performed by others to evaluate fish passage alternatives as part of the Willow Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study (Shannon & Wilson, 2015) and Conceptual Design (Shannon & Wilson, 2019). The data used during these studies were evaluated and updated with new data available in 2025.
Data reviewed and used to develop the updated hydraulic model for this study included the following:
• Topography, bathymetry, and hydraulic structure survey elevations
• Hydrology (flow rate) predictions for the marsh tributaries, runoff, and SR-104 stormwater drainage basin
• Updated tidal predictions specific to the Edmonds waterfront
• Sea Level Rise (SLR) predictions specific to the Edmonds waterfront
Each of these inputs to the hydraulic model are described further in the following subsections.
3.1 Bathymetry and Topography
The hydraulic model used during the 2019 Willow Creek Daylighting Conceptual Design evaluation (Shannon & Wilson, 2019) was provided to Blue Coast for this study, including the topographic and bathymetric “terrain 1” file within the HEC-RAS modeling framework. The existing conditions (i.e., the current elevations and bathymetry of the marsh and surrounding areas) from the 2019 model were used as the base terrain for this study. The topographic and bathymetric data used to generate the model terrain was a combination of the following data sources:
• North Puget Sound LiDAR (Washington Geological Survey, 2017)
• Topographic survey within the marsh (Shannon & Wilson, 2015)
• Structure dimension and invert elevation surveys (Shannon & Wilson, 2015)
• As-built structure information for the SR-104 stormwater pipeline (Washington State Highway Commission, 1973)
• As-built structure information for the existing BNSF bridge (AECOM, 2010)
Elevations of the datasets listed above were collected in or converted to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) with a 1-ft resolution. The extents of the topography and bathymetry data provided in the 2019 model terrain contain limited offshore bathymetry extents. The extents of the bathymetry were expanded from 200 to approximately 950 feet offshore. The data used in the offshore areas of the model were from the publicly available CoNED topo-bathymetric Model of Puget Sound (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020).
Key topographic elevations were surveyed with a rover RTK GPS in the field by Blue Coast staff, including the downstream invert elevations of the SR-104 Shellabarger Creek twin culverts, elevations
1 The terrain file within the HEC_RAS model contains all of the topographic and bathymetric surface elevations used to define the
project area within the model.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 254
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 4
of the existing berm surrounding the east side of Edmonds Marsh, and key topographic high points within Harbor Square and Edmonds that may divert floodwaters. These surveyed elevations were
included in the model terrain and elevation data where appropriate and used to validate the terrain elevations provided from the previous conceptual design study. The existing conditions model terrain
is shown on Figure 2.
3.2 Site Hydrology
Hydrology for the Edmonds Marsh drainage basin is highly complex and includes significant drainage
infrastructure improvements made by WSDOT and the City of Edmonds.
Currently, Edmonds Marsh receives freshwater inflow from Shellabarger Creek and Willow Creek. Willow creek enters southern end of the marsh near Pine Street and Shellabarger Creek and Shellabarger Marsh drain into Edmonds Marsh through twin culverts across SR-104. These are the contributions of freshwater flow to Edmonds Marsh, but there are other sources of freshwater that drain to the marsh during rainfall events. Stormwater from Harbor Square and Point Edwards both drain into the marsh, as well as excess stormwater from SR-104 which flows into the marsh through a
vertical overflow pipe when the stormwater drainage capacity of the SR-104 stormwater pipeline is exceeded during periods of high rainfall. Tidal water also floods into the marsh during high tide periods through the marsh drainage outfall. The marsh drains water through the Willow Creek channel north of the UNOCAL site through 2 sets of culverts: a 24-inch and 36-inch culvert group and then a set of twin 42-inch culverts that pass under the BNSF Railroad. The marsh then drains to Puget Sound
through a 48-inch 1,600-foot-long culvert.
The flow rates used in the hydraulic model developed for this evaluation were based on the hydrologic
analysis computed by SAIC for the 2013 Dayton Street and SR-104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study (SAIC, 2013) and are the same as were used in the previous modeling work. This analysis used a basin-wide Hydrologic Simulation Program Model (HSPF) to predict peak flow rates and representative hydrographs for the 2- through 100-year flood events for the various inflows to the marsh. Table 1 summarizes the peak flow rate for each hydrological source location.
Table 1: Summary of Model Hydrology
Source 2-year (50% AEP)
(cfs)
10-year (10% AEP)
(cfs)
100-year (1% AEP)
(cfs)
Willow Creek 20.8 32.7 48.5
Shellabarger Creek 31.9 47.7 72.8
Harbor Square Drainage 3.1 4.9 7.2
Point Edwards Stormwater Drainage 4.2 6.6 9.6
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 255
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 5
Source 2-year (50% AEP)
(cfs)
10-year (10% AEP)
(cfs)
100-year (1% AEP)
(cfs)
Direct Precipitation/Runoff 4.2 6.6 9.6
SR-104 Stormwater Overflow1 15.0 15.0 15.0
SR-104 Stormwater2 148.6 233.2 336.8
cfs – cubic feet per second
AEP – annual exceedance probability
Notes:
1. SR-104 stormwater overflow was based on the estimated maximum overflow rate during the 100-year flood event (SAIC 2013). Not provided specifically for the 2- and 10-year flood events.
2. SR-104 Stormwater refers to the flow rates within the stormwater pipeline that flows directly to Puget Sound and affects water levels in the marsh, with the exception of the pipe overflow (SAIC 2013).
With the continued urbanization of the watershed since the SAIC 2013 study, peak flows in the drainages have most likely increased, but a full reassessment of the site hydrology is beyond the scope of this modeling evaluation. No streamflow data was collected as part of this study. Section 4.3 describes how the predicted hydrology was applied to the hydraulic model.
3.3 Tides and Storm Surge
Presently, Edmonds Marsh drains through a 1,600-ft-long, 4-ft-diameter culvert during periods of low tide into Puget Sound. During high-tide periods, water backs up through this culvert and into the marsh. This limited connectivity to Puget Sound results in a muted tidal range within the marsh and also limits the ability for the marsh to drain during periods of high freshwater inflow. Understanding the combined influence of tides and freshwater inflows is critical to assessing the existing conditions
and restored open-channel (daylighted) alternatives for the marsh.
Tidal water levels used in this study were based on tidal data from the Seattle NOAA Station (No.
9447130) and tidal predictions from the Edmonds NOAA station (No. 9447427). Tidal data is not directly collected and reported for the Edmonds NOAA station; therefore, the measured tides at the Seattle station (1-minute measurement frequency) were converted to the equivalent tidal level at the Edmonds waterfront by scaling the magnitude and phasing of the tide based on the offsets provided for the Edmonds subordinate station. It was important to include measured tidal data as part of this evaluation because of the meteorological effects of regional low pressure that can frequently cause tides to greatly exceed the predicted high tide (i.e., storm surge).
One notable surge event occurred during the December 27, 2022, king tide event, which caused flooding of downtown Edmonds. During this event, regional low pressure caused spring tide (“king tide”) water levels to reach an estimated elevation of 12.3 ft NAVD88—approximately 2.1 ft greater than the predicted high tide. The tidal predictions during this period were also transformed to the Edmonds station location, and the 1-minute tidal predictions were used in the model to represent normal spring tide conditions that did not include the extreme high tide caused by the regional low
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 256
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 6
pressure. Figure 3 shows the computed tidal signal before, during, and after the December 27, 2022, high tide event. Tidal predictions for the high and low tides for the same time period from the NOAA
Edmonds station are also shown for comparison.
3.4 Sea Level Rise
Sea-level rise conditions were also considered in the modeling effort to evaluate how future relative SLR could affect water levels in the marsh post-project and potentially impact flooding to adjacent areas. A predicted SLR value of 3.2 ft was selected for this evaluation (Miller et al., 2018) in coordination
with the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates. This SLR value corresponds to predictions for year 2100 with the higher greenhouse gas scenario (RCP 8.5) and a relatively lower probability of occurrence (i.e., the 17th percentile). A SLR value of 3.2 feet was added to the 1-minute predicted and measured tidal signals discussed in the previous section to evaluate the potential effects
of SLR on resiliency of restored marsh connectivity with a daylighted channel.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 257
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 7
4 Model Development
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) (USACE, 2025), version 6.6, was used as the modeling framework in this evaluation. This is the same modeling system used to complete previous hydraulic modeling for the project (Shannon & Wilson, 2015, 2019). The following subsections summarize the model grid development, development of inputs to the model based on the data described in Section 3, and the model simulations completed to inform the hydraulic evaluation of two daylighting alternatives.
4.1 Model Grid
Figure 4 shows the upland extents of the model domain for this evaluation; the full extent of the model
domain offshore is not shown. The model domain is centered on Edmonds Marsh but also includes the surrounding low-lying areas including the Unocal Site, the Edmonds waterfront, and low-lying downtown areas including Harbor Square. The grid also includes the Shellabarger Marsh and surrounding areas to the east. The southern boundary of the model extends south to the intersection of Pine Street and SR-104, where Willow Creek enters the marsh through a culvert. This model domain was used for hydraulic simulations of both existing and proposed conditions.
The 2D model grid consists of different sized polygons that represent the elevations within the model terrain and model results (i.e., water surface elevations and current velocities). Resolution of the grid ranges from 40-ft-wide polygons in the offshore areas to 5-ft-wide polygons within the daylighted channels and other key hydraulic features. Manning’s n bed roughness values were used to define the appropriate bed roughness values within the grid. Changes to bed roughness was not evaluated as part of this hydraulic study and values were kept the same for simulations of existing and proposed conditions.
4.2 Boundary Conditions
Hydrodynamics in the Edmonds Marsh are complex and influenced by tides and multiple sources of freshwater flow. Tidal input, as well as significant sources of freshwater flow to the marsh, were included in the model. The following boundary condition locations, shown on Figure 4, were included in the model:
• Offshore Tidal Boundary (water surface elevation)
• Shellabarger Creek (freshwater inflow)
• Willow Creek (freshwater inflow)
• Point Edwards Stormwater (freshwater inflow)
• Direct Marsh Precipitation (rainfall)
• SR-104 Vertical Overflow Pipe (freshwater flow)
• Harbor Square (freshwater inflow)_
The flow hydrographs computed in the 2013 SAIC study were used for each freshwater inflow source. A base flow of less than 1 cfs for Shellabarger Creek and Willow Creek was used before and after the
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 258
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 8
flood hydrographs. For the Point Edwards stormwater and direct precipitation into the marsh, only 100-year (1% AEP) flow rates were previously established with hydrological evaluation. For the 2- and
10-year flow rates, the hydrographs for these two flow contributions were scaled down based on the Shellabarger Marsh peak flow rates. The Dayton Street pump station was not included in the hydraulic model due to the complexity of adding this feature to the model and because this system operates independently from the hydraulics in Edmonds Marsh. Previous modeling efforts (Shannon & Wilson, 2019) showed a stormwater runoff inflow boundary condition near the Dayton Steet pump station. This inflow was also excluded from this evaluation to isolate any flooding coming from Shellabarger Marsh, Edmonds Marsh, and coastal overtopping.
4.3 Hydraulic Simulations
A total of five different model hydraulic simulations were used to evaluate existing conditions and
proposed conditions and to compare benefits and resiliency of two daylighted channel alternatives.
• Simulation 1 was designed to recreate the flooding conditions in Edmonds Marsh as a result of the December 27, 2022, king tide event. This simulation was used to validate the model
based on photographs and observations of the flood event. Simulation 2 represents the 100-year flood conditions for the tributaries and stormwater inflow combined with typical spring tide range without surge.
• Simulation 3 is the combination of the 100-year flood and spring tides with surge.
• Simulation 4 is a future-case scenario that includes 3.2 feet of SLR in combination with spring
tide and surge.
• Simulation 5 is the same future-case scenario as Scenario 4 but also considers the large stormwater discharge from the WSDOT SR-104 stormwater pipe that could potentially be daylighted in the future (note that this action is not currently being considered but has previously been discussed and evaluated by others).
Table 2 summarizes the model hydraulic simulations, which are a combination of tidal conditions in Puget Sound and flow rate in the freshwater creeks and stormwater inflows. Each of these hydraulic simulations were applied to existing and proposed conditions in the model.
Table 1: Model Hydraulic Simulations
Simulation # Purpose Tidal Conditions Freshwater Inflow
1 December 27, 2022,
Flood Event
Measured king tide including
storm surge (December 2022) Equivalent 10-year Flood Event1
2 100-year Flood with
Spring Tide Predicted king tide 100-year flood tributary inputs
(SAIC 2013 hydrograph)
3 100-year Flood with
Extreme High Tides
Measured king tide including
storm surge (December 2022)
100-year flood tributary inputs
(SAIC 2013 hydrograph)
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 259
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 9
Simulation # Purpose Tidal Conditions Freshwater Inflow
4 100-year Flood with SLR
and Extreme High Tides
Measured king tide including
storm surge (December 2022)
100-year flood tributary inputs
(SAIC 2013 hydrograph) and
100-year flows from SR-104 stormwater pipe routed into marsh
5
100-year Flood with SR104 Stormwater, with SLR and Extreme High Tides
Measured king tide including storm surge (December 2022) plus SLR (3.2 ft)2
100-year flood tributary inputs (SAIC 2013 hydrograph)
Notes:
1. The computed 10-year flood event for Shellabarger Creek and Willow Creek (SAIC 2013) most accurately represented observed flooding over SR-104 and in the Harbor Square area during the Dember 27, 2022 flood event based on
model predictions compared to anecdotal evidence during this event.
2. SLR value of 3.2 feet corresponds to year 2100 RCP 8.5 17th percentile exceedance predicted value (Miller et. al., 2018)
4.4 Existing Conditions Model
An existing conditions model of Edmonds marsh, which was initially developed by Shannon and Wilson
(2015, 2019), was updated and improved for this evaluation. The model framework was updated to the latest version of the HEC-RAS modeling platform, and the model domain was expanded and improved in key areas based on site observations and survey (performed by Blue Coast in 2024). The improvements include increased model resolution along the Edmonds waterfront to better predict coastal overtopping, increased model resolution along the boundaries of Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh, and expansion of the coastal boundary condition further offshore to improve tidal forcing of the model. Previously compiled survey of key hydraulic structures (e.g., culvert dimensions, invert elevations, etc.) was reviewed and supplemented with additional survey data when appropriate. The channel downstream of the SR-104 twin culverts connecting Shellabarger Marsh to Edmonds marsh was moved to the location observed during the 2024 site visit and survey (Blue Coast).
The hydraulic scenarios listed in Table 2 were simulated with the existing conditions model for two purposes:
1. To perform a qualitative validation of the model based on observed flooding during the December 17, 2022, flood event.
2. To serve as a baseline of comparison to the changes in marsh hydrodynamics and resulting from the two alternative scenarios described in Section 4.5.
Simulation 1 was completed with the improved existing conditions model to verify that the model could accurately reproduce the flood conditions observed during the December 27th, 2022, King Tide event that occurred simultaneously with high flows in Willow and Shellabarger Creeks . During this event, severe flooding occurred in downtown Edmonds and the Edmonds Square area. Based on documentation from the day of the flooding and hindcast flooding observations from the existing conditions model, the flooding was due to:
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 260
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 10
• High flows (approximately the 10-year flood) within Shellabarger Marsh which resulted in
overtopping of SR-104 and flooding of Dayton Street.
• Overtopping out of Edmonds Marsh into the BNSF railroad right-of-way, caused by storm surge (tidal flow) and high flows into the marsh.
• Coastal overtopping of the Edmonds waterfront
• Direct runoff of stormwater onto Dayton Street and Harbor Square.
The model results for existing conditions of the December 2022 flooding were generally consistent with observations and photographs of the flooding that occurred during this event. While no formal calibration process was performed for the existing conditions model because data from the December 2022 event were not available, the patterns of flooding were generally representative of flooding observed during that event. Therefore, the existing conditions model was considered acceptable for use in the comparative analysis to understand the effects of the two restoration and resiliency alternatives.
The existing conditions model was developed as a tool to understand changes in hydraulics in the marsh and adjacent areas after restoring tidal connection to Puget Sound and is not a comprehensive model of surface water and stormwater systems for the area. The model excluded certain stormwater sources or conveyance features due to data gaps associated with these features and/or to isolate the changes to flooding and resiliency from the two alternatives to restore the marsh. The following stormwater sources and conveyance structures were not incorporated into the existing conditions model:
• Direct rainfall over the marsh and downtown Edmonds
• The Dayton Street pumping station
• City of Edmonds stormwater pipe network
• Direct runoff of stormwater onto Dayton Street and Harbor Square.
These features should be evaluated in conjunction with the hydraulic model as part of the design phase of the project.
4.5 Alternatives
Previous studies have focused on the general feasibility of daylighting Willow Creek to Puget Sound and exploring the habitat restoration and fish passage benefits resulting from the restored tidal
connection to Edmonds Marsh (Anchor QEA, 2015; Shannon & Wilson, 2015 and 2019). This evaluation focuses on the predicted changes to flood resiliency of the marsh for two different alternatives with varying levels of excavation into the Unocal Site 2. Excavation of the Unocal Site would allow for the daylighted Willow Creek channel to meander and expand the footprint of the marsh while potentially
2 The implications of expanding the Edmonds Marsh restoration project into the former UNOCAL site are discussed in a separate
report developed as part of this project by Anchor QEA (2025, draft).
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 261
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 11
improving the flood storage capacity during high freshwater input events. The two alternatives that
were evaluated are defined as follows and discussed further in Section 4.5.1:
• Alternative 1 – limited excavation into the northwest boundary of the Unocal Site to provide channel sinuosity and width for the Willow Creek channel daylighting.
• Alternative 2 – expanded excavation of the Unocal Site including the existing stormwater basin and northeast corner of the property.
Both alternatives include multiple restoration and resiliency features and the results from each alternative were compared to the predicted results from the existing conditions model and to each other. Table 3 summarizes the key features of each alternative.
Table 3: Alternatives Features
Design Feature Feature Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Daylighted Willow Creek channel Restoration
Coastal berm
(Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh) Resiliency
Improved drainage in Shellabarger Marsh Resiliency
Limited excavation into Unocal Site for the
daylighted channel Restoration
Expanded Excavation into Unocal Site Restoration/Resiliency
Increased Edmonds Marsh area and tidal
channels Restoration
Edmonds waterfront seawall1 Resiliency (SLR)
Notes: 1. A seawall feature was placed along the Edmonds waterfront for SLR model simulations to limit coastal
inundation due to overtopping of waterfront areas into the model domain. See Section 4.5.5 for details.
The stormwater inflow contributions to flooding that were not included in the existing conditions model (Section 4.4) were also not included in the alternatives model, to isolate the changes to flooding from the alternatives. The following sections describe each of the features included in the alternatives
modeling.
4.5.1 Restoration Features
The daylighted Willow Creek channel was revised for this study based on key engineering constraints
that will likely affect the future design and may not have been considered in previous modeling efforts. The first constraint is the WSDOT SR-104 stormwater pipe that crosses under the Willow Creek channel alignment near the SR-104 vertical overflow pipe. From conversations with the City and EMEA, this stormwater pipe is unlikely to be moved or replaced in the near future and limits the depth of excavation of the channel over the stormwater pipe. The second constraint is the alignment and width
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 262
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 12
of the existing ) BNSF railroad bridge which was constructed to accommodate a future daylighted
Willow Creek channel.
A description of the proposed channel geometry, from the marsh out to Puget Sound is as follows:
• The channel begins at an elevation of 6.0 ft NAVD88 at the northwest corner of Edmonds Marsh with a gentle downward slope of 0.01% until it reaches the location of SR-104 Manhole 28+13 (SR-104 SW pipe crossing) (Washington State Highway Commission, 1971).
• The typical daylight channel section has a 19-foot bottom width, with 2H:1V side slopes to a maximum channel top width of 50 feet. These are based on the dimensions of the daylighted channel that was previously evaluated for benefit to fish habitat (Shannon & Wilson, 2019).
• The channel maintains a minimum 2-ft vertical offset above the SR-104 stormwater pipe, which crosses the Unocal Site and channel to reduce the risk of scour and/or eventual failure
of the pipe.
• Through the BNSF railroad bridge, the width of the daylighted channel was constrained to the width between bridge abutments, which are approximately 35 ft apart (excluding any scour-protection measures). Previous evaluations showed a channel through the railroad bridge with a top width that was slightly wider than the abutments. This railroad bridge opening was modeled as an open channel for the purposes of this study.
• Adjusted the alignment of the daylighted channel downstream of the railroad bridge to extend north into the existing Marina Beach Park west parking lot. The sinuosity of the inlet channel on the beach was retained from previous evaluations.
• Downstream of the railroad bridge, the channel steepens to a constant slope of 0.14% to its outlet into the Puget Sound at an elevation of 4.1 ft NAVD88 (MSL). The goal of Alternative 1 was to minimally impact the Unocal Site, and thus the daylighted channel is the only modification made to the Unocal Site.
This restored channel was included in both Alternative 1 and 2.
4.5.2 Resiliency Features
With the daylighted tidal channel in place, the marsh will become exposed to the full tidal range in Puget Sound. Based on predictions in the model, water levels will frequently become higher than current conditions that cause flooding into downtown Edmonds. Therefore, a coastal resiliency berm would be required around the north and eastern boundary of Edmonds Marsh, as well as along the western side of Shellabarger Marsh to address the increases in water surface elevation expected. (See Section 5.2 for model results). A coastal berm with an elevation of 16.0 ft NAVD88 was added to the
alternatives to prevent flooding out of Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh. This elevation was selected for this planning study because it would prevent flooding even under year 2100 future SLR conditions
(3.2 ft increase in tidal water levels).
Minor grading improvements were made to the model in Shellabarger Marsh to allow for Shellabarger Creek to more effectively reach the twin culverts crossing SR-104; no changes were made to the
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 263
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 13
culverts themselves. These alternatives were developed in close collaboration with EMEA and iteratively
improved through model simulations and client feedback.
4.5.3 Excavation Within the Former UNOCAL Site
4.5.3.1 Alternative 1 - Limited Unocal Site Excavation
Alternative 1, shown on Figure 5, includes only minor excavation into the Unocal Site uplands due to
the sinuosity and width of the reconnected tidal channel.
4.5.3.2 Alternative 2 - Expanded Unocal Site Excavation
Alternative 2, shown on Figure 6, greatly expands the excavation into the Unocal Site to increase the size of the restored marsh. This expanded excavation removes the Unocal stormwater containment
berm in the main marsh down to the surrounding marsh grade (approximately 6.0 ft NAVD88). The northeast corner of the Unocal uplands was also cut down to an elevation of 7.8 ft NAVD88 to create a large area of higher marsh. The daylighted channel alignment is identical to that of Alternative 1 from its outlet until just upstream of State 42 Manhole/SR104 stormwater pipe, at which point it branches out into three distributary tidal channels. Excavation over the SR-104 RCP that connects to State 42 Manhole was intentionally avoided to reduce potential impact to the existing drainage system. These tributaries pass through the UNOCAL Site and connect to three different locations in the marsh to spread flood tide flow evenly and reduce flow velocities entering the marsh.
4.5.4 Sea Level Rise Features
A seawall feature placed along the City and Port of Edmonds waterfront in the model was needed to prevent coastal overtopping under future SLR conditions. For simulations 4 and 5 that include 3.2 ft of
SLR, a seawall feature was added for the City of Edmonds waterfront to prevent coastal overtopping up to 16 ft NAVD88. This hypothetical seawall would be up to 2.7 ft tall above surrounding grade. The seawall feature added to the model extends from Edmonds Ferry Dock in the north down to Marina Beach Park, ultimately connecting with the BNSF Railroad right of way to fully isolate the City of Edmonds from coastal flooding. While currently there are no plans for a resiliency structure of this size and scope, this seawall was used in the modeling evaluation to isolate the effectiveness of the marsh resiliency features. A similar seawall feature was used in previous modeling work (Shannon and Wilson, 2019),
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 264
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 14
5 Results
Hydraulic modeling was carried out to evaluate the existing conditions model and the performance of two alternative designs for a restored Edmonds Marsh. These three models were evaluated using the combinations of extreme tides, freshwater inflow, and SLR that comprise the 5 model simulations (Section 4.3) to assess how the flood dynamics change when the marsh is reconnected to tidal inundation. Of particular interest to restoration and resiliency concerns are the total extents of flooding, water levels in the Edmonds and Shellabarger marshes, and velocities through the hydraulically constrained BNSF railroad bridge. The following subsections highlight key model result differences between the alternative designs and existing conditions models, and between the alternative models themselves.
5.1 Flood Resiliency
Existing conditions model results indicate that there are two specific areas that are most susceptible to overtopping, leading to inland flooding: the northeast section of Edmonds Marsh and the northernmost point of Shellabarger Marsh. Figure 7 shows the predicted extents of flooding for the existing conditions model during a typical king tide with a peak high tide of 10.1 feet NAVD88 and 100-year freshwater flows (Simulation 2).
There is a low point with an elevation of 9.4 ft in the northeast corner of the land surrounding Edmonds Marsh. At this location, the marsh flows into the BNSF railroad right of way and enters Harbor Square. The northwest end of Shellabarger Marsh is also overtopped during the 10- and 100-year floods under existing conditions, largely as a result of reduced flow capacity through the marsh to the twin culverts that run under SR-104 and deliver flow into the main marsh. The culverts themselves were not constricting flows during this event. Flooding from the Shellabarger Marsh spilled onto SR-104 and
traveled north into Harbor Square and into the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street.
Coastal overtopping emanating near the Washington State Ferrys dock and flooding was predicted in model results for Scenarios 1 and 3, which considered spring tide with atmospheric surge (e.g., the December 27, 2022, flood event), but the predicted flooding was contained by the BNSF railroad that traverses downtown Edmonds. The coastal overtopping did not impact the assessment of the flood resiliency features for Alternatives 1 and 2 which focus on flood reduction for the reconnected
Edmonds and Shellabarger marshes.
Daylighting of Willow Creek for both alternatives converts Edmonds Marsh from a freshwater and
tidally influenced system to a tidally dominated system. Once the creek is daylighted, high water levels in the marsh nearly reach high tide levels in Puget Sound and, relative to the tide waters entering the marsh, freshwater flows have minimal effects on water levels in the marsh. Figure 8 shows the maximum extent of flooding predicted for Alternative 1 during a typical king tide with a peak high tide of 10.1 feet NAVD88 and 100-year freshwater flows (Simulation 2). Potential flooding from the marshes is predicted to be contained within the Shellabarger and Edmonds marshes by the coastal resiliency
berms.
As described in Section 4.4, the sources of potential upland stormwater flooding from Harbor Square and downtown Edmonds are not included in the model simulations. With higher daily tidal levels in
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 265
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 15
Edmonds Marsh, the ability for areas upland of the marsh to drain may be reduced or limited to periods of lower tides, thus prolonging the potential for flooding in these areas from upland runoff. This should
be evaluated with a comprehensive hydrological and stormwater model in conjunction with the hydraulic model during the design phase of the project.
5.2 Water Surface Elevations in Edmonds Marsh
The daylighting of Willow Creek and restoring full tidal connectivity to Edmonds Marsh results in higher water levels in the marsh during high tides. Figure 9 presents a timeseries of the predicted water
surface elevations in central Edmonds Marsh and total freshwater inflow during the simulation of a typical king tide (peak flood tide elevation of 10.1 feet) and 100-year peak freshwater flows for the existing conditions and alternative models (Simulation 2). The figure also shows the tidal water surface elevation in Puget Sound for comparison. While the existing conditions model predicts that high tides in the marsh are muted compared to tides in Puget Sound (due to backflow through the highly restrictive outfall pipe), the maximum water levels in the marsh for the Alternative scenarios are generally within 0.4 feet of maximum flood tides. Also observed from the model predictions is a slight temporal offset (approximately a 1-hour delay) from the peak of high tide in Puget Sound compared to the peak of high tide in central Edmonds Marsh. This suggests that the modeled restored tidal channel is causing a slight attenuation of tides within the marsh, likely due to the restricted channel width at the BNSF Railroad bridge crossing. This observation should be further investigated during design, as it suggests the railroad bridge may be undersized relative to the size of the reconnected tidal marsh.
The model predicts that freshwater flow—even the 100-year flood event—has minimal impact on water levels in the marsh for the Alternatives with the restored tidal connection. Figure 9 highlights this finding during the peak of the 100-year flood, as water levels were predicted to increase by a surcharge of 1.2 feet in Edmonds Marsh during the peak of the 100-year flood for existing conditions but for both Alternatives 1 and 2, water levels only increased by an estimated 0.3 ft. Restoring the open channel connection to Puget Sound allows the marsh to drain surplus freshwater from flood events more efficiently at all times of the tidal cycle and is thus less affected by the limited storage capacity within the marsh that occurs when flows are constrained to the existing 4-ft-diameter outfall pipe. It is also noteworthy that the predicted water surface elevations for Alternatives 1 and 2 in the central marsh at the peak of the 100-year flood and peak high tide were within 0.1 feet of each other, even though Alternative 2 includes a much larger marsh and has a much larger volume for tidal and flood waters due to the significant excavation of the Unocal Site.
Another key finding from the timeseries comparison of water levels is that both Alternative scenarios predict that after the peak of the 100-year flood event, the marsh will drain much faster than for existing conditions. It takes nearly 24 hours for the marsh to fully drain excess freshwater through the outfall pipe under existing conditions, and for the Alternative scenarios, the water level in the marsh drops at a rate similar to normal tidal conditions, which suggests that the tidal channel is able to convey
the surplus freshwater out to Puget Sound within one ebb-tide period.
These observed changes to the marsh water levels will have a significant impact on the upland areas surrounding Edmonds Marsh. While the alternatives do provide a benefit to flooding resiliency by better absorbing and conveying high freshwater flows out of the marsh, higher water levels that will
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 266
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 16
occur daily due to increased tidal inundation in the marsh have the potential to affect the performance of surrounding stormwater systems. For example, the gravity flow from Harbor Square
into the marsh could be affected such that during rainfall events, there is less time for stormwater to enter the marsh or the flow rates into the marsh could be reduced. While not part of this evaluation, the drainage infrastructure and hydrology for Harbor Square and other areas (such as drainage from the railroad right of way) will need to be evaluated jointly with the hydraulic model during design.
5.3 Water Surface Elevations in Shellabarger Marsh
As discussed in Section 5.1, the existing conditions model predicted water levels in Shellabarger Marsh higher than the SR-104 roadway, resulting in flooding of SR-104, Dayton Street area, and Harbor Square. This was predicted to occur during periods of high creek flow rates similar to that of the 10-year flood event evaluated with Simulation 1. The model results show that the conveyance improvements in Shellabarger Marsh that improve conveyance between Shellabarger Creek,
Shellabarger Marsh, and the SR-104 twin culverts increase the ability of the entire system to drain into Edmonds Marsh.
Despite these conveyance improvements in the model, model results show that the Shellabarger Marsh berm is necessary to contain freshwater inflow during the 100-year flood event, which would otherwise flood SR-104 for existing conditions. Containing the flood flow thereby results in both higher predicted peak water levels in the Shellabarger Marsh compared to existing conditions and elimination of the overtopping onto SR-104.
The resiliency berm along the west side of Shellabarger Marsh functions differently than the berm around Edmonds Marsh. Based on the model results, the Shellabarger Marsh berm is expected to primarily contain freshwater inputs from the creek. Significantly improving the conveyance from Shellabarger Marsh to Edmonds Marsh through additional culverts or a bridge could help to reduce the flood stage in Shellabarger Marsh without the full reliance on the perimeter berm. Under SLR conditions (see Section 5.4), the low-lying areas around Shellabarger Marsh become increasingly reliant on a perimeter berm to contain flood waters.
For Alternatives 1 and 2, when Edmonds Marsh becomes tidally dominated, the predicted water level in Shellabarger Marsh shows some tidal influence (i.e., backwatering through the SR-104 twin culverts during the peak of the higher high tides). The influence of tides in the Shellabarger Marsh is strongest in model simulations with SLR incorporated, as shown on Figure 11.
5.4 Effects of Sea Level Rise
Simulation 4 (described in Section 4.3) combines the 100-year freshwater inflow coinciding with spring tides plus meteorological storm surge, plus 3.2 feet of sea level rise representing a 2100 SLR prediction
(Section 3.4). This represents an extreme future-case scenario which could potentially occur at the marsh, and it was used to evaluate the future effectiveness of Alternative 1 and 2in increasing the flood resilience of the marsh due to SLR. . For the existing conditions model, Simulation 4 results show that nearly the entire model grid domain covering the Edmonds waterfront and downtown areas become inundated by coastal overtopping and flooding during the considered SLR scenario. The maximum tidal water level in Simulation 4 is 15.5 feet NAVD88, which exceeds the elevations of most of the
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 267
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 17
Edmonds waterfront. The model predicts that Edmonds Marsh would become fully inundated from coastal floodwater and take multiple days to drain out of the existing drainage network and outfall
pipe. Drainage flow rates out of Edmonds Marsh under SLR conditions are attenuated due to a reduced average mean head difference between the marsh and Puget Sound tides. This also results in
prolonged flooding to the low-lying areas of downtown such as Harbor Square.
For Alternatives 1 and 2, it was assumed that the Port of Edmonds and/or City of Edmonds would be required to construct a seawall in the future that is protective of the maximum simulated tide for the SLR scenario considered (15.5 ft NAVD88) to prevent coastal overtopping (see Section 4.5.5). The Simulation 4 model results for both alternatives show that the Edmonds marsh flood resiliency berm (see Section 4.5.2) contains the highest tidal water levels with SLR plus the additional freshwater inflow from the 100-year flood event. Figure 10 shows the predicted maximum water depth during the peak
of the 100-year flood and SLR tidal conditions for Alternative 1 (Scenario 4).
While the floodwaters were contained within Edmonds Marsh by the coastal resiliency berm, SLR creates significant challenges in two key areas: the restored tidal channel and railroad bridge, and Shellabarger Marsh. Figure 12 presents a timeseries of predicted water levels in Edmonds Marsh (Alternative 1), which shows the maximum predicted water level of 15.5 feet NAVD88. This tide is predicted to exceed the top of the BNSF Railroad bridge girder deck (15.17), which may be a structural or operational concern for BNSF. . Inundation of the lowest structural member of the bridge during SLR scenarios will further constrict flows through the BNSF bridge, increasing flow velocities through the bridge opening and potentially increasing scour of the channel under and in the vicinity of the BNSF bridge.
The timeseries plots of predicted water levels and creek flow in Shellabarger Marsh (Figure 11) show that the influence of SLR in Edmonds Marsh after reconnection to Puget Sound results in Shellabarger Marsh becoming heavily tidally influenced. The predicted water surface elevations in Shellabarger Marsh increase at each peak of higher and lower high-tide periods. During the peak of the 100-year freshwater inflow from Shellabarger Creek, the maximum predicted water level in Shellabarger Marsh reaches elevation 15.2. This peak water level is slightly lower than the peak of the high tide in Edmonds Marsh, which suggests that Shellabarger Marsh becomes fully backwatered by Edmonds Marsh and the twin SR-104 culverts attenuate the maximum height of the spring tides in Shellabarger Marsh under SLR conditions. Despite this attenuation, the increased water levels in Shellabarger Marsh compared to present day tides results in flooding to adjacent properties to the east while the coastal berm on the west side of Shellabarger Marsh remains protective of flooding into the SR-104 roadway for SLR conditions (Scenario 4) for both alternatives. To prevent flooding to the adjacent properties under SLR conditions, the coastal resilience berm extents would need to wrap around and fully contain
the marsh, excluding the location where Shellabarger Creek enters the marsh.
5.5 SR-104 Stormwater (Simulation 5)
The rerouting of the stormwater flows within the SR-104 stormwater pipeline is not currently being considered as part of this restoration and resiliency project. However, at request of the EMEA, the
model developed for this study was used to evaluate the resilience of the two alternatives if this stormwater inflow was introduced into Edmonds Marsh as part of a future project.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 268
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 18
Simulation 5 adds the stormwater inflow from the SR-104 stormwater pipeline directly into the upper Edmonds Marsh area to evaluate how the existing conditions and proposed alternatives can handle
this excess freshwater. This scenario also considers a period of spring tides with meteorological storm surge, plus SLR of 3.2 ft. SLR conditions were considered appropriate since no change to the SR-104
pipeline is expected any time in the near future (based on discussions with EMEA).
For existing conditions, the stormwater contributions from the SR-104 stormwater pipeline would further exacerbate flooding from Edmonds Marsh into Harbor Square and to a lesser extent would increase the backwater condition in Shellabarger Marsh and increase flooding emanating from Shellabarger Marsh. This is expected as the culvert system is unable to sufficiently drain the 100-year flood inflows during periods of high tide, even without consideration of the SR-104 stormwater inflow.
For Alternative 1, prior to the peak of the SR-104 stormwater entering Edmonds Marsh, the flood tides water surface elevations in the marsh and Puget Sound are essentially equal, as the marsh fills with tidal inflow. When the 100-year peak freshwater inflow (including 336.8 cfs of SR-104 SW flow) enters Edmonds Marsh, the predicted water surface elevation in the marsh only slightly increases and the water in the marsh begins to flow back out of the tidal channel even as tides are still rising in Puget Sound.
Figure 12 shows a comparison of the predicted water surface elevations in central Edmonds Marsh for Simulation 4 and Simulation 5 with Alternative 1. The Willow Creek hydrographs are also shown, which include the additional SR-104 stormwater flow. The only difference between these scenarios is the contribution from the SR-104 stormwater. The results show that the SR-104 stormwater inflow results in a minor increase in the predicted maximum water level in the marsh (0.08 ft increase. These results show that when Edmonds Marsh is reconnected to Puget Sound, the marsh is capable of receiving and draining significantly higher inflows of freshwater than present day conditions. With further urbanization of the Edmonds Marsh watershed into the future and as a result of climate change, future peak flood flows may be significantly higher than what is predicted for present day. The restored and reconnected Edmonds Marsh would be more resilient to increases in freshwater flow than in its current state.
5.6 Impacts to the Unocal Site
Simulating the same model scenarios on Alternatives 1 and 2 served to evaluate the potential additional flood relief provided by an extensive excavation into the Unocal Site, compared to minimal excavation. As described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the increased freshwater storage provided by additional excavation into the Unocal Site resulted in minimal benefit to flood protection, given the site would be tidally dominated. Therefore, effectively the same level of resilience to flood events
provided by Alternative 2 can be achieved with Alternative 1, which requires significantly less removal of contaminated soils. The Contamination Impacts Analysis developed as part of this study (Anchor QEA, 2025) investigates the implications of the excavation of the UNOCAL site included in Alternatives
1 and 2.
In addition to the excavation into the Unocal Site for each Alternative, the hydraulic model predicts that the remaining upland areas and stormwater basin will experience coastal flooding under SLR conditions (Scenario 4). Predicted water levels are high enough in Edmonds Marsh to overtop the crest
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 269
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 19
of the Unocal stormwater-basin berm (approximate elevation 12 ft NAVD) and flood into the uplands of the Unocal Site. For Alternative 2, only a small area of the uplands is predicted to become inundated
during peak high tides in Edmonds Marsh under SLR because most of the site will become part of Edmonds Marsh. The predicted flooding of the uplands under SLR conditions may have implications
to future use planning for the site.
5.7 Inlet Geomorphology and Hydrodynamics
A desktop coastal geomorphology review of the reconnected tidal channel was completed to identify
key consideration for sizing and alignment of the inlet channel at Marina Beach Park. The intent of this geomorphology review of the site was to understand the type of estuarine system the restored marsh
could become and how the restored connection to Puget Sound could change over time.
