2018-09-04 City Council - Full Agenda-2182Agenda
Edmonds City Council
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018, 7:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
September 4, 2018
Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2018
2. Approval of claim and payroll checks.
3. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by Katherine Richardson ($5,421.91).
5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. Presentation on the Edmonds Historical Museum Annual Scarecrow Festival (5 min)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes (40 min)
2. Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands (20 min)
3. CIP-CFP Discussion (30 min)
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(I)
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/4/2018
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
4.1
Packet Pg. 2
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 28, 2018
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Michael Nelson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney’s Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS 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 AUGUST 21, 2018
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. JUNE QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 2
Assistant Finance Director Dave Turley invited Councilmembers to call or email with any questions about
financial reports. He presented the Financial Management Summary Report January – June 2018,
highlighting the following:
Total General Fund and Subfunds Revenue YTD 2017 $1,396,915 or 6.7% higher than YTD 2017
Through June, actual General Fund expenses are $1.5 million or 6.9% under budget
Graphs of General Fund Revenue and Expenses
o Tracking close to budget
Sales Tax by Category January – June 2018
o Retail Automotive $793,853
o Construction Trade $788,170
Bar Graph of Increase in Sales Tax Revenue since 2013
2013 $5,325,287
2014 $5,840,754
2015 $6,741,838
2016 $6,905,122
2017 $7,395,114
YTD 2018 $3,866,411
Growth in Interest Income for the City, a result of actively investing available funds
2013 $74,830
2014 $163,214
2015 $335,926
2016 $423,816
2017 $653,690
YTD 2018 $426,395
Forecast 2019 Over $1 million
Summary
o After years of low inflation and continued growth in the economy, Edmonds remains in
relatively good shape financially.
o We have reserves sufficient to weather a moderate to severe downturn in the economy, should
one occur.
o On June 29 we concluded our annual Financial Audit with the State Auditor’s Office. We are
pleased to report that for the fourth year in a row we received no Audit Findings, meaning that
the auditors identified no deficiencies in our financial statements that they consider to be
material weaknesses
2017 Citizen’s Report
o Second year this has been created, last year it was called Popular Annual Financial Report
(PAFR)
o Brief introduction to the City and overview of the City’s finances
o Copies will be available within a week
Councilmember Johnson observed Mr. Turley was primarily responsible for the City’s investment portfolio
and complimented him on his fine work, noting it was an important task that takes time. She inquired about
outstanding bonds and suggest staff consider whether they needed to be refinanced or with the additional
revenue, possibly paid off.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked Mr. Turley for the good work he does on behalf of the City. He was pleased
with new Citizens Report, find it a great, easy to understand Readers Digest look at financials. He has heard
the real estate market is softening, home sales are slowing slightly and inventory is increasing and asked if
that was the trend, temporary or a precursor to a downturn in the future. Mr. Turley agreed the real estate
market was slowing slightly, instead of a red-hot sales market it is a very warm, almost hot market that still
leads the nation in most categories. He recalled seeing a sign in Shoreline that the average days on the
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 3
market was 19 days; when he bought his house two years ago it was about five days. He anticipated the real
estate market will continue to slow a little but did not see any signs it was heading into disaster.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled seeing on the news tonight that the market is slowing and prices
have started to drop ever so slightly in Seattle, noting Seattle is the driver for other areas.
Councilmember Mesaros commented every organization and city has bumps in the road and asked if there
were any bumps in the road anticipated for Edmonds. Mr. Turley answered he did not see anything
significant coming on revenue, noting cooling down was different than falling off a cliff. When he looks at
the City’s finances he looks at expenditures as there are some large projects coming up that will commit a
lot of funds such as Civic Field. If the City watches its spending, it will be okay on the revenue side; the
danger is spending all the money and not saving for the future. Councilmember Mesaros summarized the
City needs to continue to pace itself. Mr. Turley agreed.
2. UPDATE ON EDMONDS STREET WATERFRONT CONNECTOR PROJECT
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Rick Schaefer, Tetra Tech; Sandy Glover, Project
Manager, Parametrix; Ed Sibrel, City’s Project Manager; Rob English, City Engineer; and Patrick Doherty,
Economic Development/Community Services Director.
Mr. Williams provided an introduction, recalling the initial advisory committee co-chaired by Council
President Nelson and Port Commissioner Jim Orvis that began with not knowing what the solution was,
reviewing available alternatives, and selecting a preferred alternative, now called the Waterfront Connector.
Another advisory group with similar stakeholder representation, co-chaired by Councilmember Mesaros
and Port Commissioner Orvis, is reviewing versions of the Waterfront Connector and narrowing it to two
very plausible alternatives. Although there are two alternatives, the ultimate project could be a hybrid of
features from of both. The intent of tonight’s presentation is to inform the Council in preparation for a
public hearing on September 18.
Mr. Schaefer reviewed:
Purpose and Need
o Safe, efficient, and reliable access to the waterfront for police, fire and EMS responders
o Strategic Acton Plan calls for establishing a connection to the waterfront
o Create a continuous pedestrian walkway along the waterfront
o Help pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency responders avoid level conflicts with BNSF rail
lines
o Emergency ferry off-loading during extended track shutdowns
o Growing rail traffic, plus 2nd track construction
Anticipated to increase by 50-100% by 2030
Second track anticipated within the next 2-3 years
o Increased frequency of emergency response delays
o Greater crossing conflicts and risks for pedestrians, bicyclists
o Extended closure risks
50 emergency calls/year to the Waterfront
50 emergency calls/year to Marine Rescue
5 extended shutdowns of crossings over the past 34 months (3 in a 7 month period)
How Does Rail Traffic Affect Waterfront Access?
o Gate Closures at Main Street and Dayton Street crossings:
37.5 closures average per day
80 minutes average per day (5.5% of the day)
2:12 average closure duration (3:54 for unit trains)
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 4
o At Main Street crossing (daily average):
Vehicles Delayed (84% ferry traffic) Pedestrians Delayed
709 delayed by closures 115 delayed by closures
28.7 vehicle-hours 4.7 person-hours
o Over 10 ferry loadings/off-loadings affected daily*
*Based on traffic recorded, June 16 through July 3, 2012
Location for Waterfront Connector selected after a deliberative process, the At-Grade Crossings
Alternatives Study with input from a stakeholder group via the Mayor’s Advisory Committee for
the study phase and reconstituted for the preliminary design phase currently underway
o First phase of process identified and evaluated a variety of solution concepts
Graphic of Initial Concepts (51)
- Overpasses and underpasses
- Stationing emergency resources on the waterside of the tracks
- Operational solutions to reduce potential for conflicts with trains
- Lowering, raising or relocating the railroad tracks
- Modification and relocation of the ferry terminal
Alternatives benefited from the public strong engagement
o Edmonds Waterfront At-Grade Crossings Analysis
Held 4 public meetings (in person and on line) attended by over 750 community members
Held 21 Advisory Task Force meetings
Gave 4 City Council briefings
Received 124 written comment cards, emails or surveys with over 450 specific points of
feedback
Featured in 42 local media articles
Through stakeholder consultation and extensive community outreach, solutions were narrowed to
11, grouped into 3 types of grade separation projects, all options provide pedestrian and bicycle
access
o Emergency access by foot
Midblock overpass
Main Street underpass
Main Street overpass
o Emergency vehicle access
Admiral Way overpass
Dayton Street overpass
Edmonds Street overpass
o Emergency vehicle access and ferry load/offload
Edmonds Crossing (minimum build)
Dayton Street new ferry terminal
Main Street ferry overpass (full build)
Main Street ferry overpass (minimum build)
Main Street ferry underpass
Final stage of evaluation reviewed with community at 4th open house and 2 City Council meetings
in November 2016
o Table of findings of Level 2 evaluation
Waterfront Connector Advanced to Preliminary Design
o Council Meetings November 7, and November 15, 2016:
Summarized the Alternatives Analysis, public engagement process and public comments
Described finalist alternatives, their evaluation, with recommendation of Edmonds Street
Overpass (now Waterfront Connector)
Council unanimously voted to accept the Mayor’s recommendation to pursue the Edmonds
Street Waterfront Connector AND placed on the CIP
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 5
Waterfront Connector Preliminary Design Outreach
o 2 in-person public meetings attended by over 140 community members
o 4 neighborhood drop-in sessions (mailings to residents on Sunset and Edmonds Streets)
o 2 online open houses visited by over 700 community members
o 3 Mayor’s Advisory Committee meetings
o 2 Design Committee meetings
o 2 City Council briefings
o Received over 260 comments
o Featured in 11 local media articles
Waterfront Connector Uses
o Emergency access not interruptible by rail traffic
o Single lane structure, 16 feet wide, designed with geometry and strength to accommodate Fire
District emergency vehicles
o Pedestrian and bicycle pathway to waterfront
Width provides space for emergency vehicles to pass pedestrians
Will include warning signals to warn of vehicle’s approach
ADA compliant handrails and slopes
o Controlled emergency ferry offloading when stranded for extended period due to blockage of
tracks
o NOT open to general traffic
Evolution of the design
o Six initial concepts
o Received feedback from community
Strong preference for more subdued designs and avoiding iconic and higher profile
concepts
Interface with the park, Sunset and Edmonds, beach impacts, cost and viewsheds
With input from community and working with design committee, narrowed to two alternatives
(both constructed from digital models, representative of dimension of design, terrain based on
survey and the City’s GIS and shadows representative of maximum shadow at 3:10 p.m.)
o Land Bridge
Broader overpass allows room for plantings
Creates an adjunct to park
Based on driftwood log
YouTube tour of design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hniEKLaaBbM (also on
City’s website)
o Promenade
Narrower
Two ramps, one for vehicles, the other for pedestrians at ADA grades
YouTube tour of design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2spAFltApQ (also on City’s
website)
Criteria used to Evaluate Alternatives
o Landing Experience
o Environment
o Visual
o Reliable emergency access
o Pedestrian user experience
o Bicycle user experience
o Cost
o Neighborhood compatibility
Project Schedule
o Dec 2017 – March 2018: Develop early design concepts
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 6
o April – August 2018: Develop design alternatives
o Sept – Dec 2018: Select preferred alternative
o 2019 – 2020: Finalize design and secure funding
o 2021 – 2023: Construction planned
Where we are now
o Open House and Online Open House
o Neighborhood meetings
o Permitting agency consultations
o Review by Advisory Panel
o City Council Review / Public Hearing
o Mayor’s recommendation on design concept to advance
o Presentation to Council for approval and additional direction
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented 140-160 rail cars frequently pass through town which can
take over 10 minutes. She asked if the Waterfront Connector would be used to offload ferries for trains with
140-160 railcars. Mr. Schaefer said no. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the Waterfront
Connector Preliminary Design Outreach slide, noting the packet states the on-line open house was visited
by 300 community members but that was changed to 700 in the presentation and 6 local media articles was
changed to 11 in the presentation. Mr. Schaefer answered those changes were made by the consultant this
morning and were not reflected in the packet materials.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the information regarding the number of annual emergency
calls to the waterfront and marine rescue came from the fire department. Mr. Schaefer answered yes, it was
compiled from over 5½ years of data.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the 5 extended shutdowns in 34 months and asked for the dates,
times and length of hold on the waterfront for those shutdowns. She recognized at least two were for
suicides, but said the Council was not aware of the other three. She asked the source of the information that
double tracking will start in three years. Mr. Schaefer answered it was from discussions with BNSF but was
not official and there was nothing in writing. He acknowledged BNSF has been saying double tracking will
happen in 3 years for the past 10-12 years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled BNSF has been talking
about double tracking ever since she has been on Council and even before she was on Council but it has yet
to happen.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed a WSDOT report regarding ferry traffic for the Edmonds terminal that
anticipated a 47% increase. He asked how that increase would impact congestion on the waterfront or a
need for better access points, particularly for pedestrians. Mr. Schaefer answered Ferry’s issue is that with
more vehicles, there will be more sailings and less turnaround time at the dock which results in a greater
frequency of delayed sailings. Edmonds’ issue is more turning movements from the holding lanes onto
Main which interrupts local traffic. The Connector provides an opportunity to avoid a piece of that
congestion on Main. Emergency vehicles utilizing the Connector will still encounter traffic but not the
hazard at Sunset & Main and the railroad.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about delays that train crossings or backups in traffic at Main may create.
Mr. Schaefer answered modeling would be required to develop a confident estimate regarding the degree
of vehicle delays. The forecasted 47% increase in ferry traffic by 2040 and 50-100% increase in train traffic
is definitely a collision of interests. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the cost projections for the two
concepts were similar. Mr. Schaefer answered preliminary estimate are with 5% of each other.
Councilmember Tibbott commented the single-track option appears to empty onto the pedestrian walkway
versus the parking lot. Ms. Glover answered one of reasons was the majority of the use would be for
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 7
pedestrians and bicyclist so it provides a natural feel coming onto a pedestrian path. However, the Parks
Department would like to see that end of the bridge moved toward the railroad tracks. The consultant team
is looking at that; it would necessitate moving the cul-de-sac, configuring the parking and possibly losing
some parking. Councilmember Tibbott asked how much parking would be lost. Ms. Glover answered it
depends; during this process, the direction has been not to impact parking and they are trying to find a
solution that does that. She remarked it would be interesting to know how important it was to move the
bridge toward the railroad tracks versus losing 1-2 parking spaces.
Councilmember Mesaros commented as he was on the committee, he had no immediate questions, but
reserved the right to respond to Councilmember comments. Council President Nelson echoed
Councilmember Mesaros’ comments.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was the first time she had heard there was a study on the cost of
stationing emergency services on the west side; she asked what the annual cost was. Mr. Schaefer answered
that was one of the 51 alternatives considered and did not have the details readily available. Councilmember
Buckshnis suggested he email her the information, noting it was likely not $1 million/year. Mr. Schaefer
answered the cost was related to a facility that would suitable per the Fire District’s requirements; operating
costs were not calculated.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not support this project due to the cost and disruption to the area.
She questioned whether the $30 million estimate was realistic in this construction climate, budget creep,
recent increases in project budgets, etc. and whether the cost would be more like $50 million. Ms. Glover
answered detailed estimates were done based on bids that were received up until the recent craze and prior
to tariffs. For example, the Mukilteo ferry terminal came in 10% over the engineers estimate and the 2nd
and 3rd bidders were 10%+ higher than the lowest bid. She recognized there were impacts from the active
construction market and steel tariffs; the $30 million cost estimate did not include that. Councilmember
Buckshnis suggested softening the language to state the project is estimated to cost $30 million which does
not include steel tariffs or future construction cost increases.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked where she could find comments that had been submitted. Mr. Schaefer
answered summaries of the open houses and comments have been compiled as well as the raw comments.
He was unsure if that information had been posted.
With regard to cost estimates, Mr. Williams said there are a lot of unknowns at the 10-20% design level,
having just passed from the concept phase to preliminary design. Those unknowns may not be factored into
the cost, but the cost estimate includes a 40% contingency. As more of the unknowns are identified and can
be priced correctly, the contingency is reduced. He summarized the cost estimate remains the same, but the
contingency becomes smaller and smaller as more is known. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for
clarification, the $30 million includes a 40% contingency so the bridge could be built for $15-20 million.
Mr. Williams answered yes, based on what is known at this point.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled when the project was discussed early on, the default access for emergency
vehicles to the waterfront would continue to be Main & Dayton but it now sounds like the default access
would be the Waterfront Connector. He asked whether all emergency access would be via the Waterfront
Connector. Mr. Schaefer answered the dispatcher makes the decision regarding the selected route. From
the downtown station, the default would be the Waterfront Connector because it is shorter, uninterruptable,
requires going through four intersections rather than eight, some of which are signalized. Emergency
responses to the waterfront and marine calls average a total of 100/year or 2/week.
Councilmember Johnson commented the three-minute 3D visual was fabulous and worth every second. She
asked if it was online as it was not included in the Council packet. Mr. Schaefer answered an earlier version
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 8
was shown at the open houses and neighborhood drop-in sessions; those were refined, and the YouTube
link provided on the website. Ms. Glover said the credit for the YouTube visual was VIA Architecture, a
subconsultant on the team.
Councilmember Johnson believed the City, not the Fire District should make the policy regarding the route.
Early on this was to be an emergency access, so it should not be the standard 24/7 route simply because it
is four blocks and only four lights. She reiterated in the past, this was primarily for pedestrian access and
secondarily an emergency access which seems to have flipped so that the primary motivation for the
Connector is public safety. She disagreed with that and planned to continue to make that point.
Councilmember Johnson said both options were beautiful, fabulous, and elegant and both had features she
liked. She did not feel the 6-inch lip at the intersection was necessary for the land bridge option, anticipating
that would create confusion on Sunset. The promenade option does not have that lip. She liked the restrooms
in both scenarios, tucked into the earth, making them almost invisible. She suggested snubbing the
extension on the land bridge option, finding that extra concrete unneeded, it did not create an obvious
turning movement and she did not want anyone to drive off onto Sunset.
Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with the southern landing. The initial intent was not to remove
any parking, but it obliterates an excellent natural pedestrian movement from the seashore to the riprap. She
supported moving it toward the center of the driveway, even if it removed 1-2 parking spaces.
Councilmember Johnson said she did not understand or like the promenade option’s forked access, one for
emergency vehicles and the other for pedestrian. She assumed the pedestrian access was ADA compliant
and asked the grade for the emergency vehicle access. Ms. Glover answered 12%. The promenade is 1 foot
higher than the land bridge due to the skew and delta. Councilmember Johnson commented it would be
more cost effective to have one southern approach.
Councilmember Johnson commented in the land bridge option, the throw barrier as well as the visual barrier
is reduced, a good solution to the problem. She suggested the overlook project along Sunset that includes
historic markers could be located on the land bridge. She also wanted to consider the cost of a fire truck on
the beach side, not a fire station with full personnel, just a satellite where equipment could be rotated in and
out periodically and fire personnel could drive over and man the truck. She was interested in scaling back
the Connector so it only accommodates an aid vehicle. She asked for a cost comparison for a Connector
that would accommodate an aid vehicle and a satellite fire truck the versus a Connector that could
accommodate a fire truck. She anticipated that would reduce the design and the cost.
Councilmember Johnson questioned the projected increase in rail cars considering that Cherry Point was
not being built. She recalled Mayor Earling holding a “Don’t Block the Beach” rally when he was first
elected, noting it had taken a long time to reach this phase. She urged the team to keep working and someday
the Council will approve it. She remarked there were a lot of doubters on the Council so costs needed to be
reduced; $30 million was about $15 million too much.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the November 15, 2016 minutes where the Council reviewed a report
from Tetra Tech that stated, “This Edmond Street overpass provides continuous access for pedestrians,
bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks,” evidence that continuous access was intended and had been
discussed on November 15, 2016. With regard to BNSF saying double tracking will occur in 3 years, he
recalled at the last advisory group meeting BNSF was asked about encroaching onto their right-of-way and
the representative remarked on the importance of a third track in the future.
With regard to the comment about which way aid units will approach the waterfront, Councilmember
Mesaros suggested asking South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue what station responded to the 100
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 9
emergency calls/year. Mr. Schaefer agreed that information may be available. Councilmember Mesaros
anticipated that data would indicate whether the aid vehicle came from Station 17, 20 or 16.
Councilmember Mesaros said one question is what constitutes an emergency on the west side of the tracks.
At the last advisory group meeting, representatives were discussing individual emergencies that aid cars
respond to, but the real catastrophe would be fire. One of the biggest concerns at the marina is fire. If the
tracks were blocked for a period of time and fire trucks needed to be dispatched to the marina, minutes
matter when there is a fire. Restricting the ability of an overpass to accommodate only aid cars and not fire
trucks would be a waste of money.
Council President Nelson thanked Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Williams for their work and the 3D birds-eye view
of the two options. He quoted former Senator Fred Thompson, sometimes you have to build bridges where
you can, but draw lines where you must. This was a time where he chose to draw a line. He believed this
was a bridge too far, too far for children who cannot bike on roads without a parent being afraid they will
be hit and too far for the thousands of kids who live within a mile of schools where school buses do not
stop and soon will be walking to school in the dark on roads without sidewalks. It is a bridge too far for
seniors who will be the first to say that many City sidewalks are in dangerous disrepair or there are no
sidewalks. He questioned how residents could be asked to enjoy a $30 million promenade view when so
many not safely walk out their front door. He questioned what else $30 million could buy; the CIP contains
15 priority pedestrian sidewalk projects throughout the City that are unfunded. He summarized he could
not in good conscience support this project when there are more pressing needs in the City.
Mayor Earling referred to Councilmember Johnson’s suggestion of a $15 million option, cautioning that
would require starting the entire process over, new design, new bids, etc. Councilmember Johnson said she
had not served on either of the advisory committees, but she recalled at one time the cost was $20 million
for full access. From the very beginning, she has supported it being primarily pedestrian with some
emergency access. She acknowledged costs increase but she was hoping at the preliminary stage, the
Council would know the differential, such as 30% could be save it was only for first aid. The Port may have
a grave concern about fire although they have a fire boat and suggested possibly the Port has space for a
fire truck if that is their primary concern. She supported being creative, not stopping the project but
envisioned there was a very narrow margin of support from the Council; to get 100% support, the project
will need to be flexible.
Mr. Williams said there have been a lot of good comments; the team will review the recording, record the
comments and respond in writing to some comments. He clarified the cost estimate had never been $20
million; at one point it was $25-29 million. The two options presented are $29-30 million which indicates
the numbers have not changed much considering the process of going from not knowing what to build to
these two possible projects. He explained all projects start with addressing the purpose and need, possible
alternatives and the impacts. From the beginning, the intent was continuous access for emergency response.
There is little difference in the robustness and cost of a structure to carry a fully outfitted aid car versus a
ladder truck over the tracks to the waterfront. If the desire was a structure that personnel could run across
to a response vehicle, it would certainly be less expensive, but it was not adequate. Getting firefighters to
the other side is the current problem; consideration was even given to helicopters and other heroic options
to reach the west side, but the time involved is considerable and time is the enemy in an emergency. That
was never identified as the purpose and need; the purpose and need was to get aid cars, fire response and
personnel to the other side of the tracks as quickly as possible. He summarized that was his recollection and
he had been involved since the rally on the beach.
Councilmember Johnson said she did not want any misinterpretation about having firefighters running
across the bridge; it was always the intent to have an aid car go over the bridge, but an aid car is significantly
smaller than a fire truck. She needed to be convinced that the option was the smallest structure necessary.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 10
The intent, before Mr. Williams came to the City and before the rally on the beach was clear, the Council
said their #1 priority was to provide pedestrian and bicycle/non-motorized access over the tracks with a
secondary intent for aid. That has now changed and in her mind, it was never primarily a public safety
project.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has been opposed to this project since start. She asked the cost to outfit
a satellite emergency area to assist with emergencies. In the 17 years she has been in Edmonds, 2 fires have
occurred in Edmonds, one at the Gregory Building and one at the marina. She commented a perfect storm
would be required to create an event where a train was stuck and a fire occurred. She anticipated this $30
million project would be more like $40-50 million and that amount of money could be used elsewhere.
With regard to loading and the robustness of the structure, Mr. Williams said if there were an event where
the connector was full of people, that would create more load than vehicles. The live load and vehicle loads
as well as seismic issues need to be taken into account. Building a 7-foot wide structure only for pedestrians
would not help with emergency response. The intent from the beginning has been to design a structure that
could carry the most common emergency response vehicles and that has been communicated to the City
Council and to the public. He pointed out the fire department does not always respond to an to an aid call
with an aid car; the aid car may be on another call and personnel may respond with a pumper truck.
With regard to funding, Mr. Williams said this project requires funding partners; if the structure is only a
pedestrian bridge, all the funding sources that are typically accessed disappear. To the extent that Ferries
can benefit from the ability to unload a boat when an extended emergency exists, that encourages them to
contribute to the project. The federal government’s viewpoint is similar. Going from a $30 million project
where the City contributes $2 million to a $15 million project where the City contributes all the funding,
that is a much different circumstance.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Lynne Chelius, Edmonds, expressed concern with last night’s Edmonds Housing Commission meeting.
She did not intend her comment to be a critique of the strategy, although there is much to criticize, but a
critique of the meeting process. A public meeting, particularly one that was expected to be well attended
and where a lot of feedback would be provided, must have a working microphone. She was told by Ms.
Hope that it was unfortunate that there was no microphone, but Ms. Chelius found it inexcusable. Second,
in her opinion, every process, chart and narrative were carefully crafted to suggest anyone opposing the
housing strategy as proposed was a bigot and morally bankrupt. She anticipated most audience members
expressing concern over the process and possible outcomes were middle class Edmonds residents worried
about property and other taxes and being forced out of their own homes. Third, the presentation prejudged
the audience in a negative way. After presenting the strategies, it presumptuously judged objections, such
as an increase in crime from an influx of low income residents and that unwanted homeless people would
be attracted to Edmonds. Fourth, Ms. Hope purportedly wanted to collect ideas, but the process could not
have been further from that as no questions or expression of ideas were allowed. Attendees broke into
smaller groups where they were presented with artificially constructed scenarios and then into smaller
groups where any ideas they might have had were supplanted by questions written by a consultant. An
informed and thoughtful Edmonds resident in her small group tried early in the meeting to bring up the fact
that the graphics differed from what was on the website for people to review and fact-check. The consultant
dismissed the concerns, stating only the heading had been changed, but in fact much had been changed
including numbers and factual statements. The gentleman expressing these concerns was summarily
dismissed as were other others with legitimate questions and concerns. She found this indicative of a shoddy
work product from the consultants. She attended the meeting with an open mind, hoping to be heard and to
learn; neither was possible with the way the meeting was run.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 11
Dennis Michelson, Edmonds, brought up an issue that he felt needed to be addressed by the Finance
Committee. He represented Beatrice Wilson, the wife of a deceased veteran entitled to military benefits.
Following an illness, she appealed to a veterans’ group in Snohomish County for assistance in paying her
Edmonds utility bill. When she presented the voucher to the City, it was rejected with the statement the city
does not accept vouchers. He spoke with Finance Director Scott James who made a unilateral decision not
to accept vouchers. He found this decision arbitrary and capricious and lacking in any basis or merit because
Snohomish County PUD and PSE readily accept vouchers. If those agencies accept vouchers, he questioned
why Edmonds did not. He asked Mr. James for a written policy or the basis for not accepting the voucher
and was told the City doesn’t accept them and that’s that. He questioned the customer service the City was
providing to its residents. He submitted written materials with further details. They have spent three weeks
working with the City and he requested immediately attention to this matter before the voucher expires in
one week.
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE SCALF HOUSE
LOCATED AT 645 FIR STREET FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS' REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES.
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
Scalf House – 645 Fir Street
o Nominated for consideration for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
o Property owners signed authorization form
Effects of listing property on register
o Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds
o Prior to commencing any work on a register property (excluding repair and maintenance),
owner must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission
o May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation
Aerial of neighborhood, south Bowl area
o Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural
heritage of Edmonds
House is associated with early pioneer history and general development of the City of
Edmonds
o Has integrity
House is well preserved, simple Victorian 2-story residence
o At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less the 50 years old
Constructed in 1910, 108 years old
o Falls into at least one of designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.A -K
Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristic of a type, period, style or method of
design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction
Photographs of John Scalf and Etta Scalf
A number of records were found in the attic including receipts for lumber for the house from Yost
& Sons dated Feb 4, 1910
Significant features
o Exterior contains historic features
o 2-story simple Victorian residence that has changed very little since 1910
Recommendation
o Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) held a public hearing on July 12, 2018
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 12
o HPC found the nomination meets the criteria and eligible for designation on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places
o HPC recommends the property be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
o Ordinance provided in packet
Councilmember Teitzel asked if this was a kit house by Montgomery Ward or Sears. Mr. Lien recalled
seeing that in an early email but did not find any other related records. Given the receipt for lumber from
Yost & Sons, he doubted it was a kit house.
Mayor Earling opened the public hearing.
Josh Johnson, Edmonds, a neighbor, said he looks at this house every day; it is now a beautiful
butterscotch color with red trim windows. Over the past six year, he has watched their neighbors lovingly
restore the house, structure and the surrounding property. The house has a stream in front; the owners have
taken care of the natural vegetation and native plants around the stream and buffer. Recently a Public Works
employee checked on the stream and said the natural care of this stream was how they wished all residents
would care for streams. The owners of 645 Fir Street have added to the character of neighborhood through
careful preservation of this historic home and their conscientious care of critical areas.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4126, AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF
THE SCALF HOUSE LOCATED AT 645 FIR STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR
INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for Mr. Johnson’s comments.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. PROSECUTOR'S CONTRACT RENEWAL
HR Director Mary Ann Hardie explained this is a one-year extension of the current contract. Zachor &
Thomas has providing prosecutor services to the City for a number of years. The last contract was for two
years; there have been a lot of changes over the past year including during the last week, one of the
managing partners left the firm. Jim Zachor, Sr. and Jim Zachor, Jr. remain with the firm. One of the
prosecuting attorneys, Elizabeth Gribble, who was assigned to Edmonds is also no longer with Zachor &
Thomas. Additional costs are due to changes in the court related to drug and mental health and convening
of stakeholder meetings that take more time, the Police Department’s transition to SharePoint and the
transition of the court to an electronic court record system. As this is a shorter contract, staff will consider
possible areas of efficiencies and continue to evaluate whether an RFQ would be appropriate. The
recommendation is a one-year extension of the contract at $23,873.10/month. Along with the voluminous
amendments to the 2013 contract, the City Attorney pointed out the scope of work will be the same as noted
in the amendment to the prosecution services agreement dated February 8, 2017. The contract for the one-
year extension includes that change.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 13
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to do an RFQ this year. Ms. Hardie said consideration
would be given to doing that next year as there is a timing issue.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE ONE-YEAR CONTRACT FOR PROSECUTION SERVICES WITH ZACHOR &
THOMAS, INC., P.S. FOR 2019. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT RENEWAL
HR Director Mary Ann Hardie said the City’s 2-year contract for public defense services with the
Snohomish County Public Defender Association (SCPDA) expires at the end of 2018. SCPDA has worked
diligently to comply with the standards for indigent defense that took effect in the past several years as well
as adding an investigator and two social workers which resulted in increased expenses. Staff will evaluate
their services as well as the option of doing an RFQ. If a decision is made to do an RFQ, it would be done
next year due to the timing issue. The recommendation is a one-year extension of the contract for a monthly
retainer of $23,441.93.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE ONE-YEAR CONTACT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
WITH SCPDA FOR 2019. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. COUNCIL 2019 BUDGET PRIORITIES - DRAFT RESOLUTION
Council President Nelson emphasized the resolution is a draft; the Council can make edits as desired and
no action is required tonight.
Councilmember Johnson said this document is about communication between the Council and the
administration. She recalled when a concern was raised at the retreat that the directors were not invited to
attend, there was assurance that there would be a second retreat with the mayor and directors. That second
retreat never happened and now this resolution is proposed. She wondered whether the resolution was the
best way to communicate or whether the previously proposed retreat with the mayor and directors should
be held. Council President Nelson commented it is a matter of running out of time. The mayor and directors
have met to discuss ideas and they need to have a recommendation from the Council sooner rather than
later.
Councilmember Mesaros liked the resolution and felt it was a good communication document. He
recognized the timing issue, commenting because the Council held its retreat in June, there wasn’t time to
do a second session. As the Council adopts this process for this year, he encouraged next year’s Council
President to hold a similar retreat with Councilmembers, followed by a second meeting with the mayor and
directors and beginning that process earlier in the year. He summarized the resolution is a good document
and he could support it tonight.