The shoreline in the vicinity of the proposed channel inlet is heavily modified by sediment in-fill associated with the railroad and Edmonds Marina. The shoreline is mapped as an accretion shoreform, meaning that it is a depositional environment; however, the modifications, including armoring of the railroad embankment and the Marina breakwater have severely limited sediment supply to the shoreline. This shoreline reach is characterized by a wedge-shaped beach that has accumulated adjacent to the Marina Beach Park parking lot.
The Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Puget Sound Channel Guidelines for Barrier Embayment Restoration (Cote et al, 2023) for sizing the cross-section area of the primary tidal channel
inlet does not appear to be applicable to this site because of multiple constraints:
• The primary channel constraint is the need for the inlet to cross under the railroad at the existing BNSF Railroad bridge, which does not provide sufficient width for channel meandering.
• The public use of the Marina Beach Park (including the off-leash dog area) limits the space available to allow a fully meandering unconstrained tidal channel and may require some engineered elements (hard armor) to keep the channel in place, particularly at the railroad crossing abutments.
• The channel alignment and elevation are further constrained upland of the bridge by the available land between the steep hillside below Point Edmonds and the BNSF Railroad ROW, as well as the anticipated requirement to maintain a minimum fill cover over the SR-104 stormwater pipeline.
Given these constraints, it is expected that the inlet channel and marsh system will behave more similarly to a tidally influenced creek than a tidal embayment. The design of the channel hydraulics should be more heavily influenced by fish passage criteria rather than geomorphic criteria.
In a geomorphic-controlled system, the channel opening would typically be aligned to the north at this site in the direction of the dominant littoral drift. In an unmodified system with a supply of sediment updrift of the mouth, a barrier beach would be expected to form at the mouth of the channel inlet. Given the lack of sediment supply and space constraints at this location, a barrier spit is unlikely to be maintained naturally by beach sediment and a more direct alignment of the channel perpendicular to the shoreline is expected to be suitable.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 270
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 20
A few concerns related to the channel configuration that should be considered in later design stages include the potentially steep side slopes for cutting the channel at this location through the existing
parking area and beach. The side slopes of the inlet channel should be balanced with the total cut and with consideration of public safety. Additionally, the geomorphology review of the site noted an armored headland feature at the southern extent of the shoreline, which appears to be causing end effect erosion on the Marina Beach Park shoreline and could affect the performance of the inlet channel.
As discussed in the previous sections, there is a constriction through the BNSF Railroad bridge. This constriction leads to minor reduction in the high tide stage within Edmonds Marsh and a small temporal delay between high tide in Puget Sound and in the marsh. The constriction is also evident in the increase in velocity through the bridge compared to the velocities upstream and downstream of the bridge during both flood and ebb tide periods. During design of the daylighted channel, the channel cross-sectional shape, bridge abutment scour, and thalweg elevation will need to be designed to minimize the velocity change through the bridge to the extent possible to satisfy WDFW fish passage criteria (velocity ratio). Figure 13 shows a side-by-side comparison of the predicted maximum depth-averaged flood tide velocity and flow direction through the railroad bridge opening for both Alternatives 1 and 2 during Scenario 3, which is the simulation that combines spring tides plus meteorological storm surge with the 100-year flood event. Table 4 below summarizes the peak velocities in the channel compared to velocities through the bridge opening for both alternatives.
Table 4: Predicted Velocities at the Railroad Bridge Constriction
Tidal Phase and Location Alternative 1
(ft/s)
Alternative 2
(ft/s)
Maximum Flood Tide Velocity Downstream of Bridge 2.3 3.0
Maximum Flood Tide Velocity within Bridge 2.7 3.5
Maximum Flood Tide Velocity Upstream of Bridge 2.6 3.6
Maximum Ebb Tide Velocity Downstream of Bridge 2.8 3.0
Maximum Ebb Tide Velocity Within Bridge 3.1 3.4
Maximum Ebb Tide Velocity Upstream of Bridge 2.8 3.1
Note:
1. Depth-Averaged velocity results are presented for Simulation 3 described in Section 4.3
The maximum velocity in the channel and through the railroad bridge increases substantially for Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1. This is due to a predicted 88% increase in the marsh volume (i.e., tidal prism) for Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 due to the large excavation into the Unocal
Site, which increases the total marsh area by 14 acres. The large tidal prism for Alternative 2 is forced through the same channel cross section under the bridge, resulting in maximum predicted depth-average velocity through the bridge that is approximately 10% and 30% higher than Alternative 1 for
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 271
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 21
ebb and flood tides, respectively. This finding suggests that increasing the marsh area may provide more marsh habitat but could also make fish passage more difficult by increasing the velocities in the
channel.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 272
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 22
6 Conclusions
A hydraulic model of the existing Edmonds Marsh was developed based on previous modeling efforts, taking advantage of increased capabilities in the HEC-RAS model and additional survey data. B The recent king tide event of December 2022 was modeled and results were compared against anecdotal evidence, photographs, and observations in order to ground truth model performance against recent flood events. Having reproduced flooding patterns in and around the marsh, two alternatives were developed that opened up the marsh to tidal exchange via a daylighted Willow Creek that travels under the existing BNSF Railroad bridge and connects the marsh to Puget Sound. Alternative 1 aimed to connect the marsh with limited encroachment upon the Unocal Site, while the Alternative 2 incorporated a significant excavation into the Unocal Site and provided additional freshwater storage. The following conclusions from the modeling evaluation summarize the changes resulting from the marsh restoration and resiliency features evaluated:
1. Restoring tidal connection between Puget Sound and Edmonds Marsh through the daylighted Willow Creek channel results in higher high tide water levels in the marsh, and higher average
water levels in the marsh
2. Restoring tidal connection allows Edmonds Marsh to drain faster than existing conditions after
the peak of the 100-year flood event.
3. The additional freshwater volume resulting from the expanded excavation of the Unocal Site for Alternative 2 has minimal impact to flood stage in the marsh when full tidal connection is restored.
4. The proposed coastal resiliency berm around Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh was sufficient for containing water in the marsh during extreme high tides combined with the 100-year flood. The berm surrounding Shellabarger Marsh prevents freshwater flooding of SR-104 due to inflow from Shellabarger Creek.
5. The conveyance improvements between Shellabarger Marsh and the twin culverts that pass under SR-104 reduce water levels in Shellabarger Marsh, but the resilience berm would still be required to contain flooding during the 100-year flood event (and potentially more frequent flood events not considered in this analysis).
6. Increased tidal water levels in Edmonds Marsh for the SLR scenario results in Shellabarger Marsh becoming highly tidally influenced during SLR scenario model runs and the proposed resilience berm between SR-104 and Shellabarger Marsh would need to fully enclose the Shellabarger Marsh in order to reduce flooding of adjacent properties.
7. Under current tidal conditions, the BNSF Railroad bridge is undersized and causes a minor attenuation of the tidal signal into Edmonds Marsh. With SLR, tidal water levels during extreme tidal events (spring tide plus surge) could inundate the bridge girder, further constricting flows
and potentially affecting operations of the bridge and increasing scour within the channel.
8. When tidal connectivity is restored, Edmonds Marsh becomes resilient to high freshwater inflows because the marsh becomes tidally dominated. Even with added inflow from the SR-
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 273
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 23
104 stormwater pipe, water levels in the marsh showed no significant increase during the peak of the 100-year flood. This suggests the restored marsh will be resilient to increases in rainfall
intensity from climate change and runoff volume from urbanization of the watershed.
9. The constriction through the pre-constructed railroad bridge results in slightly muted tides
within Edmonds Marsh and increased maximum velocities (compared to the upstream and downstream approach). Under SLR conditions, the bridge may further restrict flows because
the water levels during extreme tides will be higher than the bridge girder elevation.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 274
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 24
7 Closure
This document has been prepared by Blue Coast Engineering LLC. in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and is intended for specific application to the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from Blue Coast Engineering LLC. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Blue Coast Engineering LLC. and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any parties other than the City of Edmonds, WA. The information in this document can be used for planning purposes but does not provide or infer design recommendations for the project.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 275
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
DRAFT
Hydraulic Analysis Report - Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study May 2025 25
8 References
AECOM, 2010, Final Design for Sound Transit Commuter Rail Seattle to Everett, Washington Grading
and Structures, April 2, 2010.
Anchor QEA, LLC, 2015, Beach Outlet and Hydrodynamic Evaluation Report, Willow Creek Daylight Final Feasibility Study, prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC, Seattle, Wash., Project Number 140017-01.01, for Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., January.
Anchor QEA, LLC, 2025, Draft Contamination Impacts Analysis Report, prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC, Seattle, Wash., for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash., April.
Côté, J. M., Sanderson, T., and E. Beamer, E., 2023, Puget Sound Channel Design Guidelines for Barrier Embayment Restoration, Report for Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program.
Miller, I.M., Morgan, H., Mauger, G., Newton, T., Weldon, R., Schmidt, D., Welch, M., Grossman, E., 2018, Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State – A 2018 Assessment, A collaboration of Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, University of Oregon, University of Washington, and US Geological Survey, Prepared for the Washington Coastal Resilience Project, updated July 2019.
SAIC, 2013, Dayton Street and SR-104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study: Report prepared by SAIC, Seattle, Wash., Project Number: 001712 | 26512110002, for the City of Edmonds Stormwater Division, Edmonds, Wash., August.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2015, Draft Willow Creek Daylighting Final Feasibility Study: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson Inc., Seattle, Wash, Project Number 21-1-12393, for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash, December.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2019, Expanded Marsh Concept Design and Hydraulic Modeling Report: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson Inc., Seattle, Wash, Project Number 21-1 12588-050, for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash, June 20.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2025. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System, Hydraulic Reference Manual.
Version 6.7_Beta3.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2020, Coastal National Elevation Database Applications (CoNED) North Puget Sound [DEM]. [accessed September. 6, 2024, at https://topotools.cr.usgs.gov/topobathy_viewer/].
Washington Geological Survey, 2017, North Puget Sound 2017 project [lidar data]: originally contracted by Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. [accessed Oct. 10, 2024, at http://lidarportal.dnr.wa.gov]
Washington State Highway Commission, 1971, Dayton Street to 5th Avenue As-Builts, Olympia,
Washington, July 22, 1971.
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 276
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
FIGURES
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 277
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Figure 1. Site Map
Hydraulic Analysis Report Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 278
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 2. Existing Conditions Model Terrain
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
Note: Elevations are in ft NAVD88 vertical datum.
Edmonds Marsh
Shellenbarger
Marsh
Shellenbarger
Creek
Willow Creek BNSF Railroad
Bridge
Marina Park
Harbor Square
Former
UNOCAL Site
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 279
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 3: Timeseries of Tidal Data and Predictions
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
December 2022 “King ” tide coastal flooding – Estimated 12.26 ft NAVD88
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 280
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 4: Model Domain and Boundary Condition Locations
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 281
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 5: Alternative 1 Hydraulic Model Terrain
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 282
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 6: Alternative 2 Hydraulic Model Terrain
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 283
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 7: Existing Conditions Predicted Flooding - Simulation 2
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 284
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 8: Alternative 1 Predicted Flooding - Simulation 2
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 285
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 9: Edmonds Marsh Predicted Water Surface Elevation Comparison - Simulation 2
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 286
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 10: Alternative 1 Predicted Flooding - Simulation 4
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
Expanded
Shellabarger Marsh
Berm for SLR
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 287
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 11: Shellabarger Marsh Predicted Water Surface Elevation Comparison - Simulations 3 and 4
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 288
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
Figure 12: Edmonds Marsh Predicted Water Surface Elevation Comparison - Simulations 4 and 5
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 289
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
jj
Figure 13: Maximum Predicted Velocity Comparison at the Railroad Bridge – Simulation 3
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
Alternative 2 Alternative 1
Flow constriction
through bridge
Flow constriction
through bridge
10.2.a
Packet Pg. 290
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
DRAFT
April 2025
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
Draft Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Prepared for the City of Edmonds
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 291
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Project Number: ########### \\FUJI\Anchor\Projects\City of Edmonds\Edmonds Marsh 2024\Contamination Report\2025May01_Contamination Report_Edmonds Marsh_AQ.docx
DRAFT
April 2025
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
Draft Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Prepared for The City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared by Anchor QEA, Inc. 20 Bellwether Way
Bellingham, Washington
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 292
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report i April 2025
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2 Existing Information Review ................................................................................................... 3
3 Project Area Description .......................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Unocal Cleanup Site ........................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Summary of Lower Yard Remediation ......................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Current Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Harbor Square Cleanup Site ............................................................................................................................ 8
4 Regulatory Considerations .................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Unocal Cleanup Status ................................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Environmental Covenants ............................................................................................................................. 11
5 Proposed Willows Creek and Edmonds Marsh Daylighting Alternatives and Implications ............................................................................................................................... 13
5.1 Marsh Design Alternative 1 – Minimal Unocal Excavation ............................................................... 13
5.2 Marsh Design Alternative 2 – Full Unocal Excavation ........................................................................ 14
5.3 Implications ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
6 Potential Mitigation Options ................................................................................................ 17
6.1 Regulatory Compliance and Coordination ............................................................................................. 17
6.2 Design and Engineering Measures ............................................................................................................ 17
6.3 Temporary Mitigation Measures During Construction ...................................................................... 20
7 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 22
8 References ................................................................................................................................ 23
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 293
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report ii April 2025
DRAFT
TABLE
Table 1 Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity
Figure 2 Site Features
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 McCullough Hill PLLC Memorandum
Attachment 2 Unocal Contamination and Existing Conditions Overlay with Marsh Design Alternatives Figures
Attachment 3 Unocal Site Groundwater Contours and Elevations
Attachment 4 Edmonds Marsh Existing Conditions and Sampling Locations
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 294
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report iii April 2025
DRAFT
ABBREVIATIONS
AO Agreed Order
Arcadis Arcadis U.S., Inc.
Blue Coast Blue Coast Engineering
BNSF BNSF Railway
CAP Cleanup Action Plan
Chevron Chevron Environmental Management Company
City City of Edmonds
cPAH carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
CUL cleanup level
DPE dual-phase extraction
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EMEA Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates
FS Feasibility Study
GCL geosynthetic clay liner
ISS in situ stabilization
LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
NAPL non-aqueous phase liquid
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PRB permeable reactive barriers
Report Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
SMS Sediment Management Standards
TEE Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation
TPH-d diesel range total petroleum hydrocarbon
TPH-o oil range total petroleum hydrocarbon
Unocal Site Unocal cleanup site
Unocal The Union Oil Company of California
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 295
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 1 April 2025
DRAFT
1 Introduction
Anchor QEA, Inc. (Anchor QEA), has prepared this Draft Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
(Report) in support of Blue Coast Engineering (Blue Coast) on behalf of the City of Edmonds (City)
and the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates (EMEA) for the potential future daylighting of the
Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound as part of the Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning
Study. Edmonds Marsh is located on the western side of the City of Edmonds (Figure 1) and formerly
discharged directly to Puget Sound. The marsh currently connects with Puget Sound through a deep
water outfall. The City of Edmonds and EMEA are in the planning stage for daylighting the
connection between the marsh and Puget Sound under the adjacent BNSF Railway (BNSF) railroad
and through the existing City of Edmonds Marina Beach Park on the shores of Puget Sound.
Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, and the associated Edmonds Marsh area are situated immediately
adjacent to and include portions of the former Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) Edmonds
Bulk Fuel Terminal property (Unocal Site; Figure 2). To address contaminated soil and groundwater
resulting from the operations at the Unocal property, the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) entered into an Agreed Order (AO) with Unocal to conduct remedial activities under the
Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA; Agreed Order No. DE 4460; Cleanup Site ID 5180). Additionally, the
Edmonds Marsh is adjacent to Harbor Square on a portion of its northern boundary. Harbor Square
is also a MTCA site (Cleanup Site ID 3410), although there is significantly less information on this site
as it is thought that the extents of the site contamination are localized. While the main focus of this
Report is on the Unocal Site, the Harbor Square Site is also included for reference and planning
purposes.
Daylighting Willow Creek and connecting Edmonds Marsh would occur through a portion of the
Unocal property, known as the Lower Yard, with documented soil and groundwater contamination.
This is necessary, as the bridge under the BNSF railroad tracks previously built for the daylighting is
located in the southwest corner of the Unocal property, necessitating daylighting through at least a
portion of the Unocal Site. While the Lower Yard portion of the Unocal Site is under an Agreed Order
and final remediation is still pending, it is understood that some amount of soil and groundwater
contamination will be present after remediation is completed, complicating both the implementation
and possible outcomes of the construction.
To provide context related to environmental liability, Ken Lederman, an attorney from McCullough
Hill PLLC who specializes on MTCA-related considerations, has provided an additional memorandum
analyzing and advising on the potential environmental liability for the City and EMEA should the City
acquire the Unocal Lower Yard property after remediation is complete. The memorandum is included
as Attachment 1 for reference.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 296
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 2 April 2025
DRAFT
This Report presents an indexed summary of existing background information, regulatory
implications for the existing environmental cleanup at the property, understood site conditions
regarding the extents of contamination at both the Unocal and Harbor Square cleanup sites, a
summary of proposed design alternatives provided by Blue Coast Engineering, and environmental
mitigation options (conceptual design options and construction best management practices) to
address any remaining contamination that may be present.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 297
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 3 April 2025
DRAFT
2 Existing Information Review
This section provides a brief summary of the available information that was reviewed as part of the
background documentation for this project. Numerous studies have been conducted for both the
Lower and Upper Yard at the Unocal Site to document historical contamination, interim actions, and
proposals for additional remediation efforts. To understand the extents of contamination associated
with the Unocal Site and Harbor Square cleanup sites, the primary source of documents reviewed
were those available through Ecology’s websites for the sites. Supplemental information was
provided by the EMEA and through online searches, which typically consist of summary/status
documents from the EMEA and relevant guidance documents. Additional online resources were also
reviewed to provide context for the restoration efforts and for regulatory considerations.
These data sources were then compiled into an index of available reports. These available reports
have been indexed in Table 1, which presents the author, date, and key subjects for each report. Key
subjects were originally identified by Blue Coast to support the Estuary Planning Study for the
Edmonds Marsh and the evaluation of design alternatives for the future marsh. These key subjects
include the following:
• Unocal Cleanup
‒ Includes documentation on site background and administration, remedial activities and
cleanup, site investigations and data (i.e., soil, groundwater, sediment), and general
references for the Unocal Site
• Harbor Square Cleanup
‒ Includes documentation on site background and administration, remedial activities and
cleanup, site investigations and data (i.e., soil, groundwater, sediment), and general
references for the Harbor Square Site
• Existing Marsh Studies
• Critical Areas
• Legislative
‒ Includes documentation on Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
Property Sales
• Permitting
• Restoration Science and Engineering References
‒ Includes additional subjects within general restoration science and engineering
including Salmonids, Native Plants Restoration, Marsh and Streambank Protection,
Invasive Plant Control, Marsh Water Quality, and Estuary and Beach Habitat
• Edmonds City Planning
• City Council/Council Resources
• Public Works/Storm and Surface Water Documents
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 298
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 4 April 2025
DRAFT
• Parks and Recreation/Current Parks Projects
• Public Works/Willow Creek Daylighting and Marsh Restoration
The most applicable key subject(s) for each report are provided in the index to aid in determining
applicability of each report.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 299
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 5 April 2025
DRAFT
3 Project Area Description
This section provides a brief overview of the Unocal and Harbor Square cleanup sites in an effort to
define the extent of documented contamination that may impact design and overall implementation
of the Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study. The Edmonds Marsh Planning
Study project area is inclusive of portions of Willow Creek, the Edmonds Marsh, and the Unocal Site
(Figure 2). Historical contamination has also been identified adjacent to the project area, at the
Harbor Square cleanup site. Since cleanup efforts are ongoing this section relies on the current
understanding of site conditions, projecting out to future conditions based on the current
understanding of expected remediation, in the case of the Unocal Lower Yard site.
3.1 Unocal Cleanup Site
The Unocal Site is located on the southern margin of the Edmonds Marsh. The Unocal property
operated as an asphalt manufacturing facility and was utilized for bulk storage and distribution of
asphalt and petroleum fuels. Petroleum operations occurred from 1923 until 1991, while the asphalt
plant was in operation from 1953 through the late 1970s (Arcadis 2024). The Unocal property
consists of two main areas, the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard bordered by Willow Creek and
Edmonds Marsh to the west, north, and east (Figure 2).
The Upper Yard is approximately 25-acres and formerly contained petroleum storage tanks and fuel
lines. According to an Ecology letter issued on October 9, 2003, the Upper Yard remediation was
sufficiently completed confirming that no further cleanup action was required, and the property was
suitable for residential use (Ecology 2003). The property was then sold to Point Edwards, LLC, and
developed into the Point Edwards condominium complex.
The Lower Yard is approximately 22-acres and was constructed during site operations by placing fill
in the historical marsh area over time (EMEA 2023). The Lower Yard is associated with the Unocal Site
that added to Ecology’s Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List in 1991. Documented
contaminants include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, and petroleum products (including
diesel and gasoline) in both soil and groundwater. Additionally, arsenic contaminated soil was
previously documented and has since been subsequently remediated (Ecology 2025).
A stormwater line owned and maintained by the Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) runs east-west across the Unocal Lower Yard from Highway 104 where it eventually ties
into a large tidal catch basin on the west side of the railroad tracks and then drains into Puget
Sound. This stormwater line was constructed in the 1970s and drains a significant portion of
Edmonds and Highway 104 within the Edmonds bowl.
In 2005, Unocal entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with WSDOT where the Lower Yard will
be transferred to WSDOT following completion of the Unocal Site remediation (Arcadis 2017).
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 300
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 6 April 2025
DRAFT
The Lower Yard is the focus of ongoing remediation efforts and numerous interim actions have been
conducted (Arcadis 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2012, 2016, 2017, and 2024). On behalf of Chevron
Environmental Management Company (Chevron), Arcadis U.S. Inc. (Arcadis) has drafted a Feasibility
Study (FS) that includes an evaluation of cleanup alternatives for the Unocal Site including
recommendations for the preferred remedy documented in a Draft Final Feasibility Study and Draft
Final Feasibility Study Addendum, dated June 16, 2017, and August 19, 2024, respectively (Arcadis
2017, 2024). The status of the cleanup site is described further in the next section.
3.1.1 Summary of Lower Yard Remediation
The Lower Yard remains an ongoing cleanup site in coordination with Ecology under an AO. The
majority of the contamination in the Lower Yard has been addressed by various interim actions,
primarily through bulk removal and groundwater treatment. However remaining contamination is
present north of the WSDOT and Point Edwards stormwater lines where they run northwest from the
northern portion of the former Upper Yard towards the BNSF railroad.
Key remediation activities in the Lower Yard include the following:
• 1990s: Early remedial actions began following the listing of the Site on the Confirmed and
Suspected Contaminated Sites List
• 1990s to 2003: Focus on Upper Yard remediation, excavations conducted in portions of the
Lower Yard in 2001 and 2003
• 1993: Unocal enters into AO No. DE92TC-N328 with Ecology
• 2007: Unocal enters into AO No. DE 4460 with Ecology. The 2007 AO supersedes the 1993 AO
and is specific to interim actions at the Lower Yard
• 2007–2008: Initial remedial actions at the Lower Yard are conducted with a focus on removing
petroleum-contaminated soil and sediment. Additional actions included removal of materials
with sand blast grit (including arsenic and lead contamination) and the removal of non-
aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)
• 2008: Initiation of groundwater monitoring
• 2011: Additional investigations to understand site conditions including a tidal study, hydraulic
conductivity testing, and soil sampling
• 2012: Additional investigations to understand site conditions including groundwater and
sediment sampling
• 2013: Soil vapor sampling conducted in non-remediated areas
• 2015: Dual-Phase Extraction (DPE) System wells were installed, and a pilot study was
conducted for the DPE System within the area of the WSDOT stormwater line
• 2017: Unocal and Ecology enter into an AO Amendment for additional interim actions
• 2017: Detention Basin 2 excavation completed. Excavation targeted removal of approximately
8,500 cubic yards of petroleum impacted soils and groundwater. The removal of light non-
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 301
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 7 April 2025
DRAFT
aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) from groundwater was a key driver in this effort, and
9,000 gallons of LNAPL were removed from the site as part of the excavation activities
(Arcadis 2024).
• 2019: Expansion of DPE system to north and northeast of WSDOT stormwater line
Results from sampling and evaluations as well as the boundaries for excavations conducted as part
of interim actions in the Lower Yard are presented in Figure 1 of Attachment 2.
3.1.2 Current Conditions
Following the interim remedial efforts in the Lower Yard noted, portions of the yard continue to have
remaining contamination. Figures 1 and 2 of Attachment 2 present sampling locations and locations
with results above site-specific cleanup levels (CULs). These attached figures are overlays of figures
from the most recent version of the FS.
In site soil, contamination is evaluated up to 15 feet below ground surface as the direct contact point
of compliance. The most recent soil sampling events included confirmatory sampling in 2018 after
the 2017 excavation and WSDOT stormwater line performance sampling. Following the interim
action remediation, arsenic and benzene concentrations in soil are no longer considered to pose a
risk for direct contact (i.e., concentrations in the top 15 feet of soil are below CULs). There is still the
potential for ongoing risk for direct contact of total petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soils and
carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (cPAH)-impacted soils.
For remaining soil contamination present adjacent to the WSDOT stormwater line, the
disproportionate cost analysis in the FS (Arcadis 2024) recommended leaving the remaining
contaminated soil in place and managing it rather than removing it since the line is still in operation
and is not easily moved or replaced. To address the remaining petroleum contamination near the
stormwater line, Unocal installed a DPE system to treat remaining impacts by dewatering soil and
exposing remaining residual LNAPL to induced vapor flow, drawing the NAPL towards the extraction
system. This is intended to remediate impacted soil to meet CULs and prevent off-site migration of
dissolved-phase groundwater contamination and LNAPL. Following the operation of the expanded
DPE system, LNAPL has not been identified within the monitoring wells (Arcadis 2024).
Groundwater quality is measured quarterly across the Lower Yard. The location of groundwater
monitoring wells in addition to Unocal Site groundwater contours and elevations are included in
Attachment 3. Over the last four quarters of groundwater monitoring, CUL exceedances have been
identified for only a few analytes. These include the following:
• Gasoline range organics: Minor CUL exceedances identified in three wells over the past four
quarters, however no exceedances during the March 2024 monitoring event
• Diesel range and heavy range organics: CUL exceedances in five wells
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 302
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 8 April 2025
DRAFT
• Benzene: all results are non-detect. One CUL exceedance was identified for a non-detect
sample, however there was foaming observed at this location during sampling that may have
impacted the sample results (Arcadis 2024)
• Total cPAHs: Several wells identified with CUL exceedances, however there is no consistent
trend of exceedances or increasing concentrations
Groundwater quality was most recently evaluated in 2024 and included sampling 53 wells across the
Unocal Site. Of the 53 monitoring wells, all were below Unocal Site CULs with the exception of one
monitoring, MW-126, in the southern portion of the Lower Yard where a single exceedance for total
cPAHs was identified. However, it was later determined that the cPAH exceedance was for a non-
detect sample with an elevated reporting limit, calling the result into question. All detected cPAH
concentrations were below the CUL (Arcadis 2024).
Additional sampling is planned for the Unocal Site as part of ongoing efforts and will be conducted
to support the final FS.
3.2 Harbor Square Cleanup Site
Harbor Square property is located at 120-190 West Dayton Street and is adjacent to the Edmonds
Marsh on the north. Ecology completed a Site Hazard Analysis of the Harbor Square Site in 1999,
after the Port of Edmonds reported to Ecology that petroleum contamination had been identified on
the property and was documented in the adjacent portion of the Edmonds Marsh. The Site Hazard
Analysis reported diesel, benzene, chloromethane, fluorene, naphthalene, and pyrene as potential
compounds of concern (Ecology 1999). The Harbor Square Site was then subsequently enrolled into
Ecology’s Voluntary Cleanup Program under project No. NW0748, however it was removed from the
Voluntary Cleanup Program in 2011 after the Port withdrew due to pending redevelopment that
would include eventual site cleanup.
As part of the Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project the City completed
surface water and sediment sampling for Willows Creek, Shellabarger Creek, and in the Edmonds
Marsh between December 2016 and September 2017. Both surface water and sediment
concentrations were reported above Ecology’s cleanup criteria. Sediment contamination including
volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, tributyltin, petroleum hydrocarbons as
diesel (TPH-d) and as oil (TPH-o), lead, and/or sulfide were present in all seven of the sediment
samples (WC-01 through WC-07) with the maximum concentration being identified at the outfall
(WC-03) located in the northern corner of the marsh (Attachment 4). Sediment concentrations were
compared to Ecology’s Sediment Management Standards (SMS). Surface water contamination
including pH, fecal coliform, and copper were present in all seven locations during the September
2017 sampling event. Surface water concentrations were compared to Ecology’s fresh and saline
water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life (Attachment 4).
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 303
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 9 April 2025
DRAFT
In July 2019, after the study was completed, the City reported visible oil/petroleum product on the
surface water of Edmonds Marsh. Ecology subsequently completed an initial investigation field
report noting that Harbor Square was the suspected source of contamination to the Edmonds Marsh
(Ecology 2021). The extent of surface water and sediment contamination is unknown and would
require additional investigation.
Additional documentation was not readily available for review for the purposes of this Report,
however further review may be necessary to understand the extent of impacted sediment and
surface water in Edmonds Marsh associated with the Harbor Square facility.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 304
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 10 April 2025
DRAFT
4 Regulatory Considerations
This section describes the MTCA cleanup process at a high level and describes the status of the
Unocal Cleanup process in particular, as this cleanup site will have the greatest impact on the
proposed daylighting project. This section further describes what could be expected from
Environmental Covenants that may be applied to the Unocal Site once active remediation is
completed, as these covenants would apply to the proposed daylighting project.
4.1 Unocal Cleanup Status
Cleanup of the Unocal Site is being completed under MTCA, Washington Administrative Code
Chapter 173-340. Cleanup has occurred to this point as part of MTCA interim actions. Interim actions
only partly address cleanup and additional remedial actions are typically required unless compliance
with cleanup standards is confirmed during the interim actions. The interim cleanup levels (CULs) for
the Unocal Site initially were developed using the MTCA Method B approach and included the use of
remediation levels as part of the interim action soil removal in the Lower Yard. The CULs were
developed based on the property’s previous zoning as mixed use/commercial, however with the
pending marsh restoration, Ecology has recognized the potential future land use interests, and a
Terrestrial Ecological Evaluations (TEE) was completed to identify CULs that are intended to be
ecologically protective of upland organisms. The FS and FS Addendum describe the revised cleanup
standards issued by Ecology.
The site-specific TEE report was prepared under MTCA (Ecology 2017) to identify and provide an
additional level of scrutiny to areas that contain significant habitat, upland wildlife populations,
and/or species requiring an additional level of protection. Human exposure to the Unocal Site is
currently limited to trespassers and on-site environmental consultants and their occasional escorted
visitors who are protected by personal protective equipment and limited exposure duration.
However, the long-term potential for human exposure to site contaminants would be through the
following pathways:
• Soil via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of windblown dust
• Surface water via direct contact or from eating contaminated seafood
• Soil vapor by inhalation in an indoor environment or while excavating or trenching.
• Exposure to groundwater is currently considered an incomplete pathway unless the
groundwater directly discharges to surface water
Site CULs were derived under regulation based on the current and expected future use of the
property, including use of the Unocal Site as an expansion and daylighting of the Edmonds Marsh.
Since the interim actions were implemented, Ecology has concluded that no further cleanup is
necessary in places where excavations have occurred in the Lower Yard. However, impacts to soil and
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 305
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 11 April 2025
DRAFT
groundwater still remain in the area around the Point Edwards storm drain line and WSDOT
stormwater pipeline (Figure 2). On behalf of Unocal, Arcadis have drafted an evaluation of cleanup
alternatives for the remaining contamination on site after completion of the interim actions and
included a recommendation for the preferred remedy through the FS process.
The recommended remedial alternative in the Draft FS Addendum is Cleanup Alternative 6. The
recommended Cleanup Alternative 6 was developed to adhere to the ecologically protective cleanup
levels based on the TEE, MTCA Method A CULs for groundwater and surface water standards
protecting both marine life and human ingestion of marine organisms. Cleanup Alternative 6 consists
of continued operation of the existing DPE system near the WSDOT stormwater line for 1 additional
year that had been operated on and off since 2017. The end goal of the DPE system is to remediate
contamination in soil and minimize off-site migration of dissolved-phase contamination in
groundwater. Compliance monitoring will be conducted to assess the DPE performance after 1 year.
A contingency plan will be developed and outlined in a future Draft Cleanup Action Plan (CAP) issued
by Ecology to address any remaining impacts and potential surface water quality concerns. The DPE
would be coupled with construction of an engineered cover. Prior to construction of the engineered
cover system, an additional soil investigation will be conducted to further evaluate and confirm
shallow soil quality. An engineered cover will be constructed to address the remaining soil
contamination that continues to pose a risk via direct contact and TEE pathways. Figure 2 of
Attachment 2 depicts the current estimated areas of proposed engineered cover.
Anchor QEA understands that public comments have been provided for the draft FS Addendum and
that Arcadis, on behalf of Unocal, will be completing a soil sampling plan or investigation plan to
refine the implementation of the cleanup and will finalize the FS based on the results of the
sampling. Ecology will then develop a draft and final CAP describing the cleanup work to address the
contamination within the Unocal Site and identify site-specific CULs and points of compliance for
each hazardous substance and medium of concern to provide benchmarks for remediation activities.
As part of the CAP, contingency plans will also be developed if the remedial goals of the FS are not
met and be included as an exhibit to a new Consent Decree which will govern further actions at the
Unocal Site. The cleanup will be performed under a Consent Decree between Ecology and
Unocal/Chevron. Once cleanup work is completed it will lead to overall site closure with associated
Environmental Covenants.
4.2 Environmental Covenants
To address the impacted soils that will remain in certain areas, it is expected that Environmental
Covenants will be executed as part of the cleanup and documented through a Consent Decree that
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 306
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 12 April 2025
DRAFT
Ecology and Unocal would need to sign, plus any future landowners would need to become a
signatory to the CD. Environmental Covenants are expected to include the following restrictions:
• Protection for the proposed areas of engineered cover. This typically consists of either
providing 2 feet of soil cap or an equivalent structural cover (e.g., buildings or paving/ballast)
that limits disturbance of the engineered cover. Excavation may be prohibited in the
Environmental Covenant, with exceptions noted (some of which are listed below).
• Prohibited site uses including groundwater withdrawal for any use that is inconsistent with the
remedial action and also prohibits any ground floor residential or day care uses due to the
potential for vapor intrusion. Building construction can also often require the installation of
vapor barriers and potentially vapor extraction systems and may require a new soil vapor
assessment if the land use changes.
• For any utility or other excavation work, the Owner must comply with State and City standards
and must provide either 1 foot of over-excavation or place geotextile separation fabric lining
to provide a clean perimeter around the excavation area.
• All refuse materials excavated from the site must be disposed off site at a permitted solid
waste disposal facility unless contained beneath a site cap meeting the specifications defined
in the CAP
• Personnel performing excavation at the site must be familiar with applicable health and safety
requirements and should take the necessary precautions to minimize contact with wastes and
contaminated soils
• Compliance with City zoning and compliance with the Shoreline Management regulations
• Provide access for Ecology representatives (subject to reasonable notice) to inspect the site
and to review other records relating to the remedial action
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 307
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 13 April 2025
DRAFT
5 Proposed Willows Creek and Edmonds Marsh Daylighting
Alternatives and Implications
In support of the planning process for reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound and
restoring estuary habitat, two alternative designs were developed by Blue Coast. These alternatives
both include the following:
• Daylighting Willow Creek into Puget Sound through the existing railroad bridge
• A coastal resiliency berm surrounding the Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh (on the other
side of SR-104) at critical locations to reduce flooding of adjacent properties
• Conveyance improvements for the dual culvert connecting Shellabarger Marsh to Edmonds
Marsh under SR-104
For Alternative 1, the Willow Creek channel daylighting includes limited excavation into the
northwest boundary of the Unocal Site to provide channel sinuosity and width. Alternative 2 includes
an expanded excavation of the Unocal Site including through the existing stormwater detention
basin and north corner of the Unocal property and includes additional tidal channels branching out
into the lower marsh. These alternatives were developed in collaboration with EMEA and are
described in more detail in the following subsections.
5.1 Marsh Design Alternative 1 – Minimal Unocal Excavation
Alternative 1 connects Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound via a sinuous channel beginning west of the
existing Unocal stormwater retention berm and traveling southwest along the BNSF railroad right of
way. The channel begins at an elevation of 6.0 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NAVD88) at the existing marsh with a gentle downward slope of 0.01% until it passes over the
WSDOT stormwater line with approximately 2.2 feet of coverage between the channel thalweg and
the top of the pipe. The channel then steepens to a constant slope of 0.14% to its outlet into the
Puget Sound at an elevation of 4.1 feet NAVD88 (mean sea level). The channel outlet location is
limited by the location of the BNSF railroad bridge, which has already been constructed. The width of
the proposed channel and hydraulic capacity of the daylight channel is partially constrained by the
BNSF railroad bridge abutment width as the channel has to be narrowed to fit within the extents of
the bridge abutments. The typical channel section has a 19-foot bottom width, with 2H:1V
(horizontal to vertical ratio) side slopes for a maximum top of channel excavation width of 50 feet.
The channel cross section under the bridge maintains a 19-foot channel bottom, with 1H:1V side
slopes to elevation 8.7 feet at which point there are vertical side walls to the bottom of the bridge
girder at elevation 12.7 feet NAVD88.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 308
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 14 April 2025
DRAFT
5.2 Marsh Design Alternative 2 – Full Unocal Excavation
Alternative 2 retains the daylighted channel alignment and other features from Alternative 1 but
expands the excavation into the Unocal Site to increase the size of the restored marsh and evaluate
the effects of increased marsh flood storage capacity on resiliency to sea level rise and stormwater
flooding concerns. This excavation includes the removal of the stormwater containment berm in the
main marsh to match the surrounding marsh grade (approximately 6.0 feet NAVD88) and lowers a
significant portion of the Unocal Lower Yard to an elevation of 7.8 feet NAVD88. Aside from the
daylighted channel, the excavation into the Lower Yard begins northeast of the WSDOT stormwater
line that connects under the railroad tracks. The daylighted channel alignment is identical to that of
Alternative 1 from its outlet until just upstream of WSDOT stormwater line, at which point it branches
out into three distributor tidal channels. These tributaries pass through the Unocal Site and connect
to three different locations in the marsh to spread flood tide flow evenly and reduce flow velocities
entering the marsh.
5.3 Implications
Marsh daylighting poses the risk of exposing and spreading remaining contaminated soil and/or
groundwater that is expected to be present at the Unocal Site after cleanup actions are completed to
achieve current land use plans and potentially near the Harbor Square outfall area where previous
sediment and surface impacts were identified. The extents and level of remaining contamination at
the Unocal Site can only be approximated at this time, as final cleanup actions have not been
completed; however, the FS indicates remaining contamination may remain within the proposed
marsh daylighting footprints, including near the Point Edwards storm drain line, WSDOT stormwater
pipeline, and in various other locations throughout the site. Any exacerbation or recontamination
caused by the marsh daylighting restoration efforts could result in the City or other project
proponent being identified as a Potentially Liable Party by Ecology, which could require
supplemental cleanup activities as well as construction measures to reduce the potential for any
remaining contamination to redistribute. Additional cleanup studies are also expected that would
describe in greater detail additional data gaps and construction measures to address contamination
that would be disturbed by restoration, which could change exposure and pathway evaluations
conducted to date.