Councilmember Buckshnis enjoyed the retreat and the facilitator Mike Bailey who has now retired to
education. She and Mr. Bailey have a long history; Edmonds’ financials are based on Redmond’s. Although
Mr. Bailey suggested at the retreat that the Council adopt a resolution, she felt the proposed resolution was
too much. She disagreed with Councilmember Mesaros and felt the Council had already communicated its
wishes to the administration. Redmond’s has Budgeting by Priorities which requires a resolution, they have
a larger tax base, larger capital projects, etc. The budget process is so dynamic that the Council may decide
to add something but the resolution has already been passed. She summarized the resolution was an
unnecessary document, Council President Nelson has done a great job leading the Council and letting the
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 14
administration know what the Council wants. The resolution puts the process into a bureaucratic stage; she
preferred not to adopt a resolution, noting the mayor did not have to follow the resolution anyway.
Councilmember Teitzel appreciated the budget retreat and supported doing it again next year, but suggested
holding the retreat earlier in the year. The Council identified and communicated its priorities and they are
being considered in 2019 budget process. He recalled Mr. Bailey saying at the retreat that budgeting was a
team sport. Reducing the Council’s priorities to a resolution is an autocratic rather than team sport approach
and is unnecessary. The Council already set its priority prior to the retreat in Resolution 1389 which was
passed in June 2017. He pointed out Section 6 of that resolution states municipal facilities in Edmonds by
2019 will achieve 100% renewable energy and suggested either revising that goal in Resolution 1389 or
including funds in the 2019 budget to achieve that goal.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Bailey recalled Mr. Bailey told the Council at the retreat to adopt a
resolution so she concluded a resolution was appropriate. To Councilmember Teitzel’s point, she said the
purpose of presenting the draft resolution to Council was an opportunity to add or revise Council priorities.
She inquired about the order of the Council priorities in the resolution. Council President Nelson answered
they are not in order of priority; the resolution reflects the order that motions were introduced and voted
on. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the resolution because Mr. Bailey said the
Council should adopt a resolution. She supported the addition of the priority cited by Councilmember
Teitzel. She was prepared to vote on additions as well as on the resolution tonight.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the resolution regardless of what Mr. Bailey said. She expressed
concern with language such as “we direct the administration,” recalling in the past a consultant was hired
to help the Council and administration get along. She concluded the resolution was over the top and
unnecessary.
Councilmember Johnson did not support the resolution as drafted, finding it was unneeded. She referred to
the priority in the resolution that the Council continue supporting the Snohomish Health District $2/capita;
she voted no on that item because she wanted to see what other jurisdictions contribute. That level of
specificity in the resolution made it difficult for her to support. She recalled the vote on “Enhance Our Arts
and Culture” was a very close vote and did not consider it a priority due to the thin majority. Rather than
Improve Community Safety, she preferred that priority read, Build More Sidewalks. She viewed the
resolution as a mixed bag that could be finetuned to be more accurate, but she did not feel it was necessary
and would not support it.
Council President Nelson pointed out when the Council votes and passes something with a majority vote,
it becomes the decision of the Council. The resolution reflects what the Council passed as its priorities.
With regard to the $2/capita funding, that is what the Council voted on.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 1418, A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY
COUNCIL ESTABLISHING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET PRIORITIES
AND DIRECTING CITY ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE THE 2019 BUDGET TO ADVANCE
THESE COUNCIL POLICIES USING ESTABLISHED SUSTAINED BUDGETING PRINCIPLES.
Council President Nelson asked Councilmember Teitzel if he was willing to have the renewal energy goal
under the Protect Our Environment category or did he want it as a separate priority. Councilmember Teitzel
said he did not support the resolution so the question was moot.
Mayor Earling commented this was potentially a very good process; the weakness was not having the
interim step of a discussion between the Council and staff. He suggested the cost of the priorities was
approximately $2.5 million.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 15
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating she did not understand the points Mayor Earling
was making as the cost was part of the budgetary process. Mayor Earling offered to send Council a memo.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND MESAROS VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL, AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked where this left the Council and if not supporting the resolution
meant the retreat was for naught. She asked Mayor Earling his interpretation of the Council’s goals. Mayor
Earling said the motion was defeated; staff is working on a budget that will be presented to the Council the
second Tuesday of October. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the budget would contain the
items in the resolution. Mayor Earling said he is aware of them and all will receive consideration.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said as long as the priorities are being considered, the Council will go
back to the drawing board during budget process.
9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Mesaros reported:
SeaShore Transportation Forum did not meet in August
Correction to his previous report regarding the PFD refinancing their bonds.
o PFD was unable to agree on terms with the entity doing the refinancing and the refinance was
not accomplished.
o PFD continues to consider alternatives which will be presented to the Finance Committee
Sno911 and SERS in merger discussions.
o At a joint board meeting on August 16, both boards approved the merger in concept
o Each board will review the documents during September
o Board decisions will likely occur in September/October, a supermajority is required
o If approved, the merger would be effective January 1, 2019
o Announcement regarding approval of the merger by both boards will hopefully occur prior to
the Snohomish County bond measure to fund replacement of the 20-year old emergency radio
system that is in dire need of replacement.
Councilmember Tibbott reported:
Economic Development Commission did not meet in August
Port Commission meeting included a quarterly financial report
o Most facilities have been successfully rented
o Asphalt project at Harbor Square upcoming
o Awaiting approval from WSDOT to improve landscaping along on SR104
o Continued work on environmental goals
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported:
Diversity Commission will forward a recommendation to City Council soon
Opioid Task Force looking at issues related to hotels on Hwy 99.
Spoke at a vigil last week on behalf of the Health District regarding opioids and what the Health
District can do to assist in the opioid crisis
Edmonds Homeless Work Group met by phone
o Will have a document to Council regarding the issues behind homelessness in the next 5-6
weeks
Council President Nelson reported:
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 16
Unable to attend today’s Lake Ballinger Task Force meeting, Mr. Williams attended
o Grant funding obtained to address milfoil issue in Lake Ballinger
Councilmember Buckshnis Mayors reported:
Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee met twice
o Met with The Good Company and ESA, consultants working on Resolution 1389
WRIA 8 meeting included 2019 state and federal priorities, budget and ILAs
o Hoping to receive funds to save chinook salmon
o Funds are needed to review and potentially repair the Ballard Locks
Councilmember Teitzel reported:
Affordable Housing Alliance and Snohomish County Tomorrow did not meet in August
Long Range Financial Planning Committee working on updated draft of the fund balance policy
o Policy will be presented to the Finance Committee in September/October for review and then
to City Council for approval
Consultant hired by the Homelessness Work Group is finalizing interviews with agencies involved
with the homeless population, individuals and best practices in other cities
o Report will be available in mid-October
Councilmember Johnson reported:
Joe Coburn’s Opioid Stakeholders meeting and Council’s Opioid Task Force meeting
o Considering ways to ways more efficiently police, adjudicate and house repeat opioid offenders
and better serve that population.
o Future agendas will consider repeat offenders on Hwy 99 and cleaning up motels in that area
Council’s Marsh Study meeting
Long Range Financial Planning Meeting
Historic Preservation Commission added another house to the register
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported he attended a fundraising event for the Cascadia Art Museum last Saturday. The
event was attended by 340-350 people and raised $450,000-$500,000.
Mayor Earling commented on the passing of a friend of South Snohomish County, Dean Echelbarger. Mr.
Echelbarger was a visionary giant in the development and potential of South Snohomish County and one
of the nicest men he ever met.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Johnson thanked everyone who attended the meeting on the draft Edmonds Housing
Strategy. She was unable to attend but read a great report about the meeting by Larry Vogel on My Edmonds
News. She expressed interest in a follow-up regarding the roundtable discussions that the 200 people had
on topics. She wished everyone a safe and happy Labor Day.
Councilmember Teitzel said he greatly admired Senator John McCain; he was a true patriot, an excellent
senator, a free thinker and embodied a lot of what people want to see in senators in Washington DC. He
will be missed.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Teitzel’s comments about Senator McCain. She
announced two Save the Dates on October 6: The Tree Board’s annual Arbor Day celebration at
Meadowdale Beach shelter from 9 to 12 and the 15th annual Halloween Howl at the dog park from 11 to 2.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2018
Page 17
Councilmember Tibbott reminded public schools are starting soon, teachers are preparing their classrooms,
and there will be increased pedestrian traffic around elementary schools. He was very disappointed there
was not an adequate sound system at the Housing Strategy meeting because it added to the frustration of
the meeting. Breaking into groups where ideas could be heard and solutions brainstormed was a valuable
exercise. He encouraged the Housing Strategy Task Force to continue public outreach and involve more
citizens in offering their opinions and to include those concepts in the final strategy. At the meeting, he
emphasized this is a strategy, not a plan. Many of the recommendations would take years to implement if
at all and there would be a public process along the way. The strategy helps to determine the base, collecting
data to work with and provides valuable input for the City and for Council in establishing policy. He valued
the development of the Housing Strategy and encouraged the public to think of it as a strategy and not begin
to extrapolate ideas such as injection sites in downtown Edmonds as that is not part of the strategy or
remotely related. He encouraged the City and citizens to get involved in real dialogue on the decisions that
need to be made.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the audience comment regarding using a voucher to pay for utilities,
advising he would leave it to Mayor Earling to provide appropriate administrative direction. He saw Mr.
Williams talking to the individuals and was hopeful he was talking to them about solutions. He
recommended developing a solution to that issue.
Councilmember Mesaros reported the Cascadia Museum fundraiser was a fun event. The amount of money
bid and the donations during raise the paddle were significant. On Monday, he participated in the Edmonds
Police Foundation golf tournament at the Harbour Pointe Golf Course and saw a number of the people that
attended the Cascadia Museum fundraiser.
Mayor Earling assured the issue with the voucher will be solved tomorrow.
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 08-28-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/4/2018
Approval of claim and payroll checks.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #232840 through #232932 dated August 30, 2018 for $743,092.06 (re-issued
check #232840 $181.06). Approval of payroll check #63410 dated August 21, 2018 for $343.84.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim and payroll checks.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claim ck 08-27-18
claim cks 08-30-18
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18
payroll uniform 08.21.18
4.2
Packet Pg. 20
08/27/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 8:49:58AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232840 8/27/2018070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 117372INV#117372 - EDMONDS PD1 HR @ $164.00 TOW 2004 BLACK CHEVY001.000.41.521.22.41.00 164.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.41.00 17.06Total :181.06Bank total : 181.061 Vouchers for bank code :usbank181.06Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 21Attachment: claim ck 08-27-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232841 8/30/2018076040 911 SUPPLY INC 63824INV#63824 - EDMONDS PD - T. STEFFINS74280724LR - 5.11 TACLITE TDU DK NVY LR001.000.41.521.22.24.00 149.9743013D11 - DANNER TORRENT 8" SIDE ZIP001.000.41.521.22.24.00 219.9510.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 36.99INV#63825 - EDMONDS PD - A. GREENMUN638258220-3-10 MONADNOCK DOUBLE FLEX CUFF001.000.41.521.22.31.00 110.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.31.00 11.00INV#63826 - EDMONDS PD - K. BROWN6382674280724SR - 511 TACLITE TDU DK NVY001.000.41.521.22.24.00 149.97122170198 5.11 ATAC 8" WOMENS STORM001.000.41.521.22.24.00 139.9910.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 29.00INV#63829 - EDMONDS PD - R. BARKER63829COG - HP37432 POLICE 3.375 HEAT PRESS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.00INV#63836 - EDMONDS PD - T. DOMICO63836643040194 5.11 PDU WMN CLASS A BLACK001.000.41.521.11.24.00 164.9710.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.11.24.00 16.50INV#63839 - EDMONDS PD - D. CEBAN6383974280724MR 5.11 TACLITE TDU DK NVY PANT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 149.9743013D9 DANNER TORRENT 8" SIDEZIP BLACK001.000.41.521.22.24.00 219.951Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 22Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232841 8/30/2018(Continued)076040 911 SUPPLY INC10.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 36.99INV#63840 - EDMONDS PD - B. HAIR6384074280724LR 5.11 TACLITE TDU DK NVY PANT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 149.9743013D11 DANNER TORRENT 8" SIDESIP001.000.41.521.22.24.00 219.9510.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 36.99Total :1,864.16232842 8/30/2018069798 A.M. LEONARD INC CI18155680PM: AVENGERPM: AVENGER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 233.98Total :233.98232843 8/30/2018 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 818452P&R LEAGUE SHIRTSP&R LEAGUE SHIRTS001.000.64.571.25.31.00 36.3310.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.25.31.00 3.79Total :40.12232844 8/30/2018063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-178977TRAFFIC - WATERBORNE WHITE TRAFFIC PAINTTraffic - Waterborne White Traffic Paint111.000.68.542.64.31.00 525.00Yellow111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,337.50Freight111.000.68.542.64.31.00 166.2810.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 208.96Total :2,237.74232845 8/30/2018069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 24433ENGRAVED PLATE2Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 23Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232845 8/30/2018(Continued)069667 AMERICAN MARKETINGENGRAVED PLATE127.000.64.575.50.31.00 31.4210.3% Sales Tax127.000.64.575.50.31.00 3.24Total :34.66232846 8/30/2018069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990858068PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICEPARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990861894PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1710.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6210.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.633Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 24Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232846 8/30/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICESFLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990861895FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 17.3410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.78Total :117.69232847 8/30/2018075061 ARTSITE LTD LLC 1553P ART MAINTENANCEP ART MAINTENANCE117.200.64.575.50.41.00 2,201.5110.3% Sales Tax117.200.64.575.50.41.00 226.75Total :2,428.26232848 8/30/2018068245 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC 45637E5FD.SERVICES THRU 8/5/18E5FD.Services thru 8/5/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 885.00Total :885.00232849 8/30/2018075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 31399SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 08/22/2018SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 08/22/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 106.10SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 08/27/201831637SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 08/27/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 106.10Total :212.20232850 8/30/2018069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 10132E5JB.SERVICES THRU 7/27/18E5JB.Services thru 7/27/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 3,720.36E5JB.Services thru 7/27/184Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 25Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232850 8/30/2018(Continued)069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC423.000.75.594.35.65.41 3,720.36E5JB.Services thru 7/27/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 3,720.37Total :11,161.09232851 8/30/2018073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 15262E9CA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2018E9CA.Services thru June 2018112.000.68.595.61.65.41 2,522.44E9CA.Services thru June 2018125.000.68.542.30.41.00 4,624.20E9CA.Services thru June 2018126.000.68.542.30.41.00 9,222.21E9CA.SERVICES THRU JULY 201815408E9CA.Services thru July 2018112.000.68.595.61.65.41 942.68E9CA.Services thru July 2018125.000.68.542.30.41.00 1,728.15E9CA.Services thru July 2018126.000.68.542.30.41.00 3,446.52Total :22,486.20232852 8/30/2018 071510 BUCK, ALICIA 6676 ACTING CAMP6676 MONTY PYTHON ACTING CAMP INSTRUCTIO6676 MONTY PYTHON ACTING CAMP001.000.64.571.22.41.00 4,026.00Total :4,026.00232853 8/30/2018076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5538572ROADWAY - ASPHALTRoadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 235.5010.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 23.55ROADWAY - ASPHALT553893910.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 27.33Roadway - Asphalt5Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 26Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232853 8/30/2018(Continued)076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC111.000.68.542.31.31.00 273.32Total :559.70232854 8/30/2018073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 19107513CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 08/01/18 - 08/3CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 08/01/18 -001.000.25.514.30.45.00 737.5410.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.45.00 75.96CONTRACT/METER COPIER-BLDG19107518Contract/Meter Copier-Bldg001.000.62.524.10.45.00 41.93CONTRACT/METER COPIER-PLANNING19107519CONTRACT/METER COPIER-PLANNING001.000.62.524.10.45.00 51.14RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE19107523RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE001.000.25.514.30.45.00 30.2910.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.45.00 3.12CONTRACT/METER COPIER-DSD19111397Contract/Meter Copier-DSD001.000.62.524.10.45.00 1,212.82Total :2,152.80232855 8/30/2018075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS81COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT AConsulting: Communications and001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00Total :2,500.00232856 8/30/2018075849 CARTER, JEANNE August 2018DIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR AUDiversity commission administrative001.000.61.557.