Creating additional wetland areas, which would be any areas located below the ordinary high water
mark, will likely need to comply with sediment cleanup levels outlined in Ecology’s SMS, which are
generally more restrictive than TEE cleanup levels that have been established for the Unocal cleanup.
Implications of complying with SMS values could result in significant costs for additional capping
and/or additional excavation of adversely affected soil. Additional sampling may be necessary to
refine the extent of impacted material compared to SMS values and evaluate risks associated with
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 309
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 15 April 2025
DRAFT
marsh daylighting as well as alternatives to handle remaining contamination considering the new
proposed land use.
A number of figures are provided in Attachment 2 to provide context for the remaining
contamination and how these indicators line up with the proposed design alternatives. The figures
are taken from the draft final FS Addendum (Arcadis 2024) and have been updated to overlay the
estimated extents of inundation after construction for the two design alternatives provided by Blue
Coast. The extent of inundation is intended to provide an approximation of the extent of excavation
associated with the design alternatives. These overlay figures are included to provide context for the
potential extent of impacts associated with the proposed design alternatives relative to the extents
of remaining contamination. The following is a summary of figures included in Attachment 2:
• Figure 1 of Attachment 2 shows the high tide line (depicting estimated full tidal inundation
areas) for Marsh Design Alternative 1 overlaid on FS Cleanup Alternative 6, which includes the
dual-phased extraction treatment system and areas of engineered cover based on the current
understanding of site contamination. The figure includes callouts for FS Geologic Cross
Sections A–A′ and B–B′ locations presented as part of the subsequent figures in this
attachment
• Figure 2 of Attachment 2 shows the high tide line for Marsh Design Alternative 2 overlaid on
FS Cleanup Alternative 6, including FS Geologic Cross Sections A–A′ and B–B′ locations
• Figures 3 and 4 of Attachment 2 illustrate Marsh Alternatives 1 and 2 on FS Geologic Cross
Sections A–A′ and B–B′, respectively to show extents of material types and previous
remediation efforts relative to the design alternatives. Note that these cross sections are only
located in two areas and would not be fully representative of all conditions that would be
encountered.
The key implications associated with marsh daylighting Design Alternative 1 include the following:
• An elevated risk of exposing contamination along the proposed channel and Willow Creek,
where proposed excavation would cut into the 2007/2008 fill and 1929 Fill Material. The status
of the 2007/2008 fill is unknown and there is the potential for recontamination since its
placement.
• Mitigation measures, as described in the next section, would be required along the eastern
edge of the channel to protect daylighted soils from creating a recontamination risk to Willow
Creek and downstream areas.
• It is unclear how this alternative would impact the potential adjacent railroad and, at a
minimum, it is assumed that sufficient armoring of the western edge of the channel would be
required to not cause erosion of the railroad tracks. It is also unclear what environmental risks
may result from placing the daylighted channel adjacent to the railroad tracks, as the
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 310
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 16 April 2025
DRAFT
environmental quality of the soil and the potential for inadvertent releases to the creek from
railroad operations are beyond the scope of this document.
• Overall, this alternative is considered a lower risk than Design Alternative 2 due to the
reduced amount of excavation into the Unocal Lower Yard, reducing the need for further
study and potential supplemental cleanup actions, which would reduce overall project costs
and time relative to Design Alternative 2.
As Design Alternative 2 also includes portions of the channel and excavation that are included in
Design Alternative 1, all the implications noted also apply. In addition, the key implications
associated with marsh daylighting Design Alternative 2 include the following:
• An elevated risk of exposing contamination throughout the project area due to this
alternative’s proposed excavation across the majority of the former Unocal Lower Yard. This is
likely to uncover other potential areas of contamination that have not been documented
through previous site investigations leading to further soils that would require off-site
disposal.
• Additional remediation mitigation measures, as described in the next section, would be
required to address known contamination adjacent to the WSDOT stormwater line, as the
excavation is close in proximity to this area. This may require more robust measures than
Design Alternative 1 due to the proximity and known presence of contamination associated
with the stormwater line.
• Tidal inundation in this alternative appears to overlap with the existing DPE system and the
associated electrical supply. Modifications to system would likely be required, if it were to
remain after completion of the remediation.
• Additionally, this alternative would be significantly more expensive, as it is expected that
pockets of soil that have not been previously remediated will be encountered and there is the
potential that backfill from previous remediation efforts may have become recontaminated
through the flow of groundwater. This material would require disposal at a disposal facility.
The proposed design alternatives currently do not include grading in areas near the Harbor Square
Site; however, further investigation of potentially impacted surface water and sediment may be
warranted in that area prior to construction to determine if residual contamination may be present. If
it is present and exceeding SMS cleanup levels, mitigation measures may be warranted to reduce the
potential for spreading contamination or exacerbating pathways for exposure due to construction.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 311
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 17 April 2025
DRAFT
6 Potential Mitigation Options
This section outlines both permanent and temporary mitigation strategies that are intended to
manage contamination risks associated with implementation and construction of Marsh Design
Alternatives 1 and 2. These strategies are intended to reduce the likelihood of exposing residual
contamination during construction and after marsh daylighting.
6.1 Regulatory Compliance and Coordination
The completion of a marsh daylighting project would need to comply with relevant environmental
conditions, typically including the following:
• The design alternatives will need to comply with the final CAP and the site CD, which will
contain the site Environmental Covenants. It is expected that this would be the case for the
Unocal Site but may also apply to the Harbor Square Site if any additional work proceeds at
that site. Non-compliance with the CAP could result in the City being named a potentially
liable person by Ecology to correct any violations.
• Work will need to be coordinated with Ecology regarding disturbance to areas within the
Unocal Site, particularly if the work causes any changes to the completed remedy based on
the final CAP for the Unocal Site. Ecology may require further investigation and evaluation of
alternatives to manage contamination associated with restoration and may revisit the
exposure pathways, if those are altered changing exposure scenarios (e.g., groundwater
pathway becomes more direct).
• If new contaminated material is identified during daylighting construction activities that were
not previously identified by Unocal and/or Harbor Square, then the cleanup processes for
either of the sites may potentially be reopened.
• The City or project proponent would likely be required to become a signatory to the Consent
Decree for the site, requiring that the Environmental Covenants established for the site be
followed and maintained.
6.2 Design and Engineering Measures
A range of design and engineering controls are available to help mitigate potential contamination
risks associated with marsh daylighting. These measures are intended to either isolate or remove
residual contamination, prevent migration, and provide long-term protection of human health and
the environment. The feasibility and effectiveness of each option will depend on site-specific
conditions, including the extent of contamination, hydrogeologic characteristics, and compatibility
with selected remedial and restoration strategies. The following options represent potential solutions
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 312
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 18 April 2025
DRAFT
that may be applied individually or in combination, depending on the final design and regulatory
requirements.
• Avoidance of Contaminated Areas: The simplest and most-cost effective strategy is to
identify alternative marsh daylighting alignments that avoid areas of known or suspected
contamination. Anchor QEA understands that based on current site conditions, this option is
not completely feasible given site constraints, such as the railroad underpass bridge. This
approach could also be applied to minimize the risk of disturbing contaminated zones and
reducing overall project regulatory complexity; however, it is understood that this may limit
design flexibility and could result in a less optimal restoration footprint from a hydraulic or
ecological standpoint.
• Partial Over-Excavation with Engineered Cap: A likely strategy for managing contaminated
soils is to over-excavate in areas of known contamination, followed by placement of an
engineered cap. This cap could consist of organoclay, low-permeability soil, and/or treatment
media such as activated carbon. The cap would be topped with scour protection, such as
riprap or habitat gravels depending on the expected flow velocities and scour potential in
given areas. This approach provides a balance between cost and risk mitigation, and similar
approaches are often employed in brownfield and shoreline restoration projects. The success
of this approach depends heavily on accurate delineation of contamination and may need to
be adaptive to fit site conditions once excavation is underway the extents of contamination
adjacent to excavated areas are better understood. There would also be the need for ongoing
monitoring of the capped areas to ensure long-term cap integrity, particularly in this dynamic
tidal and groundwater-influenced environment.
• Geomembrane and/or Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs): Installing a geomembrane or GCL
beneath the proposed marsh channel could provide a physical barrier that separates the new
hydrologic features from underlying contamination. These systems are well-established in
environmental containment applications and can be designed to support habitat above the
geomembrane or GCL. However, their installation below the groundwater table raises
concerns about buoyancy, groundwater mounding behind the membrane, and the depth of
soil ballast required to prevent uplift may be prohibitive. As noted in Shannon & Wilson’s
2015 Contamination Report, such systems are typically used in landfill covers or above-grade
applications and may not be well-suited to this site’s shallow and variable groundwater
conditions.
• Sheet Pile Cutoff Walls: Sheet pile cutoff walls could offer a temporary or permanent means
of separating the proposed marsh daylighting channel from remaining contamination. This
strategy could facilitate early implementation of marsh restoration while remediation activities
continue elsewhere on the site. Key design considerations include reaching a suitable
embedment depths of the sheet pile to tie into low-permeability soils and avoiding
interference with adjacent infrastructure. While effective as a containment measure, sheet
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 313
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 19 April 2025
DRAFT
piles can be costly, depending on the depth and total linear feet, and their use may be
excessive given the anticipated cleanup status of the Unocal property. Sheet pile walls also
would need to take into account groundwater conditions and depending on whether porous
or impermeable walls are installed, may not remove the potential for contaminated
groundwater from entering channel areas.
• In Situ Stabilization (ISS), Slurry Walls, or Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs): These in-place
treatment or containment methods offer the ability to immobilize or intercept contaminant
migration without large-scale excavation or sheet pile cutoff walls. ISS methods immobilize
contaminants in soil through physical and chemical binding, typically by mixing reagents like
cement, fly ash, or activated carbon into the soil via overlapping columns. Slurry walls,
typically installed via an excavated trench backfilled with a soil-bentonite or soil-cement mix,
serve as a physical containment barrier to control horizontal groundwater flow and restrict
off-site migration of contaminants. PRBs, installed like slurry walls except with reactive media
such as activated carbon, treat contaminated groundwater as it flows through reactive media.
Such systems can be engineered to provide long-term separation or filtration for the site’s
petroleum-related contaminants of concern; however, each system has limitations such as ISS
not treating dissolved hydrocarbons in groundwater, slurry walls not treating but rather
containing contaminants, and PRBs being less effective for free-phase (non-dissolved)
product. Depending on the systems or combinations of systems chosen, they would likely
require pilot testing, specialized contractors, and long-term performance monitoring. For this
site, where the remaining contamination is expected to be limited and largely addressed
through the final FS cleanup alternative, such measures may be considered excessive;
however, they could also be a valuable way to mitigate long-term risk.
• Full Remediation Before or as Part of Construction: One option is full excavation and
remediation of contaminated areas prior to or as part of marsh daylighting construction. This
strategy would eliminate contamination-related risks, ensure long-term environmental
protection, and likely reduce future monitoring and maintenance needs. It could also improve
site conditions for development. However, costs would be significant, the work would be
technically challenging due to the presence of the WSDOT stormwater line, the work would
require reopening the CAP and future Consent Decree, and the work would require a more
complex and potentially prolonged permitting process. The City or project proponent would
carry some risk associated with disturbance and spread of contamination during construction,
which should be carefully managed through discussions with Ecology. This risk may be
managed in the form of a Prospective Purchaser Consent Decree, which would limit the City
or project proponent environmental liability if specific cleanup actions were implemented.
• Combined Mitigation Approach: It is likely that a combination of these measures would
provide the most effective and adaptable solution. For example, limited over-excavation and
engineered capping could be supplemented with ISS or a PRB in targeted high-risk zones,
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 314
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 20 April 2025
DRAFT
particularly if Design Alternative 2 is chosen due to the high likelihood of contamination
adjacent to the WSDOT stormwater line. This hybrid approach can be tailored to site-specific
contamination profiles, restoration goals, and construction sequencing needs.
6.3 Temporary Mitigation Measures During Construction
During construction of the marsh daylighting alternatives, temporary mitigation measures will be
necessary to minimize the risk of exposing and spreading residual contamination, protect worker
safety, and ensure regulatory compliance.
• Construction Planning and Worker Safety
‒ Construction activities must incorporate practices that minimize risks to workers and
limit the spread of contamination during soil disturbance.
‒ All personnel that come in contact with or handle contaminated materials must have
appropriate training, including 40-hour HAZWOPER certification and experience in
remediation and restoration work.
• Soils Management Plan
‒ A Soils Management Plan will be required to define procedures for identifying,
handling, and disposing of contaminated media. The Soils Management Plan will help
protect contractors from inadvertent exposure and reduce the potential for
exacerbating contamination as part of the construction.
‒ All work will need to be completed in compliance with Ecology’s Guidance for
Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Publication 10-09-057 (Ecology 2010).
‒ Special handling will include, but not limited to, segregation of adversely affected soil
and groundwater removed from the excavation areas for profiling and likely off-site
transport and disposal. Construction dewatering and temporary water treatment
systems may be necessary depending on the depths of excavations required.
• Soil Sampling
‒ Discrete samples previously collected by Unocal will likely not be sufficient for waste
profiling. Excavated soil may need to be stockpiled and sampled in accordance with the
Guidance for Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites and analysis coordinated
with a disposal facility to ultimately determine disposal options and/or reuse of
material.
‒ With the limited soil data available for some portions of the site, particularly areas
between previously remediated areas and those that were previously remediated and
may have been recontaminated, there is not sufficient information to accurately define
quantities for potential reuse and soil disposal. Regardless of available analytical data,
soil exhibiting olfactory or visual characteristics of petroleum contamination during
construction would require special handling and disposal at a Subtitle D landfill.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 315
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 21 April 2025
DRAFT
‒ Performance and confirmatory soil sampling would be recommended to document the
conditions at the extents of excavation prior to placement of any backfill materials and
subsequent channel construction and may inform the need for modifications during
construction, such as over-excavation of targeted areas.
‒ Sampling and laboratory analysis must determine landfill classification (expected to be
Subtitle D) or evaluate reuse potential.
• Construction Sequencing and Water Management
‒ A construction sequencing plan should be developed to accomplish the following:
• Maintain uninterrupted stormwater discharge and tidal flow (e.g., via temporary
bypass culverts/diversions).
• Manage groundwater discharges and potentially exposed contaminated soils to
prevent recontamination of other site areas.
• Prevent cross-contamination between clean water and potentially impacted
construction runoff or dewatering discharge.
The mitigation strategies provide a range of both permanent and temporary options to address
potential risks associated with residual contamination during the implementation of marsh
daylighting alternatives. Selection of appropriate measures will require further evaluation of site-
specific conditions, coordination with regulatory agencies, and alignment with the final CAP and
Consent Decree. A flexible approach that combines engineering controls, construction planning, and
media management will be key to minimize environmental and human health risks. As design
progresses, continued assessment of feasibility, constructability, and long-term effectiveness can
help achieve marsh restoration objectives.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 316
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 22 April 2025
DRAFT
7 Summary
Daylighting of the Edmonds Marsh offers a unique opportunity to restore tidal flow to the Edmonds
Marsh but would require appropriate management of environmental concerns. Blue Coast has
provided two design alternatives for daylighting the marsh, both of which require some excavation
of portions of the Unocal Lower Yard. Given the status of the environmental cleanup of the Lower
Yard through Ecology’s MTCA process, which is still ongoing, it is not possible to completely
determine the full implications of excavations due to the uncertainty in the final remedy; however,
there is enough certainty in alternatives described in the current FS Addendum (Arcadis 2024) to
know that some amount of soil and groundwater will likely remain on site that is impacted by
petroleum contamination. The chosen Design Alternative will influence the extent of the challenges
associated with the remaining contamination, as Alternative 2, which calls for a larger excavation of
the Lower Yard would require more study, significant logistical challenges, and higher cost to
complete.
Regardless of which Design Alternative may ultimately be constructed, mitigation measures would
need to be implemented as part of the design and during construction to address residual
contamination. Design elements should address the potential for contamination to be present in
exposed soils and any daylighted groundwater pathways. Daylighting groundwater has the potential
to change the point of compliance for this media, as it may complete the exposure pathway that was
previously deemed incomplete. Design elements would typically include measures like over-
excavation and construction of engineered caps to provide a clean final surface but could also be
more robust such as the use of PRBs or sheet pile cutoff walls, depending on Ecology approval. Final
design measures would need to comply with future Environmental Covenants described as part of a
future Consent Decree. It is likely that the project proponent, assumed to be the City of Edmonds or
another party, would need to be added as a signatory to the forthcoming Consent Decree or a new
Consent Decree, potentially as part of a Prospective Purchaser Consent Decree that could limit City
or project proponent environmental liability. During construction, contaminated materials would
need to be segregated and characterized for appropriate disposal at a landfill. Additionally, workers
that handle and manage contaminated materials would need appropriate training.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 317
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report 23 April 2025
DRAFT
8 References
Arcadis, 2009. Phase I Remedial Implementation As-Built Report. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal
Lower Yard. Prepared for Chevron Environmental Management Company. July 2009.
Arcadis, 2010a. 2008 Additional Site Investigation and Groundwater Monitoring Report. Former
Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal (Lower Yard). Prepared for Chevron Environmental
Management Company. January 2010.
Arcadis, 2010b. Phase II Remedial Implementation As-Built Report. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel
Terminal Lower Yard. Prepared for Chevron Environmental Management Company. January
2010.
Arcadis, 2012. Final 2011 Site Investigation Completion Report. Former Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel
Terminal. Prepared for Chevron Environmental Management Company. May 2012.
Arcadis, 2016. Final Engineering Design Report. Former Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal.
Prepared for Chevron Environmental Management Company. March 2016.
Arcadis, 2017. Public Review Draft Final Feasibility Study Report. Former Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel
Terminal, 11720 Unoco Road, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Chevron Environmental
Management Company. June 2017.
Arcadis, 2024. Public Review Draft Final Feasibility Study Report Addendum. Former Unocal Edmonds
Bulk Fuel Terminal, 11720 Unoco Road, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Chevron
Environmental Management Company. August 2024.
Ecology, 1999. Summary Score Sheet. Site Name: Harbour Square. Score Sheet for Site Register listing
of February 16, 1999.
Ecology, 2003. Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Upper Yard: Completion of Cleanup Per Interim Action
Report. October 2003.
Ecology, 2010. Guidance for Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Publication 10-09-057
Ecology, 2021. Initial Investigation Field Report. Harbor Square. March 2021.
Shannon & Wilson, 2019. Water Quality Sampling Results in Support of the Willow Creek
Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration. June 2019.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 318
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 319
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment
1993 Agreed Order Number DE 92TC-N328 UNOCAL Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
1993 Supplemental Subsurface Contamination Assessment - Upper Yard,
Edmonds Fuel Terminal and Burlington Northern Railroad Properties UNOCAL Cleanup GeoEngineers
1994 Background History Report UNOCAL Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal UNOCAL Cleanup X EMCON Northwest, Inc.
1999 Remedial Action 120-190W. Dayton Street Site Edmonds, Washington
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
XX --
1999 Score Sheet for Site Register Listing Harbor Square Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
1999 Remedial Action 120-190 W. Dayton Street Site; Edmonds, Washington Harbor Square Cleanup X X Landau Associates
2000 FISHWAY GUIDELINES FOR WASHINGTON STATE
Restoration Science and
Engineering References;
Salmonids
X Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
2001 Unocal Edmonds - Interim Action Report UNOCAL Cleanup X X Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.
2001 Remedial Investigation Report - Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal UNOCAL Cleanup X X X X Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.
2001 Harbor Square - Restrictive Covenant Harbor Square Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
2002 Ability of Pacific Northwest Native Shrubs to Root from Hardwood Cuttings
(with Summary of Propagation Methods for 22 Species)
Native Plants Restoration;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Darris, Dale C
2002 Lower Yard Interim Action As-Built Report Unocal Edmonds Terminal UNOCAL Cleanup X X X X Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.
2002 Interim Report: Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests, Unocal Edmonds Terminal UNOCAL Cleanup X
MEC Analytical Systems, Inc.; Maul Foster
& Alongi, Inc.
2002 Harbor Square - Restrictive Covenant (Rerecorded) Harbor Square Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
2003 Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines
Marsh and Streambank
Protection; Restoration
Science and Engineering
References
X
Cramer, Michelle; Bates, Ken; Miller, Dale;
Boyd, Karin; Fotherby, Lisa; Skidmore,
Peter; Hoitsma, Todd; Heiner, Bruce;
Buchanan, Kurt; Powers, Pat; Birkeland,
Ginger; Rotar, Mike; White, Dale
2003 Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report UNOCAL Cleanup X X Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.
2003 Toxicity Evaluation of Groundwater Samples UNOCAL Cleanup X AMEC Earth & Environmental
2003 Upper Yard Interim Action As-Built Report UNOCAL Cleanup X X Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.
2003
Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal Site - Public comments and
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) responses regarding the
Upper Yard Interim Action As-Built Report, dated August 25, 2003
UNOCAL Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
2003 Upper Yard Ecology Letter of Completion UNOCAL Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 1 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 320
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
2003 Technical Memorandum on Supplemental Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing
(WET) at the Unocal Bulk Fuel Terminal Edmonds Washington UNOCAL Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
2004 Reed Canarygrass Control & Management in the Pacific Northwest
Invasive Plant Control;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Tu, Mandy
2004 Sediment Bioassay Results for Unocal Site in Edmonds, WA UNOCAL Cleanup XIntegral
2005 Subsurface Assessment Edmonds Marsh; Harbor Square Complex; Edmonds,
Washington Harbor Square Cleanup X Landau Associates
2005 Vapor Assessment Harbor Square Complex; Edmonds, Washington Harbor Square Cleanup X Landau Associates
2005 Phase 1-A Excavation Summary Report Harbor Square Complex; Edmonds,
Washington Harbor Square Cleanup X X X Landau Associates
2006 HABITAT AND FISH USE OF POCKET ESTUARIES IN THE WHIDBEY BASIN
AND NORTH SKAGIT COUNTY BAYS, 2004 AND 2005
Restoration Science and
Engineering References;
Salmonids
X
Beamer, Eric M; McBride, Aundrea;
Henderson, Rich; Griffith, Jason; Fresh, Kurt;
Zackey, Todd; Barsh, Russel; Wyllie-
Echeverria, Tina; Associates, Wyllie-
Echeverria; Wolf, Karen
2006 SUGGESTIONS FOR INSTALLING HARDWOOD CUTTINGS (SLIPS, WHIPS,
LIVE STAKES, POLES, POSTS) AND LIVE FASCINES
Marsh and Streambank
Protection; Restoration
Science and Engineering
References
X Darris, Dale C
2007 Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation: Process for Cleanup of
Hazardous Waste Sites UNOCAL Cleanup Washington State Department of Ecology
2007 Agreed Order Number DE 4460 UNOCAL Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
2009 Phase I Remedial implementation As-Built Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk
Fuel Terminal Lower Yard UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2009 Biological Condition of the Edmonds Waterfront and Preliminary Feasibility
Considerations for Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X O'Connell, Keeley; Myers, Doug; Owens,
Barbara
2010 STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -
City of Edmonds
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative X Herrera Environmental Consultants
2010 WAC 365-196-725:
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative X Washington State
2010 2008 Additional Site Investigation and Groundwater Monitoring Report,
Former Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal (Lower Yard)UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2010 Final Phase II Remedial implementation As-Built Report, Unocal Edmonds
Bulk Fuel Terminal Lower Yard UNOCAL Cleanup X X X X Arcadis
2010 Herbaceous Weed Control – Invasive Plant Control Common Reed –
Phragmites australis
Invasive Plant Control;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Natural Resources Conservation Service
2011 2009 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2011 Final 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2011 Request for Information on Status of VCP Project Harbor Square Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 2 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 321
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
2011 Termination of VCP Agreement Harbor Square Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
2012 Salt Marsh as a Coastal Filter for the Oceans: Changes in Function with
Experimental Increases in Nitrogen Loading and Sea-Level Rise
Marsh Water Quality;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Nelson, Joanna L.; Zavaleta, Erika S.
2012 Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines
Marsh and Streambank
Protection; Restoration
Science and Engineering
References
X
Saldi-Caromile, Kay; Skidmore, Peter;
Bakke, Paul; Johnston, Gardner; McCoy,
Gina; Buis, Susan; Koonce, Greg; Bates, Ken
Kozmo; Pineo, Doug; Barenti, Juliet
2012 Final 2011 Site Investigation Completion Report UNOCAL Cleanup X X Arcadis
2012 Final 2011 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2013 Section 26 Guidelines for Large Woody Debris Placement Strategies
Restoration Science and
Engineering References X Department of Natural Resources
2013 Dayton Street and SR 104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
XSAIC
2013 Willow Creek Daylighting Final - Early Feasibility Study Edmonds,
Washington
Existing Marsh Studies;
Public Works/Storm and
Surface Water Documents
X
Cline, David; Walter, Katie; Schlenger, Paul;
Ketteridge, Kathy; Hill, Adam; Hallenius,
Alex; O'Neill, Brooke; Gaulke, Scott
2013 Sediment Management Standards Chapter 173-204 WAC UNOCAL Cleanup Washington State Department of Ecology
2013 Final Conceptual Site Model UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2013 Cleanup Levels and Remediation Levels Report UNOCAL Cleanup X X X Arcadis
2014 King County Noxious Weed Control Program BITTERSWEET NIGHTSHADE
BMP
Invasive Plant Control;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X King County
2014 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS IN THE NORTHWEST
Invasive Plant Control;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X
Winston, Rachel; Randall, Carol Bell; De
Clerck-Floate, Rosemarie; McClay, Alec;
Andreas, Jennifer; Schwarzländer, Mark
2014 Proposed Addendum to the Draft Feasibility Study Report, Former Unocal
Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2014 Draft Feasibility Study Report, Former Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2014 The Bradley Method of Eliminating Exotic Plants from Natural Reserves
Invasive Plant Control;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Fuller, T. C.; Barbe, G. Douglas
2015 National Guidance Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
Marsh Water Quality;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X United States Environmental Protection
Agency
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 3 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 322
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
2015 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN SUMMARY AS OF 7/14/2015
Existing Marsh Studies;
Parks and
Recreation/Current Parks
Projects
XJones, Chris
2015 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
Existing Marsh Studies;
Parks and
Recreation/Current Parks
Projects
X
Hite, Carrie; McRae, Renee; O’Connell,
Keeley; Shuster, Jerry; Lindsay, Rich;
Buckshnis, Diane; Stewart, Val; Schaeffer,
Rick; Smiley, Susan; Scordino, Joe;
Brightman, Ron; Leeman, Laura; Conefrey,
Kevin
2015 Final Feasibility Study Willow Creek Daylighting Edmonds, Washington
Existing Marsh Studies;
Public Works/Storm and
Surface Water Documents
X
Cline, David; Walter, Katie; Schlenger, Paul;
Ketteridge, Kathy; Hill, Adam; Helland,
Chris; Alemu, Eset; O'Neill, Brooke;
Gisebert, Mike; Hartman, Doug; Berger,
Margaret; Hartmann, Glenn; Gaulke, Scott;
Page, Martin; Williams, Stephanie
2015 APPENDIX J CONTAMINATED SOILS ASSESMENT UNOCAL Cleanup Shannon and Wilson
2015 Determination of Nonsignificance and SEPA Checklist UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2015 SECTION 11: How Will Climate Change Affect Marine Ecosystems in Puget
Sound?
Estuary and Beach Habitat;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X University of Washington Climate Impacts
Group
2015 Streamside Planting Guide for Western Washington
Marsh and Streambank
Protection; Restoration
Science and Engineering
References
X Cowlitz Conservation District
2015 Biology and Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife
Invasive Plant Control;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Wilson, Linda; Schwarzländer, Mark;
Blossey, Bernd; Randall, Carol Bell
2016 stormwater fact sheet
Marsh Water Quality;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
2016 Unocal Edmonds Cleanup Site Legislative; Permitting X Washington State Department of Ecology
2016 Guidance for Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites UNOCAL Cleanup Washington State Department of Ecology
2016 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit
No. WA0991007 UNOCAL Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
2016 Final Engineering Design Report UNOCAL Cleanup Arcadis
2017 Model remedies for sites with petroleum contaminated soils X Washington State Department of Ecology
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 4 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 323
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
2017 Willow Creek Daylight Project Expanded Marsh Concept Design And
Hydraulic Modeling Report Edmonds, Washington
Existing Marsh Studies;
Public Works/Storm and
Surface Water Documents
X Helland, Christopher
2017 RE: WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS IN SUPPORT OF THE WILLOW
CREEK DAYLIGHTING/EDMONDS MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT
Existing Marsh Studies;
Parks and
Recreation/Current Parks
Projects
X Edwards, Mr Robert
2017 Re: Fish Habitat Conditions Provided by the Expanded Willow Creek
Daylighting Alternatives
Existing Marsh Studies;
Public Works/Willow Creek
Daylighting and Marsh
Restoration
X Schlenger, Paul
2017 Unocal Edmonds - August 2017 Cleanup Work (short summary) UNOCAL Cleanup --
2017 AO 4460 Amendment, Final Interim Action Work Plan UNOCAL Cleanup Arcadis
2017 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT UNOCAL Cleanup Arcadis
2017 2017 Groundwater and Operation Report, Former Unocal Edmonds Bulk
Fuel Terminal UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2017 Amendment to Agreed Order Number DE 4460 UNOCAL Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
2018 State Environmental Policy Act Handbook Legislative; Permitting X Washington State Department of Ecology
2018 Evaluation of Buffer Widths and Ecological Functions: A Review to Support
the Edmonds Marsh Study
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X X Windward Environmental
2018 Evaluation of Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones.
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X X Windward Environmental
2018 Final Baseline Monitoring Report Appendices
Existing Marsh Studies;
Parks and
Recreation/Current Parks
Projects
X Windward Environmental
2018 Willow Creek daylight Project Timeline Updated
Existing Marsh Studies;
Parks and
Recreation/Current Parks
Projects
X--
2018 Willow Creek Daylighting Project 2019 Calendar
Existing Marsh Studies;
Parks and
Recreation/Current Parks
Projects
X--
2018 Analysis of biological samples: Technical summary of methods and quality
assurance procedures
Existing Marsh Studies;
Parks and
Recreation/Current Parks
Projects
X Bollman, W
2018 Limited Soil Sampling Investigation Summary UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2018 Dual-Phase Extraction System As-Built Report UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 5 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 324
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
2018 Wetland Planting List
Native Plants Restoration;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Snohomish Conservation District
2019 City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative XDAVEY Resource Group
2019 Evaluation of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X Windward Environmental
2019 Edmonds Marsh Study Review
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X Windward Environmental
2019 EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC MODELING
REPORT Willow Creek Daylight Project EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Existing Marsh Studies;
Public Works/Willow Creek
Daylighting and Marsh
Restoration
X Cline, David
2019 Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study Final
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X Windward Environmental
2019 Willow Creek Daylight Alternatives Update
Existing Marsh Studies;
Public Works/Willow Creek
Daylighting and Marsh
Restoration
X Cline, David; Schlenger, Paul
2019 RE: WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS IN SUPPORT OF THE WILLOW
CREEK DAYLIGHTING/EDMONDS MARSH RESTORATION
Existing Marsh Studies;
Public Works/Willow Creek
Daylighting and Marsh
Restoration
X Richardson, Mr Zach
2019 Benefits of Barrier Embayments/Pocket Estuaries to Salmon in Puget Sound
Restoration Science and
Engineering References;
Salmonids
X Department of Natural Resources
2019 Willow Creek Daylight Funding Opps spreadsheet 2019 update
Existing Marsh Studies;
Parks and
Recreation/Current Parks
Projects
X--
2019 Water Quality Sampling Results in Support of the Willow Creek
Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Harbor Square Cleanup X X Shannon & Wilson
2020 DUAL-PHASE EXTRACTION SYSTEM AS-BUILT REPORT ADDENDUM UNOCAL Cleanup Arcadis
2020 Questions and Answers Sheet Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178 UNOCAL Cleanup X X X X Washington State Department of Ecology
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 6 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 325
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
2021 Endangered predators and endangered prey: Seasonal diet of Southern
Resident killer whales
Restoration Science and
Engineering References;
Salmonids
X
Hanson, M. Bradley; Emmons, Candice K.;
Ford, Michael J.; Everett, Meredith; Parsons,
Kim; Park, Linda K.; Hempelmann, Jennifer;
Doornik, Donald M. Van; Schorr, Gregory
S.; Jacobsen, Jeffrey K.; Sears, Mark F.;
Sears, Maya S.; Sneva, John G.; Baird, Robin
W.; Barre, Lynne
2021 2020 Groundwater Monitoring and Dual-Phase Extraction System Operation
Report UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2021 Initial Investigation Field Report Harbor Square Cleanup X X X Washington State Department of Ecology
2021 PUD Work Plan - Permission to work at EC ID: 83347 Harbor Square Cleanup X Snohomish County Public Utility District
No. 1
2022 6PPD in Road Runoff Assessment and Mitigation Strategies
Marsh Water Quality;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Washington State University
2022 City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management
Influence Assessment
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative X
Dugopolski, Revecca; Fohn, Mindy;
Wingrove, Katie; Herrera Environmental
Consultants
2022 Edmonds Waterfront Issues Study
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative XCity of Edmonds
2022 Edmonds Waterfront Issues Study Key Findings and Recommendations
Memo
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative XCity of Edmonds
2022 Edmonds PROS PLAN Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan 2022-2027
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative XCity of Edmonds
2022 2021 GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND DUAL-PHASE EXTRACTION
SYSTEM OPERATION REPORT UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2022 NOAA Fisheries Guidelines for Salmonid Stream Crossings in WA, OR and ID
-2022 X National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
2023 Beach nourishment in Puget Sound: status, use, and habitat impacts
Estuary and Beach Habitat;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Lambert, Max R; Chamberlin, Joshua
2023 WAC 365-190-080: Critical Areas; Legislative X Washington State
2023 Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178 Update UNOCAL Cleanup Washington State Department of Ecology
2023 2022 Groundwater Monitoring and Dual-Phase Extraction System Operation
Report UNOCAL Cleanup Arcadis
2023 Unocal Cleanup Report UNOCAL Cleanup X X X X Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates
2023 Bibliography of Native Plant Resources
Native Plants Restoration;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X--
2023 Stormwater Management Action Planning (2022-2023)
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative XCity of Edmonds
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 7 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 326
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
2024 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT ADDENDUM UNOCAL Cleanup X Arcadis
2024 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative XCity of Edmonds
-- Blue Carbon | Office of National Marine Sanctuaries X National Marine Sanctuaries
-- Encyclopedia of Puget Sound X University of Washington Puget Sound
Institute
-- Fish Passage - WDFW
Restoration Science and
Engineering References;
Salmonids
X Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife-Habitat
-- WDFW SalmonScape
Restoration Science and
Engineering References;
Salmonids
X Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
-- THE SALT MARSH Nature's Filter Between Land and Sea
Marsh Water Quality;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Cornell Cooperative Extension
-- PictureThis - Plant Identifier App
Native Plants Restoration;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X--
--CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY OF URBAN TREES PUGET SOUND
REGION, WASHINGTON
Native Plants Restoration;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X Northern Institute of Applied Climate
Science
-- Browse plant photos - Native Plant Guide
Native Plants Restoration;
Restoration Science and
Engineering References
X King County
-- Appendix H SEPA Environmental Checklist Legislative; Permitting X Washington State
-- Real estate services
Legislative; WSDOT Property
Sales X Washington State Department of
Transportation
--State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) - Washington State Department of
Ecology Legislative; Permitting X--
-- RCW 47.12.080: Sale or exchange of unused land.
Legislative; WSDOT Property
Sales X--
-- RCW 47.12.063: Surplus real property program.
Legislative; WSDOT Property
Sales X--
-- Chapter 36.70 RCW: PLANNING ENABLING ACT
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative X--
-- City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative XCity of Edmonds
-- Edmonds Climate Action Plan
Edmonds City Planning;
Legislative XCity of Edmonds
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 8 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 327
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Table 1
Existing Reports and Supporting Information Index
Soil Groundwater Sediment Reference Author
Planning and
PermittingYear Title Key Topics
Site Background
and Administrative
Documentation
Remedial
Activities and
Cleanup
Documentation
Site Investigations and Data Edmonds-
Specific
References
-- City of Edmonds GIS Map
City Council/Council
Resources; Critical Areas;
Existing Marsh Studies;
Legislative
XCity of Edmonds
-- Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Design
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X Salmon Recovery portal
-- Marina Beach Park Redevelopment
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X Washington State Recreation and
Conservation District
-- Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Design
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
X Washington State Recreation and
Conservation District
-- Willow Creek Daylighting Conceptual Design
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
XXWashington State Recreation and
Conservation District
-- Willow Creek Daylighting
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
XXWashington State Recreation and
Conservation District
-- Willow Creek Daylighting Final Feasibility Study
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
XXWashington State Recreation and
Conservation District
-- Students Saving Salmon Reports
City Council/Council
Resources; Existing Marsh
Studies
XCity of Edmonds
-- Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178 - (5180) UNOCAL Cleanup X Washington State Department of Ecology
Notes:
PUD: Public Utility District
UNOCAL: Union Oil Company of California
VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program
WSDOT: Washington State Department of Transportation
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
May 2025
Page 9 of 9
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 328
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Figures
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 329
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
P o i nt E dwa r ds
Park
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
Beac
h
D
r
N
W
2 0 0t h S t S W
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
94
t
h
A
ve
W
9
2
n
d
A
ve
W
9
t
h
Av
e
N
12th
Ave
N
1 9 6 t h S t S W
3rd Ave N
Puge t D r
9t
h
A
v
e
N
S e a v i e w
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
2 1 6 t h S t S W
6t
h
A
v
e
S
224 t h S t S W
5
t
h
A
v
e
S
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
2 3 4 t h S t S W
2 3 2 nd S t S W
8
t
h
A
v
e
S
9
6th
Av
e
W
2 36 t h S t S W
1
0
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
2 1 8 t h S t S W
M a p l e S t
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Yost Mem or ial
P a r k
W o o d w a y P a r k
W o o d w a y
E d m o n d s
2 3 8 t h S t S W
2 4 0 t h S t S W
2 4 2 n d S t S W
2 4 4 t h S t S W
D
a
y
t
o
n
A
v
e
N
1
2
t
h
A
v
e
N
W
1
8
t
h
A
v
e
N
W
Ti
mber
L
n
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Highway99
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W L y n ndale P ark
E s p e r a n c e
N 2 05 t h S t
Puget Sound Project Area
[0 0.5
Miles
SOURCE:1. Aerial Imagery: Esri (2025)LEGEND:
Project Area
Publish Date: 2025/04/25, 2:28 PM | User: jlarson
Filepath: \\gstfile01\gis\Jobs\2071_Edmonds_Marsh\Maps\reports\Estuary_Planning_Study\Edmonds_Marsh_Estuary_Planning_Study.aprx\Edmonds_Marsh_Estuary_Planning_Fig1_VicinityMap
Figure 1
Site Vicinity
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
%
%
%
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 330
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Detention
Basin
Unocal
Lower Yard
Point Edwards Condominiums
(Former Unocal Upper Yard)
Edmonds
Marsh
Marina Beach
Park
Harbor
Square
Shellabarger/
Stellas Marsh
BNSF
Bridge
BNS
F
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
BNS
F
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
Puget Sound
S h e l l a b a r g e r C r e e k
Willo
w
C
ree
k
[0 500
Feet
SOURCES:1. Aerial Imagery: Esri (2025)2. BNSF Railroad Data: WashingtonDepartment of TransportationNOTES:1. Unocal: Union Oil Company of California2. WSDOT: Washington Department ofTransportation3. BNSF: Burlington Norther Santa Fe
LEGEND:
Unocal Site Location
Approximate Outfall Location
Approximate Existing Channel
Approximate WSDOT
Stormwater Line
Approximate Point Edwards
Stormwater Line
Stream
Tidal Basin
Publish Date: 2025/05/01, 9:58 AM | User: jlarson
Filepath: \\gstfile01\gis\Jobs\Edmonds_Marsh_2071\Maps\reports\Estuary_Planning_Study\Edmonds_Marsh_Estuary_Planning_Study.aprx
Figure 2
Marsh Study Planning Area
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
%
%
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 331
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
Attachment 1
McCullough Hill PLLC Memorandum
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 332
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
______________________________________________________________________
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 6600 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattle.com
Attorney-Client Privileged / Work Product Communication
Do Not Disseminate
Memorandum
To: Blue Coast Engineering
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates (EMEA)
From: Ken Lederman
Date: April 28, 2025
Subject: Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project
Legal Analysis and Recommendations
This memo summarizes current environmental conditions and future environmental strategy
regarding the Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178 Site (Unocal Site) and the proposed effort
to perform an estuary restoration project that could intersect with residual contamination allowed
to remain in place within the Lower Yard of the Unocal Site.1 We have been asked to analyze and
advise on potential environmental liability associated with the estuary restoration project that will
daylight and reestablish a hydraulic connection between Edmonds Marsh and Puget Sound and
enhance wetlands throughout Edmonds Marsh including the Lower Yard areas of the Unocal Site
(Restoration Project).
I. Introduction and Current Status
The entire history of the Unocal Site will not be summarized here other than to provide a general
status update as to where things stand currently, both technically and procedurally.
• Additional Interim Actions have been performed at the Unocal Site, including excavation
at DB2 and continued DPE system at WSDOT storm drain.
• Additional remedial action work is still being performed, including soil vapor assessment
and fate & transport analysis.
• An updated Feasibility Study (FS) is in the final stages of public comment.
1 This memo focuses solely on the Unocal Site and the proposed remedial activities for the Lower Yard. In the course
of coordinating with Anchor QEA on technical considerations, we became aware of a separate contaminated site that
is adjacent to the northern portion of Edmonds Marsh. The Harbor Square Cleanup Site (Harbor Site) involves releases
of petroleum and related by-products that have been partially evaluated but do not appear to have been fully
characterized or remediated. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/cleanupsearch/site/3410#site-documents Additional
research and analysis of the Harbor Site will be required prior to performance of any estuary restoration activities in
order to ensure that this additional contaminated site will not be impacted or exacerbated by re-establishing the
hydraulic connection between the marsh and Puget Sound.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 333
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
o The updated FS included a Site-Specific Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation (TEE)
which resulted in more stringent requirements for the vertical point of compliance
(POC) for the buffer zone (0-4 ft bgs) and identification of additional areas where
excavation of contamination was practicable and appropriate.
o The preferred remedy under the FS has not changed – Alternative 6 is still the
preferred alternative primarily due to cost, as Alternative 4 is an order-of-
magnitude higher due to complicated engineering factors related to excavation and
replacement of WSDOT line.
• Ecology will likely approve Alternative 6.
o Alternative 6 involves continued performance of a Dual-Phase Extraction (DPE)
system, targeted additional excavation, recordation of an Environmental Covenant,
and long-term monitoring / monitored natural attenuation (LTM/MNA).
o Conditions under Alternative 6 will allow greater levels of residual contamination
on the Lower Yard, particularly in areas surrounding the WSDOT stormwater line.
II. Anticipated Path Forward for Unocal Site
• The FS will be approved as final by Ecology, which will lead to development of a draft
Cleanup Action Plan (dCAP) for the preferred remedy.
o Some additional sampling will occur to inform dCAP, but not likely to result in
substantial change to the preferred remedy.
• The dCAP will go through drafting and comment phases with Ecology, and the final dCAP
will be submitted for additional public review and comment.
• The dCAP will eventually become the final CAP (fCAP) that will control the cleanup for
the Unocal Site.
o The fCAP will include contingency provisions based on potential future discoveries
or changes in circumstances at the Unocal Site, as these contingency provisions
were not developed under the FS.
o A fCAP usually requires an Engineering Design Report, but that may not be needed
for the Unocal Site since the DPE system is already installed and the excavation
work is relatively easy to scope and plan.
o The fCAP will include more detail on the institutional engineering controls to be
installed over residual contamination areas.
o The fCAP will include a draft Environmental Covenant (EC) that will address the
areas of residual contamination and the engineering controls that will be installed
over those areas.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 334
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
• Neither the dCAP nor the fCAP will directly address the proposed Restoration Project.
o Ecology recognized the desire of the City and EMEA to promote the Restoration
Project, and Ecology responded by adjusting the TEE and requiring the updated
preferred remedy to include additional excavation work.
o Ecology’s position is that any future uses and/or restoration activities involving the
Unocal Site must not interfere with the selected remedy under the fCAP,
• The fCAP will be finalized for implementation under a Consent Decree (CD) with Ecology.
o The CD will provide Unocal with a Covenant Not to Sue, which provides protection
from further Ecology enforcement regarding all “matters addressed” under the CD
with a limited carve-out for potential “reopeners” based on newly-discovered
information or circumstances
o The CD will provide Unocal with Contribution Protection from third party claims
for all “matters addressed” under the CD.
o Essentially, if the Restoration Project caused any interference with or exacerbation
of the residual contamination remaining under Alternative 6, then Unocal would
likely not be held responsible for addressing the resulting impacts. But Unocal
would not be relieved of its primary obligations under the fCAP and the CD.
III. Issues for Restoration Project
The Restoration Project is anticipated to involve a land ownership transfer whereby the City would
become the current “owner/operator” of the Edmonds Marsh and areas of the Lower Yard
(following a transfer of ownership to the City from the WSDOT). Edmonds Marsh would then be
reconnected to Puget Sound. The reconnection of Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound would result in
potential exposure of residual contamination in the Lower Yard to surface water.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 335
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The Restoration Project raises several questions and issues related to environmental liability for
the Unocal Site.
• If the Restoration Project causes recontamination of “remediated” areas of the Lower Yard,
would the City and parties performing the Restoration Project be liable for the remedial
activities needed to address that recontamination?
• Alternatively, if the Restoration Project exacerbates or expands areas of residual
contamination in the Lower Yard, would the City and parties performing the Restoration
Project be liable for the remedial activities needed to address that exacerbation or
expansion?
o In my opinion, yes. The City and the parties performing the Restoration Project
would be deemed potentially liable parties under the Model Toxics Control Act,
Chapter 70A.305 RCW (MTCA) as the current “owners or operators” of a property
where a “release” of hazardous substances has occurred or come to be located.
RCW 70A.305.020; .040. The party performing the Restoration Project could also
face liability as an arranger / generator. Id.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 336
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The term “owner or operator” under MTCA includes anyone with an
ownership interest in a property, and anyone who exercises any control over
the property. RCW 70A.305.020(22)(a). In my experience, both the owner
of the property and the parties performing the Restoration Project would be
identified as potentially liable parties for any exacerbation or
recontamination of the Lower Yard.
The term “release” under MTCA is defined very broadly, and is not
dependent on any intent to release or dispose of hazardous substances into
the environment. See RCW 70A.305.020(32).
o Liability to Ecology under MTCA is both strict (i.e. no requirement of intent) and
joint & several. RCW 70A.305.040(2). While the City and the performing party
should not be deemed liable for the entire Unocal Site and would not be liable for
past remedial action costs already incurred, the scope of potential claims from
Ecology cannot be predicted with specificity.
At a minimum, the City and the performing party would likely face liability
exposure from Ecology to investigate the “new” or expanded impacts to the
Lower Yard and the potential correction and remediation of those “new” or
expanded impacts. The City and the performing party could also face claims
from Unocal for recovery of costs incurred by Unocal in the correction and
remediation of those “new” or expanded impacts.
Any liability claim made by Unocal would be several and subject to an
allocation of responsibility based on equitable factors. RCW 70A.305.080.
• Would the Restoration Project potentially change the parameters of the cleanup performed
by Unocal pursuant to the fCAP?
o In my opinion, yes. The creation of additional wetland areas will likely trigger
application of sediment cleanup levels outlined in Ecology’s Sediment
Management Standards (SMS), which are generally more restrictive than the
cleanup levels that have been established for the Unocal Site. The costs of
upgrading or enhancing conditions in the Lower Yard to comply with these more
stringent standards would be the responsibility of the City and the parties
performing the Restoration Project, and would not implicate Unocal. Additional
technical analysis would need to be performed to determine the nature and extent
of impacts resulting from the Restoration Project and the implications of more
stringent cleanup standards to those impacts.
• Can the contingency plans that will be required under the fCAP for the Unocal Site include
triggers or other indicators that can be tied directly to the goals and objectives of the
Restoration Project?
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 337
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
o In my opinion, yes. All activities at the Unocal Site will need to be designed,
implemented and performed in compliance with the fCAP. If we can demonstrate
to Ecology that the Restoration Project will be developed and performed in
compliance with the fCAP, then we can request that the contingency plans
incorporate the Restoration Project as part of the anticipated future uses and
operations of the Lower Yard. The Restoration Plan would also need to be
incorporated into the EC that will be developed and recorded for the Lower Yard.
In this scenario, if previously-undiscovered contamination is revealed
during the implementation of the fCAP and/or Restoration Project, and if
this previously-undiscovered contamination has not been caused or
exacerbated by the Restoration Project, then Unocal would be responsible
for the previously-undiscovered contamination and the fCAP would be
subject to reopener by Ecology.
Additionally, if the Restoration Project were alleged to have exacerbated
environmental conditions in the Lower Yard of the Unocal Site, then instead
of a liability determination, the parties (Ecology, Unocal, City) would work
together to determine if additional remedial measures were needed.
However, if previously-undiscovered contamination were revealed due to
activities performed pursuant to the Restoration Project that were deemed
to be inconsistent with the contingency plans or the EC developed under the
fCAP, then the City and parties performing the Restoration Project would
be likely be identified as the potentially liable party required to correct and
address the previously-undiscovered contamination.
Unocal would likely oppose incorporation of these triggers or indicators
into the contingency plan.
IV. Potential Options
There are several options that may be available for the City and performing party regarding the
Restoration Project.
First, all interested parties should continue to pressure Ecology to adopt Alternative 4 or expand
the scope of active remedial measures (i.e. measures other than LTM/MNA) within Alternative 6.
Based on current information, we believe that the likelihood of success of this option is low.
Second, through engagement with Ecology and Unocal, we could negotiate and incorporate
elements of the Restoration Project into both the contingency plans for the Unocal Site and for the
EC for the Lower Yard. Essentially, we would work with Ecology and Unocal to establish that any
impacts that may arise due to the Restoration Project would not result in a “reopener” of the fCAP
based on specific technical benchmarks. We would argue that incorporation of these elements is
consistent with Ecology requirements for a final preferred remedial alternative. WAC 173-340-
360(3)(a)(iv); -360(3)(d). While we believe that Ecology may be receptive to this option, it is
probable that Unocal will oppose this proposal as inconsistent with its approved remedy under the
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 338
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
FS and fCAP – particularly when Unocal has already been required to expand the scope of
Alternative 6.
Third, we could negotiate a separate Consent Decree with Ecology to address the specific
implementation of the Restoration Project. Essentially, we would negotiate a separate legal
agreement with Ecology that outlines the Restoration Project and incorporates elements of the
Unocal Site into the analysis. The resulting agreement would confirm that our Restoration Project
is consistent with the fCAP and any resulting impacts or exacerbation would not result in liability
exposure for the Unocal Site.
To obtain a separate Consent Decree with Ecology for the Restoration Project, we would need to
demonstrate that the Restoration Project is consistent with the preferred remedy adopted under the
fCAP and meets the independent requirements of remedial action under MTCA. See WAC 173-
340-370. At a minimum, we would be required to develop a soil management plan and other
measures necessary to ensure that the Restoration Project does not interfere with remedy or
exacerbate existing residual contamination in the Lower Yard. While we believe that Ecology
would be receptive to this option, and that Unocal would have limited ability to oppose this option,
this option would involve a more expensive and time-consuming process (both technically and
legally) with Ecology.
As a separate option, we could request the opportunity to negotiate a Prospective Purchaser
Consent Decree (PPCD) with Ecology. See RCW 70A.305.040(5). A PPCD provides the same
protection as a Consent Decree, but a PPCD is finalized prior to acquisition of contaminated
property based on an fCAP developed with Ecology in advance. A PPCD could be an option here
if the City pursued ownership of the Lower Yard after the fCAP for the Unocal Site was
implemented and active remedial measures were completed. However, a PPCD is a discretionary
process that would need to be approved by Ecology, and that approval would be dependent on
demonstrating that the Restoration Project would lead to a more expeditious cleanup, would not
contribute to existing or threatened releases, would not interfere with remedial activities, and
would result in substantial new and additional resources being available to facilitate and conduct
remedial activities. See RCW 70A.305.040(5)(a); WAC 173-340-520(1)(a) and -520(1)(c). In our
case, we would not be doing additional “cleanup” of the Unocal Site – rather, we would only be
performing the Restoration Project and incorporating any additional measures designed to present
any interference with the preferred remedial alternative for the Unocal Site. As such, Ecology may
prefer to use a standard Consent Decree as the best vehicle for evaluating and implementing the
Restoration Project.2
V. Conclusion
Based on current information and the expected path forward, the performance and implementation
of the Restoration Project presents substantial risk for MTCA liability to attach to those parties
who own/operate the Lower Yard in the future and to those parties who implement the Restoration
Project. This liability would only arise if the Restoration Project impacted, interfered with,
conflicted with or exacerbated the Lower Yard of the Unocal Site after implementation of the
2 A prospective purchaser agreed order (PPAO) is also an option, which would not provide liability protection but
would stay enforcement by Ecology during performance of remedial activities that are authorized under the PPAO.
RCW 70A.305.040(6).
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 339
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
preferred remedial alternative (Alternative 6). There are multiple options that may ameliorate this
liability risk, but there are no guarantees that these options would completely prevent liability from
being asserted against the future owners/operators of the Lower Yard or the parties implementing
the Restoration Project.
In my opinion, negotiation of a Consent Decree with Ecology would be the most viable and
protective option, even if doing so increases the time and cost associated with the Restoration
Project. While a PPCD would be a better option, there are potential procedural obstacles that may
prevent Ecology from accepting our proposal.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 340
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Attachment 2
Unocal Contamination and Existing
Conditions Overlay with Marsh Design
Alternatives Figures
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 341
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
A
A'B
B'
SOURCE: Marsh alternative by Blue Coast.
Feasibility Study figure by ARCADIS.
LEGEND:
Marsh Alternative 1
High Tide Line
Publish Date: 2025/04/25 11:15 AM | User: acarlson
Filepath: K:\Users\acarlson\Edmonds Marsh\Edmonds Marsh Overlay Figures.dwg | Figure 1
Figure 1
Marsh Alternative 1 Overlay on FS Alternative 6
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 342
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
A
A'B
B'
SOURCE: Marsh alternative by Blue Coast.
Feasibility Study figure by ARCADIS.
LEGEND:
Marsh Alternative 2
High Tide Line
Publish Date: 2025/04/25 11:15 AM | User: acarlson
Filepath: K:\Users\acarlson\Edmonds Marsh\Edmonds Marsh Overlay Figures.dwg | Figure 2
Figure 2
Marsh Alternative 2 Overlay on FS Alternative 6
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 343
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Approximate Location of
BNSF Railroad Tracks
SOURCE: Marsh alternative by Blue Coast.
Feasibility Study figure by ARCADIS.
LEGEND:
Marsh Alternative 1
Daylight Channel
Marsh Alternative 2
Daylight Channel
High Tide Line
Publish Date: 2025/04/25 11:15 AM | User: acarlson
Filepath: K:\Users\acarlson\Edmonds Marsh\Edmonds Marsh Overlay Figures.dwg | Figure 3
Figure 3
Marsh Alternatives Overlay on FS Cross-Section A-A'
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 344
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
SOURCE: Marsh alternative by
Blue Coast. Feasibility Study
figure by ARCADIS.
LEGEND:
Marsh Alternative 1
Daylight Channel
Marsh Alternative 2
Daylight Channel
High Tide Line
Publish Date: 2025/04/25 11:15 AM | User: acarlson
Filepath: K:\Users\acarlson\Edmonds Marsh\Edmonds Marsh Overlay Figures.dwg | Figure 4
Figure 4
Marsh Alternatives Overlay on FS Cross-Section B-B'
Contamination Impacts Analysis Report
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 345
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Attachment 3
Unocal Site Groundwater Contours and
Elevations
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 346
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
P-8
P-3
P-5
P-7
P-6
P-2
P-1
MW-530(6.95)
MW-519(6.24)
UPPER YARD
(POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS)
PZ-10
PZ-9PZ-8
PZ-7PZ-6
PZ-5PZ-4
AS-1
PUGET SOUND
PZ-2
PZ-1
SVE-1 SVE-2
LOWER
YARD
PORT OF
EDMONDS
POINT EDWARDS
RETENTION POND
P-4
DPE SYSTEM
OUTFALL
WILLOW CREEK
EDMONDS MARSH
WILLOW
CREEK
TIDAL BASIN
FENCE
DPE SYSTEM
MW-507
(7.39)
MW-506(7.31)
MW-504
(7.26)
MW-505
(7.30)
MW-503(7.61)
MW-502
(8.64)
MW-515(7.23)
MW-516
(7.24)
MW-517
(7.22)
MW-514
(7.25)
MW-513
(7.25)
MW-511(8.35)
MW-522(6.21)
MW-521
(6.22)
MW-509
(7.27)
MW-143(9.39)*MW-126(8.24)
MW-139R(7.32)
MW-104(6.57)
MW-8R(6.19)
MW-20R
LM-2(7.51)
MW-531
(6.26)
MW-532
(7.08)MW-520(6.23)
MW-525
(7.02)
DPE-5
DPE-3
DPE-2
DPE-7
DPE-9
DPE-12
DPE-13
DPE-14
DPE-1
DPE-10
DPE-6
DPE-4
/PZ-3
MW-534
(7.50)
MW-533
(7.30)
MW-535
(7.13)
MW-129R
(8.58)
MW-E-R(8.16)MW-512
(7.19)
MW-131(NG)
MW-109(7.42)
MW-108(7.50)
MW-501(11.01)
MW-500(12.89)
MW-135(NG)
MW-527
(10.41)
MW-528(10.95)
MW-136MW-203(9.50)
MW-13U(9.30)
MW-134X(9.74)
MW-150(6.21)
MW-149R(6.24)
MW-151(NG)
MW-524(6.94)
MW-147(6.39)
MW-523(6.20)
MW-526(8.56)
DPE-11
DPE-15
DPE-16
DPE-17
DPE-18
MW-518(6.83)
MW-101(6.79)
7
7
8
8
9
9
1
0
1
1
12
12
11
10
LEGEND:
FORMER UNOCAL BULK FUEL TERMINAL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
INTERIOR MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PERIMETER MONITORING WELL LOCATION
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PIEZOMETER LOCATION
AIR SPARGE WELL LOCATION
DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION (DPE) WELL
LOCATION
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) WELL
LOCATION
WSDOT STORMWATER LINE
POINT EDWARDS STORM DRAIN LINE
20-MIL POLYETHYLENE SHEETING
SITE BOUNDARY
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE
THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM
OF 1988 (NAVD88)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
NOT GAUGED
WELLS ARE NOT USED FOR CONTOURING
PZ-1
DPE-10
NOTES:
1. 20-MIL POLYETHYLENE SHEETING INSTALLED UPON
COMPLETION OF PHASE I EXCAVATION. SHEETING
REACHES TO APPROXIMATELY 7.5 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA
LEVEL.
2. HORIZONTAL DATUM: WASHINGTON STATE COORDINATE
SYSTEM NORTH ZONE (NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF
1983/NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1998).
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88
UNITS: U.S. SURVEY FEET
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL ESTABLISHED BY
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM VIA VERTICAL REFERENCE
STATION NETWORK.
3. SOUTHEAST PORTION OF WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT)
STORMWATER LINE HAS NOT BEEN SURVEYED.
4. NAVD 88 = NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988.
6. WSDOT = WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
5. MONITORING WELL MW-E WAS RE-INSTALLED IN PLACE ON
OCTOBER 20, 2017 AND RENAMED MW-E-R.
AS-1
MW-13
SVE-1
(18.13)
MW-518
MW-515
(NG)
*
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONSAND CONTOURSMARCH 19, 2024
OUTFALL #002
18
FIGURE
12
IM
A
G
E
S
:
A
r
c
a
d
i
s
L
o
g
o
.
p
n
g
XR
E
F
S
:
G
E
N
-
X
-
B
A
S
E
M
A
P
-
2
R
E
C
O
R
D
-
I
N
T
-
A
C
T
-
X
-
R
E
C
O
R
D
T
O
P
O
4
5
3
6
2
X
0
2
G
E
N
-
X
-
T
I
T
L
E
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
-
-
-
-
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
k
m
7
6
8
5
\
D
C
\
A
C
C
D
o
c
s
\
A
r
c
a
d
i
s
A
C
C
U
S
\
A
U
S
-
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
-
C
H
E
V
_
F
M
R
U
N
O
C
A
L
B
U
L
K
F
U
E
L
_
E
D
M
O
N
D
S
_
W
A
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
0
_
W
I
P
\
1
0
T
_
A
R
C
_
E
N
V
\
2
0
24
\
0
1
-
D
W
G
\
G
W
M
-
2
0
2
4
Q
1
-
F
0
9
-
G
W
E
C
O
N
T
O
U
R
.
d
w
g
L
A
Y
O
U
T
:
9
S
A
V
E
D
:
7
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
4
7
:
0
7
P
M
A
C
A
D
V
E
R
:
2
4
.
2
S
(
L
M
S
T
E
C
H
)
P
A
G
E
S
E
T
U
P
:
-
-
-
-
PL
O
T
S
T
Y
L
E
T
A
B
L
E
:
-
-
-
-
P
L
O
T
T
E
D
:
7
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
4
7
:
0
8
P
M
B
Y
:
K
,
M
A
H
E
N
D
R
A
CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANYFORMER UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIAEDMONDS BULK FUEL TERMINAL, 11720 UNOCO ROAD
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT ADDENDUM
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
160'320'
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 347
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Attachment 4
Edmonds Marsh Existing Conditions and
Sampling Locations
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 348
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Filename: I:\WIP\21-1\12588 Willow Creek Daylight H& and Soils Study\GIS\MXD\SAMPLING_LOCATIONS.mxd Date: 5/23/2017 beo
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
´
´
!!Ó((
!!Ó((
!!Ó((
!!Ó((
!!Ó((
!!Ó((
!!Ó((
SS
hh
eellllaabbaarrgg ee rr CC rr ee ee kk
WWiilllloowwCCrreeeekk
UnocalProperty
HarborSquare
Edmonds Marsh(A pprox. 26.6 Acres)ExistingOutfallInlet
Off-Le ash Dog ParkArea
Mar ina Beach Par k
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
D
r
i
f
t
F i s h M igration Pathway
FishMirgati
o
n
Willow CreekOutfall
Shellabarger/Stellas Ma rsh(A pprox. 4.7 Acre s)
P athway
M a c r o a l g a eBeds
MUDLIN E
Port of EdmondsMarina
BNSF Bridges
City of EdmondsStorm Vault andTidegate
Port of EdmondsOwns 600' Long Pipe
WSDOTEdmonds WayOutfall
Edm onds PointStormwater Pond
WSDOT Edmonds WayStormwater System
Chevron/UnocalStormwater Pond
Point Edwards
Dayton St
Pine St
216th St SW
U
nion Oil C
o
m
pany R
d
SR-104
Willow CreekHatchery"
BNSF Railroad
WC-05
WC-04
WC-03
WC-02
WC-01
WC-07
WC-06
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community
Willow Creek DaylightEdmonds MarshEdmonds, Washin gton
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIG. A
May 201 7 21-1-125 88-032
0 300150
Feet
µ
Note: Marsh areas calculated from [Mudflat and SaltMarsh] + [Freshwater Emergent] + [Forested Wetland].
Legend
Existing Ch annel
Se diment D riftZone
Macroalgae Bed
Existing Stormline
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
KITSAPPENINSULA
Seattle
PROJECTLOCATION
Content may not reflectNational Geographic's currentmap policy. Sources: NationalGeographic, Esri, DeLorme,HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN ,
Ex isting C hanne l, Marsh,and Upland Area s
Fo rested We tlan d
Fre shwa terEmergent
Mu dfla t a nd Sa ltMarsh
Fo rested U pland
Existing Da ylightChannel
Existing TidalInundation
Water QualitySample Location!!Ó((
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 349
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Planning Study
City of Edmonds
7/01/2025
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 350
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Findings
3. What’s Next?
4. Questions
and
Discussion
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 351
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 352
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The
Original
Estuary
1872 Survey
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 353
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Now
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 354
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
The
Future?
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 355
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Goals:
•Reconnect the Marsh to Puget Sound
•Restore the estuary for all species
•Provide protection against flooding
•Education, recreation, & tourism
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 356
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Plus the funding step
National Coastal Resilience Fund
“The goal is to enhance protections for coastal communities from the
impacts of storms, floods, and other natural coastal hazards and to
improve habitats for fish and wildlife.”
The NFWF Project Pipeline Categories
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 357
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
What it is:
•Established by and managed by the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) and NOAA
•Mostly privately funded - Salesforce in our case
Why we received a grant:
•Strong community support
•Citizen involvement and local match
•Regional value of estuary restoration
•Planning for flooding and sea level rise
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 358
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
How it works for Edmonds:
•Administered by Edmonds Public Works
•Technical consulting by Blue Coast Engineering
•Supported by the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates
•Period of performance June 1, 2023 to November 1, 2025.
•Award from NFWF = $135,000
•Local match = $91,000
•Total project cost = $226,000
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 359
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 360
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Accomplishments
•Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
Report – 95% complete
•Contamination Impact Analysis
Report – 95% complete
•Planning Report – 75% complete
•Public Outreach and Engagement –
75% complete
My Edmonds News
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 361
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
BLUE COAST
E N G I N E E R I N G
Edmonds Marsh Restoration
Hydrodynamic Modeling Overview
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 362
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Purpose of the Modeling
The water flow model was developed to provide an accurate understanding
of how restoration may impact flood risk and how different alternatives
could reduce those risks
The hydrodynamic model evaluates:
• Current risk to Edmonds' waterfront under different storm and tide
scenarios
• The impact of sea level rise on future flooding
• The impact excavating a portion of the Unocal site could have on
flooding
• The impact of adding SR104 stormwater to the marsh
• Flow velocities in the open channel reconnection and their effect on
fish passage
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 363
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Hydraulic Simulations Completed
Freshwater InflowTidal ConditionsPurposeSimulation #
Equivalent 10-year return
Flood Event
Measured king tide including
storm surge (December
2022)
December 27, 2022,
Flood Event1
100-year flood tributary
inputs (SAIC 2013
hydrograph)
Predicted king tide100-year Flood with
Spring Tide2
100-year flood tributary
inputs (SAIC 2013
hydrograph)
Measured king tide including
storm surge (December
2022)
100-year Flood with
Extreme High Tides3
100-year flood tributary
inputs (SAIC 2013
hydrograph)
Measured king tide including
storm surge (December
2022) plus SLR (3.2 ft)2
100-year Flood with
SR104 Stormwater,
with SLR and Extreme
High Tides
4
100-year flood tributary
inputs (SAIC 2013
hydrograph) and
100-year flows from SR-104
stormwater pipe routed into
marsh
Measured king tide including
storm surge (December
2022)
100-year Flood with
SLR and Extreme High
Tides
5
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 364
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
> 5 ft
0 ft
Scenario
1Existing
Conditions
Model
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 365
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 366
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
King Tide
+
3.2’ SLR
+
100-yr
Flow
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 367
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
BLUE COAST
E N G I N E E R I N G
Edmonds Marsh Restoration
Contamination Impacts Analysis Overview
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 368
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Contamination Analysis Study
• Completed by Anchor QEA
• Includes discussion of:
• Regulatory Considerations
• Implications of the proposed
daylighting alternatives
• Potential mitigation options
• Regulatory
• Design
• Construction
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 369
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Future Landowner Liability
• Future landowners will be responsible for known, remaining
contamination.
• Unocal remains responsible for newly identified
contamination.
• Excavation of contaminated soils will require coordination
with Ecology and removal following specific standards.
• Remaining contamination does not preclude future
restoration but make it more expensive.
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 370
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Potential Mitigation Options
Design
• Avoidance
• Partial over-excavation
with engineered cap
• Geomembrane and/or clay
liners
• Cut off walls or permeable
reactive barriers
Regulatory
• Consent decree with Ecology
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 371
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 372
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
•Pre-proposal written by EMEA with assistance from
the Puget Sound Partnership and Blue Coast
Engineering
•Submitted 5/25/25 by the City of Edmonds Public
Works
•Invitation for full proposal 6/24/25
•Proposal due 7/17/25
•NFWF funding decision made Dec, 2025
•Grant work to be completed 6/1/28
Next NFWF Grant Timeline:
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 373
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
NFWF Project Pipeline Category 2
Site Assessment & Preliminary Design:
Deliverables:
•Project flood risks and vulnerability
assessment;
•Community selected restoration
conceptual design;
•Land appraisal;
•Cultural resources site study;
•Restoration cost estimates;
•Permitting;
•Plan for future project funding; and
•30% preliminary design.
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 374
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Next NFWF Grant Cost:
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 375
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Additional Grants:
Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) next winter, multiple
other public and private grant sources, for:
•Acquisition
•Final design
•Construction
•Monitoring
and
Maintenance
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 376
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
•Water quality, Puget Sound health
•Recreation, education, quality of life
•Flood Protection
•Salmon recovery
•Birds, other fish and wildlife
•Carbon storage mitigation
•Ecotourism
•Fundable
Why Restore the Edmonds Marsh?
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 377
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 378
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/1/2025
Amend Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.70 Street Vacations
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Emiko Rodarte
Background/History
July 9, 2019 - Introduction at City Council PPW Committee
October 1, 2019 - Introduction at City Council
October 15, 2019 - Public Hearing at City Council
June 3, 2025 - Council Committee A
Staff Recommendation
Approval to hold a public hearing on proposed amendments on July 22, 2025.
Narrative
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.70 Street Vacations establishes procedures
and criteria that the city uses to make decisions regarding vacations of streets, alleys, and public access
easements. Amendments to the street vacation code were proposed in 2019 and included a public
process before the Planning Board and City Council. Council requested an additional public hearing, but
in consideration of significant forthcoming changes in the council and Mayoral positions, staff was asked
to hold off bringing the code update back to Council until 2020. In 2020 the pandemic further delayed
the code update process. As requested at Council Committee A on June 3, 2025, this packet includes the
previous Planning Board and Council history.
Amendments to the street vacation code are proposed to address the following:
· Placement of street vacation code under Title 18 - Public Works Requirements
· Reorganization and clarification of various code sections to make the process and requirements
more clear
· Clarification that this code section applies to the vacation of streets, alleys, and public
easements relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes
· Requirement for an appraisal to be completed by a city selected appraiser, at the expense of the
applicant and only after a resolution of intent has been approved by the council.
· Allowance for the conditions placed on the street vacation to be met within a timeframe set by
resolution or within 90-days as stated in the code.
Much of the code update is primarily related to reorganization and adding clarification to the process.
Changes to the code are proposed to align the City’s street vacation code with state law regarding street
vacations as contained in chapter 35.79 RCW. The Planning Board’s previous discussions largely focused
10.3
Packet Pg. 379
on monetary compensation for the vacations, the appraisal process, and the ability of the applicants to
challenge conditions related to the vacation. The Planning Board recommended code update options,
which are included in this packet for reference.
Staff is recommending the city modify our street vacation code to conform with state law. Although
street vacations do not occur frequently, a single large street vacation has the potential to capture
significant revenue, given the high property values in Edmonds. That revenue would be received by the
general fund.
Staff’s recommendation also reflects market reality. For example, if one were proposing a street
vacation where the market value of the land to be vacated is $100,000, it wouldn’t be in the public
interest for the city to forego all that revenue in the hypothetical scenario where it also wanted to
reserve an easement worth $10,000. Of course, these questions related to monetary policy, lie within
the purview of the City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Draft Street Vacation Code redline
Attachment 2 - Draft Street Vacation Code Updates clean
Attachment 3 - Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes 8.14.2019
Attachment 4 - Planning Board Minutes 9.25.2019
Attachment 5 - City Council Introduction Minutes 10.1.2019
Attachment 6 - City Council Public Hearing Minutes 10.15.2019
Attachment 7 - Past Street Vacations Summary
Attachment 8 - Council Presentation
10.3
Packet Pg. 380
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 1/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
Chapter 20.7018.5518 XX55
STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Sections:
20.7018.55.000 Purpose.
18.55.005 Definitions.
20.7018.55.010 A Applicability and effect.
20.7018.55.05015 Initiation of proceedings and application.
20.7018.55.020 Criteria for vacation.
20.70.030 City easement rights for public utilities and services.
20.7018.55.040 Limitations on vacations.
20.70.XXX Appraisals and appraisal fee.
20.7018.55.050 Initiation of proceedings.
20.7018.55.060 Application requirements.
20.7018.55.070 Date of Ppublic hearing – Date fixing.
20.7018.55.080 Staff report preparation
20.7018.55.090 Public notification – Contents and distribution.
20.7018.55.100 Vacation file content and availability.
20.7018.55.110 Public hearing procedures– Required.
20.7018.55.120 Public hearing – Continuation.
20.7018.55.130 Public hearing – Presentation by planning manager.
18.55.120 City easement rights for public utilities and services.
18.55.130 Appraisals and appraisal fee.
20.7018.55.140 Resolution of intent and Ffinal decision.
20.7018.55.000 Purpose.
This chapter establishes the procedures and criteria that the city will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys,
and other types of public access easements, or portions thereof relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes. [Ord.
2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.005 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be understood in accord with the definitions, below:
A. “applicant” shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of property abutting upon the subject property.
B. “subject property” means the street, alley , public access easement, or portion thereof sought to be vacated.
C. “abutting” means having a lineal boundary in common with a portion of the boundary of the subject property. A
property that touches the subject property at a single point is not “abutting” under this definition. Where the
subject property constitutes less than the full width of the dedicated right-of-way and has not been improved for
travel purposes, then “abutting” means having a lineal boundary with only the subject property . Where the
subject property constitutes less than the full width of the dedicated right-of-way and where some portion of the
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 381
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 2/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
subject property has been improved for travel purposes, then “abutting” means having a li neal boundary with
either side of the right-of-way segment that contains the subject property.
D. “public access easement” means an easement for public right-of-way or similar easement for pedestrian and/or
vehicular travel. Publicly owned easements that serve underground or overhead utilities but serve no travel
function do not fall within the definition of “public access easement” for the purposes of this chapter.
E. “portion thereof” means a portion of any street, alle y, or public access easement sought to be vacated.
F. “director” means the Public Works Director or their designee.
G. “necessary” or “necessity” means reasonable necessity in the foreseeable future. It does not mean absolute, or
indispensibleindispensable, or immediate need.
H. “travel” means vehicular, pedestrian, or other mode of travel by the public.
20.7018.55.010 Applicability and effect.
A. General. This chapter applies to each request for vacation of streets, alleys, and public access easements, or
portions thereof relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes. This chapter shall not apply to vacationthe
release or termination of other types of public easements like utility easements. As used in this chapter, the term
“subject property” means the street, alley or public easement, or portions thereof sought to be vacated. Where the
term “applicant” is used, if the city did not initiate the vacation, “applicant” shall refer to the petitioning
owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof, subject to the vacation request. [Ord. 3910
§ 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].by city council or by petition. Note: if the street to be vacatedsubject property is
shown on the City’s official street map (Chapter 19.8018.50 ECDC), the an ordinance approved street
vacationvacating the subject property also changesshall be deemed to have amended the official street map to
remove the vacated streetsubject property (See Chapter 20.65 ECDC). The director shall be authorized to update
the official street map in accord with each approved street vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018.55.05015 Initiation of proceedings and application.
A. A vacation may be initiated by:
1. A. City council; or
2. B. Petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley
to be vacated or, in the case of an easement,owners of two-thirds of property underlying the portion
of the easement to be vacatedsubject property.
C. Hereafter within this chapter, where the term “applicant” is used, if the city did not initiate the vacation,
“applicant” shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof,
subject to the vacation request. [Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
B. Initiation by City Council resolution for vacation. The City Council may initiate a street vacation, by resolution,
vacation procedures. The resolution shall contain a legal description of the subject property. When a vacation is
initiated by resolution, staff shall prepare an application that conforms to D, below, ex cept that applications for such
vacations shall be exempt from D.1, D.3, and D.4.
C. Petition for vacation brought by abutting property owners . The vested title owners of an interest in any real
estatethe real property abutting upon any street or alley, or underlying any public easement governed by this
chaptersubject property, may petition the city council for vacation of the subject property. The petition shallmust
be signed by signed by the owners of more than at least two-thirds of the property abutting the street or
alleysubject property. The two-thirds ownership shall be calculated (based on front footagelinear frontage
abutting the subject property), or underlying the public easement (based on square footage).
D. An applicant may apply for a vacation by submitting the followingapplication for a street vacation initiated by
Petition shall contain the following items:
1. Application fees as set forth in ECDC 15.00.020, established by city council resolution in its sole
legislative discretion.
2. A signed agreement and paydeposit of sufficient funds to cover the cost of an appraisal as
provided for in Section 18.XX55.130XXX;
3. A. A valid vacation petition with supporting affidavits on forms provided by the
planningengineering division;
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 382
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 3/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
4. B. A legal description of the subject propertystreet, alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacated.
This legal description shall be prepared by a surveyor registered in the state of Washington;
5. A completed application and fee as established by ordinanceresolution of the city council;
6. C. Fifteen paper copies of aA site survey, drawn to scale map showing the street, alley, easement
or part thereof to be vacated the segment of right-of-way containing the subject property and the
full width of the right-of-way [insert distance] feet in each direction of the limits of the subject
property; and
7. An assessor’s parcel map showing showing all properties with subdivision, block, lots, and
specifying open and unopened rights-of-way for a radius of 3400 feet from any boundary of the
street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be vacated subject property. The site survey se site maps
must be e at ato scale of 1" = 50';
D. An 8-1/2-by-11-inch clear plastic transparency of the site map;
8. E. Address labels obtained from the Snohomish County comptroller’s office containing the names
and addresses of the owners of all property within 300 feet of any boundary of the street, alley,
easement, or part thereof, to be vacatedAdjacent Property Owners List following guidelines
established by the Planning Division; Address labels for the owners of real property within 300
feet of the boundaries of the subject property. Addresses shall be obtained from the Snohomish
County’s real property tax records. The adjacent property owners list must be current to within six
months of the date of initial application.;
9. F. A copy of the Snohomish County assessor’s map identifying the properties specified in
subsection 6E of this section;
10. Identification ofA title report that identifies the applicant as having a vested title in the abutting
property and that identifies which of the abutting property owners (or predecessors-in-interest)
originally dedicated the subject property; and
11. Any additional information or material that the Public Works Director or his/hertheir
appointeedesignee determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the
requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
G. Two copies of an appraisal prepared by a qualified land appraiser with an M.A.I. designation, establishing the fair
market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated. An appraisal is not required if a utility easement only
is proposed to be vacated;
H. A completed application and fee as established by ordinance;
I. If the property was originally dedicated by one and only one of the abutting properties, the designation of
the property from which the right-of-way was dedicated; and
J. Any additional information or material that the manager of the planning division or his/her appointee
determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993].