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00232857 8/30/2018063902 CITY OF EVERETT I18002844WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSIS6Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 27Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232857 8/30/2018(Continued)063902 CITY OF EVERETTWATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSIS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,490.00Total :1,490.00232858 8/30/2018076321 CM HEATING INC BLD20181058REFUND: DUPLICATE PERMIT APPLIED FORRefund: Duplicate permit applied for001.000.257.620 60.00Total :60.00232859 8/30/2018073851 C-N-I LOCATES LTD 27729LINE DETECTIONLINE DETECTION001.000.64.576.80.41.00 212.50Total :212.50232860 8/30/2018075860 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO S8820124.001WATER SUPPLIES - METER BOXESWater Supplies - Meter Boxes421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,398.8010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 144.07Total :1,542.87232861 8/30/2018075925 CROSSROADS STRATEGIES LLC 1013355FEDERAL LOBBYIST FOR AUGUST 2018Federal lobbyist for August 2018001.000.61.511.70.41.00 6,000.00Total :6,000.00232862 8/30/2018069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E6JC.Pmt 4E6JC.PMT 4 THRU 8/3/18E6JC.Pmt 4 thru 8/3/18421.000.74.594.34.65.10 169,756.67E6JC.Pmt 4 thru 8/3/18421.000.223.400 -7,695.22Total :162,061.45232863 8/30/2018 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 18-387108/21/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING08/21/2018 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AND001.000.25.514.30.41.00 210.807Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 28Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :210.80232863 8/30/2018 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE232864 8/30/2018 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 1-88316PM: FUEL FILTERPM: FUEL FILTER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.7610.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.73Total :18.49232865 8/30/2018008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST /WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.49EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST /2-25175EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST001.000.64.576.80.47.00 88.59LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / MET2-26950LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 96.88PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / METE2-28275PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N /001.000.64.576.80.47.00 145.99LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 722-29118LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.59SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER 87942-37180SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER 8794001.000.64.576.80.47.00 65.11LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / METE4-34080LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 51.69Total :580.34232866 8/30/2018068803 EJ USA INC 110180067462 STORM SUPPLIESStorm Supplies422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,823.6010.3% Sales Tax8Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 29Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232866 8/30/2018(Continued)068803 EJ USA INC422.000.72.531.40.31.00 187.83Total :2,011.43232867 8/30/2018008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR108874INV#AR108874 ACCT#MK5556 - EDMONDS PDBLACK & WHITE - CONTRACT OVERAGE CHARGE001.000.41.521.10.41.00 14.8010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.41.00 1.52ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 PRINTER MAIAR110656Maintenance for printers 08/21/18 -512.000.31.518.88.48.00 307.2010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.64Total :355.16232868 8/30/2018 076744 ESPONDA, MARIA 8/21 REFUND 8/21 REFUND8/21 REFUND001.000.239.200 500.00Total :500.00232869 8/30/2018009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH805341LEGAL AD-PLN20180022LEGAL AD-PLN20180022001.000.62.558.60.41.40 72.24LEGAL AD-AMD20180007 SEPAEDH821776Legal Ad - AMD20180007 Sepa001.000.62.558.60.41.40 58.48Total :130.72232870 8/30/2018011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINESEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.09TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.56TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES9Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232870 8/30/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIER423.000.75.535.80.42.00 301.89TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.86TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.87TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.00TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.27CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250001.000.66.518.30.42.00 70.09FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.55FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.55LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.40Total :1,050.13232871 8/30/2018 076188 GARCIA, HELENA 7010 PAINTING 7010 PAINTING INSTRUCTION7010 PAINTING INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 56.00Total :56.00232872 8/30/2018068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA SUMMER QIGONG/TAI CH6650 6653 6654 6656 6712 6713 QIGONG/TAI6650 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 1,064.256653 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 171.7010Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232872 8/30/2018(Continued)068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA6654 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 166.006656 QIGONG INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 456.006712 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 238.506713 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 252.00Total :2,348.45232873 8/30/2018012199 GRAINGER 9872096194PM: SHOWER HOSE, VALVEPM: SHOWER HOSE, VALVE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 135.6810.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.98PM: COMBINATION WRENCH9872114427PM: COMBINATION WRENCH001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.5810.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.53PM: TRAFFIC SIGN9872189619PM: TRAFFIC SIGN001.000.64.576.80.31.00 79.7010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.21PM: SAFETY SIGN9876291825PM: SAFETY SIGN001.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.1510.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.27Total :321.10232874 8/30/2018 012560 HACH COMPANY 11092788WATER QUALITY - CHORINE SAMPLE KITSWater Quality - Chorine Sample Kits421.000.74.534.80.31.00 626.2811Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232874 8/30/2018(Continued)012560 HACH COMPANYFreight421.000.74.534.80.31.00 41.6710.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 68.80Total :736.75232875 8/30/2018074804 HARLES, JANINE 527267PHOTOGRAPHY - AUGUST 2018Photography for August 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00Total :200.00232876 8/30/2018 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 52REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.23.00 123.54Total :123.54232877 8/30/2018076746 HENDERSON, JENNIFER 08/18 EXP CLAIM - JHSEQUIM TRAINING EXPENSE CLAIM - HENDERSOFERRY FARE TO SEQUIM 8/21/18001.000.41.521.40.43.00 18.70FERRY FARE RETURN FR SEQUIM 8/22001.000.41.521.40.43.00 18.70Total :37.40232878 8/30/2018074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2018-103TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKETING, WEBSITETourism promotion and marketing for120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,666.00Tourism website maintenance120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.00Total :1,866.00232879 8/30/2018 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3126193OFFICE SUPPLIESSHARED COPY PAPER001.000.61.557.20.31.00 62.65SHARED COPY PAPER001.000.21.513.10.31.00 62.6512Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232879 8/30/2018(Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATEDSHARED COPY PAPER001.000.22.518.10.31.00 62.66PAPER CUPS001.000.22.518.10.31.00 5.76TWO POCKET FOLDER001.000.22.518.10.31.00 10.63PENS001.000.22.518.10.31.00 23.89G2 PENS001.000.22.518.10.31.00 3.69BALLPOINT PENS001.000.22.518.10.31.00 1.87TAPE DISPENSER001.000.22.518.10.31.00 1.52BINDER CLIPS001.000.22.518.10.31.00 18.51PENS001.000.22.518.10.31.00 4.43BINDER CLIPS001.000.22.518.10.31.00 3.6610.3% Sales Tax001.000.61.557.20.31.00 6.4510.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.31.00 6.4510.3% Sales Tax001.000.22.518.10.31.00 14.08OFFICE SUPPLIES - HR3132119PENS, BINDER CLIPS, WRIST PAD AND001.000.22.518.10.31.00 60.5010.3% Sales Tax001.000.22.518.10.31.00 6.23CREDIT MEMO FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES3141411BINDER CLIPS001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -3.6613Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232879 8/30/2018(Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED10.3% Sales Tax001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -0.38CREDIT MEMO FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES3142565binder clips001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -5.0210.3% Sales Tax001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -0.52MALOWICKI.SIT STAND DESK3143990Malowicki.Sit Stand Desk001.000.67.518.21.49.00 1,848.03Freight001.000.67.518.21.49.00 125.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.67.518.21.49.00 203.22RUBBER STAMPS FOR ENGINEERING3144182Rubber Stamps for Engineering001.000.62.524.10.31.00 769.43COPY PAPER FOR DSD3145469Copy Paper for DSD001.000.62.524.10.31.00 75.05Total :3,366.78232880 8/30/2018 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10045124 WATER - PARKA FOR CREWWater - Parka for Crew421.000.74.534.80.24.00 39.9510.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.24.00 4.11Total :44.06232881 8/30/2018067074 JAMES, SCOTT 08292018PER DIEM FOR AWC BUDGET WORKSHOPPer diem for AWC Budget Workshop,001.000.31.514.20.43.00 58.00Total :58.00232882 8/30/2018075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 038STATE LOBBYIST FOR AUGUST 201814Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232882 8/30/2018(Continued)075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLICState lobbyist for August 2018001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,358.00Total :3,358.00232883 8/30/2018076528 KNIGHT MUSIC 8/23 HMP CONCERT8/23 TILLER'S FOLLY HMP CONCERT8/23 TILLER'S FOLLY HMP CONCERT117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,250.00Total :1,250.00232884 8/30/2018016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 42180Marking Stick 38"001.000.67.518.21.49.00 27.00Utility Vest001.000.67.518.21.49.00 103.96Engineer Scale001.000.67.518.21.49.00 12.1510.3% Sales Tax001.000.67.518.21.49.00 14.74Total :157.85232885 8/30/2018076165 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES 141408HYDRANT DEPOSIT MINUS MISSING COUPLINGHydrant Deposit minus missing Coupling421.000.245.110 850.00Total :850.00232886 8/30/2018017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 41836E6GC.SERVICES THRU 7/28/18E6GC.Services thru 7/28/18423.000.75.594.35.65.41 10,170.34Total :10,170.34232887 8/30/2018 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 158CONFLICT COUNSEL 8Z0752205CONFLICT COUNSEL 8Z0752205001.000.39.512.52.41.00 300.00Total :300.00232888 8/30/2018065791 LEIRA1223INV 1223 BEGINNER PDR - DOMICO & HENDERS15Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232888 8/30/2018(Continued)065791 LEIRABEGINNER PDR CLASS - DOMICO001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00BEGINNER PDR CLASS - HENDERSON001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00Total :200.00232889 8/30/2018065095 LINDENMUTH, SCOTT 8/26 CIP8/26 LINDENMUTH CIP8/26 LINDENMUTH CIP117.100.64.573.20.41.00 800.00Total :800.00232890 8/30/2018 069947 LOGMEIN USA INC 1207306134GOTOMYPC CORPORATE SERVICEGoToMyPC Corporate Service - 8/19/18 -512.000.31.518.88.48.00 132.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 13.60Total :145.60232891 8/30/2018074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 20513INV#20513 EDMONDS PD - GREENMUNSERVICE - XTS3000 SN#326CDU0467 -001.000.41.521.22.48.00 52.78INV#20514 EDMONDS PD - GREENMUN20514SERVICE MTS2000 SN#466CDS0648 REPAIRED001.000.41.521.22.48.00 135.00INV#20515 EDMONDS PD - GREENMUN20515SERVICE MTS2000 SN#466CDS0629 EPD#3508001.000.41.521.22.48.00 139.95Total :327.73232892 8/30/2018076743 LORRAINE, LYNSEY 8/21 REFUND 8/21 REFUND8/21 REFUND001.000.239.200 500.00Total :500.00232893 8/30/2018 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC E1CA/E5DA.Pmt 15 E1CA/E5DA.PMT 15 THRU 5/31/1816Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232893 8/30/2018(Continued)068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INCE1CA.Pmt 15 thru 5/31/18112.000.68.595.33.65.00 40,834.90E1CA.Pmt 15 thru 5/31/18421.000.74.594.34.65.10 15,952.14E1CA.Pmt 15 thru 5/31/18423.200.75.594.35.65.00 220.59E5DA.Pmt 15 thru 5/31/18112.000.68.595.33.65.00 210.00E1CA/E5DA.PMT 16 THRU 7/31/18E1CA/E5DA.Pmt 16E1CA.Pmt 16 thru 7/31/18112.000.68.595.33.65.00 241,335.74E1CA.Pmt 16 thru 7/31/18423.000.75.594.35.65.30 2,200.18E5DA.Pmt 16 thru 7/31/18112.000.68.595.33.65.00 71,975.50Total :372,729.05232894 8/30/2018075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 6663 FELDENKRAIS 6663 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION6663 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 117.00Total :117.00232895 8/30/2018 075568 MORISAWA, KEN OTF MORISAWA OTF MORISAWAOTF MORISAWA117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00232896 8/30/2018072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 15-1715-33E5KA.SERVICES THRU 7/31/18E5KA.Services thru 7/31/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 19,246.42Total :19,246.42232897 8/30/2018025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 851PLANNING BOARD MINUTESPLANNING BOARD MINUTES001.000.62.558.60.41.00 144.0017Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :144.00232897 8/30/2018 025690 025690 NOYES, KARIN232898 8/30/2018 068709 OFFICETEAM 51631536HR TEMP WORK WE 8/24/18HR TEMP WORK FOR WEEK ENDING 8/24/18001.000.22.518.10.41.00 441.00Total :441.00232899 8/30/2018075694 PACIFIC SOUND DESIGN PMT 2 SOUND CIP 7/15-8/26 SOUND CIP7/15-8/26 SOUND CIP117.100.64.573.20.41.00 975.00Total :975.00232900 8/30/2018027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 18-T1050138PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1050146PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1050160PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1050188PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1050258PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1050312PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00Total :576.00232901 8/30/2018073070 PERRINE, JULIE 6687 ART CAMP 6687 ART CAMP INSTRUCTION6687 ART CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 993.30Total :993.3018Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232902 8/30/2018076738 PHONG LE PLN20160038REFUND: APPLICATION WITHDRAWNRefund: Application withdrawn.001.000.257.620 595.83Total :595.83232903 8/30/2018076742 POPE, ALISON 8/20 REFUND 8/20 REFUND8/20 REFUND001.000.239.200 150.00Total :150.00232904 8/30/2018064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.66.518.30.42.00 22.21ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.64.576.80.42.00 22.21Total :44.42232905 8/30/2018046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / MEFRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 292.26YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,040.10OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 34.09FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE200009595790FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 68.07FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 48.83CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 67.37FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 020001681584319Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232905 8/30/2018(Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGYFIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 117.44FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W511.000.77.548.68.47.00 34.94MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N200019375639MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N001.000.66.518.30.47.00 34.93SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 34.93PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 3.71PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 14.10PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 14.10PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 14.10PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 14.10PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 14.09CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 34.09Total :1,881.25232906 8/30/2018070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 18-1708COURT SECURITY 08/13/2018-08/15/2018COURT SECURITY 08/13/2018-08/15/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.00 701.25PROBATION MRT SECURITY 08/15/2018001.000.23.523.30.41.00 68.7520Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :770.00232906 8/30/2018 070809 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE232907 8/30/2018 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000186292 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-POSTONMARKER/INSCRIPTION-POSTON130.000.64.536.20.34.00 140.00Total :140.00232908 8/30/2018075586 REED, RENEE 6691 6694 WALKING6691 6694 NORDIC POLE WALKING INSTRUCTIO6691 NORDIC POLE WALKING INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 15.006694 NORDIC POLE WALKING INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 15.00Total :30.00232909 8/30/2018067447 RILEY, CHARLES H. 53REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.23.00 647.41Total :647.41232910 8/30/2018066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 51REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.29.00 7,000.00Total :7,000.00232911 8/30/2018 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 102147E4FC.SERVICES THRU 7/14/18E4FC.Services thru 7/14/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 740.00Total :740.00232912 8/30/2018068187 SHARP, DEBRA 08282018BUDGET WORKSHOP PER DIEMAWC Budget Workshop per diem for meals,001.000.31.514.23.43.00 385.82Total :385.82232913 8/30/2018071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B08681552ACROBAT PROFESSIONALAcrobat Professional001.000.67.518.21.49.00 338.7821Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232913 8/30/2018(Continued)071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP10.3% Sales Tax001.000.67.518.21.49.00 34.89ACROBAT PROFESSIONALB08693505Acrobat Professional001.000.67.518.21.49.00 338.7810.3% Sales Tax001.000.67.518.21.49.00 34.89Total :747.34232914 8/30/2018037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-4823-3TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 1TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 34.18LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 210.33MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER2004-9314-6MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.60OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 165.08LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 54.78FISHING PIER RESTROOMS2012-3682-5FISHING PIER RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 221.33TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.79TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 30.82TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER22Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232914 8/30/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1111.000.68.542.64.47.00 39.36TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.32TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 30.55LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 10002020-8787-0LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 173.81TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 50.56TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE001.000.66.518.30.47.00 18.47Total :1,102.98232915 8/30/2018075675 SORENSON FORENSICS LLC 45714INV#45714 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PDSTR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE 2.0001.000.41.521.21.41.00 550.00INV#45715 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45715STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE 1.00001.000.41.521.21.41.00 275.00INV#45716 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45716STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE 3.0001.000.41.521.21.41.00 825.00INV#45717 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45717STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE 1.0001.000.41.521.21.41.00 275.00INV#45718 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45718STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE 4.0001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,100.00INV#45719 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45719STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE 2.023Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232915 8/30/2018(Continued)075675 SORENSON FORENSICS LLC001.000.41.521.21.41.00 550.00INV#45720 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45720STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE 3.0001.000.41.521.21.41.00 825.00INV#45721 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45721STR ANALYSIS - NON DIFF EVIDENCE 1.0001.000.41.521.21.41.00 275.00INV#45722 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45722STR ANALYSIS - NON DIFF EVIDENCE 2.0001.000.41.521.21.41.00 550.00INV#45723 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45723DNA COMPARE TO OTHER LAB REPORT/DNA 1.0001.000.41.521.21.41.00 75.00Total :5,300.00232916 8/30/2018 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 57757/4STORM - WORK TStorm - Work T422.000.72.531.90.24.00 8.6510.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.89Total :9.54232917 8/30/2018076740 SPINDOLA, CONSUELO 8/14 REFUND 8/14 REFUND8/14 REFUND001.000.239.200 300.00Total :300.00232918 8/30/2018074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1397744PLAN REVIEW SERVICES THRU 8/3/18Plan Review Services thru 8/3/18001.000.67.518.21.41.00 694.67Plan Review Services thru 8/3/18421.000.74.534.80.41.10 347.33Plan Review Services thru 8/3/18422.000.72.531.90.41.20 347.33Plan Review Services thru 8/3/1824Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232918 8/30/2018(Continued)074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES423.000.75.535.80.41.30 347.34Total :1,736.67232919 8/30/2018046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON 005LEASEHOLD TAX SIDEWALK BISTRO RIGHT OF WPrior year sidewalk bistro right of way001.000.39.514.20.44.00 1,180.19Prior year sidewalk bistro right of way001.000.237.220 185.81Total :1,366.00232920 8/30/2018 068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 94179TEAMSTERS SERVICESTEAMSTERS001.000.64.571.21.41.00 59.40TEAMSTERS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 67.65TEAMSTERS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 67.65TEAMSTERS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 67.65TEAMSTERS111.000.68.542.31.41.00 67.65Total :330.00232921 8/30/2018074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 5048SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR AUGUST2018Social media services for August 2018001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00Total :300.00232922 8/30/2018065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 22648SEWER - LS 5 REPAIRSSewer - LS 5 Repairs423.000.75.535.80.48.00 250.00Total :250.00232923 8/30/2018073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI 6618 6619 KENDO 6618 6619 KENDO INSTRUCTION6618 KENDO INSTRUCTION25Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232923 8/30/2018(Continued)073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI001.000.64.571.27.41.00 273.006619 KENDO INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 932.14Total :1,205.14232924 8/30/2018071666 TETRA TECH INC 51339351E4GC.SERVICES THRU 6/29/18E4GC.Services thru 6/29/18423.000.75.594.35.65.41 27,564.15Total :27,564.15232925 8/30/2018 070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA 2018-195436BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD FOR SEPTEMBER SEBusiness recruitment advertisement in001.000.61.558.70.41.40 3,500.00Total :3,500.00232926 8/30/2018067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9812699740C/A 671247844-00001Cell Service-Eng001.000.67.518.21.42.00 55.83Cell Service Fac-Maint001.000.66.518.30.42.00 74.53Cell Service-PD001.000.41.521.22.42.00 291.05Cell Service-PW Street/Storm111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.55Cell Service-PW Street/Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 18.55Cell Service-PW Water421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.55Cell Service-PW Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 55.65Cell Service-WWTP423.000.76.535.80.42.00 18.55C/A 571242650-00019813282637iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept001.000.62.524.20.42.00 419.5226Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232926 8/30/2018(Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESSiPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk001.000.25.514.30.42.00 75.84iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ001.000.61.557.20.42.00 76.01iPad Cell Service Council001.000.11.511.60.42.00 310.09iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court001.000.23.512.50.42.00 75.84iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development001.000.62.524.10.42.00 151.99iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering001.000.67.518.21.35.00 529.42iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering001.000.67.518.21.42.00 1,193.58iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities001.000.66.518.30.42.00 243.81iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance001.000.31.514.23.42.00 106.00iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR001.000.22.518.10.42.00 96.00iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS512.000.31.518.88.42.00 287.84iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office001.000.21.513.10.42.00 55.99iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept001.000.64.571.21.42.00 96.00iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept001.000.41.521.22.42.00 1,641.21Air cards Police Dept001.000.41.521.22.42.00 1,040.26iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept001.000.62.558.60.42.00 120.03iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.5427Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232926 8/30/2018(Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESSiPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.58iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.54iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.58iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.60iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept111.000.68.542.90.35.00 20.67iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept111.000.68.542.90.42.00 227.83iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.99iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer421.000.74.534.80.42.00 159.01iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 159.01iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept423.000.75.535.80.42.00 283.44iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water421.000.74.534.80.42.00 377.88iPad Cell Service Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 75.84iPad Cell Service Street/Storm111.000.68.542.90.42.00 200.05iPad Cell Service Street/Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 200.05iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP423.000.76.535.80.35.00 185.50iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP423.000.76.535.80.42.00 737.81iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks001.000.64.576.80.42.00 151.9928Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232926 8/30/2018(Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESSiPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks001.000.64.571.21.42.00 136.01iPad Cell Service Parks Discovery001.000.64.571.23.42.00 40.01Total :10,157.62232927 8/30/2018047455 WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB80813002IT MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FOR FIBER OPIT Maintenance & Operations for Fiber512.000.31.518.87.48.00 725.52Total :725.52232928 8/30/2018 073472 WAPRO403WAPRO FALL CONF REGISTRATION - THOMPSONWAPRO FALL CONFERENCE001.000.41.521.40.49.00 175.00981 - BROMAN FALL CONFERENCE REGISTRATIO981FALL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION001.000.41.521.40.49.00 175.00Total :350.00232929 8/30/2018075283 WAVE8136 50 211 00055035FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICEHigh Speed Internet service 09/01/18 -512.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.00Total :816.00232930 8/30/2018073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7521INV#7521 - EDMONDS PD2000 DOMESTIC CRISIS RESOURCES BROCHURES001.000.41.521.11.31.00 998.001000 3 - PART CRIMINAL TRESPASS WARNING001.000.41.521.11.31.00 372.001000 3 - PART INVENTORY & RETURN OF001.000.41.521.11.31.00 372.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.11.31.00 179.43Total :1,921.4329Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
08/30/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 8:40:19AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232931 8/30/2018069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 36466E1CA.REPLACEMENT SHELLS FOR PUCKS & EPOXE1CA.Replacement Shells for Pucks &112.000.68.595.33.65.41 2,064.37Total :2,064.37232932 8/30/2018076625 WINDWARD ENVIRONMENTAL LLC 15964/15965MARSH STUDY TASKS 1 & 2 WINDWARDMarsh Study July - Baseline & Buffer001.000.11.511.60.41.00 20,357.71Total :20,357.71Bank total : 743,092.0692 Vouchers for bank code :usbank743,092.06Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report9230Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claim cks 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
Revised 8/22/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-30-18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
Payroll Earnings Summary ReportCity of EdmondsPay Period: 940 (08/21/2018 to 08/21/2018)Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class DescriptionCLOTHING ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS9030.00 375.00Total Net Pay: $343.84$375.000.0008/27/2018Page 1 of 14.2.dPacket Pg. 64Attachment: payroll uniform 08.21.18 (Approval of claim and payroll checks.)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/4/2018
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by Katherine Richardson ($5,421.91).
Staff Lead: WCIA Claims
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
n/a
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by Katherine Richardson by minute entry.
Narrative
Katherine Richardson
753 Bell St
Edmonds, WA 98026
Attachments:
Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages
4.3
Packet Pg. 65
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Katherine Richardson Claim for Damages (Claim for Damages)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/4/2018
Presentation on the Edmonds Historical Museum Annual Scarecrow Festival
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The Edmonds Historical Museum sponsors the Scarecrow Festival in downtown Edmonds each year.
Staff Recommendation
N/A. For information only.
Narrative
A representative of the Edmonds Historical Museum will provide a presentation regarding the 2017
Scarecrow Festival.
5.1
Packet Pg. 78
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/4/2018
Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The Edmonds' City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Exhibit 1) in 2016 expressing the intent to
adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will move quasi-judicial
decision-making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards and direct it to
the hearing examiner to the extent allowed by state law. (See Exhibits 11, 12, and 13 for relevant
Council minutes from 2016.) The adopted resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board
prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution.
The Planning Board heard an introduction on this matter at their May 23, 2018 (Exhibit 9) and held a
public hearing on July 25, 2018 (Exhibit 10) at which a recommendation was forwarded to City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Set public hearing to receive public feedback on the proposed amendments.
Narrative
Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial Decisions
The distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial decision-making in zoning practice is an important
one. The basic difference between the two categories is that legislative decisions establish policies for
future application, while quasi-judicial, or administrative decisions are the application of those policies.
In quasi-judicial proceedings the decision-making body must follow stricter procedural requirements
(the term “quasi-judicial” literally means court-like; implying that proceedings must be similar to those
followed in court proceedings). If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated
by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process,
including:
· Proper notice of the hearing
· Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear
what others have to say
· Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision-making body (e.g., no
ex parte contacts)
· An impartial decision-maker free from bias and conflicts of interest
· Decisions based on the facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition
City Council Quasi-judicial Decisions
7.1
Packet Pg. 79
The city council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following applications and
appeals (see ECDC 20.01.003):
Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural
design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is
required); Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is
required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development.
Applications (Type IV-A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and Site
specific rezone. In addition to the Type IV applications, pursuant to ECDC 17.00.030.C, the City Council
also has the quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies.
As the City Attorney summarized in his memo to the Council on this subject (excerpt from May 10, 2016
Council Agenda Memo):
"For the city council, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma. On the
surface, being able to decide the outcome of a land use hearing offers the lure of being ultimately
responsible for what could be a controversial land use application or appeal. One can imagine the city
council coming heroically to the side of its constituents to make whatever appears to be the most
popular decision on the matter.
The reality, however, is fraught with danger (in the form of potential liability) and difficult choices. This
reality is rooted in the fact that the city council has significantly less discretion when hearing a quasi-
judicial matter than it has when hearing a legislative matter. It cannot simply decide the matter however
it wants to. The city council, like any other land use decision-maker, must apply the decision criteria to
the facts surrounding the application or appeal. While those criteria are legislatively adopted, they
cannot be changed during the quasi-judicial hearing. So, if the adopted criteria do not allow the council
to address a particular issue of public concern, the council could be forced to choose been making a
legally defensible, but unpopular decision and making a decision that feels right in the short term only to
have that decision overturned by a court. In extreme cases, the court’s reversal might be combined with
liability to pay a significant damage claim for having made a decision that was later deemed to be
arbitrary and capricious.
The closed record nature of these hearings presents another limiting factor because the evidence that
can be presented to the city council is generally limited to that which was presented during the open
record hearing (usually before the hearing examiner).
Councilmembers have expressed frustration with the ex parte contact prohibition that comes along with
the quasi-judicial process. The appearance of fairness doctrine does limit the interactions that
councilmembers can have with constituents when quasi-judicial action is pending."
As a result of its discussions on this subject, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Exhibit 1) in
2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
that will remove quasi-judicial decision-making responsibility from the City Council.
Quasi-judicial Code Amendments
7.1
Packet Pg. 80
Modifying the City Council’s role in quasi-judicial decisions in the Edmonds Community Development
Code primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Exhibit 3 contains a modified ECDC
20.01.003 which includes tables for permit type and decision framework, and procedure for
development project permit applications. Type III-B have been moved into the Type III-A column and
removed the “-A” and “-B” qualifiers. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the Edmonds
Community Development Code for “Type III” and removed all the “-A” and “-B” qualifiers from the text.
An electronic search for terms such as “appealable to council” was also conducted and references
updated.
Other amendments included eliminating the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.C requiring the City Council
to review public agency variance requests, and modifications to the subdivision chapter (ECDC 20.75)
and planned residential development chapter (ECDC 20.35) that discuss Council review of final
approvals.
Related Code Amendments
In reviewing the code to address quasi-judicial decision making by the City Council, other items were
identified that logically should be addressed concurrently with this update.
Chapter 20.06 ECDC - Open Record Public Hearing & Chapter 20.07 ECDC Closed Record Appeals
The distinction is not clear between these chapters because appeals of Type II staff decisions reference
Chapter 20.07 ECDC for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decision are heard before the Hearing
Examiner in an open record public hearing. As part of this amendment, Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC
are proposed to be combined into a single chapter to remove this confusion. As part of this
combination, detail on the appeal format and procedures before the hearing examiner are also being
addressed.
ECDC 20.100.040 Review of approved permits
ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of approved permits, is a problematic code section in that it is likely
noncompliant with state law. See the City Attorney’s memorandum in Exhibit 2 detailing potential legal
issues with this section. Given these concerns, staff is proposing to delete ECDC 20.100.040. To make
clear that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of
approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) has been
added to Chapter 20.110 ECDC - Civil Violation Enforcement Procedure.
Development Agreements
ECDC 20.01.003, currently identifies the approval process for development agreements (Chapter 20.08
ECDC) as a Type V legislative action. As part of this update, we are proposing to modify the approval
process of development agreements to be a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before
the Planning Board, after which the Planning Board would make a recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council would hear the development agreement proposal in a closed record hearing format.
This change recognizes that under state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW), development agreements are not
legislative and, in fact, must be consistent with the local development code.
As a practical matter, the development agreement review process should be generally consistent with
the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction
7.1
Packet Pg. 81
with the development agreement. The site specific rezone is one type of project permit application that
would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. So, it makes sense to use a similar
quasi-judicial process. It would only make sense to process development agreements as legislative if
they are being processed in conjunction with a comprehensive plan amendment, which seems less
likely.
Public Comments
The City has received one written public comment on the proposed amendments which is included as
Exhibit 8.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1367
Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040
Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments
Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments
Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC)
Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments
Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC
Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email
Exhibit 9: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt
7.1
Packet Pg. 82
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1367 (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1367 (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Date: May 23, 2018
To: Edmonds Planning Board
Copy: Kernen Lien
From: Jeff Taraday
Re: Legal basis for repeal of ECDC 20.100.040
This memo sets forth a legal rationale for the repeal of ECDC 20.100.040.
The History of this Section
This code section was last amended by Ordinance 3112 in 1996. The code
does not indicate what ordinance originally adopted this section. We do
know that it existed in a 1980 version of the code. Based on this date, we
know that it significantly predates the state’s adoption of the Regulatory
Reform Act (chapter 36.70B RCW) and the Land Use Petition Act (chapter
36.70C RCW), which were both adopted in 1995. This helps explain the
inconsistencies between this section and those state laws.
Ordinance 3112 adopted significant amendments to the code in 1996. The
ordinance contains 44 pages and 40 sections. The whereas clauses
mention the Regulatory Reform Act (chapter 36.70B RCW) generally, but
they do not provide any meaningful legislative intent related to the ECDC
20.100.040 amendments. Only subsection C was amended at that time.
And due to the lack of strike-through and underlining, we cannot easily
discern what changes were made.
The drafters of the 1996 ordinance could have identified the
inconsistencies between this section and state law at that time. Their
review was so broad, however, that the difficulties in harmonizing this
section with the recently adopted state laws probably escaped their
attention. And, in defense of the drafters, the courts did not make their
reading of these new laws, particularly LUPA, clear until several years
later.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040 (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Most of chapter 20.100 ECDC was repealed in 2009 with Ordinance 3736.
For reasons that are not yet clear, ECDC 20.100.040 was not repealed at
that time.
Difficulty Harmonizing with the Regulatory Reform Act
The Regulatory Reform Act requires cities to provide a consolidated
permit review process. “The review process shall provide for no more than
one consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an
open record predecision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a
project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open record
appeal hearing.” RCW 36.70B.060. Any review of an approved permit
under ECDC 20.100.040 necessarily involves review of a permit that has
already gone through the City’s permit review process, including any
applicable opportunity for appeals. Where that process already included a
hearing, another hearing under ECDC 20.100.040 could violate the
hearing number limits set forth in the Regulatory Reform Act.