20.7018.55.020 Criteria for vacation.
The city council may vacate the public’s right in a street, alley, or public easement relating to street, pedestrian or
travel purposessubject propertyeasement only if it finds that :
A. Tthe vacation and any conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate , collectively, is are in the
public interest. This decision is left to the legislative discretion of the city council.; and
B. The street, alley, or public easement is not currently necessary for travel or other street purposes, nor likely to be
in the future and that if the public easement is primarily for pedestrian access, it is not likely to be useful for
pedestrian access now or in the future; and;
No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 383
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 4/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
20.70.030 Right to reserve easementsCity easement rights for public utilities and services.
In vacating a street, alley, or public easement governed by this chapter, the city council may reserve for the city any
easements or the right to exercise and grant any easements for the following purposes:
cConstruction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. [Ord. 3910 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993].
Pedestrian walkway or trail purposes;
Construction, repair and maintenance of a third party utility company or municipal corporation or special
purpose district whothat has a vested interest in the subject property; and
Any other type of easement relating to the city’s right to control, use and manage rights -of-way.
20.7018.55.040 Limitations on vacations.
A. Areas that May Not Be Vacated. The city may not vacate any street, alley, public easement relating to street,
pedestrian or travel purposes, or part thereofsubject property that abuts any a body of water unless all elements
of RCW 35.79.035 are complied with, and the vacated area will thereby become available for the city or other
public entity to acquire and to use for a public purposesatisfied.
B. Objection by Property Owner. The city shall not proceed with the a city council initiated vacation if the owners of
50 percent or more of the lineal footage of property abutting the street or alley or part thereof, or underlying the
public easement or part thereof, to be vacatedsubject property file a written objection in the engineering division
prior to the timeno later than noon on the date of the hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.XXX Appraisals and appraisal fee
The Public Works director is authorized to obtain appraisals from qualified, independent appraisers as part of
preparing staff reports on vacations. Payment to the City of an appraisal fee in the amount of five thousand dollars
($5000), which fee shall be used to obtain an appraisal, prepared by a city -selected appraiser establishing fair market
value of the street, alley, public easement relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes, or part thereof to be
vacated, taking into account any reduction in fair market value associated with the reservation of any easements.
20.7018.55.050 Initiation of proceedings.
A vacation may be initiated by:
A. City council; or
B. Petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated
or, in the case of an easement, two-thirds of property underlying the portion of the easement to be vacated.
C. Hereafter within this chapter, where the term “applicant” is used, if the city did not initiate the vacation,
“applicant” shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof,
subject to the vacation request. [Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018.55.060 Application requirements.
An applicant may apply for a vacation by submitting the following:
A. A vacation petition with supporting affidavits on forms provided by the planning division;
B. A legal description of the street, alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacated. This legal description shall be
prepared by a surveyor registered in the state of Washington;
C. Fifteen paper copies of a site map showing the street, alley, easement or part thereof to be vacated and showing
all properties with subdivision, block, lots, and specifying open and unopened rights -of-way for a radius of 400 feet
from the street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be vacated. These site maps must be at a scale of 1" = 50';
D. An 8-1/2-by-11-inch clear plastic transparency of the site map;
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 384
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 5/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
E. Address labels obtained from the Snohomish County comptroller’s office containing the names and addresses of
the owners of all property within 300 feet of any boundary of the street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be
vacated;
F. A copy of the Snohomish County assessor’s map identifying the properties specified in subsection E of this
section;
G. Two copies of an appraisal prepared by a qualified land appraiser with an M.A.I. designation, establishing the fair
market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated. An appraisal is not required if a utility easement only
is proposed to be vacated;
H. A completed application and fee as established by ordinance;
I. If the property was originally dedicated by one and only one of the abutting properties, the designation of the
property from which the right-of-way was dedicated; and
J. Any additional information or material that the manager of the planning division or his/her appointee determines
is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018.55.070 Date of Ppublic hearing – Date fixing.
Upon receiving a complete Subsequent to the completion of an application for vacation, or upon passage of a
resolution initiation by the city council seekinginitiating vacation, the city council shall by resolution fix a time
when the city council will hold a public hearing on the proposed vacation. The hearing will shall not be more than
60 days nor less than 20 days after the date of passage of the resolution scheduling the public hearing. [Ord. 2933 §
1, 1993].
20.7018.55.080 Staff report preparation.
A. Contents. The planning managerPublic Works Director or his/her designee shall consult with the City’s planning
managerdepartment on the proposal and prepare a staff report containing the following information:
1. All pertinent application materials submitted by the applicant;
2. All comments regarding the vacation received in the engineering division prior to distribution of the staff
report;
3. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provisions of this chapter , state law, and the
applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
4. A recommendation on the vacation.
B. Distribution. Prior to the hearing, the planning managerPublic Works Director shall distribute this the staff
report to:
1. Each member of the city council; and
2. Each applicant (if applicable). [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018.55.090 Public notification – Contents and distribution.
A. Content. The city clerk shall prepare a public notice containing the following information:
1. A statement that a request to vacate the subject property treet, alley, easement, or part thereof will be
considered by the city council;
2. A locational description in non-legal language along with a vicinity map that identifies the street, alley,
easement, or part thereofsubject property proposed to be vacated;
3. A statement of the time and place of the public hearing before the city council;
4. A statement that the of the availability of the vacation file is available for viewing at Edmonds City Hall;
5. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the city council prior to or at the4:00
pm on the date of the public hearing and to appear before the city council at the hearing to give comments
orally; and
6. A description of any easement under consideration to be retained by the cityrequired as a condition. In the
event an easement condition is desired, but was not included in the notice, the public hearing will be
continued to allow time for notice of the easement condition to be provided.
B. Distribution. At least 20 calendar days before the public hearing the engineering manager division shall distribute
the public notice as follows:
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 385
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 6/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
1. A copy will be sent to the owner of each piece of property within 300 feet of any boundary of the street,
alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacatedsubject property;
2. A copy will be sent to each the residents living immediately adjacent toof properties abutting the street,
alley, public easement relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes, or part thereof to be vacatedsubject
property;
3. A copy will be published in the official newspaper of the city, except no vicinity map shall be required;
4. At least three copies will be posted in conspicuous public places in the city; and
5. At least three one copyies will be posted on the subject property street, alley, easement, or part thereof to be
vacated. [Ord. 3901 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018.55.100 Vacation file content and availability.
A. Content. The planning managerpPublic wWorks dDirector shall compile a vacation file which contains all
information pertinent to the proposed vacation.
B. Availability. This file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the engineering division
during regular business hours. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018.55.110 Public hearing procedures – Required.
A. Public Hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on each requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
B. Continuation of public hearing. The city council may continue the hearing if, for any reason, it is unable to hear
all of the public comments on the proposed vacation, or if the city council determines that it needs more
information on the proposed vacation. If during the hearing, the city council announces the time and place of the
nextto continue the hearing on the vacation, no further notice of the hearing need be given, except as provided
in 18.55.090.A.6, where a new easement condition is under consideration . [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
C. Presentation. At the outset of the hearing, the public works planning managerdirector or his/her designee shall
make a brief presentation of:
1. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provision of this chapter , state law (as
necessary), and the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
2. A recommendation on the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
D. Public Participation. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the
following ways:
1. By submitting written comments to the city council either by delivering the comments to the
engineering division prior to 4:00 pm on the hearing date or by giving the comments directly to the city
council at the hearing; and
1.2. By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments directly
to the city council. The city council may reasonablereasonably limit the extent of these oral
comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing.
20.7018.55.120 Public hearing – Continuation.
The city council may continue the hearing if, for any reason, it is unable to hear all of the public comments on the
vacation, or if the city council determines that it needs more information on the vacation. If during the hearing, the
city council announces the time and place of the next hearing on the vacation, no further notice of the hearing need
be given. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018.55.130 Public hearing – Presentation by planning manager.
At the outset of the hearing, the planning manager or his/her designee shall make a brief presentation of:
A. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provision of this chapter and the applicable provisions of
the comprehensive plan; and
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 386
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 7/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
B. A recommendation on the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.120 Right to reserve easements.
In vacating any subject property, the city council may reserve for the city any easements or the right to exercise and
grant any easements for the following purposes:
A. Construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. [Ord. 3910 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993].
B. Pedestrian walkway or trail purposes; and/or
C. Construction, repair and maintenance of utilities by a third-party utility company, municipal corporation, or
special purpose district that has a vested interest in the subject property.
Additionally and/or alternatively, the city council may condition the street vacation on the conveyance of an
easement between third-parties.
Utilities do not have a right to remain in vacated right-of-way without an easement. Nor will the city be liable for
any damages or loss to a utility by reason of such vacation. When a right-of-way is vacated the utility’s authority
from the City to have its facilities within such right-of-way is extinguished. The city will use its best efforts to notify
any utility that may have facilities within the right-of-way to be vacated to allow the utility an opportunity to
negotiate an easement for its facilities. Where a city reserves an easement for a utility, it may also require
compensation from that utility for the easement right, even when the utility is city owned.
18.55.130 Appraisals and appraisal fee
A. Applicability. Where the resolution of intent to vacate includes a compensation requirement, an independent
appraisal shall be required.
B. Appraisal fee. If the City Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subject property and such
resolution contains an appraisal requirement, the petitioner shall deposit sufficient funds to cover the City’s
estimated cost of an appraisal of the subject property. In the event that the City’s actual appraisal cost is less
than the amount deposited, the vacation compensation paid by the petitioner to the City shall be reduced by the
difference between the deposit and the actual cost, or, in the alternative, such difference shall be refunded. In
the event that the City’s actual appraisal cost is more than the amount deposited, the vacation compensation
payable to the City by the petitioner shall be increased by the difference between the deposit and the actual
appraisal cost. No street vacation ordinance may be adopted until Petitioner has paid for all appraisal costs. For
street vacations initiated by City Council, the City shall be responsible for any associated appraisal fees.
CB. If the City Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subject property and such resolution contains
an appraisal requirement, the director shall be authorized to obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of the
subject property from a qualified appraiser, taking into account any reduction in fair market value associated
with any other conditions imposed in the resolution of intent, including but not limited to a condition requiring
the dedication of an alternative right-of-way or the conveyance of an easement to a third-party.
DC. After the appraisal has been completed, the director shall notify the petitioner of the amount of
compensation required, adjusting for any difference between estimated and actual appraisal costs. The payment
shall be delivered by the property owner(s) to the City’s Finance and Administrative Services Director.
E. Waiver. The requirement for an appraisal and subsequent monetary compensation will be waived if a street
vacation initiated by City Council, by resolution, includes a finding that the public benefit accruing from the
vacation alone is sufficient to justify the vacation without any monetary compensation to the City. Because
requiring monetary compensation is expected to be the norm, any such finding shall articulate the factual basis
for deviating from the norm and not requiring monetary compensation.
20.7018.55.140 Resolution of Intent and Final decision.
A. Generally. Following the public hearing, the city council shallmay, by motion approved by a majority of the
entire membership in a roll call vote to , either:
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 387
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 8/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
1. Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; or
1. 2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or
3. Aadopt a resolution of intent to vacate. If there are insufficient votes to adopt a resolution of intent, the street
vacation will be deemed denied.
B. Resolution of intent to vacate. The city council may adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating that the city
council willintends, by ordinance, to grant the vacate the subject propertyion if the applicant owner(s) of
property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, meets specifiedc conditions within 90 days,
unless otherwisea different time period is specified within the resolution. The city may require any combination
of the following as conditions of the resolution of intent to vacate:
1. Easement Conditions. The city council may condition approval of a street vacation upon satisfaction of
any or all of the following easement related conditions:
a. a. Either:Reservation and/or conveyance of an easement as outlined in section ECDC
20.7018.55.030; and/or
2.
b. Acceptance of a grant of substitute public right-of-way; which has value as right-of-way
at least equal to the subject property.
c. Covenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on the
subject property; and/or
d. Other non-monetary conditions that would, in the city council’s discretion, be in the
public interest.
2. i. Monetary compensation. The city council shall condition approval of a street vacation upon
satisfaction of the following monetary conditions:
a. Payment of any outstanding appraisal fees as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.XXX; and
a.b. Payment to be paid to the city, prior to the final decisioneffective date of the
ordinance, in in thean amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the subject
property street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated unless the subject property was
acquired at “public expense,” or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25
years or more, in which case then full appraised fair market value shall be paid.; or
ii. The grant of a substitute public right-of-way which has value as an access way at least equal to the
vacated street, alley, or part thereof; or
iii. Any combination of subsections (A)(3)(a)(i) and (A)(3)(a)(ii) of this section totaling but not more
than one-half the fair market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated.
OR
b. A grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated.
3. Any challenge to one or more conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate must be
brought in Snohomish County Superior Court no later than 30 days following the adoption of the
resolution of intent. If such a challenge is successful, the city council shall determine whether to amend
the resolution of intent by adopting a different set of conditions or to deny the street vacation in its
entirety.
D. C. Final decision. If the abutting property owner(s) complies with conditions imposed in the resolution of
intent to vacate within the timeframe specified within the resolution 90 days, the city council shall adopt an
ordinance granting the vacation, provided that the city council shall not be required to adopt the vacation
ordinance if it finds, after reviewing the appraisal, that the monetary compensation to be paid to the city is not
sufficient to compensate for the public’s loss of the street, alley, public easement relating to street, pedestrian or
travel purposes or part thereof that would be vacatedsubject property. The effective date clause of the ordinance
shall be drafted to make the ordinance effective upon recording, and only if the ordinance contains proof of
payment received, with the City receipt number indicated on the ordinance.
B. Findings Required. As part of each ordinance granting a vacation, motion denying a vacation, or resolution
of intent to vacate, the city council shall adopt findings and conclusions to support its decision.
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 388
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 9/9
20251909250603 Planning Board Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
D.E. C. Distribution. Within five working days of the city council decision, the public works planning director
manager shall mail a copy of the notice of decision to the applicant and all persons who submit a written or oral
testimony at the city council’s hearing. [Ord. 3910 § 3, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993; Ord. 2493, 1985].
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 389
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
r
e
d
l
i
n
e
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 1/5
20250603 Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
Chapter 18.55
VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Sections:
18.55.000 Purpose.
18.55.005 Definitions.
18.55.010 Applicability and effect.
18.55.015 Initiation of proceedings and application.
18.55.020 Criteria for vacation.
18.55.040 Limitations on vacations.
18.55.070 Date of public hearing.
18.55.080 Staff report preparation
18.55.090 Public notification – Contents and distribution.
18.55.100 Vacation file content and availability.
18.55.110 Public hearing procedures
18.55.120 City easement rights for public utilities and services.
18.55.130 Appraisals and appraisal fee.
18.55.140 Resolution of intent and final decision.
18.55.000 Purpose.
This chapter establishes the procedures and criteria that the city will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys,
public access easements, or portions thereof. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.005 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be understood in accord with the definitions, below:
A. “applicant” shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of property abutting upon the subject property.
B. “subject property” means the street, alley, public access easement, or portion thereof sought to be vacated.
C. “abutting” means having a lineal boundary in common with a portion of the boundary of the subject property. A
property that touches the subject property at a single point is not “abutting” under this definition. Where the
subject property constitutes less than the full width of the dedicated right-of-way and has not been improved for
travel purposes, then “abutting” means having a lineal boundary with only the subject property . Where the
subject property constitutes less than the full width of the dedicated right-of-way and where some portion of the
subject property has been improved for travel purposes, then “abutting” means having a lineal boundary with
either side of the right-of-way segment that contains the subject property.
D. “public access easement” means an easement for public right-of-way or similar easement for pedestrian and/or
vehicular travel. Publicly owned easements that serve underground or overhead utilities but serve no travel
function do not fall within the definition of “public access easement” for the purposes of this chapter.
E. “portion thereof” means a portion of any street, alley, or public access easement sought to be vacated.
F. “director” means the Public Works Director or their designee.
G. “necessary” or “necessity” means reasonable necessity in the foreseeable future. It does not mean absolute, or
indispensable, or immediate need.
H. “travel” means vehicular, pedestrian, or other mode of travel by the public.
18.55.010 Applicability and effect.
A. General. This chapter applies to each request for vacation of streets, alleys, and public access easements, or
portions thereof. This chapter shall not apply to the release or termination of other types of public easements like
utility easements. [Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].Note: if the subject property is shown on the City’s
official street map (Chapter 18.50 ECDC), an ordinance vacating the subject property shall be deemed to have
amended the official street map to remove the subject property (See Chapter 20.65 ECDC). The director shall be
authorized to update the official street map in accord with each approved street vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.015 Initiation of proceedings and application
A. A vacation may be initiated by:
1. City council; or
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 390
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
c
l
e
a
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 2/5
20250603 Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
2. Petition of the owners of two-thirds of property abutting the subject property.
B. Initiation by City Council resolution. The City Council may initiate a street vacation by resolution. When a
vacation is initiated by resolution, staff shall prepare an application that conforms to D, below, except that
applications for such vacations shall be exempt from D.1, D.3, and D.4.
C. Petition for vacation brought by abutting property owners. The vested title owners of the real property abutting
upon any subject property, may petition the city council for vacation of the subject property. The petition must
be signed by the owners of at least two-thirds of the property abutting the subject property. The two-thirds
ownership shall be calculated based on linear frontage abutting the subject property.
D. An application for a street vacation initiated by Petition shall contain the following items:
1. Application fees as set forth in ECDC 15.00.020, established by city council resolution in its sole
legislative discretion.
2. A signed agreement and deposit of sufficient funds to cover the cost of an appraisal as provided
for in Section 18.55.130;
3. A valid vacation petition on forms provided by the engineering division;
4. A legal description of the subject property. This legal description shall be prepared by a surveyor
registered in the state of Washington;
5. A completed application and fee as established by resolution of the city council;
6. A site survey, drawn to scale showing the the segment of right-of-way containing the subject
property and the full width of the right-of-way [insert distance] feet in each direction of the limits
of the subject property; and
7. An assessor’s parcel map showing all properties with subdivision, block, lots, and specifying open
and unopened rights-of-way for a radius of 300 feet from any boundary of the subject property.
8. Address labels for the owners of real property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject
property. Addresses shall be obtained from the Snohomish County’s real property tax records. The
adjacent property owners list must be current to within six months of the date of initial
application;
9. A copy of the Snohomish County assessor’s map identifying the properties specified in subsection
6 of this section;
10. A title report that identifies the applicant as having a vested title in the abutting property and that
identifies which of the abutting property owners (or predecessors-in-interest) originally dedicated
the subject property; and
11. Any additional information or material that the Public Works Director or their designee
determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord.
2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.020 Criteria for vacation.
The city council may vacate the public’s right in a subject property only if it finds that the vacation and any
conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate, collectively, are in the public interest. This decision
is left to the legislative discretion of the city council. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.040 Limitations on vacations.
A. Areas that May Not Be Vacated. The city may not vacate any subject property that abuts a body of water unless
all elements of RCW 35.79.035 are satisfied.
B. Objection by Property Owner. The city shall not proceed with a city council initiated vacation if the owners of 50
percent or more of the lineal footage of property abutting the subject property file a written objection in the
engineering division no later than noon on the date of the hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.070 Date of public hearing.
Upon receiving a complete application for vacation, or upon passage of a resolution by the city council initiating
vacation, the city council shall by resolution fix a time when the city council will hold a public hearing on the
proposed vacation. The hearing shall not be more than 60 days nor less than 20 days after the date of passage of the
resolution scheduling the public hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.080 Staff report.
A. Contents. The Public Works Director or his/her designee shall consult with the City’s planning department on the
proposal and prepare a staff report containing the following information:
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 391
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
c
l
e
a
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 3/5
20250603 Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
1. All pertinent application materials submitted by the applicant;
2. All comments regarding the vacation received in the engineering division prior to distribution of the staff
report;
3. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provisions of this chapter, state law, and the
applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
4. A recommendation on the vacation.
B. Distribution. Prior to the hearing, the Public Works Director shall distribute the staff report to:
1. Each member of the city council; and
2. Each applicant (if applicable). [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.090 Public notification – Contents and distribution.
A. Content. The city clerk shall prepare a public notice containing the following information:
1. A statement that a request to vacate the subject property will be considered by the city council;
2. A location description in non-legal language along with a vicinity map that identifies the subject property;
3. A statement of the time and place of the public hearing before the city council;
4. A statement that the vacation file is available for viewing at Edmonds City Hall;
5. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the city council prior to 4:00 pm on the
date of the public hearing and to appear before the city council at the hearing to give comments orally; and
6. A description of any easement under consideration to be required as a condition. In the event an easement
condition is desired, but was not included in the notice, the public hearing will be continued to allow time for
notice of the easement condition to be provided.
B. Distribution. At least 20 calendar days before the public hearing the engineering division shall distribute the
public notice as follows:
1. A copy will be sent to the owner of each piece of property within 300 feet of any boundary of the subject
property;
2. A copy will be sent to the residents of properties abutting the subject property;
3. A copy will be published in the official newspaper of the city, except no vicinity map shall be required;
4. At least three copies will be posted in conspicuous public places in the city; and
5. At least one copy will be posted on the subject property to be vacated. [Ord. 3901 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993].
18.55.100 Vacation file content and availability.
A. Content. The public works director shall compile a vacation file which contains all information pertinent to the
proposed vacation.
B. Availability. This file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the engineering division
during regular business hours. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.110 Public hearing procedures.
A. Public Hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on each requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
B. Continuation of public hearing. The city council may continue the hearing if, for any reason, it is unable to hear
all of the public comments on the proposed vacation, or if the city council determines that it needs more
information on the proposed vacation. If during the hearing, the city council announces the time and place to
continue the hearing on the vacation, no further notice of the hearing need be given, except as provided in
18.55.090.A.6, where a new easement condition is under consideration. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
C. Presentation. At the outset of the hearing, the public works director or his/her designee shall make a brief
presentation of:
1. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provision of this chapter, state law (as
necessary), and the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
2. A recommendation on the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
D. Public Participation. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the
following ways:
1. By submitting written comments to the city council by delivering the comments to the engineering
division prior to 4:00 pm on the hearing date or by giving the comments directly to the city council at
the hearing; and
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 392
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
c
l
e
a
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 4/5
20250603 Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
2. By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments directly
to the city council. The city council may reasonably limit the extent of these oral comments to facilitate
the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing.
18.55.120 Right to reserve easements.
In vacating any subject property, the city council may reserve for the city any easements or the right to exercise and
grant any easements for the following purposes:
A. Construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. [Ord. 3910 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993].
B. Pedestrian walkway or trail purposes; and/or
C. Construction, repair and maintenance of utilities by a third-party utility company, municipal corporation, or
special purpose district that has a vested interest in the subject property.
Additionally and/or alternatively, the city council may condition the street vacation on the conveyance of an
easement between third-parties.
Utilities do not have a right to remain in vacated right-of-way without an easement. Nor will the city be liable for
any damages or loss to a utility by reason of such vacation. When a right-of-way is vacated the utility’s authority
from the City to have its facilities within such right-of-way is extinguished. The city will use its best efforts to notify
any utility that may have facilities within the right-of-way to be vacated to allow the utility an opportunity to
negotiate an easement for its facilities. Where a city reserves an easement for a utility, it may also require
compensation from that utility for the easement right, even when the utility is city owned.
18.55.130 Appraisals and appraisal fee
A. Applicability. Where the resolution of intent to vacate includes a compensation requirement, an independent
appraisal shall be required.
B. Appraisal fee. If the City Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subject property and such
resolution contains an appraisal requirement, the petitioner shall deposit sufficient funds to cover the City’s
estimated cost of an appraisal of the subject property. In the event that the City’s actual appraisal cost is less
than the amount deposited, the vacation compensation paid by the petitioner to the City shall be reduced by the
difference between the deposit and the actual cost, or, in the alternative, such difference shall be refunded. In
the event that the City’s actual appraisal cost is more than the amount deposited, the vacation compensation
payable to the City by the petitioner shall be increased by the difference between the deposit and the actual
appraisal cost. No street vacation ordinance may be adopted until Petitioner has paid for all appraisal costs. For
street vacations initiated by City Council, the City shall be responsible for any associated appraisal fees.
C. If the City Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subject property and such resolution contains an
appraisal requirement, the director shall be authorized to obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of the
subject property from a qualified appraiser, taking into account any reduction in fair market value associated
with any other conditions imposed in the resolution of intent, including but not limited to a condition requiring
the dedication of an alternative right-of-way or the conveyance of an easement to a third-party.
D. After the appraisal has been completed, the director shall notify the petitioner of the amount of compensation
required, adjusting for any difference between estimated and actual appraisal costs. The payment shall be
delivered by the property owner(s) to the City’s Finance and Administrative Services Director.
E. Waiver. The requirement for an appraisal and subsequent monetary compensation will be waived if a street
vacation initiated by City Council resolution includes a finding that the public benefit accruing from the
vacation alone is sufficient to justify the vacation without any monetary compensation to the City. Because
requiring monetary compensation is expected to be the norm, any such finding shall articulate the factual basis
for deviating from the norm and not requiring monetary compensation.
18.55.140 Resolution of Intent and Final decision.
A. General. Following the public hearing, the city council may, by motion approved by a majority of the entire
membership in a roll call vote to adopt a resolution of intent to vacate. If there are insufficient votes to adopt a
resolution of intent, the street vacation will be deemed denied.
B. Resolution of intent to vacate. The city council may adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating the city council
intends, by ordinance, to vacate the subject property if the applicant meets specified conditions within 90 days,
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 393
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
c
l
e
a
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 5/5
20250603 Chapter 18.55 DRAFT
unless a different time period is specified within the resolution. The city may require any combination of the
following as conditions of the resolution of intent to vacate:
1. Conditions. The city council may condition approval of a street vacation upon satisfaction of any or all
of the following related conditions:
a. Reservation and/or conveyance of an easement as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.030;
b. Acceptance of a grant of substitute public right-of-way;
c. Covenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on the
subject property; and/or
d. Other non-monetary conditions that would, in the city council’s discretion, be in the
public interest.
2. Monetary compensation. The city council shall condition approval of a street vacation upon
satisfaction of the following monetary conditions:
a. Payment of any outstanding appraisal fees as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.XXX; and
b. Payment to the city, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to
one-half the fair market value for the subject property unless the subject property was
acquired at “public expense” or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25
years or more, in which case full fair market value shall be paid.
3. Any challenge to one or more conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate must be
brought in Snohomish County Superior Court no later than 30 days following the adoption of the
resolution of intent. If such a challenge is successful, the city council shall determine whether to amend
the resolution of intent by adopting a different set of conditions or to deny the street vacation in its
entirety.
D. C. Final decision. If the abutting property owner(s) complies with conditions imposed in the resolution of
intent to vacate within the timeframe specified within the resolution, the city council shall adopt an ordinance
granting the vacation, provided that the city council shall not be required to adopt the vacation ordinance if it
finds, after reviewing the appraisal, that the monetary compensation to be paid to the city is not sufficient to
compensate for the public’s loss of the subject property. The effective date clause of the ordinance shall be
drafted to make the ordinance effective upon recording, and only if the ordinance contains proof of payment
received, with the City receipt number indicated on the ordinance.
E. Distribution. Within five working days of the city council decision, the public works director shall mail a copy
of the notice of decision to the applicant and all persons who submit a written or oral testimony at the city
council’s hearing. [Ord. 3910 § 3, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993; Ord. 2493, 1985].
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 394
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
D
r
a
f
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
c
l
e
a
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
APPROVED SUBJECT TO AUGUST 28TH
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
August 14, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Mike Rosen
Roger Pence
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2019 AND JULY 24, 2019 BE
APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director’s Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
(ECDC) 20.70 – STREET VACATIONS
Ms. McConnell explained that the street vacation provisions currently reside in ECDC Title 20.70, and the proposed
amendment would relocate them to ECDC Title 18, which is the Public Works section. The amendment also clarifies and
reorganizes the provisions and adds a definitions section. The appraisal process and timing provisions were revised, as were
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 395
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 2
the provisions related to applicability of monetary compensation. Lastly, the timeframe was modified to satisfy conditions.
Specifically, the proposed amendments:
• Move Title 20 to Title 18 (Public Works Section).
• Change the review lead from Planning Division to Public Works Division.
• Add a new definition section (ECDC 18.55.005) to provide additional clarity.
• Revise Section 18.55.015.D to reflect the types of plans and other documents needed for the application.
• Add a new Section 18.55.030, which gives the City the right to reserve easements for pedestrian walkways and
trails.
• Add a new appraisal section (18.55.XXX) to address timing of appraisal and collection of fees for 3rd party
appraisal.
• Add Section 18.55.140 to clarify the processing of street vacations, allowing the ordinance to address timing by
which the conditions need to be met, establishing compensation of the area to be vacated based on the appraisal, and
giving the City Council the ability to not adopt a vacation ordinance based on review of the appraisal should they
choose.
Mr. McConnell explained that a “street vacation” means that the public is letting go of, or vacating, the public interest in a
property. After a street, alley or easement (pedestrian and/or vehicular) is vacated, the public no longer has a right to use the
property for access. Street vacations can be initiated by private property owners or the City Council. As per Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 35.79.040, “If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or town council, the property
within the limits so vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each.”
City Attorney Taraday shared a tool he learned at law school called a “Fee Simple Bundle of Rights,” which is uses sticks to
illustrate the concept of real estate ownership He explained that real estate ownership, in actuality, is the ownership of a
number of potential rights of land, and the largest bundle of rights (sticks) available for private ownership is called the “Fee
Simple Bundle of Rights.” Fee simple ownership means that that the property owner owns every possible right that pertains
to the real estate. If someone has the underlying fee, it might mean that they own just one tiny right or stick and the rest have
been transferred via dedication. It is important to understand this concept in the context of street vacations.
City Attorney Taraday explained that in the vast majority of instances an abutting owner owns the underlying fee. Therefore,
if the public’s interest in a street ever goes away, the City doesn’t deed the property back to the abutting property owner
because they already have a reversionary interest. Instead, the City vacates the dedication that had been on the property. He
explained that a dedication, which is what creates a street, is defined in the subdivision statute as, “the deliberate
appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public uses, reserving to himself or herself no other rights than such
as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted.” Thinking
of that definition in the context of the “Bundle of Rights” concept, it is important to understand that an owner cannot take
advantage of many of those rights by having the underlying fee in the street. Property owners cannot exclude people from
the street, sell the street, occupy and/or use the street without the City permission, or get a bank loan using the street as
collateral. He summarized that when a dedication creates a street, many of the sticks in the bundle are being taken out of the
bundle and given to the public. While there are some sticks left in the bundle that is owned by the abutting property owner,
the majority of the sticks are now owned by the public.
Regarding the Board’s earlier question about whether the City can or should require monetary compensation for street
vacations, City Attorney Taraday referred to two court cases that clarify the issue. The first is Nystrand vs. O’Malley, a 1962
Washington Supreme Court decision, which was referenced in Mr. Reidy’s comments at a previous meeting. He read the
following quote from the case, “The use by the plaintiffs in extending their garage onto the area, planting the trees and
hedge and constructing the bulkhead was not inconsistent with the public’s easement since the right to open the street for the
public’s use had not been asserted by the City.” In this case, the dispute was between two neighbors and did not involve a
city. One neighbor felt he had the right to use the street in a particular way, and the other was saying he didn’t have the right.
The city did not take a position and was not party to the case in any way. Because the City did not participate or assert its
own rights, the case makes it sound like the abutting property owner has more rights than he/she actually has. The second
case is Baxter Wycoff vs. the City of Seattle, a 1965 Washington Supreme Court decision. He read the following quote from
the case, “The lack of rights of the abutting owner to so use the street in front of his property does not depend on his
interference with an actual or proposed public use of the street. The abutting owner simply has no legal right to make this
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 396
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 3
kind of use of the dedicated public street unless an ordinance expressly authorizes permits for such use to be issued by the
City even though no member of the public is inconvenienced by the private use.” In the latter case, a city is asserting its right
to hold the property in trust for the public. When you consider the context of how they came before the court (one involved a
city and the other did not), it explains why the law was articulated so differently. He shared another quote from the 1965
case, “The abutting owner has no right to build permanent structures in the street nor to set up storage yards therein for
private business purposes. Assuming that such power exists, the granting of permission to a private person to so use the
streets is totally within the discretion of the city.” Going back to the bundle of sticks. City Attorney Taraday summarized
that there are not a lot of legal rights left to the underlying owner once a street has been dedicated to the public. For that
reason, streets are not counted as part of the lot size when a property is appraised.
City Attorney Taraday referred to a 1989 Washington Court of Appeals case, City of Seattle vs. ?? Land Company. The
older streets in Seattle have glass tiles with space underneath that are frequently attached to basements of buildings abutting
the street. Property owners pay the City of Seattle to use that space. In this case, a property owner claimed that, as the
abutting owner, he had the right to use that space as long as it wasn’t interfering with the public. He argued that that “other
jurisdictions have held that where the fee is in the abutting owner, the City may not charge the abutting landowner rent for
the use of such space.” The court, however, determined that, “To the extent that these authorities so hold, that is not the law
in Washington.”
City Attorney Taraday summarized that case law makes clear the extreme limitations placed on abutting owners within the
context of a street dedication. On the other hand, a street vacation has a lot of value to an abutting property owner because all
of the rights that applied to the street dedication would be given back to the property owner. All of the rights (or sticks) have
value. Anytime they go back and forth between parties, there should be some transaction to compensate for the transfer of
property.
City Attorney Taraday read from Washington State Constitution Article 8 Section 7, “No county, city, town or other
municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money or property or loan its money or credit to or in aid of any individual,
association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm or become directly or indirectly
the owner in stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.” He said that while there is not a case that
directly addresses this constitutional provision in the context of a street vacation, it is his opinion that City should require
compensation for a street vacation because it would be considered a gift of public funds or property not to. The rights (sticks)
are owned by the public. If the City gives them back to the property owner without compensating the public for the loss of
those sticks, it would be a gift of public property, which violates Article 8 Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.
The State uses a two-prong analysis to determine if a “gifting” has occurred. The first is, are you trying to carry out a
fundamental purpose of government, and he can’t see any argument that giving property rights back to a private citizen
would be classified as a fundamental purpose of government. Secondly, the court focuses on the consideration received by
the public for the expenditure of public funds and the intent of the appropriating body. The court would look at what
consideration the City received for giving the rights (sticks) back, and he believes having the rights appraised is appropriate.
Appraisers are trained to measure the differences in fair market value between a before and after situation.
Board Member Pence pointed out that the City does not pay compensation when it acquires “bundle of sticks” when plots are
dedicated. At the time of a subdivision, developers are required to gift street dedications to the City to provide access to the
lots. He understands City Attorney Taraday’s viewpoint that street dedications are owned by the City and have value and
that abutting property owners who have reversionary interest in the properties should provide compensation if the streets are
vacated by the City. However, it is important to note that the City didn’t pay to acquire the street dedications in the first
place. City Attorney Taraday responded that consideration doesn’t have to be identical in terms of flowing both directions.
The consideration the original owner gets is an approved plat. While it is true that the City doesn’t pay cash for the streets
that are dedicated, it approves the plats and the owners profit from the approval. The only way you can get a subdivision
approved is to transfer those sticks (rights) to the City. Once they are owned by the public, it is not relevant any more how
they got to be in the public’s hands. What is relevant is, should they be given back, and if so, why?
Board Member Pence summarized that the City acquires sticks within the public right-of-way, and its payment is the
administerial act of approving the subdivision. City Attorney Taraday agreed that is one way to look at it. It is pretty clear
that a developer dedicates property for streets in order to get a subdivision approved.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 397
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 4
Board Member Monroe observed that the City sets the value of those rights at zero when they enter into negotiations with a
developer of a subdivision, but then they want to sell them back for fair market value. City Attorney Taraday responded that
the City does not establish a value when the property is being dedicated for streets as part of a subdivision application. No
money changes hands at that point. Not all consideration is in the form of cash.
Board Member Monroe commented that when a street vacation is granted, it expands a property and property owners are then
required to pay taxes on the additional land. He asked if that would be enough compensation to the City to warrant approval
of a vacation request. City Attorney Taraday said his opinion is that every property owner pays taxes, but not every property
owner gets to have the street in front of their property back. He cautioned that if the City were to vacate every potential
property without requiring any compensation, some residents in the City would get a windfall and others wouldn’t. It
wouldn’t be fair to distribute public property unevenly so it goes to some people but not to all. His view is that the fair
approach would be to compensate the public for the loss of those rights. The current code allows the City to obtain
compensation, but State Law allows the City to require higher levels of compensation than the code currently provides for. It
also doesn’t force the City to make an either/or choice between an alternative easement or cash compensation.
Board Member Monroe summarized that City Attorney Taraday’s position is that paying taxes on the newly acquired
property would not address the concern about the gifting of public funds. He asked if there are other states that do not require
money to change hands. City Attorney Taraday was unable to answer the question but explained that it is a Washington State
constitutional provision.
Board Member Rosen commented that a street vacation could result in a property owner acquiring land that he/she does not
want and is not equipped to pay taxes on, and this could cause a hardship or financial burden. City Attorney Taraday
emphasized that no one would ever be forced to seek a street vacation. Most street vacations are initiated by a petitioner,
who is the abutting owner who happens to want the property. Even if the City Council initiates a street vacation, it would not
take affect until compensation is received. If the appraisal comes back higher than a property owner anticipates, he/she can
pull the plug on the street vacation. No one would ever be forced to follow through. Board Member Rosen asked what
would happen if one of the 10 property owners along an alley doesn’t support the vacation. City Attorney Taraday said it
would depend on the location. Highly motivated neighbors might be willing to pick up someone else’s tab. Another scenario
is that just half of the block could be vacated. However, he does not foresee the City would ever allow a checkerboard
pattern of street vacations. Continuity would be required.
Chair Cheung asked if the appraisal would be based on value to the City or the abutting property owner. There must not be a
whole lot of value to the City if they are willing to give it away. All the City would lose is the public right-of-way. City
Attorney Taraday recommended the Board seek feedback from an appraiser to provide specifics on how an appraisal would
be done. He knows that when the City acquires right-of-way from an abutting property owner in order to widen a street, the
property is appraised in the before and after conditions, and any damages the dedication might cause to the property are taken
into account when determining how much the City must pay the abutting property owner. He suspects that a similar process
would be used in street vacation situations, too.
Board Member Monroe referred to proposed Section 18.55.040.B, which states that “The city shall not proceed with a city-
council initiated vacation if the owners of 50% or more of the lineal footage of property abutting the subject property file a
written objection.” He asked if this provision implies that the City could force property owners to assume ownership of the
land. City Attorney Taraday said that, as proposed, the decision to not proceed with a vacation would occur earlier in the
process and before there is a Resolution of Intent. If 40% of the abutting property owners object, his experience tells him the
City Council would not approve the street vacation. If the Council does approve a street vacation in this situation, a certain
dollar amount would have to be paid to the City in order to finalize the transaction. The 40% who object would not be
required to pay the compensation amount, in which case, the 60% in favor could either withdraw their request or pay the
entire compensation and the property owners in opposition would get a windfall. Board Member Monroe asked who would
own the properties, and City Attorney Taraday explained that it doesn’t matter where the money comes from. The properties
would revert back to the apparent abutting property owners. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the 40% who object
could end up with a higher tax bill for property they didn’t want. City Attorney Taraday agreed that is possible, but the
likelihood of that being a significant amount of money is small. Vice Chair Robles thanked City Attorney Taraday for
clarifying that a property owner would not be forced to purchase a street vacation. As far as unjustly receiving a windfall,
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 398
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 5
citizens are already subjected to windfalls and judgment through the course of rezones, code changes, etc. He is not sure that
argument would be strong in this case.