The Act also states that “[e]ach local government shall adopt procedures to
monitor and enforce permit decisions and conditions.” RCW
36.70B.160(3). But that enforcement authority should not necessarily be
read as authority to conduct additional hearings, notwithstanding the
hearing limits contained in RCW 36.70B.060. The City’s enforcement
procedures are contained in chapter 20.110 ECDC. Additionally, the City
has a process to address nuisances in chapter 6.20 ECC. So, the public
interest sought to be protected by ECDC 20.100.040 is largely protected
via other provisions of the code, with one notable exception discussed
below.
Difficulty Harmonizing with the Land Use Petition Act
Another problem with ECDC 20.100.040 is that it could suggest to the
public that collateral attacks on approved permits are available when they
are not. Such collateral attacks conflict with the finality requirement of the
Land Use Petition Act.
“A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless
the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served ….” RCW
36.70C.040(2). The strength of this finality requirement was emphasized
in Chelan County. v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P.3d 1, 15 (2002).
In that case, Chelan Country tried to argue that “a county cannot be
prevented from revoking an improperly issued land use approval under res
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040 (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
judicata or in the interest of administrative finality.” Id. The court rejected
that argument.
Leaving land use decisions open to reconsideration long after
the decisions are finalized places property owners in a
precarious position and undermines the Legislature's intent
to provide expedited appeal procedures in a consistent,
predictable and timely manner.
As amici curiae point out, if this court allows local
government to rescind a previous land use approval without
concern of finality, innocent property owners relying on a
county's land use decision will be subject to change in policy
whenever a new County Planning Director disagrees with a
decision of the predecessor director.
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P.3d 1, 15 (2002). We
know from the Nykreim case that even an erroneous decision is entitled to
finality under LUPA if that decision is not timely challenged. Against this
backdrop, one can imagine many situations where application of ECDC
20.100.040 would be impossible to square with LUPA’s finality
requirement. Whether or not one likes the holding of Nykriem, it is the
law of the land and the city’s code should be drafted to be consistent with
that law. The current code creates unrealistic expectations.
There are still situations (where permit conditions are not being met and
other means of compliance have failed) where the City would be entitled to
revoke a permit. Even so, the revocation language in ECDC 20.100.040
should be revised and relocated to the enforcement chapter.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040 (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Edmonds Page 1/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Sections: 20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. 20.01.001 Types of actions. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. 20.01.007 Exempt projects.
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures, decision criteria, public notification, and timing for development project permit application decisions made by the city of Edmonds. These procedures are intended to:
1. Promote timely and informed public participation;
2. Eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and appeals processes;
3. Process permits equitably and expediently;
4. Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors;
5. Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and
6. Result in development that furthers city goals as set forth in the comprehensive plan.
These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land use permit process. The procedures integrate the environmental review process with land use procedures, decisions, and consolidated appeal processes.
B. The provisions of this title supersede all other procedural requirements that may exist in other sections of the city code. When interpreting and applying the standards of this title, its provisions shall be the minimum requirements. Where conflicts occur within provisions of this title and/or between this title and other city code provisions and regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text of this title and the zoning map ensue, the text of this title shall prevail.
C. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days. Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city’s development services department is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday or closed day. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010].
20.01.001 Types of actions. There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of appeal opportunity.
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative decisions made by the development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”). Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II permits are administrative decisions where the director makes a decision based on standards and clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.00406.040..
B. Quasi-Judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II and Type III (B only) decisions are quasi-judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgment in the review of each specific application. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the hearing examiner, the architectural design board, and/or the city council.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Page 2/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Legislative Decisions. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public developments, and management of public lands.
1. Planning Board. The planning board shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city council may hold a public hearing itself on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the planning board’s recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council desires to hold a public hearing on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do so without forwarding the proposed decision to the planning board for a hearing.
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public as set forth in Chapter 20.03 ECDC.
4. Implementation. City council Type V decision shall be by ordinance or resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010].
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. A. Determination by Director. The director shall determine the proper procedure for all project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest numbered to the lowest.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection (B) of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council being the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner, architectural design board or planning board, as applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according to ECDC 20.06.001020. Concurrent public hearings held with the architectural design board and any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Page 3/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
TYPE I TYPE II-A TYPE II-B TYPE III-A TYPE III-B TYPE IV-A TYPE IV-B TYPE V
Zoning compliance letter Accessory dwelling unit Contingent critical area review Outdoor dining Essential public facilities Final formal plats Site specific rezone Development agreements
Lot line adjustment Formal interpretation of the text of the ECDC by the director
Shoreline substantial development permit, where public hearing not required per ECDC 24.80.100
Technological impracticality waiver for amateur radio antennas
Design review (where public hearing by architectural design board is required)
Final planned residential development Development agreements Zoning text amendment; area-wide zoning map amendments
Critical area determinations SEPA determinations Critical area variance Comprehensive plan amendments
Shoreline exemptions Preliminary short plat Contingent critical area review if public hearing requested
Conditional use permits (where public hearing by hearing examiner is required)
Annexations
Minor amendments to planned residential development
Land clearing/grading Shoreline substantial development permit, where public hearing is required per ECDC 24.80.100
Variances Development regulations
Minor preliminary plat amendment Revisions to shoreline management permits Shoreline conditional use Home occupation permit (where public hearing by hearing examiner is required)
Staff design review, including signs Administrative variances Shoreline variance Preliminary formal plat
Final short plat Land use permit extension requests Essential public facilities Preliminary planned residential development
Sales office/model (ECDC 17.70.005) Guest house Design review (where public hearing by architectural design board is required)
Final formal plats Innocent purchaser determination Conditional use permits (where public hearing by hearing examiner is required)
Final planned residential development Variances
Home occupation permit (where public
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and
Edmonds Page 4/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
hearing by hearing examiner is required)
Preliminary formal plat
Preliminary planned residential development
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and
Edmonds Page 5/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
B. Decision Table.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Page 6/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE
TYPE I TYPE II-A TYPE II-B TYPE III-A TYPE III-B TYPE IV-A TYPE IV-B TYPE V
Recommendation by: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning board Planning board
Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing examiner/ADB Hearing examiner/ADB City council City council City council
Notice of application: No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision:
No Only if appealed, open record hearing before hearing examiner
(1) If director decision is appealed, open record hearing before hearing examiner (2) If converted to Type III-A process
Yes, before hearing examiner or board to render final decision
Yes, before hearing examiner or board to render final decision
No Yes, before planning board which makes recommendation to council
Yes, before planning board which makes recommendation to council or council could hold its own hearing
Closed record review: No No No No Yes, before the council No Yes, before the council
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and
Edmonds Page 7/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Any reference to “Type II” in the Edmonds Community Development Code without expressly being modified as “Type II-B” shall be construed to mean Type II-A for the purposes of this section unless the context clearly suggests otherwise. [Ord. 4072 § 7 (Att. G), 2017; Ord. 4026 § 4, 2016; Ord. 3982 § 4, 2014; Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3806 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the city council to make changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, or the city’s development regulations as part of the annual revision process. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.01.007 Exempt projects. A. The following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter: historic register designations, building permits, street vacations, street use permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under ECDC Title 18.
B. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building and/or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city’s SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, are excluded from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures:
1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.03.002) unless an open record hearing is allowed on the permit decision;
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.06.001020);
4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC 20.06.002060(C)); and
5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06.00920.02.007). [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Page 1/4
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Chapter 20.02
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections: 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. 20.02.002 Permit application requirements. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. 20.02.004 Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. 20.02.006 Resubmission of application after denial. 20.02.007 Notice of Final Decision
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. A. Prior to filing applications for Type II actions requiring a preliminary plat and Type III and IV actions, applicants are encouraged to participate in a preapplication conference. Preapplication meetings with staff provide an opportunity to discuss the proposal in general terms, identify the applicable city requirements and the project review process including the permits required by the action, timing of the permits and the approval process. Plans presented at the preapplication meeting are nonbinding and do not “vest” an application.
B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city’s adopted fee resolution.
C. The development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”) shall provide the applicant with the following during the conference:
1. A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city’s design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form provided by the director to the applicant under subsection (C) of this section shall bind the city in any manner or prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations.
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications will be considered on a time-available basis by the director. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.02.002 Permit application requirements. An application shall consist of all materials required by the applicable development regulations and shall include the following general information:
A. A completed land use application form;
B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the application with the consent of all owners of the affected property;
C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as required by the applicable development regulations;
D. The applicable fee; and
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Page 2/4
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
E. Cover letter describing how the proposal satisfies the applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the development regulations. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving an application, the director shall mail or personally deliver to the applicant a determination which states that either:
1. The application is complete; or
2. The application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete.
B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the determination of completeness.
C. Additional Information. An application is complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development regulations. The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently complete for review, even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the director’s ability to request additional information or studies whenever new information is required, or when substantial changes are made to the proposed project.
D. Incomplete Applications.
1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to subsection (A)(2) of this section that the application is incomplete, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in subsection (A) of this section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the application, which had been previously determined under subsection (A)(1) of this section to be complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant may apply in writing to the director requesting a one-time 90-day extension. The extension request must be received by the city prior to the end of the initial 90-day compliance period.
3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension period, as applicable), the director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the application, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed.
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city’s determination of completeness.
E. Director’s Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An application shall be deemed complete under this section if the director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in subsection (A) of this section.
F. Date of Acceptance of Application. Permit applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is determined to be complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing.
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the application. Under no circumstances shall the city place any application on “hold” to be processed at some later date, even if the request for the “hold” is made by the applicant, and regardless of the requested length of the “holding” period. This subsection does not apply to applications placed on “hold” upon determination by the city that additional information is required in order to make a decision. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Page 3/4
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
20.02.004 Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property. A. If an applicant submits an application that cannot be reconciled with a previously submitted application on the same property, the previously submitted application shall be deemed withdrawn by the applicant and it shall be rendered null and void. The director shall notify the applicant that the previously submitted application has been deemed withdrawn and will not be processed any further. Withdrawal shall be deemed to occur even when the city has finished processing the previously submitted application.
B. Many inconsistencies between applications can be reconciled through corrections that are made during the development review process. This section is not intended to treat all inconsistencies as effecting a withdrawal of the earlier application.
C. Without limiting the generality of subsection (A) of this section, the following examples are intended to illustrate whether a subsequent application shall be deemed irreconcilable with an earlier application:
1. Examples of Irreconcilable Applications That Result in Withdrawal.
a. Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence, the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn.
b. Applicant submits a design review application for a 20-unit multifamily housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a 30-unit multifamily housing development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially the same space they are irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn.
2. Examples of Applications That May Be Inconsistent but Are Not Irreconcilable Resulting in Withdrawal.
a. Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application.
b. Applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site-improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a corrected version of at least one of the two plans, then city staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. [Ord. 4006 § 1, 2015; Ord. 3992 § 1, 2015].
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. Within 10 days of accepting an application, the director shall transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.02.006 Resubmission of application after denial. Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this title that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for review for a period of 12 months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the application or a significant change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed project. [Ord. 4006 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3992 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009. Formerly 20.07.007].
20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Page 4/4
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available administrative appeals. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in subsection (A) of this section, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to by the director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is a Type IV permit process identified in ECDC 20.01.003.A.
4. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 1/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS
Sections:
20.06.000 General.
20.06.001 Joint public hearings.
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
20.06.008 Decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
20.06.000 General
20.06.010 Consolidated appeals
20.06.020 Joint public hearings
20.06.030 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal
20.06.040 Appeals of permit decisions or recommendations
20.06.050 Prehearing conference
20.06.060 Responsibility of director – Open record public hearing
20.06.070 Conflict of interest
20.06.080 Ex parte communications
20.06.090 Disqualification
20.06.100 Burden and nature of proof
20.06.110 Order of proceedings – Predecision open record public hearing
20.06.120 Procedure for an open record appeal hearing
20.06.130 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal
20.06.140 Decisions
20.06.150 Reconsideration of decision
20.06.160 Judicial appeals
20.06.000 General.
A. An open record public hearing is a hearing conducted by an authorized body or officer that creates the city’s
record upon which the outcome of a decision or appeal is based through testimony and the submission of documents
and other evidence and information. A public hearing may be held prior to the city’s decision on a development
project permit application; this is an “open record predecision hearing.” A public hearing may be held on an appeal
if no open record predecision hearing was held for the a permitdecision on a project permit application; this is an
“open record appeal hearing.”
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV permit applications and open record appeal hearings on
all appeals of Type II decision appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings
conducted by the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner’s rules.
CA. “Closed record appeal” means an administrative appeal to the city council. Such appeals are decided based on
the previously created record. to the city council, following an open record public hearing on a development project
permit application when the While such appeal proceedings is on the record with nodo not allow new testimony,
documents or other evidence or information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC
20.067.005130(B)., and only appeal arguments are allowed based upon the record.
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 2/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
DB. The right of appealAny appeal for allof a project permit applications and Type V land use decisions shall be as
allowed and described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004. [Ord.
20.07.00206.010 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than appeals of determinations of significance
(“DS”), and exempt permits and approvals under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated
appeal using the appeal procedure for the highest type permit application. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh.
A), 2009].
3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009. Formerly 20.06.001].
20.06.001020 Joint public hearings.
A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
“director”)city may combine jointly conduct any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that
may be held conducted by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as long as
the requirements of subsection (C) of this section are met.
B. Applicant’s Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the city conduct a joint public hearing
with another agency, as described in subsection (A), above, on a permit application be combined as long as the joint
hearing schedule can be held would allow a decision to be issued within the applicable time periods set forth in this
chapterTitle 20. In the alternativeIf the joint hearing schedule would not allow a decision to be issued within the
applicable time periods, the applicant may agree in writing to a particular schedule if additional time is neededan
extension of the applicable time periods in order to complete the hearingsallow a joint public hearing to be
conducted.
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with another local, state, regional,
federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is Doing so is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agency’ies’ adopted applicable notice
requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough
time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city hearing; orand
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010].
20.07.00306.030 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Standing Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at thean open record public hearing on the subject application;
3. Any person who individually submitssubmitted written comments concerning the subject application at the
open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II decision), PROVIDED THAT. Ppersons who
have only signed a petitions are not “parties of record;” and/or
4. The city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.00406.040 Appeals of recommendations and decisions – Pproject permit decisions or recommendations.
Any administrative appeals of a hearing body’s recommendation ordecision on a project permit decisionapplication
on a permit application shall be governed by the following:
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 3/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body’s decision[reserved].
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing body’s written decision on
a project permit application. The appeal period for determinations of nonsignificance shall be extended for an
additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW allow public comment on a
determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealablein relation to the applicable project permit
decisionapplication. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city’s development services department by
mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by
mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were
mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body’s
decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated
by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city’s development services department
is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be filed on the next day that is
not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required appeal fee as set forth in the
city’s adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant’s name, address, email address, and phone number;
2. A statement describing appellant’s standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with specific
references to the facts in the record;
5. The specific relief sought;
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the
appellant’s signature.
7. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by
11 inches), with one-inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller
than 12-point), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body’s decision on the project permit application until
such time as the appeal is concludedresolved or withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The development services director (hereinafter the “director”) shall provide mailedwritten
notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.00306.020. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 §
4 (Exh. A), 2009].
G. Multiple appeals. More than one appeal may be filed concerning the same appealable decision on a project
permit application.
20.06.050 Prehearing Conference
A. The Hearing Examiner may on his or her own order, or at the request of the city, applicant or appellant, hold
aone or more conferences prior to the hearing to consider:
1. Identification, clarification, and simplification of the issues;
2. Disclosure of witnesses to be called and exhibits to be presented;
3. MotionsThe scheduling or hearing of motions that any party would like to have considered;
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 4/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
4. Other matters deemed by the Hearing Examiner appropriate for orderly and expeditious disposition of the
proceedings.