Vice Chair Robles asked if fair market value assumes that anyone could bid on a 10-foot strip of right-of-way. City Attorney
Taraday answered that an appraiser would define fair market value as the price at which a reasonable, willing and able buyer
and a reasonable, willing and able seller are likely to enter into a transaction. This is typically determined by looking at
comparable sales in the area. The properties are analyzed and a judgment is made to come up with a price per square foot for
the land. Vice Chair Robles questioned how the fair market value would be established for a 100 square foot area in the
middle of property abutted by two unwilling owners. It’s attached to someone’s property, which gives it value. A 100
square foot peace of land does not have any value on its own. City Attorney Taraday said it would have some inherent value,
but Vice Chair Robles’ question is more about whether an appraiser in this context would look at an assemblage premium.
For example, an owner of a lot that is 9,500 square feet in size might request a street vacation because he/she needs an
additional 500 square feet in order to subdivide the property into two, 5,000 square foot lots. The City would expect an
appraiser to take into consideration that the street vacation would enable the property owner to get another lot worth of value.
On a per-square-foot basis, 501 square feet might not be a lot of money. However, a vacant, buildable lot in Edmonds is
worth quite a lot.
Vice Chair Robles asked if an abutting property owner could list the street vacation as an amenity to the property when it is
sold in a real estate transaction even if he/she has not exercised that right. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City
Council has complete and total discretion to approve or deny a street vacation, and there are no criteria. The City Council
does not have to provide a reason for the denials, either. He does not think anyone would want to stake a real estate purchase
on this potential opportunity. Vice Chair Robles commented that the appraiser would also be making a speculative argument
that the 80 square feet of land has value. City Attorney Taraday responded that, once an appraisal comes back, a property
owner can decide to pay the compensation to have the extra land added to his/her lot or leave the land as is.
Vice Chair Robles acknowledged that a property owner would not be forced to pay the compensation, and he asked if having
a third-party appraiser to identify a transaction’s value, who it is valuable for, and how the money is assigned would be a
positive thing or confuse the matter more. City Attorney Taraday said he views the independent appraiser as being a key part
of ensuring fairness. When appraisals come in for street vacations, City staff has noted there is too much variation in terms
of what the City will receive. It is unfair that some people are submitting junk appraisals and paying hardly anything, and
other people are doing it right and paying a fair amount of compensation. That disparity should not exist. The City can
create a system where everyone is playing by the same rules and the appraisals are being done the same way. This provides
confidence that a disparity in price is not because a completely different methodology was used. This is preferable to letting
property owners choose whoever they want to do the appraisal. He said he and Ms. McConnell have given some thought to a
process that would allow a property owner to have a second appraisal if they don’t like the initial one.
Ms. McConnell continued her presentation by pointing out that most of the street vacations that come before the City are
initiated by private citizens versus the City Council. Petitioners understand that an appraisal is required and that
compensation could potentially be necessary for the vacation to be completed. State Law requires compensation to the City
in an amount equal to one-half or the full amount of the appraised value, which means that an appraisal needs to be done. In
the existing code, an appraisal is the minimum application requirement and the appraiser is selected by the petitioner. As
discussed at the last meeting, having that be a minimum application requirement means that the appraisal is being done
before the City Council has determined it would even consider the property for vacation and before any easement
requirements have been identified that would devalue the property. The proposed code moves the appraisal requirement to
later in the process after staff has completed review and the City Council has approved a Resolution of Intent to Vacate. A
requirement for a third-party appraiser was incorporated into the code, and the petitioner would be responsible for covering
that cost. She noted that the current code also requires the petitioner to cover the cost of the appraisal.
Ms. McConnell shared some ideas for how to address situations when a petitioner does not agree with the independent
appraisal. The ideas include:
• The petitioner could select an alternative appraiser from a list provided by the City. The list would have at least
three names on the list.
• The petitioner would pay for the alternative appraisal, as well as the initial independent third-party appraisal.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 399
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 6
• Both appraisals would be included in the City Council packet, along with the street vacation ordinance and the City
Attorney’s analysis of the differences between the two appraisals.
• The City Council would decide the compensation amount using the two appraisals as brackets for their discretion.
Ms. McConnell explained that RCW 35.79.030 states that compensation to the city or town shall be in an amount equal to
one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated or at an amount not to exceed the full appraised value, which applies if the
street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty five years or more or if the subject property or
portions thereof were acquired at public expense. The City’s existing code states that the City can accept monetary
compensation or reservation of an easement to the City. The proposed code would state that monetary compensation and
allowance for reservation of easements are both possibilities. The current code limits the compensation amount to one-half
the appraised value, and State Law allows the City to accept the full appraised value.
Ms. McConnell said that, as per the existing code, certain conditions can be placed on the City Council’s approval of a
Resolution of Intent to Vacate such as reservation of certain easements. The code requires that the conditions must be met
within 90 days of approval of the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. The proposed amendment still has a 90-day requirement for
compliance, but adds a provision that allows some flexibility if otherwise stated in the resolution. If there are extenuating
circumstances, it might take more time for a petitioner to comply with the conditions, and the proposed amendment would
allow the City discretion to grant an extension.
As requested by the Board, Ms. McConnell briefly reviewed the 2018 compensation history, noting that one street vacation
was initiated in 2018 by an abutting property owner. The owner paid half of the appraised value, which was $28,800. The
property owner approached the request knowing about the compensation requirement. They fell under the existing code,
which meant an appraisal had to be done before an application was made. This is indicative of the types of street vacation
requests the City receives.
Ms. McConnell reviewed that the proposed amendments were introduced to the City Council Planning, Public Safety and
Personnel Committee on July 9th and the Planning Board on July 10th. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing
tonight and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing and final
decision by the City Council on September 17th.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented that the discussion about the “Fee Simple Bundle of Rights” did not included a
discussion about opened and unopened easements. When an easement is not being used by the City to open up a street or
alleyway, the fee title owner of the property has rights to use the property. Mr. Taraday read about those rights in court case
Nystrand vs. O’Malley. He said there are numerous examples all over the City where property owners use the right-of-way
when the City hasn’t put in a street or alley yet. He specifically referred to a situation where someone sold their servient
estate ownership interest to a neighbor, which is another bundle of sticks. He summarized that the rights of the two are not
absolute. The servient estate also has rights, and that’s really important to appreciate.
Mr. Reidy recalled that when the proposed code amendment was introduced to the Board on July 10th, City staff did not
mention that the 2012 Planning Board was tasked by the City Council on two occasions to review this same item.
Amendments were needed to clarify certain parts of ECDC 20.70 and make the wording consistent with State Law. He spoke
at both of those public hearings (May 9, 2012 and November 14, 2012). The end result of this effort was that the City
Council adopted Ordinance 3910, which made the City’s laws more consistent with State Law (RCW 35.79.030). He
questioned why the Planning Board is now being asked to consider a major rewrite of this code section. He said he is
unaware of any changes to State law that makes this necessary. He asked who is pushing this effort that changes laws adopted
by a previous City Council. For example, the either/or provision is legal under State Law, and the City Council made a
legislative choice to establish that law. Why is staff now proposing that the either/or law be eliminated. It is good law that
the citizens support. He asked that the Board recommend that the either/or provision be left intact.
Mr. Reidy asked why the proposed code amendment has been in the works since at least May 3, 2018 without an opportunity
for property owners or citizens to be involved in the process. He noted that Ordinance 3910 clarifies the type of easements
the City may retain when deciding to vacate a street or alley easement. The City Council may reserve rights for the City for
construction repair and maintenance of public utilities and services, which is consistent with State Law. Ordinance 3910
does not say that the City Council may require property owners to grant rights to third parties, yet the Edmonds City Council
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 400
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 7
has required property owners to grant easements to third parties during the last three street vacations. Instead of correcting
their historical acts, he fears the City is attempting to change the code to promote similar acts in the future. He said he is not
aware that any property owner has asked for this change. He pointed out that Ms. McConnell’s reference to a recent street
vacation that required a $28,800 compensation failed to mention that the property owner was also required to grant an
easement to the Edmonds School District for an unpermitted pipe they had put in years ago. He cautioned against the City
elevating third-party rights above those of the property owner.
Mr. Reidy referred to the proposed language in ECDC 18.55.140.B.3, which states that, “Any challenge to one or more
conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate must be brought in Snohomish County Superior Court no later
than 30 days following the adoption of the resolution of intent. If such a challenge is successful, the city council shall
determine whether to amend the resolution of intent by adopting a different set of conditions or to deny the street vacation in
its entirety.” He said RCW 35.79.030 does not say anything about a 30-day challenge period. It simply says that “such
ordinance may provide that the City retain an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated
land for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services.” Mr. Reidy stated that it is not the property
owner’s job to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced; that is the Mayor’s job. Shifting the burden to others
by giving them 30 days to challenge the City Council’s required conditions is very wrong and unfair. It should be kept
simple to comply with State and City Laws. The City Council can retain an easement or rights. Retain means to keep
possession of, but it does not mean that the City can require property owners to grant easements to third parties.
Mr. Reidy pointed out that street vacations are legislative acts. He asked what would be the next legislative act that someone
tries to make subject to a 30-day appeal period to Snohomish County Superior court if the proposed amendments are adopted.
He commented that the courts do not want to be involved in the legislative process. Legislative acts are the City Council’s
responsibility and the City Council should be able to act within the law without involving the Superior Court.
Mr. Reidy recalled that at the Board’s July 10th meeting, City staff explained that if there was thought to be value to the land
and an appraiser found value to the property, the City would not be able to just gift public land to an adjacent property owner.
However, Ordinance 4143, effective February 20, 2019 did not require compensation even though the related appraisal
showed the property had value. This was perfectly legal, as requiring compensation is permissive. The statement about
gifting of public land is alarming for several reasons. It shows that City staff tasked with updating the code section may not
have a complete understanding of this area of law. History shows that the City has not required compensation on many
occasions. If gifting public land was not something the City was able to do, why would it have done so earlier this year? He
suggested that gifting is not an issue because the property owner almost always owns the title. If the street or alley has been
part of a dedicated public right-of-way for less than 25 years, State Law allows the City the option of requiring compensation
in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. He questioned why the other half
wouldn’t be considered a gift of public funds or a windfall? Resolution Number 1145 documents that the City Council voted
to credit back costs, including the cost of the appraisal, to the abutting property owner by reducing the required compensation
by $3,750. Should this be considered a gift or a windfall? He asked the Board to appreciate that compensation is permissive.
He asked why City Attorney Taraday is talking about a potential windfall if payment is not required. The City Council has
great legislative discretion, and they don’t have to require compensation ever. In fact, since 1998, the City Council has not
required compensation for most street vacations. For example, there were 15 street vacations in 1998 and none required
compensation. History proves that it can be a public benefit to vacate streets without the need to require compensation.
Mr. Reidy referred to City Attorney Taraday’s memorandum, which also states that payment for a street vacation would
benefit the general public. He questioned if the general public would have legal standing to contest a street vacation if the
City Council did not require compensation? He referred to Grays Harbor 2000 vs. the City of Seattle, in which the City of
Seattle vacated 15.2 acres of streets and did not charge compensation. Citizens appealed the decision, saying they were
harmed as part of the public because the City did not charge compensation, but the judge ruled that they didn’t have standing
to contest the decision. He emphasized that the City and property owner have higher rights than the general public. Mr.
Reidy commented that State Law is clear that the respective rights of the City and property owner are not absolute, and case
law is clear that the property owner, and not the general public, has the right to use unopened streets and alleyways.
In conclusions, Mr. Reidy expressed his belief that staff’s comment that the City would not be able to just gift public land to
an adjacent property owner indicates that they do not have a keen understanding of the las. If such a major code rewrite was
needed, he asked why the citizens were not made aware of it? He recalled that in late 2016, he pointed out in a public hearing
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 401
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 8
on a street vacation that acquiring an appraisal so early in the process was wrong. He is glad the proposed amendment will
address this issue, but in general, the existing code is good. It was just reviewed in 2012 and it remains solid. He suggested
the best approach would be to leave the recently updated code as is, with just the one change to move the appraisal
requirement to later in the process. He asked the Board not to move away from the legislative intent of the City Council that
adopted the either/or law and compensation law that didn’t go for the full appraisal value. There is no need to change the
choices that were made in 2012.
At the request of Board Member Pence, Mr. Reidy submitted his statement in writing.
Fennis Tupper, Edmonds, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 39 years and his property was part of George
Brackett’s original plat. His northern boundary line was the northern boundary of the City, and there is a 7.5-foot
undedicated alley easement in his backyard. He noted that the street code requires 15 feet, but when the City annexed the
Holy Rosary property to the north of his property, it did not require them to dedicate the other 7.5 feet. If you view the
property on Google Maps or the City’s GSA maps, you will see that almost every property owner has put up a fence and
incorporated the 7.5 feet into their lots. In the 39 years he has lived in the City, he has witnessed many street vacations,
especially in his neighborhood. For example, some of 8th Avenue that was never going to be opened because of a stream was
vacated. A 7.5-foot easement between 8th and 9th Avenues was also vacated with no compensation required.
Mr. Tupper referred to Mr. Reidy’s earlier question about why it would be okay to give away half of the public’s funds by
not charging the full amount. It is just not a valid legal argument. He said he watched the July 10th Planning Board Meeting
on Channel 21 and was flabbergasted at some of the testimony that was provided by staff. He visited the Municipal Research
Service Center’s (MSRC) website (www.msrc.org) for additional clarification. The MSRC is a non-profit organization that
helps local governments across Washington State to better serve the citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any
topic. He learned that a public right-of-way is generally an easement, and when the right-of-way is vacated, the fee title to
the property underlying the right-of-way held by the abutting property owner becomes unencumbered by the easement. What
the vacation accomplishes is extinguishment of the right-of-way easement. Ms. McConnell said that abutting property
owners cannot use the easement because the City has jurisdiction over it. However, per the MSRC, if the right-of-way has
not been opened and is not improved, the obstruction of public travel is not an issue and the property owner is not subject to
the same restrictions as when it is opened and improved. Typically, property owners can use the unopened, unimproved
right-of-way as they can the rest of their property, but it is subject to the possibility of it being opened and improved at some
point in the future.
Mr. Tupper also referenced Ms. McConnell’s statement that if there was thought to be value to land and an appraiser did find
value to the property, the City could not just gift it to an abutting property owner. However, it is important to note that the
City does not have title to the property. It only has an easement right, which is just one stick (right) in the bundle.
Mr. Tupper said that about six years ago he discovered that the Lighthouse Law Group’s corporate registration with the State
had lapsed and hadn’t been paid for or renewed. After discovering that, he went to the City of Seattle’s website and found
that the law firm, which had been formed about five years earlier, had never applied for a City of Seattle business license or
paid City of Seattle taxes. He asked Mr. Taraday for a copy of his business license, and he told him it had lapsed. However,
the following day he was down at the City of Seattle applying for the license. There is something about integrity and truth,
and telling him that the license had lapsed was very untruthful.
Michelle Dotsch, said she was present at the last meeting and heard Mr. Reidy address the Board. She was born and raised
in Edmonds and knows there are a lot of alleys that people walk and bike through. She recalled that City staff displayed a
map at the last meeting that showed an alley in just one area, but a short Google search located a variety of Google Map
photographs of local streets with unopened easements. In many of these situations there is landscaping, buildings, fencing,
etc. She submitted maps showing where all of the easements are located, noting that some have access to driveways to actual
parking garages on the backside with no access for vehicles on the front side. The owners of these properties would be
significantly impacted by the proposed amendments, yet there are only two public hearings during the summer when people
are out of town. It is easy to do a Google Map search to find the property owners. She expressed her belief that the process
needs more time and attention. The City needs to reach out to the public by mailing notices to affected property owners.
Chair Cheung closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 402
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 9
Board Member Monroe advised that Board Member Rubenkonig was unable to attend the meeting but submitted a written
comment asking about the impetus of staff’s proposal to update the street vacation provisions. City Attorney Taraday
explained that as staff has worked through street vacations over the past few years, it noted provisions that were either not as
clear as they needed to be or not as helpful to the City as allowed by State Law. He disclosed that he represents the City of
Edmonds and his responsibility is to advance the interest of the City of Edmonds and not individual property owners. If he
sees that State Law allows the City of Edmonds to collect more money for a street vacation than it is currently collecting, it is
his job, as the City Attorney, to make that option available to the policymakers and let them decide whether or not they want
to amend the code. The City is leaving money on the table right now. He feels an obligation to bring that forward and let the
policymakers make a decision about whether that is a good thing or not.
Board Member Monroe noted that, as proposed, the city attorney would provide an analysis of an appraisal. City Attorney
Taraday said that is one option. He spent a lot of his career doing imminent domain work and deposing appraisers. Board
Member Monroe pointed out that the proposed amendment does not say that Jeff Taraday will provide an analysis, it simply
says that whoever is the city attorney would do the analysis. City Attorney Taraday expressed his belief that most city
attorneys would be able to do that work. Board Member Monroe observed that, as per his earlier statement, City Attorney
Taraday is charged with advancing the City’s interest and not that of private property owners. City Attorney Taraday said he
would provide an analysis to the City Council, and the City Council Members are also tasked with representing the City of
Edmonds and looking out for the City’s interest. He asked who better to advise the City Council than the person who has the
fiduciary duty to look out for the interest of the City of Edmonds.
Ms. McConnell explained that the proposed amendments are intended to clarify and address issues that have come up over
the past few years as staff worked through street vacation applications. As proposed, the restructured process would be
smoother to follow and easier for the staff and public to understand the requirements. Moving the appraisal to a later point in
the process after the Resolution of Intent to Vacate has been approved will benefit petitioners so they don’t spend money up
front on something that may have no traction. The provisions were looked at holistically and are intended to address issues
that kept coming up as staff dealt with residents coming to the front counter.
In an effort to be transparent, City Attorney Taraday said the intent behind the current either/or provision is unclear to him.
They could review the legislative history and try to identify the intent, but there is not always a clear answer for why a
provision was adopted into the code. However, it is completely arbitrary to try and equate the reserving of a simple easement
to the City on one hand and fair market value payment for the street vacation on the other. For example, you could have a
huge street vacation worth a lot of money, but if the City happens to have a small water line there that requires the
preservation of a small easement, the existence of the water line could create a completely arbitrary condition where the City
either needs to vacate the street cost free, reserve the easement or deny the street vacation. Denying the street vacation
request is not in the property owner’s best interest. It is important to create conditions that allow street vacations to come
forward, and the either/or provision forces the City to make a difficult choice between three options that are not good.
Eliminating the either/or provision could create a situation where a reserved easement could end up reducing the amount of
compensation that a property owner is required to pay. On the other hand, retaining the either/or provision would prohibit the
City from requiring compensation if any portion of the easement is reserved.
Board Member Crank said her initial understanding was that the proposed amendments were intended to catch the City’s
code up with the State Law, but it appears that has already been done. She asked if the true intent is to collect the money that
is being left off the table and put it into the City coffers. If that is the case, itis important that the intent is clear so that the
Board doesn’t continue its conversation thinking they are trying to catch up with something that they have already caught up
to. Secondly, she asked if there is a timing issue that requires that the Board’s recommendation be forwarded to the City
Council for a September public hearing.
City Attorney Taraday reviewed that the focus of the 2012 update was fairly narrow and not intended to be a full rewrite of
the street vacation code. One reason it has taken so long to bring the proposed update forward is that, frequently in City
government, there is too much to do and not enough time and resources. Projects end up getting re-prioritized. It took a
while for staff to realize that the full appraised value provision was not in the code. Rather than doing piecemeal
amendments to the code, staff felt it was better to wait until they could do a complete rewrite of the entire chapter.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 403
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 10
Ms. McConnell said that once staff starts a project, they try to keep it moving. They are pulled to a variety of different
projects, and staff availability to work on projects is limited. The larger the gap is in between, the more time it takes staff to
sync back into the project and bring it forward again. The tentative public hearing before the City Council on September
17th is purely an effort to keep the amendment moving forward while the issue is fresh on everyone’s mind.
Regarding the issue of retained easements by either the City or another agency, Board Member Pence commented that
petitioners are asking the City to give the bundle of sticks back to the abutting property owners. The retention of an easement
is the City merely saying that one of those sticks will have to be retained in the public interest. The petitioner would still
have all the rights to use the land subject to the easements that are retained, and this will have an impact on the appraised
value of the parcel. He doesn’t see retained easements as an issue at all since they are part of the reality of the process.
Board Member Pence questioned the use of the term “third-party appraiser,” since it has not been referenced in the
conversation. Currently, the appraiser is chosen by and becomes a client of the petitioner. Under the proposed amendment,
the City would select the appraiser and that appraiser would be a servant of the City. There would be no third-party
involvement in the proposed process. However, there may be some merit in having third-party appraiser who is truly
independent of both the City and the petitioner. He said he has been involved in public property acquisition issues through
condemnation, and the agency has its appraiser and if the unwilling seller doesn’t like the appraisal, he/she hires a different
appraiser. The issue goes to court and the differences are adjudicated. He suggested that for smaller-scale issues, it would be
more appropriate to have just one appraiser that both sides select from a list of qualified appraisers. This would save
expense, if nothing else. Again, he said the use of a third-party appraiser is not properly chosen in the proposed amendments.
Board Member Rosen asked if he understood correctly that, as proposed, the petitioner would be required to pay for the
appraisal. If the petitioner disagrees with the appraisal, he/she would be required to pay for the second appraisal, too. City
Attorney Taraday said that is one of the options for addressing the Board’s initial concern about the appraisal process. From
his perspective, it would not make sense for the City to pay for an appraisal unless the street vacation was initiated by the
City Council. Board Member Rosen suggested that the better distinction would be for whoever initiates the street vacation to
pay for the appraisal.
Board Member Rosen voiced concern that the proposed amendments might set the City up for some unintended
consequences. He asked how the City could reduce that risk. City Attorney Taraday responded that the proposed
amendment would not have any impact on rights that abutting owners have to use streets, whether opened or unopened.
From his perspective, it has always been the case that if you want to build something in a street, you have to get an
encroachment permit from the City. They are not making any changes regarding City policy on that issue.
Board Member Monroe asked if the conditions attached to a street vacation approval could require a petitioner to obtain an
agreement from a third-party utility. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City can never be compelled to approve a
street vacation. It can deny the request at any time for any reason. In addition, the City is a code city organized under Title
35.A, which is different than other types of cities that exist in the state. Code cities have the broadest possible powers under
the Washington State Constitution. Code cities are home ruled cities in that they don’t need to point to something that is
expressly stated in State Law to authorize their actions. They just can’t contradict State Law. As long as they aren’t violating
the statute, they are good. He cannot point to a specific State Law that requires petitioners to obtain agreement from third-
party utilities, other than Title 35.A, which grants code city home rule authority. Board Member Monroe summarized that
the answer to his question is yes, the City can require a petitioner to obtain agreement from a third-party utility.
Board Member Monroe asked why the timeline for challenging a street vacation is 30 days and not a longer time period. City
Attorney Taraday referred to the case, King County vs. Federal Way, where a street vacation was challenged. The issue in
that case was whether or not the challenge was timely. The court determined that when challenging a street vacation under a
declaratory judgment action, the action must be brought within a reasonable period of time. The court ultimately held that 30
days was the appropriate time period. He expressed his belief that it is not fair to citizens to make them guess about how
much time they have to file a challenge. It is a lot more transparent to put the timeline in the code. Because a timeline is not
set forth in the RCW, the City has the authority to decide what the reasonable time period is, but it must be a reasonable
period of time to get something before the court and before a street vacation has been finalized and the ordinance adopted.
Board Member Monroe voiced concern that it might be difficult for a property owner to get everything in order in that short
amount of time.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 404
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 11
Board Member Monroe reiterated that the City takes all but one of the sticks when a property is subdivided. If a property
owner asks for them back, the City will determine what they are worth and require the property owner to provide
compensation. In addition, the City may decide to give only some of the sticks back and hold onto others sticks for some
type of public use. The petitioner would have 30 days to challenge the City’s decision. Again, he asked if the City would
require a petitioner to obtain an agreement with a third-party utility if an easement is to be retained. Ms. McConnell
answered that the petitioner would be responsible for contacting the utility and working out the easement agreement and this
would be spelled out as part of the condition process. That is why 90 days might not be enough time, and the ordinance
might establish a longer time period as appropriate.
Board Member Monroe commented that City Attorney Taraday and Ms. McConnell are doing a great job of maximizing City
revenue wherever possible, and that’s what the amendments are about. However, that is not something the Planning Board is
has to do. City Attorney Taraday cautioned that this is not a type of taxation. In the case of a street vacation, the City is
transferring valuable property rights at a price that has been agreed upon by a professional appraiser. It is not an unfair
transaction. Board Member Monroe observed that the City has a lot of power and discretion in these transactions. City
Attorney Taraday agreed, but in all of his years doing imminent domain and other types of appraisal work, he has never seen
a situation where a city tries to low or high-ball an appraisal. In the grand scheme of the budget, the City won’t be motivated
to game the appraisal process to get an extra amount of money. Money matters a lot more to the smaller guy. Board Member
Monroe referred to City Attorney Taraday’s earlier comment that sometimes the City receives a low-ball appraisal, and he
wo uld provide an analysis to the City as to what appraisal is the most accurate. City Attorney Taraday said his analysis
would be informed by many years of working with appraisals.
Board Member Monroe commented that as long as necessary easements are retained, the City would not be impacted by a
street vacation. The land belongs to the property owner and not the City, and the City needs to show a reason to use it. If the
City isn’t using it, the rights, by default, should be given back to the property owner. As long as the City would not be
damaged by the transaction, it is incumbent on the City to make it easy and cheap. He said he likes the current either/or
language, which protects the City from damages, and he also likes the proposal to move the appraisal to later in the process.
All of the other amendments are unnecessary, especially if the primary intent is to get more revenue for the City. In
particular, he does not like the 30-day timeline for challenging a street vacation, and he does not like the proposed appraisal
process.
City Attorney Taraday said he understands that the appraisal language is controversial, and a policy decision will need to be
made. The Board’s task is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the policy question, and the City Council will
make the ultimate decision. However, aside from this policy question, the other proposed amendments are needed to clarify
the process and should be considered on their merit. Regarding the 30-day timeline for challenging a street vacation, City
Attorney Taraday suggested that it is better for the City Council’s constituents to know what the timeline is rather than
having to guess. He recommended that a timeline be clearly established in the code, and he suggested the Board discuss what
might be a better period of time. Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that the timeline should be longer to allow
sufficient time for a petitioner to gather the needed information to issue a challenge.
Vice Chair Robles said he really appreciates City Attorney Taraday’s transparency that his job is to represent the City.
However, the Board’s job is to represent the citizens. He also appreciates the working relationship that exists between the
staff and the Board. However, if the Board advised the citizens that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to raise
revenue for the City, he suspects that people who aren’t land owners would support the change, but those who own land
would not. There are too many questions at this time for him to formulate a recommendation to the City Council. It will take
more work to get enough information to get to the right solution. The City’s broad powers need to be carefully checked to
figure out how they impact the citizens. He voiced concern that the proposed amendments are based upon the Fee Simple
Bundle of Rights analogy, which cannot be codified. There needs to be a basis of logic for the code, and if they need to have
a valid analogy to explain a proposed code amendment, it needs to be reconsidered.
Board Member Rosen summarized that the City Council is looking to the Board for guidance. It appears that the Board
agrees with the following:
• Retain the current either/or provision.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 405
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 12
• Change who pays for the original appraisal based on who initiates the request.
• Move the appraisal to later in the process.
• Increase the timeline for challenging a street vacation to something greater than 30 days.
Board Member Monroe asked if the Board had reached a consensus on who would choose the appraiser, the petitioner or the
City. Vice Chair Robles responded that the City cannot expect to clean the process up with a third-party appraisal. It will be
a messy process and negotiations will be required. If there is an appeal, Board Member Rosen asked if it would be possible
to give the petitioner the option of either finding his/her own appraiser or using another appraiser from the City’s list. Board
Member Crank asked if there are other cities in Washington State that have addressed the appraisal issue. It might be helpful
to find out what processes other cities are using as opposed to grasping for their own ideas. City Attorney Taraday agreed
that staff could research the processes employed by other cities and report back.
Chair Cheung commented that the person who is asking for the street vacation will obviously be interested in a lower
appraisal. On the flip side, the City will pick an appraiser that will identify the highest value for the property. Because the
authority is already with the City, if the applicant had an unreasonably low appraisal, the City could simply deny the petition.
He said he doesn’t see why the City needs to require a petitioner to choose an appraiser on the City’s list. If they come in
with an appraisal that is incorrect, the City can simply deny the petition, and the petitioner could then appeal the decision and
select a different appraiser from the City’s list. Vice Chair Robles pointed out that appraisers are all licensed and should be
unbiased. City Attorney Taraday responded that appraisers are trained in different specialties, and the proposal is for the City
to have a list of qualified appraisers who are trained to do street vacation work.
Board Member Rosen suggested the Board could forward the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of
approval with the following exceptions:
• Retain the either/or provision.
• Change who pays for the initial appraisal based on who initiates the request.
• Change the timeline for challenging a street vacation from 30 days to 60 days.
• Request that staff come up with a recommendation for alternatives to the appraisal process rather than requiring a
petitioner to choose from the City’s list of qualified appraisers.
• Encourage the City Council to specifically reach out to any resident who borders a project that might be impacted,
notifying them of the upcoming public hearing.
Vice Chair Robles suggested that the Board’s recommendation to the City Council should also make it clear that the
objective of the proposed amendments is to raise additional funds for the City. Board Member Crank agreed that additional
revenue is an underlying element the proposal, but not necessarily the intent.
Board Member Monroe suggested that the timeline for challenging a street vacation should be increased from 30 days to 90
days. City Attorney Taraday commented that, whatever the timeline is set at, the City won’t be able to adopt street vacation
until 30 days after the timeline has expired. Some constituents will want a street vacation to happen more quickly. Board
Member Rosen asked if a petitioner could waive his/her right to appeal, which would then shorten the process. City Attorney
Taraday agreed this is an interesting concept. He can imagine certain street vacations where it would be clean and easy for a
petitioner to waive the right to appeal, but if several property owners are involved in the petition, it could be more difficult.
The Board agreed they would like to add an option to waive the right to appeal if possible.
The Board discussed retaining the current code language that would allow the City to accept either monetary compensation or
reservation of an easement. The proposed new language would allow the City to require both. Board Member Monroe
commented that a street vacation would not damage the City in anyway, as long as the necessary easements are maintained.
City Attorney Taraday clarified that the current code only prevents the City from collecting compensation if the easement is
for the City, but if the City directs a petitioner to work out an easement with a utility, the City can collect compensation, too.
Board Member Monroe suggested this provision needs to be changed. From the petitioner’s point of view, it shouldn’t make
any difference whether the easement is for the City or a utility. City Attorney Taraday agreed it doesn’t make sense, but
rather than treat all easements equally, the intent of the amendment is to evaluate the effect of the easement on value and
subtract that amount from the required compensation. He cautioned against a provision that would result in the City’s
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 406
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 13
inability to collect compensation if there is any condition involving retention of an easement for any party. Currently, only
an easement to the City would ban other compensation. He explained that, currently, it is difficult for appraisers to take
easements into account because appraisals are done before easement conditions are imposed. The proposed amendment
would move the appraisal to later in the process so that easements can be taken into account when determining the correct
compensation.
Board Member Pence summarized that, if a petitioner does not get all of the sticks (rights) back and some are being reserved
for a public purpose, it really shouldn’t matter whether that public purpose is the city or some other public entity. The sticks
(rights) that don’t get turned back to the petitioner can all be accounted for in the appraisal. City Attorney Taraday explained
that the City needs some motivation to approve a street vacation. He explained that it is not possible for the Board to know
what the City’s future needs will be with respect to all of the streets and easements. He said he considers easements to be
valuable rights, and simply giving them away could result in significant public cost in the future. Chair Cheung commented
that if the City wasn’t able to collect compensation for street vacations, perhaps it would be more cautious about giving up
easements.
Board Member Crank commented that recognizing the monetary aspect of street vacations is neither good nor bad, it just is.
You always need to know what something is valued at whether you end up giving it away for free or not. She recommended
against spending too much more time talking about this aspect of the proposal. She suggested they move forward with
discussions on the other elements of the proposal and then make a recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chair Robles
expressed his belief that the City Attorney’s position regarding the monetary aspect of the proposal should be articulated to
the public.
Board Member Pence said he would like staff to provide feedback in writing, responding to the public comments and the
Board’s conversations. The proposed amendments could be tweaked to represent more of a consensus and the Board could
discuss the updated proposal at their next meeting. He said he is not comfortable sending a recommendation to the City
Council now. Chair Cheung agreed and noted that the Board is particularly interested in increasing the timeline for
challenging a street vacation from 30 days to 60 days and perhaps adding a provision that would allow a petitioner to waive
the appeal period. There are also some outstanding questions regarding the provision that would allow the City to collect
compensation and require that an easement be reserved.
City Attorney Taraday agreed to work with staff to prepare an updated version of the proposed amendment that incorporates
the thoughts expressed by the Board. However, it will take more time for staff to update the document. He summarized that
there are some items that appear to have majority support. Where there are still issues, he agreed to provide alternative
language for the Board’s consideration. The Board could continue their deliberation in October based on an updated draft.
Chair Cheung closed the public hearing.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung advised that the August 28th agenda will include an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies
and a presentation on the RoadMap Project (Ruckelshaus Center Report). The September 11th meeting is scheduled as a joint
meeting with the Architectural Design Board and an update on the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Board will continue
its deliberations on the Street Vacation Code Amendments on October 9th.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung announced that some parking issues will be coming before the Board, so it is important for them to keep
apprised of what is happening with the parking study, etc.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Monroe reported that he attended the kickoff meeting for the parking study, which was well attended and
informative. At this time, they are working to identify a framework for the study.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 407
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 14
The Board Members expressed appreciation for staff’s hard work on the street vacation code amendments and their desire to
represent the City’s best interest.
Board Member Crank reported that there were public comments at the last Airport Commission meeting regarding noise.
She predicts that noise will continue to be a topic since it was just announced that a new flight would be added from Everett
to Spokane.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 408
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
8
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
APPROVED OCTOBER 9th
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
September 25, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank (left at 7:50 p.m.)
Nathan Monroe
Roger Pence
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD A REVIEW OF THE JOINT CITY
COUNCIL/PLANNING BOARD MEETING. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, advised that Page 37 of the Planning Board’s meeting packet discusses Ordinance No. 3729, which is
the main reason he is so interested in the proposed street vacation amendments. He referred to the comment section at the
bottom of Page 37, which states that a temporary construction easement was reserved for the construction of a retaining wall
that was a private improvement built on private property to the north of the easement and had nothing to do with public
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 409
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 2
utilities or any public use whatsoever. In fact, the City had no need to construct, repair or maintain anything, yet the City
Council reserved a temporary construction easement. At the August 14th meeting, the City Attorney stated that the City may
decide to give only some of the sticks back and hold onto others for some type of public use, but that was not his experience.
In his case, the temporary construction easement on his property was reserved specifically for a private developer. The City
Council never passed a Resolution of Intent to Vacate, and the temporary construction easement was not a condition to the
street vacation. There were no conditions and the easement was forced on him against his will. He never granted the
easement, and no easement was recorded at Snohomish County. The City Council even tied the life of the easement to the
private developer’s preliminary plat approval (5 years).
Mr. Reidy said he has researched the issue for over 10 years and is very confident that Edmonds is the only City in the
history of the United States to ever perform the act of establishing a public temporary construction easement solely for a
private developer’s use. The private developer never even used the easement. Despite this, City staff issued multiple code
enforcement orders requiring him to remove portions of his building so that it was setback 5 feet from the temporary
construction easement. Although temporary construction easements have nothing to do with where setbacks are measured
from, the City did it anyway.
Mr. Reidy said the situation got even worse. During the City’s code enforcement efforts, staff discussed an ordinance that
could have grandfathered his setbacks. They knew that under Ordinance No 3696, specific to his actual building,“Setbacks
will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from neighbor states it was there prior to 1981.” (Note: Mr.
Reidy will submit a copy of the related staff notes when he emails a copy of his public comments to the City staff.) He
commented that City staff chose not to tell him or the Hearing Examiner that Ordinance No. 3696 applied to his building. He
said that a neighbor signed a statement under penalty of perjury that he had seen his building in 1968, but even that didn’t
stop the City. He now has a 12.5-foot setback where only a 5-foot setback is normally required. In his case, no setback at all
was required because his setbacks were grandfathered.
Mr. Reidy said he is trying to do everything possible to prevent something like what happened to his family from happening
to another Edmonds property owner in the future. His hope is that the horrible treatment he experienced can lead to
something good—a better appreciation of servient estate rights and consideration of such rights in City code. He asked that
the Board use care when reviewing the street vacation amendments initiated by the City Attorney, who made it very clear that
he believes his responsibility is to advance the interest of the City and not individual property owners. He questioned why
the City Attorney and staff was allowed more than a year to work on the proposed amendments before the public was
allowed to see what they were doing. He expressed his belief that everyone’s motivation should be to have a Street Vacation
Code that is fair and works well for the City and property owners—a code that allows the City to provide a high level of
service to the public. He said he believes the current Street Vacation Code is far better than much of City code, but he agreed
it would be better if the appraisal requirement was moved to a later stage in the process.
Mr. Reidy suggested it would be wise to specifically prohibit conditions that require property owners to grant easements to
third parties. This should not be necessary because State Law only allows the City to retain, but he raises the issue because
of the City’s past behavior. He explained that a principle that underlies the use of all easements is that the owner of the
easement cannot materially increase the burden of the servient estate or impose thereon a new and additional burden. He
expressed his belief that this principle is the main reason RCW 35.79.030 uses the word “retain.” As it relates to utilities, he
suggested it is best to do what the code allows, which is to reserve for the City any easements or rights needed for the
construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. He questioned why third-party utility companies should
be granted rights superior to what they have under their franchise contracts.
Mr. Reidy observed that the proposed provision for a 25-year step up to full market value compensation is a great example of
an arbitrary law. He questioned what 25 years has to do with anything related to unopened easements. He said it doesn’t
make sense that compensation for the vacation of an unopened easement should double overnight at the 25-year mark. He
emphasized that there is a clear need to consider whether the Street Vacation Code should be different for opened versus
unopened easements.
Mr. Reidy commented that State Law allows compensation for easements, but such is permissive. That means it is option,
not required. Because Edmonds is a Home Rule Code City, the broad powers afforded it allows the City Council to adopt a
policy that it will not sell or bargain legislation as a means of obtaining revenue. He asked the Board to appreciate that no
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 410
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 3
sticks are transferred back to the fee title owner when an easement is vacated. What the City gets is an easement, and a fee
title owner does not need that easement transferred back to him because he doesn’t need an easement to use his own land.
Mr. Reidy suggested the City Council adopt policy that the City does not charge compensation when streets and alleys that
are no longer needed for public use are vacated. He noted that compensation has not been required on many occasions in the
past, and the City should adopt a policy that makes that precedent the consistent standard practice. After all, the City never
paid a penny for the easements when they were dedicated. He noted that the general public often has no legal standing when
it comes to street vacations. He questioned why those with no legal standing should benefit from the City demanding and
receiving payment for its legislative act. If that is too big a step, he suggested the City Council could simply use its broad
powers to leave the either/or policy in place as it has been for many years. At least property owners required to grant utility
easements to the City would not have to also pay compensation.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director’s Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.70 (NEW 18.55) – STREET
VACATIONS
Ms. McConnell reviewed that the proposed amendments were presented to the Board previously, once as an introduction and
again as a public hearing. She explained that the proposed amendments are intended to address the following:
• Reorganize and clarify various code sections and add a definition section to make the process and requirements
clearer.
• Revise the appraisal process and the timing for appraisal submittals.
• Revise the applicability of the monetary compensation piece of the code.
• Revise the timeframe to satisfy the conditions placed on the Resolution of Intent to Vacate.
• Move the Street Vacation Code from Title 20 to Title 18, which is the Public Works section of the code.
Ms. McConnell reviewed that, at the public hearing, different aspects of the code were discussed in detail, and the Board
asked staff to come back with optional code language related to five specific items. She advised that the Staff Report
includes both a red-lined and clean version of the proposed amendments. It also includes a table that lists each of the items
and outlines the existing code language, a summary of the issue, staff’s recommendation and optional language for the Board
to consider.
Board Member Monroe asked how the Board’s recommendation would be presented to the City Council. Would all of the
options considered (staff recommendation and all Planning Board options) be presented? Ms. McConnell answered that both
the staff recommendation and Planning Board recommendation would be presented to the City Council. Mr. Chave added
that the full record of the Board’s discussions, including staff’s recommendations, is always attached to recommendations
that are forwarded to the City Council.
Ms. McConnell presented each of the items to the Board. The Board discussed each one and took action as follows:
• Item 1 – Monetary Compensation and/or Easement. The existing code allows the City to either accept monetary
compensation or an easement. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.79.030 allows the City to receive
compensation and retain an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land.
Staff is proposing a right to reserve easements and the ability to accept monetary compensation. In addition,
language was added to the proposed code that states that “the appraisal shall take into account any reduction in fair
market value associated with the conditions imposed on the Resolution of Intent to Vacate.” For example, if an
easement is reserved, it could bring lesser value to the property. Option 1 would be consistent with the existing
code and limit conditions to either monetary compensation or a grant of an easement to the City in exchange for the
vacated easement. Option 2 would also be consistent with the existing code and limit conditions to either monetary
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 411
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 4
compensation or a grant of easement to the City or a third party in exchange for the vacated easement, provided that
any grant of an easement to a third party must be for access or utility purposes.
Board Member Pence asked the rationale and public policy purpose behind the current either/or provision. While it
provides a lot of compensation potential in some respects, compensation would be zero if there is any type of utility
on the ground. City Attorney Taraday said he does not know the rationale behind the provision. He said it doesn’t
make sense that any retained easement would zero out the value of the property being vacated. That is why staff is
recommending that the either/or provision be changed.
Board Member Monroe questioned why a property owner should be required to compensate the City for an
easement that it no longer has a purpose for. The land belongs to the property owner, first and foremost, and the
City needs to prove a use for it. If it cannot prove that use, the easement should default back to the property owner
and the City wouldn’t be damaged at all.
Vice Chair Robles asked what the term “utility purposes” encompasses. Ms. McConnell responded that when a
utility easement is retained in a street vacation it is because there is an existing utility. The City does not reserve
easements for future utilities to be there. In the vacation process, the City chooses not to ignore the fact that there
are other utilities that exist within the area, whether they be City utilities or third-party utilities. In practice, the City
has required easements to be retained for specific utilities as a condition of the Resolution of the Intent to Vacate.
Vice Chair Robles asked what recourse a property owner would have if something new happens within an easement
that he/she doesn’t approve of or want. Ms. McConnell clarified that the City would not retain easements for
something in the future, and the underlying property owner should already know what exists on the property well in
advance of a street vacation application going before the City Council. When a property owner comes forward with
a potential street vacation application, staff discusses the existing conditions on the site and requires them to contact
utility companies for more specific information about existing utilities within the easement.
Board Member Monroe clarified that easements would only be reserved for existing utilities and not proposed
utilities. Ms. McConnell agreed, but with some exceptions. For example, the City might have a capital project that
requires the future use of a right-of-way. These things are looked at early in the review of a street vacation
application to determine if a street vacation would make sense from a public perspective. If it is deemed feasible,
the City would then identify the types of easements needed to uphold public needs for that land.
Board Member Crank asked if Edmonds is the only jurisdiction statewide that has an either/or provision for street
vacations. Ms. McConnell responded that a review was done of a handful of local jurisdictions, which found that
the City of Edmonds is the only one that has an either/or provision. Staff did not review all jurisdictions within the
State. Board Member Crank observed that, sometimes, being the only one isn’t necessarily bad. She asked staff to
explain how the proposed amendment to require both compensation and the reservation of easements would be
better. Ms. McConnell responded that State Law allows for reservation of easements and monetary compensation,
and the proposed amendment would be consistent with State Law. The either/or provision limits the City’s ability
with regard to public lands.
Chair Cheung asked if staff’s review looked at whether or not the other jurisdictions previously had either/or clauses
but then changed them at some point. City Attorney Taraday answered that they looked at current street vacation
codes from several cities that were considered relevant comparisons, but they didn’t go back to previous versions.
Chair Cheung asked if any jurisdictions have switched from requiring both compensation and reservation of
easements to an either/or provision. City Attorney Taraday said he does not know of any, and he hasn’t seen any
indication that this would be a potential trend. In his opinion, the absence of other cities’ company suggests that the
either/or clause is an oddity in the City’s code that could be dispensed with. However, he acknowledged there are
instances where the City does things its own way.
Vice Chair Robles voiced concern that there seems to be a roadblock that nothing new can happen in the City unless
it has been done somewhere else first. City Attorney Taraday noted that there are other aspects of the proposed
amendments that, if approved, would be outliers. He cautioned against taking the position that the City can’t ever be
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 412
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 5
an outlier. However, if the City is going to be an outlier, it should be able to articulate reasons for it. In this case, he
is unable to do so.
Board Member Monroe said he sees Edmonds as being primarily built out, and all of the necessary easements have
already been identified. He suggested that it is time to give unnecessary easements back to the land owners. They
should make it easier for property owners to regain ownership and get the land back on the taxable roles. The
either/or language would be the easiest way to do that, and it would allow the City to get out of the business of
holding a bunch of unopened rights-of-way. City Attorney Taraday agreed this is a fair policy question, and the
Board should feel free to disagree with his opinion on the matter. The City could adopt a blanket rule that it is no
longer going to accept compensation for street vacations, period. If they don’t need them, they will give them away
for free. However, he is not recommending this policy choice because he believes it is important for the City to
maximize its resources so the value can be spent on other goods and services that benefit the public.
City Attorney Taraday said that, in his opinion, the either/or language unfairly treats one street vacation applicant
from another. For example, one applicant, by virtue of the fact that the City needs to retain an easement, would get
his/her property for free, and another applicant, by virtue of the fact that the City doesn’t need an easement, would
have to pay. That seems unfair to him. One of the goals of the proposal is to treat all street vacation applicants
fairly. The City Council could adopt a policy that all of the unnecessary street vacations would be given away for
free, and that would treat all applications fairly. However, the either/or language would not accomplish this goal.
Vice Chair Robles asked City Attorney Taraday to explain maximizing social value versus optimizing social value.
City Attorney Taraday said that, from his perspective, easements are valuable property rights that are controlled by
the City. The City doesn’t ordinarily give things away for free. If the City requires fair market value for these
valuable rights, the money can be used for other transportation-related purposes that benefit the public.
Board Member Crank said she would support Planning Board Option 1. She observed that staff’s recommendation
to require both monetary compensation and the reservation of easement is prompting a lot of unnecessary questions
and confusion.
Board Member Monroe voiced support for the either/or language (Option 1). It hasn’t been a problem in the past,
and he doesn’t see a reason to change it. The role of the City is to serve its citizens and not to optimize its value
from citizens. The price of land continues to increase, and it does not behoove the City to make street vacations too
difficult. As long as the City can retain its rights and there is an encumbrance on the land that allows for the City’s
needs, both the City and the property owner should be made whole.
Board Member Pence said he can’t see where one pipe in the ground should zero out the City’s ability to require
compensation. The City Council outlined the inequities that would exist between two equivalent property acquirers.
The one with the pipe in the ground would get the property for free and the one without the pipe in the ground would
pay the full amount. That is a fundamental unfairness. He suggested that the value of the retained easement could
be and would be accommodated in the appraisal process. Appraisers are trained to examine properties and come up
with a monetary value, and that would be the fair way to go, setting aside the issue of more or less revenue to the
City. He said he supports the staff recommendation.
Chair Cheung said he understands the argument for capitalizing on the monetary value of the rights-of-way. On the
other hand, if the City doesn’t have a need for a particular right-of-way, perhaps the policy should be to use it or
give it away.
Board Member Rosen commented that all land has value, regardless of how it was acquired. He is having a hard
time with the idea of simply giving City land away without compensation. In some cases, rights-of-way have
significant value.
Board Member Robles agreed that the land has value, but the appraisal and assessment components included in the
draft amendment help address the concerns. He doesn’t believe it is absolutely necessary to change the language,
and he would be inclined to stick with the current either/or policy.
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 413
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 6
Board Member Pence suggested that the Board is mixing up the issues. The question is not whether or not a
proposed vacation involves a value to the City. The question is, does that value, whatever it is, suddenly turn to zero
just because there is a pipe left in the ground and the City retains an easement to maintain that pipe. You can argue
how big the compensation should be based on an appraisal, but he hasn’t heard an adequate explanation that would
allow him to get from whatever that number is to zero merely because there’s a pipe in the ground.
Board Member Monroe suggested the Board recommend Option 1, which would leave both options on the table for
City Council discussion. If they simply go with the staff recommendation, then the alternative option may not even
be considered by the City Council. Chair Cheung commented that the City Council would see both options, whether
the Board recommends Option 1 or the staff recommendation. He said he doesn’t have a strong inclination to
support either option at this time. Vice Chair Robles agreed and said he would fall back on what has been tried and
experienced by the citizens the Board represents.
Again, Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that the either/or language is the right way to go. If the City is
damaged, they should be compensated. If they can retain the necessary easements and setbacks, they shouldn’t be
able to collect compensation money, as well. Board Member Pence reminded him that the value of any easement
would be accounted for in the appraisal. Board Member Monroe commented that the either/or provision has worked
well for a number of years, and he can’t see a reason to change it now.
VICE CHAIR ROBLES MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR ITEM 1. BOARD
MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 3-1-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER
PENCE VOTING IN OPPOSITION AND CHAIR CHEUNG ABSTAINING.
• Item 2 – Monetary Compensation – Fair Market Value/Dollar Amount. The existing code requires that
monetary compensation be paid to the City “in the amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the street,
alley, or part thereof to be vacated unless acquired at “public expense” then full appraised value shall be paid.”
To be consistent with State Law, staff is proposing the following language, “Payment to the City, prior to the
effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the subject property unless
the subject property was acquired at “public expense” or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25
years or more, in which case full fair market value shall be paid.” She advised that the Planning Board did not
request staff to provide alternative language for this item.
Board Member Monroe asked staff to explain why they are proposing the change. Mr. Lien responded that when the
City’s Street Vacation Ordinance No. 2493 was originally passed in 1985, it was consistent with the State Law in
place at the time. The legislature later amended State Law in 2001 to add the language related to property that is
acquired at public expense or dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more, and subsequent updates of the City
code failed to bring this section into concurrence with the updated State Law.
City Attorney Taraday said the intent of this amendment is to conform City code to State Law. Board Member
Monroe commented that it would be helpful to understand why the State Law was changed. City Attorney Taraday
responded that he doesn’t know why the State Law was changed. Board Member Monroe suggested that perhaps
the reasoning was that if the City purchases a piece of property at full public expense, it should get full price when it
is sold back. City Attorney Taraday agreed that might have been the reasoning behind the phrase, “unless the
subject property was acquired at “public expense.” However, the language, “or has been part of a dedicated public
right-of-way for 25 years or more,” could apply to a case where the City didn’t pay anything. Board Member
Monroe suggested that the phrase, “or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more”
should be deleted from the staff’s recommended language.
Board Member Pence observed that the purpose of the public expense caveat is to distinguish between rights-of-way
that were dedicated to the City when subdivisions were platted and rights-of-way the City had to pay to acquire in
order to build a street. In the case of subdivisions, the rights-of-way were gifted to the City as part of an approved
subdivision. The City didn’t pay anything for them. However, when the City needed to acquire rights-of-way to
build streets, it had to condemn properties and pay full market value, and that’s a public expense. City Attorney
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 414
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 7
Taraday agreed with this distinction, but said it is still not clear why State Law treats public expense acquisitions the
same as dedications of 25 years or more.
City Attorney Taraday said that, when preparing the proposed amendment, he didn’t focus on the “why” part
because his perspective isn’t to delve too deeply into why that particular law was changed by the legislature. His
responsibility is to maximize the public’s value. Board Member Pence commented that, having worked for the
legislature earlier in his life, the 25-year provision has the look and feel of a number plucked out of the air or some
handshake between interests. At some point, he would like to make a distinction between unopened alleys and
public rights-of-way that have been improved and put into use to provide public access. He took issue with the City
requiring compensation for vacating unopened alleys that have never provided any public access or benefit.
Vice Chair Robles voiced concern about applying fair market value, and questioned if a market of two could ever be
fair. Unless anyone can bid on the easement property, it won’t be possible to identify fair market. He suggested the
best way to resolve this concern would be to specify the appraiser as being a licensed appraiser, and hopefully, a
market will be created for appraisers that specialize in easements. He would like to see fair market articulated in
either the selection of the appraisers or the way the process flows.
Board Member Rosen asked if the current language would lock street vacations to just adjacent property owners.
City Attorney Taraday explained that for each proposed vacation, there is an underlying fee owner that is a known
person or entity. The title, upon vacation, will always go to the underlying fee owner. When dealing with
appraisals, the question isn’t whether one person can outbid another person. The question is, how much, if anything,
the underlying fee owner should pay to have those valuable property rights titled in their name.
Board Member Rosen asked what happens if the City decides to vacate an easement, but none of the adjacent
property owners want to pay for the land. City Attorney Taraday answered that, if it was a City-initiated vacation
with the finding that the public benefit accruing from the vacation alone is sufficient, no compensation would be
required. He said council-initiated street vacations are rare, and he would assume the City Council would only do so
if it would provide a public benefit. If a petitioner initiates a vacation, it is presumed the petitioner is interested in
the value of the property.
Chair Cheung asked if staff has a rough estimate of what the fair market value of an easement might be. Mr. Lien
provided a history of past vacation ordinances approved by the City (See Attachment 5 of the Staff Report):
o Ordinance No. 3188 was initiated by the City in 1998. The City Council found that the public benefit be
derived from the vacation outweighed the need for requiring compensation.
o Ordinance No. 3189 was initiated by the City in 1998. The vacated right-of-way was adjacent to the
cemetery and was vacated to support the construction of the columbarium.
o Ordinance Nos. 3197 through 3208 were initiated by the City in 1998 at the urging of the City Engineer.
They were all located in the Meadowdale area and most contained slopes in excess of 40%. No
compensation was required for any the vacations due to the public benefits derived. The easements were
rights-of-way the City did not want and had no plans to develop into streets.
o Ordinance No. 3255 was privately initiated in 1999. The vacation would have allowed one additional
building lot with a value ranging from $30,000 to $65,000. However, the abutting property owners agreed
to waive the subdivision rights created by the vacation via a covenant recorded with the ordinance. The
City Council reduced the required value to $3,562.
o Ordinance No. 3260 was privately initiated in 1999, and the City received compensation equal to half of
the appraised value.
o Ordinance No. 3463 was initiated by both the City and a private citizen in 2003. It appeared to be a
cleanup of a past vacation that should have happened with a subdivision in 1987. The City Council
considered three compensation options: 1) using the current (2003) land valuation for a total of $31,050, 2)
using the 1993 assessed valuation (when the current property owner purchased the property for a total of
$18,468; or 3) using the original 1987 calculation for a total of $5,454. Since it appeared to be a City
oversight that the vacation did not occur, the Council chose the 1987 valuation.
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 415
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 8
o Ordinance No. 3470 was initiated by the City in 2003. The City had sold the adjacent property at 805
Bowdoin Way as surplus. As part of the sale, the City indicated it would vacate the right-of-way. It was
determined that adequate compensation was received from the sale of the property and no additional
compensation was required for the right-of-way.
o Ordinance No. 3520 was initiated by the City in 2004. This vacation appeared to be a cleanup of some
license agreement from 1973. One-half of the appraised value would have been $8,000, but the City
Council accepted the reduced payment because the subject property was burdened with access rights, the
prior property owner refused to purchase the site, returning the property to the tax rolls would compensate
the City through additional tax revenue, and the owners would occur additional costs.
o Ordinance No. 3543 was initiated by a private citizen in 2005. The City received half of the appraised
value ($3,750) for the right-of-way that was vacated.
o Ordinance No. 3551 was initiated by a private citizen in 2005. The City received half of the appraised
value ($62,500) for the right-of-way that was vacated.
o Ordinance No. 3565 was initiated by a private citizen in 2005. The City received half of the appraised
value ($67,731) for the right-of-way that was vacated.
o Ordinance No. 3647 was initiated by a private citizen in 2007. The fair market value of the property was
appraised at $22,500. The City Council reduced the compensation below 50% to reflect the costs associated
with obtaining an appraisal and the other associated costs of the vacation process, as well as the required lot
line adjustment and the cost of tree removal. A compensation of $7,500 was required.
o Ordinance No. 3662 was privately initiated in 2007. A compensation of $1,400 was required, which was
more than half of the appraised value that was submitted with the application. Two appraisals were
submitted. The first had an assumed value of $1,350 and another appraisal was for $1,620. The appraisals
were based on the differential values of similarly-sized and valued properties. The City Council did not
feel that the appraisals appropriately reflected the value of the property. The applicant had offered to pay
the City $1,400 for the vacated right-of-way, and the City Council accepted that offer as adequate
compensation.
o Ordinance No. 3729 was initiated by the City Council in 2008. This is the vacation referred to by Mr.
Reidy during his comments.
o Ordinance No. 4028 was initiated by the City Council in 2016 after the City acquired Civic Field from the
school district. Because the City was the property owner, no compensation or easements were required as
part of the vacation.
o Ordinance No. 4061 was privately initiated in 2017. The City received compensation of $92,610, which
was half of the appraised value. The property was zoned multifamily, and the vacated property would give
the owner more square footage to develop more units.
o Ordinance No. 4114 was privately initiated in 2018. The required compensation was $28,800 or half of
the appraised value.
o Ordinance No. 4143 was privately initiated in 2019 and no compensation was required because the City
retained easements.
Mr. Lien summarized that the value of the appraisal and required compensation depends on the size of the property,
the zone it is located in, and other circumstances that vary site-by-site. Vice Chair Robles said it makes sense that
negotiations happen between the City and private parties. If a developer needs additional land in order to increase
the number of units, the City should be compensated appropriately. He said a fair market is defined as something
where both sides have the same information and there is no asymmetric information. The minute the City places
constraints on who can do an appraisal, the results are stacked in favor of one side or the other and the appraisal can
no longer be considered fair market. He asked if it is too expensive to continue the City’s current process or is the
amendment intended to streamline the negotiation process and make it more uniform.
City Attorney Taraday said the idea behind wanting to limit which appraisers can be used is to create some
uniformity and fairness between one street vacation petitioner and another. Historically, applicants have simply
submitted an appraisal as part of the vacation application. Sometimes the appraisals are straight up and fair, but
other times applicants present appraisals that appear result-oriented and low. He is concerned that some parties will
take advantage if the City leaves it completely to the discretion of the applicant to select the appraiser. There will be
some disparity in how fairly street vacation applicants are treated. The optional language provided by staff would
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 416
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 9
allow the City to provide an extensive list of appraisers. This would provide some quality control and also allow the
applicant some input on who does the appraisal. He explained that an appraiser’s primary job is to determine fair
market value, and fair market value is defined as the price that a willing but not obligated buyer would pay and a
willing but not obligated seller would sell. The most common way is via a comparable sales approach. Appraisers
are trained to render an opinion as to what fair market value is, and the City wants to make sure it is dealing with
appraisers who do it in a way that is above board. Appraisers are licensed by a Board and have different
qualification designations. The main thing the City would look at when compiling the list would be whether or not
an appraiser has experience with street vacation appraisals.
Board Member Rosen said he leans towards Option 1, which calls for an approved list of appraisers that meet all of
the qualifications. The market will decide if there is any pious going on. A frequency of certain appraisers
generating more appeals than others will provide another safety net. Chair Cheung concurred and suggested that
having a larger list would be better. The Board discussed that the list should include at least six appraisers.
Board Member Robles asked if the compensation required would be the same for a developer who will gain
enormously from a street vacation as opposed to a homeowner who just needs a corner for a detached accessory
dwelling unit. City Attorney Taraday said his general understanding is that most appraisers doing this kind of work
would take into account the highest and best use of the property before and after the street vacation. If a street
vacation results in additional lots or units, the additional development potential would be reflected in the fair market
value.
Board Member Monroe asked that the phrase, “or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or
more” be eliminated from the proposed amendment. Since Edmonds was primarily platted and built in the 1950s
and 1960s, the provision would include almost all right-of-way. He said he cannot think of a logical reason why an
applicant would be required to pay double the price after the 25th year. Chair Cheung said it appears that the
provision was added to be consistent with State Law, but there is no clear explanation as to where the number came
from.
Mr. Lien explained that, when the State legislature adopted the provision, they didn’t specifically spell out the intent.
However, the testimony that was given by the City of Tacoma and the Association of Washington Cities was that
allowing cities to sell vacated streets and alleys for their appraised value allows more responsible management of
public access and avoids the potential gift of public lands. The law was voted out of the house 93-0 and out of the
senate 40-6.
City Attorney Taraday commented that Edmonds is so old that the vast majority of the streets will fall in the 25-
year-and-over category. The real policy choice is whether you want to maximize market value or sell the rights-of-
way for half price. The Board discussed that, if the 25-year provision is not eliminated, the majority of the City’s
rights-of-way would be subject to full market value upon vacation. Board Member Monroe suggested that, at the
very least, the Board should make the Council aware that accepting the staff’s recommendation would basically
double the price of all street vacations.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION FOR
ITEM 2, WITH ONE MODIFICATION TO REMOVE THE PHRASE, “OR HAS BEEN PART OF A
DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 25 YEARS OR MORE.” BOARD MEMBER ROBLES
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
• Item 3 – Appraisals – Applicability and Waiver. The existing code requires an appraisal to be submitted upfront
with the application, and staff is proposing clarifying language that an appraisal is not required if a utility easement
only is proposed to be vacated. In response to Planning Board feedback at the last meeting, the staff
recommendation was updated to include applicability and waiver sections. The applicability section states, “where
the Resolution of Intent to Vacate includes a compensation requirement, an independent appraisal shall be
required.” With regard to the appraisal fee, some additional language was added to state that, “for street vacations
initiated by City Council, the City shall be responsible for any associated appraisal fees.” A waiver section was
added that states, “the requirement for an appraisal and subsequent monetary compensation will be waived if a
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 417
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 10
street vacation initiated by City Council by resolution includes a finding that the public benefit accruing from the
vacation alone is sufficient to justify the vacation without monetary compensation to the City.” If the Planning
Board determines the granting of an easement and/or substitute right-of-way negates the ability to collect monetary
compensation and therefore the appraisal becomes unnecessary, then Option 1 would amend the waiver section to
allow for the appraisal and monetary compensation requirement to be waived if, “a) the resolution for a City
Council initiated street vacation includes a finding that the public benefit accruing from the vacation alone is
sufficient to justify the vacation without any monetary compensation to the City,” and “b) the resolution conditions
the street vacation upon the reservation and/or granting of a public easement or substitute public right-of-way to the
City of Edmonds (or a third party).”
Board Member Robles said he likes the concept of waivers. If the City is going to maximize its benefit, the public
should have the rights and tools available to maximize their own benefit, as well, through a negotiation process.
Board Member Monroe requested clarification of the term “third party.” Does it refer only to utilities or can private
developers obtain third-party rights. Ms. McConnell said a reference was made to a recent street vacation where the
school district had a storm utility pipe that ran through the property. An easement was retained for the school
district as a condition of approval. The condition was placed on the vacation to address an existing utility. Board
Member Monroe requested additional information about Ordinance No. 3729, which was a temporary construction
easement for a street vacated for approval of a 3-lot short plat. Ms. McConnell said she wasn’t involved with this
street vacation, which involved a short plat adjacent to the alley. In the process of vacating the alley, the City
acknowledge that the development of the short plat was intending to utilize the alley for access to their construction
project. A temporary construction easement was retained in that case for the developer to complete the
improvements.
Other than the circumstances surrounding Ordinance No. 3729, Board Member Monroe asked if “third party” refers
to existing utilities or if the City would maintain a corridor for future utility installations. Ms. McConnell said the
intention is not for third party future use, but there may be City future uses considered.
Chair Cheung said he supports recommending the additional language outlined in Option 1 if the City Council
adopts the Board’s recommendation to retain the either/or language (Item 1).
CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOAD RECOMMEND OPTION 1, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD ONLY APPLY IF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THE
PLANNING BOARDS RECOMMENDATION OF OPTION 1 FOR ITEM 1. BOARD MEMBER
MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
City Attorney Taraday clarified that the Board’s recommendation for Item 3 would follow suit for whatever results
with Item 1. If the City Council takes a different action on Item 1, then Option 1 for Item 3 would no longer apply.
• Item 4 – Selecting an Appraiser. The existing code requires an appraisal at the time of application, and the
applicant pays for and provides his/her own appraisal. The City has no regulations beyond the language that
requires a qualified land appraiser with an MAI designation. Staff’s proposal states, “If the City Council adopts a
Resolution of intent to Vacate the subject property, the director shall be authorized to obtain an appraisal of the fair
market value of the subject property from a qualified appraiser, taking into account any reduction in fair market
value associated with the conditions imposed in the Resolution of Intent, including but not limited to a condition
requiring the dedication of an alternative right-of-way.” As a Planning Board Option 1, the words, “from a
qualified appraiser” could be eliminated and language could be added that states, “the appraiser will be selected by
the applicant from a city-approved list.”
Chair Cheung asked how the City would define the term “qualified appraiser.”. Ms. McConnell said the intent is for
the City to have a contract in place with an appraiser consulting firm. The process of selecting a specific consultant
would involve a review of qualifications to confirm applicability and experience related to street vacations. Board
Member Rosen clarified that the difference between the staff’s recommendation and Option 1 is a sole source versus
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 418
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 11
a roster. Chair Cheung summarized that, as per the staff’s recommendation, there would only be one qualified
appraiser. Under Option 1, the City would provide a list of qualified appraisers for applicants to choose from.
Board Member Monroe recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board agreed that the appraisal should be moved to the
end of the street vacation process rather than requiring an appraisal at the time of application. Ms. McConnell said
this change was included in the proposed code amendments, but was not listed on the table because the Board was in
agreement that it should be moved to a later point in the process. This change will be pointed out when the
amendments are presented to the City Council.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR ITEM 4, WITH
THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE, “NO FEWER THAN SIX.” BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED
THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• Item 5 – Challenging a Condition. There is no existing code language that details how an applicant may appeal a
condition. Language with regard to challenging conditions imposed in the Resolution of Intent to Vacate would
provide the applicant clarity on the appeal process where none is provided in the State code. It would also provide
certainty to the City that the ordinance passed by the City Council would not be challenged once the vacation
becomes effective. The staff recommendation includes language providing a 30-day appeal period, which is longer
than the usual 21-day appeal period for land-use decisions. If the Board feels that a longer appeal period is
necessary, Option 1 would add a clause to make sure that the street vacation is dealt with appropriately, depending
on when an appeal comes in.
The majority of the Board indicated support for an appeal period longer than 39 days, and most felt that 60 days
would be a more appropriate option.
BOARD MEMBR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR ITEM 5.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
At the request of City Attorney Taraday, the Board confirmed that the motion includes the red text provided in the
table for Item 5.
REVIEW OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Board Member Rosen reviewed the City Council’s suggestions for items the Board should add to its extended agenda. The
list included:
o Implementation of code update for the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
o Implementation of code update for the climate goals
o Implementation of code update for the Washington State Roadmap
o Low-impact development code review
o Five Corners code update
o Sustainable construction code review
o Stormwater handling code review
o Identifying nonconforming buildings and areas under performing
o Subdivision code review
Board Member Rosen said he sensed some frustration by City Council Members who felt they had been asking for
subdivision code review for several years. He suggested that the listed items should be added to the Board’s agenda, with
some parameters around scheduling. The Board acknowledged that available staff time would need to be considered when
scheduling the items on the extended agenda. Mr. Chave explained that some of the items will be longer term, and others
shorter term. There are also pending items on the Board’s agenda that weren’t mentioned at the joint meeting.
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 419
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 12
The Board asked staff to identify a target date for each of the items to come before the Board. Mr. Chave said staff would do
their best to estimate a timeline for each of the items, but it won’t be possible to identify specific dates for all of them. He
said there have been a couple of different drafts of the subdivision code, and it may be ready to present to the Board soon.
Board Member Rosen said the second part of the joint meeting was focused on how the Board communicates with the City
Council. The following menu of options was created:
1. The Council can review the meeting minutes or watch the video recording of the meeting.
2. A report on Planning Board activities could be included in the Development Services Director’s Report.
3. Staff can provide feedback and updates to the Council on Planning Board activities.
4. Board Members can attend City Council meetings and participate during the citizen comment period.
5. The Board can request time on the City Council’s agenda to present recommendations and/or thoughts.
6. The Council President and Planning Board Chair could meet regularly.
7. The Board could present a quarterly report to the City Council.
8. In an effort to stay informed of the housing discussions, the Council President, Planning Board Chair, Architectural
Design Board Chair and Housing Commission Chair could meet regularly to collaborate.
9. Establish an ongoing method for tracking Planning Board recommendations to the City Council and actions that are
taken. This would not only allow the Board to monitor its effectiveness and/or things that need feedback, but the
City Council could also provide specific responses to actions that were counter to the Board’s recommendations.
Board Member Rosen reviewed that it was suggested that, at the end of every meeting, the Board could identify which
options they would like to use to convey the results of their discussions and actions to the City Council. He suggested that
the Board start taking advantage of this opportunity as soon as possible, recognizing that Option 9 would take some time to
implement.
Student Representative Bryan said he doesn’t have a specific recommendation, but he could imagine the City Council would
be frustrated if the Planning Board communicates in a different manner after each meeting. He suggested that consistency is
important to consider.
Board Member Monroe suggested that consistency should be mixed with understanding the importance of each topic. If the
topic is mundane, the meeting minutes can serve that purpose. But some issues may warrant the use of some of the other
options.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung reviewed that the October 9th meeting agenda will include a joint discussion with the Architectural Design
Board regarding their role in design review, an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, and a presentation
on the 2020 – 2025 Capital Improvement and Capital Facilities Plans. The October 23rd agenda will include an update from
the Housing Commission and a public hearing on the 2020 – 2025 Capital Improvement and Capital Facilities Plans.
Mr. Chave announced that, at the request of the Economic Development Commission, the November 13th meeting will
include a discussion about potentially adding a provision to the Commercial Waterfront Zone that allows lodging and/or
hotels.
Chair Cheung asked for an update about parking. Mr. Chave responded that the City Council opted not to go forward with
the parking study, so it is on hold at this point.
Mr. Chave agreed to work with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director to schedule a report on a future Planning
Board agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung commented that the Board had a good discussion, and it was a good exercise on how to forward their thoughts
to the City Council in the most effective manner.
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 420
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 25, 2019 Page 13
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Monroe agreed that the Board’s discussion regarding the street vacation amendments was good.
Vice Chair Robles commented that the City Council watches the video recordings of their meetings and reads their minutes.
This invigorates him and gives the Board license to be creative. The joint meetings with the City Council are productive and
helps them get to the core of the issues quickly and accurately.
Board Member Pence said anything the Board can do to increase the visibility of their work is to their advantage. He said he
supports having some mechanism to report to the City Council in a more visible way beyond just relying on them to read the
minutes.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 421
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
9
.
2
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
7
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 1, 2019
Page 14
journal that is more locally oriented. In their experience, this is unique a resource and knowing about it,
others could use the information in other pocket estuaries.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed it was a remarkable study. He referred to sediment between the east and
west sides of SR104 where the flow is not great and there is some debris in the culvert. He asked to what
extent that could be removed. Mr. Gouguet said they could only see what was above the water; there could
be a buildup although they heard that it had been cleaned recently.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if Windward did any HEA modeling of a freer flow of water east to west
and the effect that would have on the health of the Marsh. Mr. Gouguet said they have an academic
knowledge, comparison of water levels on either side and salinity records, but a more interpretive approach
is needed to consider the variables and their effects. As he told Councilmember Nelson, they could change
the amount of large woody debris and rerun the HEA or do submodel to get a relative value of the change.
They also use that technique to compare value per dollar spent in actual restoration projects. It depends on
input values. Councilmember Tibbott looked forward to modeling regarding what could be anticipated in
20-60 years.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be sent to the Council. She volunteered to head up a
taskforce along with a couple Councilmembers, Mr. Lein and Zach and a couple citizens to consider the
data and develop some ideas. She reiterated WRIA 8 will fund large woody debris and there are groups
who will do invasive removal.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested forming a smaller group to do an analysis and make recommendations
to the City Council regarding incremental steps that could be taken even before Willow Creek is daylighted.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
9. STUDY ITEMS
1. INTRODUCTION TO STREET VACATION CODE UPDATE
Engineering Program Manager Jeanne McConnell reviewed ECDC 20.70 - Street Vacations
Code Update Goals
o Move to Title 18 – Public Works
o Clarify, reorganize, add definitions section
o Revise appraisal process and timing
o Revise applicability of monetary compensation
o Revise timeframe to satisfy conditions
Substantive code changes
o Move from Title 20 to Title 18
o Change in review lead from planning division to public works division
o 18.55.005 Definitions – new section
o 18.55.015.D Application – revised to reflect what’s actually needed
o 18.55.030 – Added right to reserve easements for pedestrian walkways or trails
o 18.55.XXX – Added appraisal section to address timing of appraisal and collection of fees for
3rd party appraisal
o 18.55.140 – Section added to clarify processing of street vacations, allowing ordinance to
address timing of compliance with conditions, establishing compensation of area to be vacated
based on appraisal, and giving Council the ability to not adopt a vacation ordinance based on
review of the appraisal.
What is a street dedication?
10.3.e
Packet Pg. 422
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 1, 2019
Page 15
o A dedication is a transfer of most of the rights in a privately owned property to the public for
some public use, such as for streets.
o A street dedication (or dedication of right-of-way) occurs commonly as a condition of
subdivision approval.
o Definition of dedication: “The donation of land or creation of an easement for public use.”
DEDICATION, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
o A street “vacation” means that the public is letting go of, or “vacating”, the public interest in a
property.
o After a street, alley or easement (pedestrian and/or vehicular) is vacated, the public no longer
has a right to use the property for access.
o Initiated by petition of property owners or City Council
o RCW 35.79.040 – Title to vacated street or alley.
If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or town council, the property
within the limits so vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each.
Appraisal
RCW 35.79.030:
o States the ordinance may provide that the vacation shall not become effective until the owners
of property abutting upon the street or alley compensate the city or town an amount equal to
one-half or the full amount of the appraised value of the area vacated.
Existing code:
o Appraisal is a minimum application requirement
o Appraiser selected by applicant
Proposed code:
o Appraisal required after staff review and Council approval of resolution of intent to vacate
o 3rd party appraiser selected by City
o Waiver if Council initiated vacation includes a finding that public benefit accruing from the
vacation alone is sufficient to justify vacation without monetary compensation.
Planning Board Recommendation:
o 3rd party appraiser selected by the applicant from a City approved list…
o Planning Board Recommendation
o Agreed with staff recommendation except for 3rd party appraiser selected by the applicant from
a City approved list
Monetary Compensation
RCW 35.79.030:
o Provides two options by which owners of property abutting the area to be vacated shall
compensate the city of town:
An amount equal to one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated; or
An amount not to exceed the full appraised value. (This a pplies if the street or alley has
been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or if the subject
property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense)
Existing code:
o Monetary compensation OR reservation of easement to the City
Proposed code:
o Monetary compensation and allowance for reservation of easements
o The amount of compensation to match the language in the RCW
Planning Board recommendation
o Keep with existing code – monetary compensation OR reservation of easement to the City
o The amount of compensation to match RCW except for the that portion related to a ROW
dedicated for twenty five years or more.
Compliance with Conditions and Challenging a Condition
Existing code:
10.3.e
Packet Pg. 423
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 1, 2019
Page 16
o Conditions must be met within 90-days of approval of resolution of intent to vacate
Proposed code:
o Compliance within 90-days unless otherwise stated in the resolution
o Language clarifying the appeal process.
o 30 day appeal period following the adoption of the resolution of intent (longer than the appeal
period for land use decisions is 21-days (RCW 36.70C.040)
Planning Board recommendation
o 60 day appeal period
o Includes clarifying language as to what happens if the appeal comes before or after a Council
decision on the street vacation
Code Update Schedule
o July 9, 2019 – Introduction at City Council Planning, Public Safety and Personnel Committee
o July 10, 2019 – Introduction to Planning Board
o August 14, 2019 – Public Hearing at Planning Board
o September 25, 2019 – Planning Board (Review Options)
o October 1st – Introduction at City Council
o October 15th – Public Hearing at City Council
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are lot of code updates to do. She observed there had only
been one street vacations per year in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 and asked why it was decided to rewrite
this part of the code now. Ms. McConnell answered in processing street vacations, staff found opportunities
such as moving the appraisal requirement later in process, and other things that can benefit the applicant in
the process and potentially save them money. The code also included language requiring copies of certain
documents or transparencies that no longer make sense. In addition, this section was inconsistent with State
law in some areas, which could open the opportunity for reservation of easement as well as monetary
compensation and leave determining the value to the appraisal process.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the proposal was to remove it from Chapter 20 and put it into 18.
If there has only been one per year for the past four years, she questioned rewriting the entire code. She
observed the Planning Board did have an issue with the timing of the appraisal in process. Ms. McConnell
said the items highlighted in the presentation were items discussed in more detail at the Planning Board.
Each slide states includes the proposed code and the Planning Board’s recommendation. The Council packet
includes a clean version of the code, color-coded to identify staff and Planning Board recommendations.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there is so much code to rewrite, why was this being done now.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said this chapter was more isolated from the rest of the code compared to the
land use code which is very intertwined. It was easier to draft revisions and move it through the process
because it is a standalone chapter. That may be one of the reasons it is happening on a different track.
Councilmember Tibbott commented it is a very detailed packet with a lot to read. He agreed with some of
the Planning Board’s recommendations but not all, one of which was the e ither/or argument (monetary
compensation or reservation of easement to the City). He could see the City resolving to vacate a piece of
land that has an easement and because it has an easement, the appraisal will reflect a lower price. In his
view it was not either/or, but what the market will bear for a piece of property that has an easement so he
agreed with staff’s recommendation. Ms. McConnell said State law does not require either/or, it is open to
both monetary compensation and acceptance of an easement.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed with the Planning Board with regard to appraisers, finding it appropriate
for the purchaser to choose an appraiser and to have a list of six appraisers assuming that number of
qualified appraisers existed in the area. He was concerned about the length of the review process, beyond
30 days becomes unwieldy. It appeared the resolution could stipulate 40 days instead of 30 days. Ms.