B. Prehearing conferences may be held by telephone conference call.
C. The Hearing Examiner shall give notice to all parties of record of any prehearing conference to be held. Notice
may be written or oral.
D. All parties of record shall be representedparticipate atin any prehearing conference unless they waive the right
to be present or represented, and they are granted permission by the Hearing Examiner not to attendparticiapate.
Failure to participate without such permission may result in that party’s waiver of issues adjudicated during the
prehearing conference and/or dismissal of the appeal.
E. Following the prehearing conference, the Hearing Examiner shall issue an order reciting the actions taken or
ruling on motions made at the conference.
20.06.002060 Responsibility of director for hearing – Open Record Public Hearing.
The director shall:
A. Schedule project permit applications for review and public hearing;
B. Verify compliance with notice requirements;
C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report which sets forth all of the decisions
made on the proposal as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permit applicationss in the
consolidated permit process that do not by themselves require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall
also describe any mitigation required or proposed under the city’s development regulations or SEPA authority. If the
threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has not been issued previously by the city, the
report shall include or append this determination;
D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a copy of the notice of decision to those
entitled by this chapter to receive the decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.003070 Conflict of interest.
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict of interest and appearance of
fairness doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may
hereafter be amended. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.004080 Ex parte communications.
A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding
before him or her, other than to participate in communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for
maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal counsel on any issue.
B. If, before serving as on the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives
an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing
body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in subsection (C) of this
section.
C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall
place in the record:
1. All written communications received;
2. All written responses to the communications;
3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses made; and
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 5/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made after
notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a
rebuttal statement on the record. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.005090 Disqualification.
A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience of the reason(s) for the
disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and physically leave the hearing room.
B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum cannot be achieved, then all members
present, after stating their reasons for disqualification, shall be prequalified and deliberations shall proceed. [Ord.
3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.006100 Burden and nature of proof.
A. Except for Type V actions and, appeals of Type II actions and closed record appeals, the burden of proof is on the
proponent. The development project permit application must be supported by convincing proof evidence in the
record that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city’s development regulations and comprehensive plan
(review criteria). The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been
adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has the burden of proof with respect to
points raised on appeal.
C. In a closed record appeal of the architectural design board, its decision shall be given substantial deference
regarding decision review within its expertise and contained in its decisions. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4
(Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.007110 Order of proceedings – Predecision Open Record Public Hearing.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be
supplemented by administrative procedures and/or hearing examiner rules as appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following shall be determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and if there is objection, the hearing
body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and accepted information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards, and state and federal law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Order of presentation. The order of presentation for predecision open record public hearings shall generally
proceed as follows:
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 6/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
1. Hearing Examiner’s or hearing body’s introductory statement;
2. Department’sStaff presentation;
3. Applicant’s presentation;
4. Public commentstestimony on proposal;
5. Response from staff (if any);
6. Rebuttal from applicant (if any);
67. Questions of staff, applicant, or other persons submitting testimony;
78. Deliberation by hearing body if applicable;
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection C, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order
established if the hearing body deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of the
hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by the parties with the hearing body’s approval.
E. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presumptions(s) established by
applicable law(s).
CF. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal evidence to be considered by the
hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any information shall do so on the record. The hearing body,
however, may take notice of matters listed in subsection (B) of this section at any time. Any information given
official notice may be rebutted.
DG. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area with or without notification to the
parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit and
any relevant observations made during the visit.
EH. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in
his or her discretion, permit persons attending participating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants.
Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved any such questions will be asked of persons submitting
testimony by through the presiding officer.
FI. When the presiding officer has closed the public comment testimony portion of the hearing, the hearing body
may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff or any person submitting informationtestimony. An
opportunity to present rebuttal testimony shall be provided if new information is presented in through the
questioning. When all evidence has been presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer
shall officially close the record and end the hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 7/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.06.120 Procedure for open record appeal hearing.
A. Appeal hearings shall have a structured format and shall be conducted in a manner deemed by the Hearing
Examiner to make the relevant evidence most readily and efficiently available to the Hearing Examiner and to
provide the parties a fair opportunity for hearing.
B. Where the code provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to overcome the City decision being
appealed, the order of hearing is generally as follows:
1. Hearing Examiner’s introductory statement;
2. Parties’ opening statements (optionalif allowed by hearing examiner);
3. Appellant’s presentation of evidence and argument;
4. Department’s presentation of evidence and argument;
5. Applicant’s presentation of evidence and argument (if applicant is not the appellant);
6. Appellant’s Rebuttalpresentation of rebuttal evidence and argument;
7. Closing argument of parties (if allowed by hearing examiner);
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection B, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order
established if the Hearing Examiner deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of
the hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by the parties with the Hearing Examiner’s approval.
D. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presumptions(s) established by
applicable law(s).
E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his
or her discretion, permit persons attendingparticipating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants. Unless
the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved questions will be asked of persons submitting testimony
bythrough the presiding officer.
20.06.1307.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appealhearings.
A. Closed record appealshearings shall be argued and decided based on the record established at the open record
hearing before the hearing body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall include the written
decisionrecommendation of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official
transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
1. At his/her own expense, a party to the appealof record may have the official tape recording of the open
record hearing transcribed; however, to be admitted into the recordconsidered during the closed record hearing,
the transcription must be performedprepared and certified by a court reporter or a transcriber that is pre-
approved by the city. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the city directly from the
transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record reviewhearing. It shall be
each party of record’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the transcription from the city.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre-approved transcribers that are court approved; and if needed, shall
coordinate with parties to the appealof record so that no more than one official transcription is admitted into the
recordplaced before the city council.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except: (1) new information required to
rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communication providedthat is placed on the record during an
appearance of fairness disclosure; and (2) relevant information that, in the opinion of the city council, was
improperly excluded by the hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must specifically request in writing within five
working days of the appeal deadline that the information be made part of the record. The request shall be addressed
to the city council president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues appealed, the reason(s)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 8/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason why the hearing body/officer erred in
excluding the information.
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city council president may request other parties of
record to submit written arguments rebutting the above. Nonresponse by the city council president within five
working days of the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a rejection of the
same.
C. Parties to the appealof record may present written arguments to the city council. Arguments shall describe the
particular errors committed by the decisionmakeraddress the applicable decision criteria, with specific references to
the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate that the decision is clearly erroneous
given the record.
D. While written arguments are not required, appellantparties of record may submit his or her written arguments no
later than 12 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record reviewhearing. Parties of record, except
for the appellant, may submit his or her written arguments or respond in writing to appellant’sopening arguments no
later than seven working days before the closed record reviewhearing. AppellantParties may rebut in writing to
responses submitted by parties of record no later than four working days before the closed record reviewhearing. If
the applicant is not the appellant, applicant may submit a final surrebuttal in writing to appellant’s rebuttal no later
than two working days before the closed record review.
E. Written arguments, responses, and rebuttals and surrebuttals must be received by the city’s development services
department by mail or personal delivery at or before 4:30 p.m. of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted.
Submittals received by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when
such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the parties involved to obtain for their
own use from the city copies of written arguments, responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11),
with one-inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single
sided, double spaced and without exceeding 12 pages in length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not
already in the record shall not be allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues, if any, followed by the
opportunity for oral presentations by the director and other parties of records, including the appellant. After the
presentations, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an
opportunity for the director, appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall
not request information outside the administrative record. If the city council believes that it needs information not
contained in the record to make a proper decision on the application, it may remand the application to have the
record reopened for that limited purpose.
If information outside the administrative record is offered (in written submittals or oral presentation) by a party of
record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide
justification in support of the objection. Objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought
before the city council begins deliberations. The party offering the information shall have the opportunity to show
where in the record said information is contained.
H. The city council shall determine whether the dereview the cisionrecommendation by the hearing body/officer is
clearly erroneousde novo givenbased on the evidence in the record. The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse
the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the
requirement for a decision within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW
36.70B.080(3), theAs it deems necessary, theThe city council may remand the decisionapplication with instructions
to the hearing body to reopen the hearing to obtainfor additional information on a subject that is relevant to the
decision criteria.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on closed
record appeal in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.06.00902.007. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010;
Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 9/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.06.008140 Decision.
A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007110, or ECDC 20.06.120, or ECDC 20.06.130, the
hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal, the hearing
body shall affirm, reverse or, with the written consent of the applicant, which shall include a waiver of the statutory
prohibition against two open record hearings, remand the decision for additional information.
B. The hearing body’s written decision shall be issued within 10 working days after the close of record of the
hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties. Where
the record is voluminous, the hearing body may inform the parties during the hearing that more than 10 working
days will be necessary to render a decision.
C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC 20.0602.0096.
D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an application within the time limits provided for in this section,
it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons
why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5,
2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.009 Notice of final decision. [RELOCATE TO ECDC 20.02.007]
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of
completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision
on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include
the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available administrative appeals. For
Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain
that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of
revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who
submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County
assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in
subsection (A) of this section, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required
studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director
notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines
that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the
additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the
deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period
shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter
43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by
Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project
permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals,
unless a longer period is agreed to by the director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application:
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 10/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a
determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003
and RCW 36.70B.070. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.010150 Reconsideration of decision.
A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.00306.020 as having standing to file an administrative appeal
may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing examiner which issues immediately after the open record
public hearing on a permit application described in this chapter. (There shall be no reconsideration of a decision of
the director (staff), ADB or city council.) Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any appeal.
Reconsideration shall be limited to:
1. Error(s) of procedure;
2. Error(s) of law or fact;
3. Error(s) of judgment; and/or
4. The discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
have been discovered.
B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee, must be filed with the director within
10 calendar days of the issuance of the hearing examiner’s written decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the
director before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are
received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted, no matter when
such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a request for reconsideration, the day the
hearing examiner’s decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the reconsideration is a Saturday,
Sunday, or holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration may be filed on
the next business day.
D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall be in writing, be accompanied by the
required reconsideration fee, and contain the following information:
1. The name, address, email address, and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor’s statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be true, followed by his/her signature.
6. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by
11), with one-inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than
12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the hearing examiner’s decision until such time
as the hearing examiner issues a decision on reconsideration.
F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The director shall provide mailed notice that a request for reconsideration
has been filed to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.0036.020.
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 11/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
G. Hearing Examiner’s Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration
without a hearing, but may solicit written arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for
reconsideration shall be issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of record, regardless of whether
a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of record. Any ground not stated in the initial
motion is waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the hearing examiner by the city council is not
subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner’s Reconsideration. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for
reconsideration based on the administrative record compiled on the application up to and including the date of the
hearing examiner’s decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or
inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner’s decision. The reconsideration
decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify, affirm or reverse the hearing examiner’s decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on reconsideration
in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.062.009007.
20.07.00606.160 Judicial appeals.
THaving exhausted any available administrative appeals, the city’s final decision on an application may be appealed
by a party of record with standing toby filecommencing a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court.
Such petition must be filedcommenced within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C
RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
[jt1]J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing examiner’s decision, and a request for
reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial appeal must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision
on reconsideration, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 12/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Sections:
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions – Permit decisions or recommendations.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
20.07.007 Recodified (effective until September 13, 2015).
20.07.007 Resubmission of application (effective after September 13, 2015).
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. “Closed record appeal” means an administrative appeal on the record to the city council, following an open
record public hearing on a development project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no new
evidence or information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B), and only appeal
argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all permit applications and Type V land use decisions shall be as described in the matrix
set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than appeals of determinations of significance
(“DS”), and exempt permits and approvals under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated
appeal using the appeal procedure for the highest type permit application. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh.
A), 2009].
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application;
3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public
hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of
record; and/or
4. The city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions – Permit decisions or recommendations.
Appeals of a hearing body’s recommendation or decision on a permit application shall be governed by the
following:
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body’s decision.
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing body’s written decision.
The appeal period shall be extended for an additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to Chapter
43.21C RCW allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealable project
permit decision. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city’s development services department by mail or
by personal delivery at or before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 13/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were mailed or
postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body’s
decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated
by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city’s development services department
is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be filed on the next day that is
not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required appeal fee as set forth in the
city’s adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant’s name, address and phone number;
2. A statement describing appellant’s standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with specific
references to the facts in the record;
5. The specific relief sought;
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the
appellant’s signature.
7. All written submittals should be typed on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11), with one-inch margins,
using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body’s decision until such time as the appeal is
concluded or withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The development services director (hereinafter the “director”) shall provide mailed notice of
the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A),
2009].
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
A. Closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at the open record hearing before the hearing
body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall include the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies
of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
1. At his/her own expense, a party to the appeal may have the official tape recording of the open record hearing
transcribed; however, to be admitted into the record, the transcription must be performed and certified by a
transcriber that is pre-approved by the city. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the city
directly from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record review. It
shall be each party of record’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the transcription from the city.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre-approved transcribers that are court approved; and if needed, shall
coordinate with parties to the appeal so that no more than one official transcription is admitted into the record.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except: (1) new information required to
rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communication provided during an appearance of fairness
disclosure; and (2) relevant information that, in the opinion of the city council, was improperly excluded by the
hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must specifically request in writing within
five working days of the appeal deadline that the information be made part of the record. The request shall be
addressed to the city council president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 14/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
appealed, the reason(s) that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason why the
hearing body/officer erred in excluding the information.
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city council president may request other
parties of record to submit written arguments rebutting the above. Nonresponse by the city council president
within five working days of the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a
rejection of the same.
C. Parties to the appeal may present written arguments to the city council. Arguments shall describe the particular
errors committed by the decisionmaker, with specific references to the administrative record. The appellant shall
bear the burden to demonstrate that the decision is clearly erroneous given the record.
D. While not required, appellant may submit his or her written arguments 12 working days before the date scheduled
for the closed record review. Parties of record, except for the appellant, may submit his or her written arguments or
respond in writing to appellant’s arguments no later than seven working days before the closed record review.
Appellant may rebut in writing to responses submitted by parties of record no later than four working days before
the closed record review. If the applicant is not the appellant, applicant may submit a final surrebuttal in writing to
appellant’s rebuttal no later than two working days before the closed record review.
E. Written arguments, responses, rebuttal and surrebuttals must be received by the city’s development services
department by mail or personal delivery at or before 4:30 p.m. of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted.
Submittals received by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when
such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the parties involved to obtain for their
own use from the city copies of written arguments, responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals should be typed on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11), with one-inch margins,
using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided, double spaced and
without exceeding 12 pages in length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the record shall not
be allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues, if any, followed by the
opportunity for oral presentations by the director and other parties of records, including the appellant. After the
presentations, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an
opportunity for the director, appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall
not request information outside the administrative record.
If information outside the administrative record is offered (in written submittals or oral presentation) by a party of
record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide
justification in support of the objection. Objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought
before the city council begins deliberations. The party offering the information shall have the opportunity to show
where in the record said information is contained.
H. The city council shall determine whether the decision by the hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the
evidence in the record. The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer
accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the time
periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW 36.70B.080(3), the city council may remand the decision
with instructions to the hearing body for additional information.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on closed
record appeal in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.06.009. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord.
3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
The city’s final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use
petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the
decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 15/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application (effective until September 13, 2015).
Recodified to ECDC 20.02.006 by Ord. 3992.1 [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.007 Resubmission of application (effective until September 13, 2015).
Recodified to ECDC 20.02.006 by Ord. 3992.1 [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Permit Decision Making
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 1/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Chapter 20.75
SUBDIVISIONS
Sections: 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. 20.75.020 Purposes. 20.75.025 Scope. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. 20.75.035 Compliance required. 20.75.040 Application. 20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment – Application. 20.75.055 Lot combination. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision – Time limit. 20.75.075 Modifications. 20.75.080 General findings. 20.75.085 Review criteria. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval – Time limit. 20.75.105 Repealed. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval – Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. 20.75.110 Changes. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. 20.75.140 Final plat – Required certificates. 20.75.145 Final plat – Accompanying material. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. 20.75.158 Short plat – Staff review. 20.75.160 Final plat – Filing for record. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. 20.75.170 Further division – Short subdivisions. 20.75.175 Court review. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. 20.75.185 Penalties.