10.3.e
Packet Pg. 424
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 1, 2019
Page 17
McConnell said there is a timeline of 90 days unless otherwise stated in the resolution of intent to satisfy
the conditions. The 30 days is the appeal period. Staff’s recommendation is a 30 day appeal period; the
Planning Board’s recommendation is 60 days. Councilmember Tibbott was concerned with delays.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding there were times when it was financially beneficial to
the City to vacate a parcel and in those cases the City would not require compensation. He asked how often
that happened and under what circumstances. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien answered the
packet includes a review of vacations back to 1998 which includes several instances where the City initiated
the vacation and did not require compensation. For example, there were a large number of vacations
initiated in 1998 in the North Meadowdale Landslide Area, very steep slopes that would never be developed
with a road. The City initiated the vacations and determined it was beneficial to turn the property back to
the adjacent property owners. There were other instances where the City initiated vacations that were
beneficial to the City.
Councilmember Johnson asked staff to include the PowerPoint in the October 15 packet.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the proposal regarding monetary compensation which means the City
would retain the easement as well as require compensation from the applicant, observing under the current
code, if the City retains an easement, compensation is not required. There is a p ublic benefit to taxpayers
from this amendment because today the City cannot collect compensation. Ms. McConnel agreed.
Councilmember Teitzel said one of the reasons for making this change is the City is foregoing potential
income that could be used for other purposes.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed vacations had only occurred four times in last four years. She
asked about difficulties when citizens inquired about vacations. Ms. McConnell said the current code is
cumbersome and requires materials that staff does not need to process the application, requires an appraisal
upfront in the process when there may be a reduction in the value based on an easement being retained and
it is too early in the process for an appraisal. When discussing a street vacation with applicants using the
code as a resource, staff has identified ways to improve it. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if
citizens have ever walked away after inquiring about a street vacation. Ms. McConnell answered yes,
sometimes it is understanding what is required in street vacation, sometimes it is a more cumbersome
process than the citizen thought as well as the current process with the appraisal upfront that does not give
consideration to the possible reduction in value due to an easement.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how moving from Chapter 20 to 18 would affect reporting, who
will manage street vacations. Ms. McConnell answered Engineering is in Public Works; the bulk of the
review for street vacations is done by Public Works and Engineering. Planners are an integral part as they
are much more familiar with public notification process and bringing items to boards and Council. Council
President Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding the Planning Department would still have input. Ms.
McConnell answered yes, that is how street vacations are currently handled although that is not how it is
described in the code.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Chapter 20 is review criteria and procedures and Chapter 18 is Public
Works. She questioned why the regulations were not being left in Chapter 20. Mr. Taraday answered it is
not a land use decision; it is a substantively different type decision than most other things in Title 20. In his
opinion it did not legally belong in Title 20. For example, if one were to appeal something in Title 20, it is
appealable under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA); this would not be appealed under LUPA because it is
not a land use decision.
2. SECURITIZATION REQUIREMENT FOR EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER GRANTS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
10.3.e
Packet Pg. 425
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 15, 2019
Page 3
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2019
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
4. AUGUST 2019 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
5. PROPOSED 2020 BUDGET FOLLOW UP MEMO
6. ILA VERDANT HEALTH COMMISSION -OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONES AMENDMENT
7. MARSH BOARDWALK EASEMENT
8. HYUNDAI PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
9. LYNNWOOD MAZDA PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
10. CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT -EASEMENTS
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET VACATION CODE UPDATE
Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell reviewed ECDC 20.70 - Street Vacations:
Code Update Goals
o Move to Title 18 – Public Works
o Clarify, reorganize, add definitions section
o Revise appraisal process and timing
o Revise applicability of monetary compensation
o Revise timeframe to satisfy conditions
o Consistency with RCW 35.79.030
Substantive code changes
o Move from Title 20 to Title 18
o Change in review lead from planning division to public works division
o 18.55.005 Definitions – new section
o 18.55.015.D Application – revised to reflect what’s actually needed
o 18.55.030 – Added right to reserve easements for pedestrian walkways or trails
o 18.55.XXX – Added appraisal section to address timing of appraisal and collection of fees for
3rd party appraisal
o 18.55.140 – Section added to clarify processing of street vacations, allowing ordinance to
address timing of compliance with conditions, establishing compensation of area to be vacated
based on appraisal, and giving Council the ability to not adopt a vacation ordinance based on
review of the appraisal.
What is a street dedication?
10.3.f
Packet Pg. 426
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 15, 2019
Page 4
o A dedication is a transfer of most of the rights in a privately owned property to the public for
some public use, such as for streets.
o A street dedication (or dedication of right-of-way) occurs commonly as a condition of
subdivision approval.
o Definition of dedication: “The donation of land or creation of an easement for public use.”
DEDICATION, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
o A street “vacation” means that the public is letting go of, or “vacating”, the public interest in a
property.
o After a street, alley or easement (pedestrian and/or vehicular) is vacated, the public no longer
has a right to use the property for access.
o Initiated by petition of property owners or City Council
o RCW 35.79.040 – Title to vacated street or alley.
If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or town council, the property
within the limits so vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each.
Appraisal
RCW 35.79.030:
o States the ordinance may provide that the vacation shall not become effective until the owners
of property abutting upon the street or alley compensate the city or town an amount equal to
one-half or the full amount of the appraised value of the area vacated.
Existing code:
o Appraisal is a minimum application requirement
o Appraiser selected by applicant
Proposed code:
o Appraisal required after staff review and Council approval of resolution of intent to vacate
o 3rd party appraiser selected by City
o Waiver if Council initiated vacation includes a finding that public benefit accruing from the
vacation alone is sufficient to justify vacation without monetary compensation.
Planning Board Recommendation:
o 3rd party appraiser selected by the applicant from a City approved list
Monetary Compensation
RCW 35.79.030:
o Provides two options by which owners of property abutting the area to be vacated shall
compensate the city of town:
An amount equal to one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated; or
An amount not to exceed the full appraised value. (This applies if the street or alley has
been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or if the subject
property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense)
Existing code:
o Monetary compensation OR reservation of easement to the City
Proposed code:
o Monetary compensation and allowance for reservation of easements
o The amount of compensation to match the language in the RCW
Planning Board recommendation
o Keep with existing code – monetary compensation OR reservation of easement to the City
o The amount of compensation to match RCW except for the that portion related to a ROW
dedicated for twenty five years or more.
Compliance with Conditions and Challenging a Condition
Existing code:
o Conditions must be met within 90-days of approval of resolution of intent to vacate
Proposed code:
o Compliance within 90-days unless otherwise stated in the resolution
10.3.f
Packet Pg. 427
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 15, 2019
Page 5
o Language clarifying the appeal process.
o 30 day appeal period following the adoption of the resolution of intent (longer than the appeal
period for land use decisions is 21-days (RCW 36.70C.040)
Planning Board recommendation
o 60 day appeal period
o Includes clarifying language as to what happens if the appeal comes before or after a Council
decision on the street vacation
Code Update Schedule
o July 9, 2019 – Introduction at City Council Planning, Public Safety and Personnel Committee
o July 10, 2019 – Introduction to Planning Board
o August 14, 2019 – Public Hearing at Planning Board
o September 25, 2019 – Planning Board (Review Options)
o October 1st – Introduction at City Council
o October 15th – Public Hearing at City Council
o Future Council Meeting – Approval of Ordinance
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why staff did not agree with the Planning Board with regard to
having a list of appraisers. She anticipated it would be difficult for an applicant if the City made the decision
regarding an appraiser, however, having a list would allow an applicant to make the choice. Ms. McConnell
answered it was not necessarily that staff did not agree with the Planning Board, but staff’s initial
recommendation included the change to have a City-chosen appraiser for consistency purposes. After
listening to the Planning Board, staff does not object to a list although i t is questionable whether an exact
number of appraisers on the list should be included in the code. She summarized having a list to choose
from would be an option. As this was a policy decision, staff’s recommendation as well as the Planning
Board’s recommendation was included to highlight the options for Council.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked staff for providing the Planning Board’s comments. He referred to
18.55.030 Right to reserve easements which states, in vacating any subject property, the city council may
reserve for the city any easements or the right to exercise and grant easements for the following purposes,
and paragraph C states, Construction, repair and maintenance of utilities by a third-party utility company,
municipal corporation, or special purpose district that has a vested interest in the subject property. He said
it appeared the third-party entities that can receive that easement are limited to those three examples. He
asked if under that definition would a school district or private part y qualify as a third party. Mr. Taraday
said special purpose district is a very broad term; the combination of municipal corporation and special
purpose district together would include nearly every form of government in Washington. He summarized
it would generally be a governmental entity.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the sudden urgency of this amendment when there has
been only one street vacation per year for the past four years. She pointed out there is no definition for
vacation. She was confused by that and felt the definitions should include easement, street vacation,
dedication and the differences. She recalled Susan Paine sent the Council her concerns about street vacation
and easement. Mr. Taraday explained a vacation is essentially the undoing of a dedication. Councilmember
Buckshnis referred to Chapter 18.55 Vacations of Streets and Public Access Easements, pointing out
18.55.005 Definitions includes easement but not vacations. Ms. McConnell said the general definitions
section of the ECDC defines vacation as well as dedication. Mr. Taraday asked if Councilmember
Buckshnis was asking to include it in the final draft. Councilmember Buckshnis answered yes.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said sometime prior to May 3, 2018, the City Attorney, City Council and Staff
began working on yet another piecemeal code amendment. In April 2019 he emailed Mayor Earling asking
10.3.f
Packet Pg. 428
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 15, 2019
Page 6
several questions; he did not receive a response. On June 24, 2019 he noticed this topic on the City Council
extended agenda and submitted a public records request for the latest draft of the street vacation code update
which was due in five days. Eleven days later on July 5th, he was provided documents that provided him
the first glimpse of the amendments. He emailed questions to City Council on July 9th and did not receive
a response. On July 10th he attended the Planning Board meeting where this topic was introduced and
stressed that citizens be afforded a chance to be very involved in the process. He spoke again at the July
24th, August 14th, September 11th and September 25th Planning Board meetings. He provided much input,
pointed out errors and experienced frustration as City staff refused to respond to two Planning Board
requests to show an aerial photo of a specific section of an unopened alley. At the conclusion, he was
encouraged in general by the recommendations made by the Planning Board, but dismayed to see staff
make their own recommendations to City Council rather than respecting the Planning Board’s
recommendation.
Mr. Reidy recalled on October 1st, he told Council that because the city attorney has made it clear he does
not represent Edmonds property owners, Council needs to ensure property owners know what is happening.
He also provided Council information sheet for possible distribution to citizens; no Councilmember has
indicated whether that or a different version was distributed. The proposed code uses the term, “sufficient
to justify,” a subjective term, opening the door to arbitrary decisions and different rules for different people.
He suggested Council adopt different policies for the vacation of unused easements versus easements that
have been used for a public purpose, or would it be more ethical to not charge compensation for the vacation
of an easement[JD1] the City never needed and never used. The proposed code establishes a definition of
easement that is much different than the definition of easement in the definition section of Title 21. The
proposed code requires the site survey specify open and unopened right-of-way but never discusses
unopened right-of-way again in 18.55. The proposed code will result in more code errors and links that do
not work. ECDC 20.80 is a major point that has not been addressed during this process. He encouraged the
Council to listen to and engage with citizens and property owners.
Damian King, Edmonds, expressed concern about the proposal regarding easements and street vacations
from staff and the city attorney. The ordinance needs a comprehensive, holistic review instead of a
piecemeal edit like this change. Easements represent usages and interests in land between the City and
citizens. These are not strictly economic issues, context is important. Many easement in the City have
remained unopened, unused and unimproved for decades. He pointed out the City has an easement, not the
title to the land. The City occasionally grants vacations of easements and retains or reserves easements,
aspects that work together in the public interest. When the City retains an easement, compensation is not
always required; either compensation for vacations or retention of easement provides the City the necessary
options. This approach has been previously affirmed by the City Council. The City should step back and
do a more holist, thorough review of the larger development code before seeking a narrow aspect of change.
Michelle Dotch, Edmonds, commented this was a public hearing on very important code that had been
extensively rewritten, affecting thousands of property owners whose property borders an easement, right-
of-way or alley. The entire downtown core of Edmonds has easements, alleys, rights-of-way between nearly
every major street. These easements are how businesses, homes, condos and multifamily housing in
Edmonds get to their garbage, garages and access their property. These easements, alleys and rights-of-way
are part of the original design of Edmonds and were dedicated at no cost to the City to obtain the rights of
access and to give the streets their curbside appeal so that things people do not want to look at are located
behind. It is obvious that property owners and homeowners living on easements have no idea that this code
will be changed to their detriment. She questioned the rush to change the code when it has been used only
once a year and why the public was not present at a public hearing on the first major code rewrite. The
Council has been clamoring to begin a major code rewrite, yet no Councilmember or Planni ng Board
Members were aware this section of code was being rewritten, basically behind closed doors using
numerous staff and city attorney hours to change a code that no one had asked to have changed.
10.3.f
Packet Pg. 429
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 15, 2019
Page 7
Ms. Doth said although the Council has stated they want the public to be engaged sooner in the process, the
public has not been properly included or notified. She was concerned with staff’s position to stick with their
own and the city attorney’s recommendations instead of honoring the Planning Board’s recom mendation
that recognizes their concern with staff and the city attorney’s approach to the code rewrite and what it
means to property owners with easement rights. She questioned the role of the city attorney in rewriting the
code, a person who is not a city employee but the owner of a Seattle law firm that specializes in eminent
domain and complex condemnation matters. She recalled Mr. Taraday’s warning to the Planning Board on
August 14th that he does not represent Edmonds homeowners, leading her to questi on who he represents.
She urged the Council to take the time for proper public engagement and to table this item for further public
review.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented it was easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have
been fooled. Not all members of the Planning Board were fooled by staff and the city attorney’s misleading
interpretations and opinions regarding the law. From reviewing the City Council study session on the
proposed amendment to the current street vacation code, he said the City Council is being fooled. He
referred to Ordinance 4143 approved in February 2019 in which the City Council vacated Excelsior Place
and retained easements for public utilities and right-of-way and required no compensation. He referred to
the gift of public funds and governmental ethics. At the August 14, 2019 Planning Board hearing, the city
attorney cited Washington State Constitution Article 8, Section 7, No county, city, town or other municipal
corporation shall here-after give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any
individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or
become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.
Mr. Tupper opined that the City Council’s approval of the street vacation on Excelsior Place violated the
State Constitution and therefore implied that the City Council including himself, because he signed the
ordinance, violated their oaths of office which puts each Councilmember subject to the recall petition. RCW
34.79 was last updated in 2011. The City code amendments adding full appraised value if the dedication is
25 years old was passed in 2001. ECDC 20.70 was updated twice, Ordinance 3901 in 2012 and Ordinance
3902 in 2013, both amendments were citizen requested. He asked why the city attorney waited so long,
relaying his belief it was due to a property in Perrinville. The City Council passed a resolution to vacate
184th and then passed a resolution to postpone that vacation; that property has an unopened easement with
City utilities. This proposal is to get the full value for that dedication which he felt was not honest
government or fair play, changing the rules in the middle of the process.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if there were more than three instances where the Planning Board’s
recommendation differed from staff’s recommendations. Ms. McConnell referred to the PowerPoint slides
that identify five instances where the Planning Board had a different recommendation. The table on p age
243 of the packet also identifies the five items and the clean version of the code includes both staff and
Planning Board recommendations (packet page 238). Councilmember Mesaros observed staff has chosen
to include both and let the City Council decide. Ms. McConnell agreed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has not often seen in her ten years on the Council where a
proposal includes different recommendations from staff and the Planning Board, typically the
recommendation incorporates the Planning Board’s input. Ms. McConnell answered the reality is there is
not an incorrect way; staff does not feel strongly about any of the specific items. Staff presented their
recommendation to the Planning Board, there was a lot of good discussion at the Pla nning Board and
ultimately the Planning Board members did not a solid vote for their recommendations or staff’s
recommendation so staff felt it more appropriate to bring both recommendations to the Council.
10.3.f
Packet Pg. 430
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 15, 2019
Page 8
Council President Fraley-Monillas appreciated staff giving Council that opportunity, however, the redline
version only includes staff’s recommendation which makes it challenging to review. Ms. McConnell said
the clean version of the code highlights the staff recommendation and the Planning Board recommendation.
The Planning Board’s recommendations were not incorporated into the track change version because it was
already difficult to read.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was concerned after speaking with Susan Paine who has worked in this
area. She did not understand why easements and vacations were combined in the same chapter and was
concerned with broken links when information is moved. She would like to take more time for review and
at Ms. Paine’s request, she suggested staff provide a visual diagram of the difference between an easement
and a vacation. She questioned why compensation was not required for a vacation when there was an
easement. Since there has been only one vacation a year for the past four years, she questioned the urgency
of this change especially during budget time. She preferred to have more time to look at the global aspect
of the code and an overall code update rather than doing it piecemeal .
Councilmember Teitzel asked Mr. Taraday to respond to Mr. Tupper’s challenge about his interpretation
of the State Constitution which could result in recall of Councilmembers and the Mayor. Mr. Taraday said
he would like to see the minutes where he is quoted saying that as that was not his recollection of the
statements he made to the Planning Board. He did say in response to a question that one could certainly
make the argument that if a City street were vacated with no compensation to the City whatsoever, that that
would be a gift of public funds. Excelsior Place was not exactly that because an easement was retained and
one can differ whether that retained easement was sufficient to offset what was given away. He thinks the
public can do better than that; anyone interested in protecting the public’s finances would not want the City
to give away valuable property rights without obtaining fair compensation in return. That was ultimately
one of the things being considered, protecting the public’s finances and maximizing the type of services the
City can provide and whether the City was unnecessarily giving away valuable rights without maximizing
the public’s ability to recoup value from that transfer of property.
Mr. Taraday said it was ultimately up to the City Council to decide whether to adopt the recommendations
that allow for maximized return to the public. When he realized there were instances like Excelsior Place
where the City did not get resources it could have, he felt it was his obligation to let the City Council
understand the choices and let the City Council make a policy choice regarding those situations. That was
one of the reasons that both the staff recommendation and the Planning Board recommendation is included
because he felt it was his obligation to ensure the City Council was making the most informed decisions it
can. Presenting only the Planning Board recommendation without the alternate staff recommendation did
not seem like he was fully informing the Council in preparation for a decision.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the definition of alley and the difference between an alley and a
dedicated street. Ms. McConnell said an alley is dedicated right-of-way just like a street. The definition of
alley in ECDC Title 21 states, an alley is publicly dedicated right-of-way which provides a secondary means
of access. The definition of a street shall include an alley, provided however that an alley shall not be
considered a street for purposes of calculating the setback and front yard requirements. No lot fronting on
a street and alley shall be considered either a corner lot or a lot having two frontages. Council President
Fraley-Monillas observed an alley was different than a street because it provided a secondary means of
access.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the function of an alley was a secondary way of
accessing property. He asked how often the City considers vacating an alley right-of-way, noting that did
not seem like a common occurrence. Ms. McConnell said property owners discuss alley vacations with staff
more commonly than one would think, mostly in areas where an alley is undeveloped and not currently
10.3.f
Packet Pg. 431
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 15, 2019
Page 9
used for access. When staff receives those requests or talks with a property owner at the counter, they
consider whether there are any utilities in the right-of-way, often underground utilities that the property
owner may be unaware of. She summarized alley vacations were discussed more frequently than any other
type of vacation at the front counter although they may not move forward.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled when he was on Planning Board a property owner wanted to vacate the
dead-end alley behind his house that was not used for access so he could use it for other purposes. He asked
if that was a fairly typical reason a citizen might inquire about vacating an alley. Ms. McConnell answered
property owners often want to make improvements on the land or it could be used to expand their setbacks
and allow expansion of their home’s footprint. Councilmember Tibbott observed the vacation would be a
transfer of real property and real value to the homeowner where it could be used for purposes other than an
unopened alley. Ms. McConnell said once it was vacated the public would no longer have interest in the
land. Councilmember Tibbott commented as long as there was no public interest, it could make s ense to
make that transfer.
Councilmember Tibbott asked what method was used to determine the value of property with an easement.
Ms. McConnell answered that is done via an appraisal process. Mr. Taraday explained one of the benefits
of moving the appraisal later in the process is the appraiser can take into account things like a retained
easement in determining the amount to be paid to the City. Obviously, a vacation that is subject to a retained
easement is not as valuable as a similar vacation that is not subject to a retained easement because frequently
a property owner is not allowed to build on top of a utility. The appraiser starts by determining the highest
and best use of the property, looks for comparable sales, etc. If the property is encumbered by a water pipe
for example and it is located in such a way that it is not possible to build in the vacated strip of land, it
would significantly reduce the value of the vacated right -of-way. Conversely, if the waterpipe was at the
far end of the vacated property such that one could still build on a portion of the vacated right-of-way, the
appraiser would consider that vacated property more valuable than the previous example.
Councilmember Tibbott observed there was something of a scientific method to evaluating the appraised
value even if there is an easement. Mr. Taraday said he is not an appraiser and did not know exactly the
methodology that appraisers use, but nearly all appraisers look at highest and best use and the presence of
a utility pipe would certain affect highest and best use and therefore fair market value. Based on that,
Councilmember Tibbott said he was comfortable with the “and” approach to an appraisal for vacations.
Councilmember Tibbott asked for an explanation of 30 versus 60 days waiting period and when it begins.
Mr. Taraday said it begins upon passage of the resolution of intent. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there
was any reason to prolong the waiting period, for example does the review process typically take longer
than 30 days. Mr. Taraday said 30 days was initially included in the draft based on caselaw from a case in
Federal Way years ago where someone tried to appeal a street vacation and the city did not have a clear
process for how and when that happens, leaving the court to decide after the fact whether the appellant’s
appeal was timely or not. It seemed that some appeal period should be included in the code. There is nothing
magical about the 30 day time period; the Planning Board thought that seemed short and they did not want
property owners to rush to bring an appeal so they suggested a longer appeal period.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the longer appeal period makes it more likely that the court would take
longer to review materials. Mr. Taraday answered it would certainly increase the likelihood that the
commencement of the appeal would take longer, but he did not think it would change anything in superior
court. Councilmember Tibbott favored the longer appeal time.
Councilmember Johnson observed the Council had a lot of questions and comments and it has been the
Council’s rule of thumb not to make a decision the same night a public hearing is held to allow
Councilmembers to consider the public’s comments. She recalled several street vacations and understood
10.3.f
Packet Pg. 432
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 15, 2019
Page 10
it was a decision for the City Council, but was often frustrated by the lack of context. The Council needs to
understand a proposed street vacation in light of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Transportation
Element and to update the City’s official street map to determine if there are any future intended uses for
the right-of-way as well as the pedestrian plan. She summarized she was interested in context when
considering a street vacation and has often found that lacking.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
INITIATE A TWO-STEP PROCESS TO RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
PLANNING BOARD AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, 1) ASK STAFF TO COME BACK
AT A LATER DATE WITH A CLEAR PRESENTATION ON THE TWO DIFFERENCES IN THE
CODE AND THE COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS EACH OF THE FIVE ITEMS AND REACH
RESOLUTION ON EACH, AND 2) ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF TO DEVELOP THE
FINAL ORDINANCE BASED ON THE RESOLUTION OF THOSE FIVE ITEMS AND RETURN
TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to comments about rushing, commenting he did not feel rushed and there
had been several opportunities for review. The reason for the motion was to afford more opportunity for
citizens to comment during Audience Comments. To those who have commented about a piecemeal
approach to updating the code, he questioned how the code could be reviewed as a whole. It is a large code
and it has to be done piecemeal, being mindful of the need for consistency as the code is revised.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS ABSTAINING.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, MESAROS, TEITZEL AND
TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING
NO.
Mayor Earling assumed this would be done by the end of the year or the process would need to start over.
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
Parks & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Johnson reported on items the committee reviewed:
ILA Verdant Health Commission: Outdoor Fitness Zones Amendment – approved on Consent
Agenda
Marsh Boardwalk Easement – approved on Consent Agenda
Hyundai Pedestrian Easement – approved on Consent Agenda
Lynnwood Mazda Pedestrian Easement – approved on Consent Agenda
Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Ballinger Regional
Facility – on tonight’s agenda
Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements Project -Easements – approved on Consent Agenda
Investment Grade Audit for Citywide ESCO Project – on tonight’s agenda
PUD Aerial and Ground Easement at SE Corner of Frances Anderson Field (NW Corner of Dayton
& 8th) – on a future Council agenda
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on items the committee reviewed:
Approval of Expenditure for Historic Informational Panel – on a future Council agenda
10.3.f
Packet Pg. 433
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
1
0
.
1
5
.
2
0
1
9
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
E
C
D
C
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Year Ordinance No.Street/Alley Iniatiator Easements Resrved?Compensation Comments Paid one-half?Notes
1998 3188 237th Place SW City of Edmonds Utility (to the City and its
lawful franchisees)
$0 The City Council found that public benefit will be derived from the
vacation to better utilize the easement for drainage easements and future
utility use and determined that the public purposes outweight the need
for requiring compensation.
0 public benefit
1998 3189 15th Street SW & 100th
Avenue S
City of Edmonds $0 The vacated right-of-way was adjacent to the Edmonds Cemetery and was
vacated in part to support the construction of the columbarium at the
cemetery.
0 cemetery expansion
1998 3197 Lunds Gulch Rd City of Edmonds $0 0 public benefit
1998 3198 Unnamed City of Edmonds $0 0
1998 3199 72nd Ave W City of Edmonds $0 0
1998 3200 72nd Ave W City of Edmonds Pedestrian/Utility $0 0
1998 3201 73rd Ave W City of Edmonds $0 0
1998 3202 74th Place W City of Edmonds Utility $0 0
1998 3203 75th Ave W City of Edmonds $0 0
1998 3204 156th Street SW City of Edmonds $0 0
1998 3205 156th Street SW City of Edmonds $0 0
1998 3206 158th Street SW City of Edmonds $0 0
1998 3207 164th Street SW City of Edmonds Utility $0 0
1998 3208 172nd Street City of Edmonds Utility $0 0
1999 3255 180th Street SW Citizen $3,562 Vacation would have allowed one additional building lot whose value
could range from $30,000 to $65,000. The abutting property owners
agreed to waive subdivsion rights created by the vacation right-of-way via
a covenant recorded with the vacation ordinance.
less
1999 3260 218th Place SW Citizen $5,300 Appraised value of $10,600. Originally dediciated for hammerhead turn-
around and the street is now a through street.
one-half
2003 3463 7th Avenue S Citizen/City of
Edmonds
Pedestrian/Utility $5,454 Clean up of a vacation request and subdivision from 1987. Council
considered three compensation options, (1) using the current (2003) land
valuation for a total of $31,050, (2) use of 1993 assessed valuation (when
the then current property owner purchased the property ) for a total of
$18,468, or (3) use the original 1987 calculation for a total of $5,454.
Since it appeared to be a City oversight that the vacation did not occur in
1987, the City Council chose the 1987 valuation.
less
2003 3470 Bowdoin Way City of Edmonds $0 Vacated 3 feet of Bowdoin Way adjacent to 8505 Bowdoin Way. The City
of Edmonds had sold 8505 Bowdoin Way as surplus property (former site
of Five Corners Fire Station). As part of the sale, the City of Edmonds
indicated it would vacate the right-of-way. The City Council determined
adequate compensation was received from the sale of the property
(included in the sales price) and did not require any additional
compensation for the right-of-way. Price of the sale unknown, but value
was based on the ability to construct 7 units on the property.
0 property sale
The street vacation for ordinances 3197 - 3208 were initiated by the City
of Edmonds. All of the vacated right-of-way were located in the
Meadowdale area and most contained slopes in excess of 40%. No
compensation was required for any of the vacations because the Council
found that, "Due to the public benefits to be derived, the abutting
property owners are not required to compensate the City for the vacation
of the right-of-way." The public benefit noted in the ordinance included,
"...returning the propoerty to the tax roll and relieving the City of the
obligation to maintain a right-of-way easement which has no reasonable
likelihood of development as a public street thereby creating a public
interest which outweighs the necessity to require compensation for the
vacation to the City."
10.3.g
Packet Pg. 434
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
-
P
a
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Year Ordinance No.Street/Alley Iniatiator Easements Resrved?Compensation Comments Paid one-half?Notes
2004 3520 174th Street SW City of Edmonds $1,500 This vacation appeared to be clean up of some license agreement from
1973. One-half of the appraised value would have been $8,000. City
Council accepted the reduced payments because, (1) the subject property
was burdened by access rights, (2) the prior property owners refused to
purchase the site, (3) returning the property to the tax roles would
compensate the City through additional tax revenue, and (4) the owners
will incur additional costs to survey and assign the site by lot line
adjustment.
less
2005 3543 Sierra Place Citizen Utility $3,750 $3,750 was one-half of the appraised value of right-of-way to be vacated.
Covenant recorded restricting use of the adjacent property to one single
family residence due to presence of critical areas including stream,
wetland, and slope.
one-half
2005 3551 Daley Street Citizen $62,500 $62,500 was half of appraised value. A single-family residence has been
constructed on this former right-of-way.
one-half
2005 3565 219th Street SW Citizen Utility $67,731 $67,731 was half the value of the encumbered right-of-way. The
appraisal considered the unencumbered value of the right-of-way to be
$267,000 and the value of the right-of-way with the reserved utility
easement to be $135,461.
one-half
2007 3647 8th Avenue N Citizen Creek Maintenance
Easement
$7,500 The fair market value of the property was appraised to be $22,500. The
City Council reduced compensation below 50% to relect the costs
associated with obtaining an appraisal and the other associated costs of
the vacation process, as well as required lot line adjustment and the cost
of tree removal, yielding in the City Council's estimation a reasonable
compensation to the public of $7,500.
less
2007 3662 77th Place W Citizen $1,400 The $1,400 was more than one-half appraised value. Two appraisels (both
paid by the applicant) assumed a total appraised value of $1,350 and
$1,620. The appraisals were based on the differential values of similarly
sized and valued properties, calculated the appraised value based on the
incremental difference in property valuations. During the public hearing,
the City Council did not feel the appraisals appropriately reflected the
value of the property. The applicant had offered to pay the City $1,400
for the vacated right-of-way. After much discussion on the value of the
similarly situated property, the City Council chose to accept the applicants
offer of $1,400 for the right-of-way as adequate compensation.
more
10.3.g
Packet Pg. 435
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
-
P
a
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Year Ordinance No.Street/Alley Iniatiator Easements Resrved?Compensation Comments Paid one-half?Notes
2008 3729 Alley between 8th and 9th City Council Temporary Construction
Easement
$0 A temporary construction easement was reserved for the construction of
a retaining wall north of the vacated easement to be constructed in
association with improvements for a 3-lot short plat north of the vacated
right-of-way. The City Council found it to be in the public interest to
vacate the property without compensation, given its small size (7 1/2 feet
in width), its lack of value and utility to the City, the fact that it, except as
provided herein (presumbably referring to the tempoary construction
easement), serves no public purpose, and that returning the property to
the tax rolls provides a benefit to the City.
0 public benefit
2016 4028 right-of-way in Civic Field City Council $0 After the City of Edmonds acquired Civic Field from the school district, the
City Council iniated street vacations to vacate portions of Edmonds Street,
Sprague Street and an unnamed alley that extended through civic field.
Utilities are located in Civic Field, but since the City of Edmonds is the
property owner, no easements were required with the vacations.
0 city property
2017 4061 92nd Avenue W Citizen Easements for third party
utilities
$92,610 $92,610 was one-half of the appraised value. The property owners were
required to assume ownership of the stormwater facilities located within
the right-of-way and grant easements to Olympic View Water and Sewer
District, Snohomish County PUD, and PSE. The property owner also had to
acknowledge improvements related to fire protection should the property
be redeveloped.
one-half
2018 4114 Unnamed right-of-way near
231st Street SW
Citizen Easement for third party
utility
$28,800 $28,800 was one-half of the appraised value. An easement was required
for an Edmonds School District stormwater line located within the right-of-
way.
one-half
2019 4143 Excelsior Place Citizen Utility and Access
Easement
$0 No compensation was required because the City of Edmonds retained
easements. Conditions of vacation included (1) retention of public utility
easement, (2) constuction of a utility access and emergency vehicle turn-
around, (3) private access easement for all properties with frontage on
the vacated portion of Excelsior Place, and (4) a utility and emergency
vehicle access easement and covenant requiring construction of
additional access road width to meet South County Fire Lane standards
with future single-family development.
0 easement
2020 184th St SW between 80th
and OVD
Citizen - - Resolution 1456 Set the Public Hearing Date. Street vacation was denied. 0 denied
2022 4285 838 Fir Street Citizen $17,500 $17,500 was one-half the appraised value. one-half
10.3.g
Packet Pg. 436
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
-
P
a
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
CIT Y O F E DM
O
N
D
S
Inc.1 8 9 0
ECDC 20.70 Street Vacation Code Updates
July 1, 2025
City Council Introduction
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 437
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Code Update Goals
•Move to Title 18 – Public
Works
•Clarify, reorganize, add
definitions section
•Revise appraisal process &
timing
•Revise applicability of
monetary compensation
•Revise timeframe to satisfy
conditions
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 438
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
CIT Y O F EDM
O
N
D
S
Inc.1 8 9 0
➢Change in review lead – Planning to Engineering
➢Clarify applicability to the vacation of streets, alleys, and public
easements relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes
➢18.55.005 Definitions – New section
➢18.55.015.D Application – Reflects what’s needed
➢18.55.120 – Added right to reserve easements for pedestrian
walkways or trails
➢18.55.130 - Added appraisal section to address timing and
collection of fees for 3rd party appraisal
➢18.55.140 – Resolution of Intent and Final Decision
▪Clarify processing of street vacations
▪Allow ordinance to address timing of compliance with conditions
▪Establish compensation based on appraisal
▪Give Council ability to not adopt ordinance based on review of
appraisal.
Substantive Code Changes 10.3.h
Packet Pg. 439
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
CIT Y O F EDM
O
N
D
S
Inc.1 8 9 0
➢A dedication is a transfer of most of the rights in a privately
owned property to the public for some public use, such as for
streets.
➢A street dedication (or dedication of right-of-way) occurs
commonly as a condition of subdivision approval.
➢Definition of dedication: “The donation of land or creation of
an easement for public use.”
DEDICATION, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
What is a Street Dedication?10.3.h
Packet Pg. 440
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
➢
➢A street dedication (or dedication
of right-of-way) occurs
commonly as a condition of
subdivision approval.
➢ Map Provided to Left: Original
Plat of Edmonds (recorded in
1890). Streets and Alleys shown
were dedicated to the City of
Edmonds.
Example of a Street Dedication 10.3.h
Packet Pg. 441
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Example of a Street Dedication 10.3.h
Packet Pg. 442
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
CIT Y O F EDM
O
N
D
S
Inc.1 8 9 0
➢A street vacation means that the public is letting go of, or
“vacating”, the public interest in a property (the dedication).
➢After a street, alley or easement (pedestrian and/or vehicular)
is vacated, the public no longer has a right to use the property
for access.
➢Initiated by petition of property owners or City Council
➢RCW 35.79.040 – Title to vacated street or alley.
If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or
town council, the property within the limits so vacated shall belong
to the abutting property owners, typically one-half to each.
What is a Street Vacation?10.3.h
Packet Pg. 443
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Maps shown:
Portion of Sprague St shown
in purple – was dedicated as
right-of-way with the Original
Plat of Edmonds and later
vacated.
Example of a Street Vacation 10.3.h
Packet Pg. 444
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Previous Code Work
Planning Board:
❑July 10, 2019 – Introduction to Planning Board
❑August 14, 2019 – Public Hearing at Planning
Board
❑September 25, 2019 – Planning Board (Review
Options)
o Planning Board reviewed code update
options
o There wasn’t a consensus on options
outlined
o Ultimately the decision is legislative
City Council
❑July 9, 2019 – Introduction at City Council PPW
Committee
❑October 1, 2019 – Introduction at City Council
❑October 15, 2019 – Public Hearing at City
Council
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 445
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
CIT Y O F EDM
O
N
D
S
Inc.1 8 9 0
RCW 35.79.030:
➢States the ordinance may provide that the vacation shall not become
effective until the owners of property abutting upon the street or alley
compensate the city or town an amount equal to one-half or the full
amount of the appraised value of the area vacated.
Existing code:
➢Appraisal is a minimum application requirement
➢Appraiser selected by applicant
Proposed code:
➢Appraisal required after staff review and Council approval of resolution of
intent to vacate
➢3rd party appraiser selected by City, reimbursable by applicant
➢Waiver if Council initiated vacation includes a finding that public benefit
alone is sufficient to justify vacation without monetary
compensation.
Appraisal 10.3.h
Packet Pg. 446
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
AppraisalsPlanning Board Option
If the City Council adopts a resolution of
intent to vacate the subject property and
such resolution contains an appraisal
requirement, the director shall be
authorized to obtain an appraisal of the fair
market value of the subject property from a
qualified appraiser, taking into account any
reduction in fair market value associated
with any other conditions imposed in the
resolution of intent, including but not limited
to a condition requiring the dedication of
alternative right-of-way or the conveyance
of an easement to a third-party.
ECDC 18.55.130
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 447
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Appraisals – Applicability and WaiverPlanning Board Option
ECDC 18.55.130
* Change included, proposed by Planning Board:
B. City shall be responsible for any associated appraisal fees.
** Change to current draft code as compared to when Planning
Board reviewed:
C. If resolution of intent to vacate includes an appraisal
requirement, reduction in fair market value shall also include
consideration of conveyance of an easement to a third-party.
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 448
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
CIT Y O F EDM
O
N
D
S
Inc.1 8 9 0
RCW 35.79.030:
Provides two options by which owners of property abutting the area
to be vacated shall compensate the city of town:
➢An amount equal to one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated;
or
➢An amount not to exceed the full appraised value. (This applies if the
street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for
twenty-five years or more, or if the subject property or portions thereof
were acquired at public expense)
Existing code:
➢Monetary compensation OR reservation of easement to the City
Proposed code:
➢Monetary compensation and allowance for reservation of easements,
which could lower amount of compensation
➢The amount of compensation to match the language in the RCW
Monetary Compensation 10.3.h
Packet Pg. 449
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Monetary Compensation and/or EasementPlanning Board Option
** Change to current draft code as compared
to when Planning Board reviewed:
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 450
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Monetary CompensationPlanning Board Option
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 451
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
CIT Y O F EDM
O
N
D
S
Inc.1 8 9 0
Existing code:
➢Conditions must be met within 90 days of approval of resolution of
intent to vacate
Proposed code:
➢Compliance within 90 days unless otherwise stated in the
resolution
➢Language clarifying the appeal process.
➢30-day appeal period following the adoption of the resolution of
intent (longer than the appeal period for land use decisions at 21
days (RCW 36.70C.040)
Compliance with Conditions and Challenging a Condition
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 452
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Condition ChallengesPlanning Board Option
** Change to current draft code as compared
to when Planning Board reviewed:
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 453
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Code Update Schedule
➢June 3, 2025 – City Council
Committee ‘A’
✓July 1, 2025 – Presentation at City
Council
➢July 22, 2025 – Public Hearing at
City Council
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 454
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
QUESTIONS?
10.3.h
Packet Pg. 455
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
m
e
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y