20.75.010 Citation of chapter. This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.020 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites
for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements;
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 2/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress, while minimizing impervious surfaces;
E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots;
F. To promote the preservation of critical areas and encourage low impact development;
G. To encourage site design that can make the best use of renewable energy resources including solar and geothermal;
H. To encourage low impact development (LID) practices when providing for streets and sidewalks. [Ord. 4085 § 18 (Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.025 Scope. This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW 58.17.040, including but not limited to:
A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots;
B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent;
C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter.
Divisions under subsections (A) and (B) of this section will not be recognized as lots for building purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.030 Subdivision defined. A. “Subdivision” means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term “lot” includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term “sale” includes lease gift or development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to “subdivision” is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both “formal subdivision” and “short subdivision” unless one or the other is specified.
B. “Formal subdivision” means a subdivision of five or more lots.
C. “Short subdivision” means a subdivision of four or fewer lots.
D. “Unit lot subdivision” means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045 where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot.
E. “Parent lot” means the lot with legal lot status which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision.
F. “Unit lot” means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a unit lot subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.035 Compliance required. Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.040 Application. Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development services director on forms provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002:
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 3/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community development department;
B. Title report;
C. A survey map, if required by the community development services director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant’s option;
D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC;
E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in-lieu fees, if desired by the applicant;
F. Source of water supply and name of supplier;
G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used;
H. Other information that may be required by the community development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983].
20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. A. Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee-owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of ECDC Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) complies, with those dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed.
B. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: multiple residential, general commercial, and Westgate mixed-use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located.
C. Association with Site Development – Application Timing. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by Chapter 20.10, 20.11, or 20.12 ECDC, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020(B)(3) submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit.
D. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030(E)) in effect at the time a complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with respect to the bulk and dimensional standards required by ECDC Title 16.
As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be evaluated based on the parent lot’s compliance with such requirements, and not based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards.
E. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 4/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
F. Homeowners’ Association Ownership of Common Areas. Any commonly used areas or facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and maintained by a homeowners’ association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation regarding the rights of the homeowners association must be submitted for recording with the final plat.
G. Maintenance Agreements for Building Exteriors. Maintenance agreements must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The maintenance agreement must require equal participation by all owners within any one building and must be recorded on the final unit lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes.
H. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat.
I. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot must be noted on the final plat.
J. An application for final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record.
K. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 20.01 ECDC and the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment – Application. A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division.
B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will:
1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before;
3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone;
4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC.
D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and shall at a minimum contain the following information:
1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the following:
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 5/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s);
b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements;
c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements;
d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements);
e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s);
f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and
g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet.
2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing:
a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted;
b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in the parcel(s);
c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and reference by auditor’s file number and/or recording number;
d. Any encumbrances on the property; and
e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property.
E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable cause.
G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998].
20.75.055 Lot combination. A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect at the time of said combination.
B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments.
C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director finds that the combination of lots would:
1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or
2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city’s comprehensive plan. The director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined, negatively impact compliance with the city’s urban density requirements as established pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning policies.
D. The director’s decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director’s decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and posting
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 6/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000].
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by-11-inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat:
A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision;
B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision;
C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map;
D. A vicinity sketch;
E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number;
F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot;
G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any;
H. Lot dimensions and numbers;
I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site;
J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of adjacent property;
K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the community development services director. Ten-foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision;
L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights-of-way, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets;
M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any;
N. The location of tree-covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning development services director;
O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed;
P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas;
Q. A statement of improvements to be installed;
R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and areas subject to flooding;
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 7/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division;
T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision;
U. Other information that may be required by the community development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.].
20.75.065 Preliminary review. A. Responsibility for Review. The community development services director, or a designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise.
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. When the director of community development services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the following for a formal subdivision:
a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days prior to the hearing.
b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the city’s boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city.
c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city-county boundary.
d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to a state highway right-of-way.
e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description in nonlegal language.
C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of filing.
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III-A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
E. Short Subdivisions – Staff Review. The director of community development services shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required).
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the community development services director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983].
20.75.070 Formal subdivision – Time limit. The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said 90 days. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010].
20.75.075 Modifications. A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the requested modification.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 8/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant’s proposed subdivision will be considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification.
C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 6, 1998].
20.75.080 General findings. A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved:
A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter.
B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest.
C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter.
D. Floodplain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2466, 1984].
20.75.085 Review criteria. The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as floodplains, steep slopes or unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with subsections (A)(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off-site impacts on drainage, views and so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 9/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from the planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of:
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19.25 ECDC, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community development services director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are met.
E. Floodplain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord. 2466, 1984].
20.75.090 Park land dedication. A. Dedication or In-Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in-lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes.
B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in-lieu fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved.
C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision.
D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land.
E. In-Lieu Fee. In-lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 10/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval – Time limit. A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds city council and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary.
B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven five years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013].
20.75.105 Extensions of time. Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983].
20.75.107 Preliminary approval – Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have expired prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their preliminary approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire and have no further validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. Notice of the two-year extension from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the parties of record of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013].
20.75.110 Changes. A. Preliminary Plats. The community development services director may approve as a Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of correction. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009].
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval, allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines that engineer plans are not necessary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.130 Installation of improvements. A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Completion – Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the completion of
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 11/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC.
C. Acceptance – Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance.
D. Short Subdivision – Deferred Installation. If the community development services director determines that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following:
A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or supervise the preparation of, the final plat.
B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s).
C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners, boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director.
D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.140 Final plat – Required certificates. The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections (A) through (G) of this section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection (G) of this section is required for formal subdivision only.
A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with:
1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision;
2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed;
3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided.
B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they have notice of the subdivision.
C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public, acknowledged by a notary.
D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required improvements.
E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner of direct access to any street from any property.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 12/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be dedicated to the public.
G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate.
H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works:
1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights-of-way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures; and approving the final plat or short subdivision.
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council, or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
I. Community Development Services Director. The following statements to be signed by the community development director:
1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the preliminary approval; and approving the final plat or shore subdivision.
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication.
K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been paid. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.145 Final plat – Accompanying material. The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat:
A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each check or recheck of the final plat.
B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or reestablished corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet.
C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner’s certificate. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.150 Waiver of survey. The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines.
If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998].
20.75.155 Review of final plat. A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 13/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include required environmental review.
C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development services director shall conduct an administrative review the final plat of a formal subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the Snohomish County superior court. They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type IV-A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140 or attaching their recommendation for disapproval.
D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of the city council approval on the final plat.
ED. Acceptance of Dedication. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the formal subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the formal subdivision. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994].
20.75.158 Short plat – Staff review. The community services director, through his/her designees, tThe director of public works and the community development services director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the Snohomish County superior court hearing examiner as a Type II decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994].
20.75.160 Final plat – Filing for record. The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered “approved” until so filed with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.165 Effect of rezones. The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided, that all requirements of the community development code, other than lot area, are met. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.170 Further division – Short subdivisions. A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2623 § 1, 1987].
20.75.175 Court review. Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 14/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
cost of transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for “lot of record” in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city’s development regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots.
A. “Lot of Record” Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain “lot of record” status for a parcel that does not meet the “lot of record” definition. To obtain this status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that:
1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not be granted;
2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm’s length transaction;
3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative;
4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject parcel as a separate lot; and
5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant.
B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already been constructed.
C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and “lot of record” status shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3982 § 3, 2014].
20.75.185 Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney’s fees. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 1/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
16.20.050 Site development standards – Accessory buildings.
A. General. Accessory buildings and structures shall meet all of the standards of ECDC 16.20.030 except as
specifically provided in this section.
B. Height. Height shall be limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their supporting
structures. Garages or other accessory buildings attached by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection to the
main building which results in a separation exceeding 10 feet in length may not exceed the 15-foot height limit. The
separation shall be determined by the minimum distance between the outside walls of the main building and
accessory building, exclusive of the connecting structure.
C. Rear Setbacks. The normally required rear setback may be reduced to a minimum of five feet for accessory
buildings covering less than 600 square feet of the site.
D. Satellite Television Antenna. A satellite television antenna which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in
diameter shall comply with the following regulations:
1. General. Satellite television antennas must be installed and maintained in compliance with the Uniform
Building and Electrical Codes as the same exist or are hereafter amended. A building permit shall be required
in order to install any such device.
2. Setbacks. In all zones subject to the provisions contained herein, a satellite television antenna shall be
located only in the rear yard of any lot. In the event that no usable satellite signal can be obtained in the rear lot
location or in the event that no rear lot exists as in the case of a corner lot, satellite television antennas shall
then be located in the side yard. In the event that a usable satellite signal cannot be obtained in either the rear or
side yard, then a roof-mounted location may be approved by the staff; provided, however, that any roof-
mounted satellite antenna shall be in a color calculated to blend in with existing roof materials and, in the case
of a parabolic, spherical or dish antenna, shall not exceed nine feet in diameter unless otherwise provided for by
this section. In no event shall any roof-mounted satellite television antenna exceed the maximum height
limitations established by this section.
3. Aesthetic. Satellite television antennas shall be finished in a nongarish, nonreflective color and surface which
shall blend into their surroundings. In the case of a parabolic, spherical or dish antenna, said antenna shall be of
a mesh construction. No commercial advertising of any kind shall be displayed on the satellite television
antenna.
4. Size and Height. Maximum size for a ground-mounted parabolic, spherical or dish antenna shall be 12 feet in
diameter. No ground-mounted antenna shall be greater than 15 feet in height unless otherwise approved for
waiver as herein provided. The height of roof-mounted satellite television antennas shall not exceed the lesser
of the height of the antenna when mounted on a standard base provided by the manufacturer or installer for
ordinary operation of the antenna or the height limitation provided by the zoning code.
5. Number. Only one satellite television antenna shall be permitted on any residential lot or parcel of land. In
no case shall a satellite television antenna be permitted to be placed on wheels or attached to a portable device
for the purpose of relocating the entire antenna on the property in order to circumvent the intentions of this
section.
E. Amateur Radio Antennas.
1. The following applications for the following approvals shall be processed as a Type II development project
permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC):
a. Requests to utilize an amateur radio antenna dish which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in
diameter;
b. Requests to utilize an antenna which:
i. Would be greater than 12 feet in height above the principal building on a site. The height of the
antenna shall be determined by reference to the highest point of the roof of the principal building,
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 2/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
exclusive of the chimney or other roof-mounted equipment. The request to locate a 12-foot antenna on
a building is limited to buildings whose height conforms to the highest limit of the zone in which the
building is located.
ii. Would exceed the height limit of the zone when mounted on the ground or on any accessory
structure (see subsection (E)(2)(d) of this section).
2. The application shall comply with the following regulations:
a. Definition. “Amateur radio antenna” means an antenna, or any combination of a mast or tower plus an
attached or mounted antenna, which transmits noncommercial communication signals and is utilized by an
operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Guy wires for amateur radio antennas are
considered part of the structure for the purpose of meeting development standards.
b. General. Amateur radio antennas must be installed and maintained in compliance with the Uniform
Building and Electrical Codes, as the same exist or are hereafter amended. A building permit shall be
required to install an amateur radio antenna.
c. Location. Amateur radio antennas may be ground- or roof-mounted, however, these devices shall:
i. Be located and constructed in such a manner as to reasonably ensure that, in its fully extended
position, it will not fall in or onto adjoining properties;
ii. Not be located within any required setback area; and
iii. Be retracted in inclement weather posing a hazard to the antenna.
d. Height. The height of a ground-mounted tower or roof-top antenna may not exceed the greater of the
height limit applicable to the zone or 65 feet when extended by a telescoping or crank-up mechanism
unless an applicant obtains a waiver (see subsection (F) of this section).
i. Only telescoping towers may exceed the height limits established by subsection (E)(1)(b) of this
section. Such towers shall comply with the height limit within the applicable zone and may only
exceed the height limit of the applicable zone and/or 65-foot height limit when extended and operating
and if a waiver has been granted.
ii. An antenna located on a nonconforming building or structure which exceeds the height limit of the
zone in which it is located shall be limited to height limit of the zone plus 12 feet.
e. Aesthetic. To the extent technically feasible and in compliance with safety regulations, specific paint
colors may be required to allow the tower to blend better with its setting.
F. Technological Impracticality – Request for Waiver.
1. The owner, licensee or adjacent property owner may apply for a waiver if:
a. Strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would make it impossible for the owner of a
satellite television antenna to receive a usable satellite signal;
b. Strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would make it impossible for the holder of any
amateur radio license to enjoy the full benefits of an FCC license or FCC protected right; or
c. An adjacent property owner or holder of an FCC license or right believes that alternatives exist which
are less burdensome to adjacent property owners.
2. The request for waiver shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner as a Type III-A decision and may be
granted upon a finding that one of the following sets of criteria have been met:
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 3/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
a. Technological Impracticality.
i. Actual compliance with the existing provisions of the city’s zoning ordinance would prevent the
satellite television antenna from receiving a usable satellite signal or prevent an individual from
exercising the rights granted to him or her by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by
license, law or FCC regulation; or
ii. The alternatives proposed by the property owner or licensee constitute the minimum necessary to
permit acquisition of a usable satellite signal by a satellite television antenna or to exercise the rights
granted pursuant to a valid FCC license, law or FCC regulation.
b. Less Burdensome Alternatives. The hearing examiner is also authorized to consider the application of
adjacent property owners for a waiver consistent with the provisions of subsection (F)(1)(c) of this section
without the requirement of a finding that a usable satellite signal cannot be acquired when the applicant or
adjacent property owner(s) establish that the alternatives proposed by the applicant are less burdensome to
the adjacent property owners than the requirements which would otherwise be imposed under this section.
For example, adjacent property owners may request alternative or additional screening or the relocation of
the antenna on the licensee’s property. In the interactive process described in subsection (F)(3) of this
section, the hearing examiner shall attempt to balance the impact of the tower on the views of adjacent
properties, as well as the impacts of alternative screening and relocation in order to equitably distribute
any negative impacts among the neighbors while imposing reasonable conditions on the antenna, its
location and screening that do not impair the rights granted by the FCC to the licensee.
3. The process shall be an interactive one in which the hearing examiner works with the licensee to craft
conditions which place the minimum possible burden on adjacent property owners while permitting the owner
of the satellite antenna or holder of an amateur radio license to fully exercise the rights which he or she has
been granted by federal law. For example, the number of antennas and size of the array shall be no greater than
that necessary to enjoy full use of the FCC license. Conditions may include but are not limited to requirements
for screening and landscaping, review of the color, reflectivity and mass of the proposed satellite television
antenna or amateur radio facilities, and other reasonable restrictions. Any restriction shall be consistent with the
intent of the city council that a waiver to the antenna owner be granted only when necessary to permit the
satellite television antenna to acquire usable satellite signal or to allow the licensee to exercise the rights
granted by Federal Communications Commission license after consideration of aesthetic harmony of the
community. The process employed should involve the interaction of the licensee or owner and the
neighborhood. Certain issues have been preempted by federal law and shall not be considered by the hearing
examiner. Such issues include, but are not limited to, the impacts of electromagnetic radiation, the potential
interference of the amateur radio facility with electronic devices in the neighborhood and any other matter
preempted by federal law or regulation. Impact on view and on the values of neighboring properties may be
considered in imposing reasonable conditions but shall not be a basis for denial of a permit to construct the
antenna.
4. The application fee and notification for consideration of the waiver by an owner of a satellite television
antenna shall be the same as that provided for processing a variance. No fee shall be charged to the holder of a
valid FCC amateur radio license.
5. In the event that an applicant for waiver is also obligated to undergo architectural design review, the
architectural design board shall defer any issues relating to the antenna and/or other amateur radio equipment to
the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may, at his or her discretion, request the architectural design board
review and comment regarding required screening and landscaping and its integration into sight and
landscaping plans. No additional fee shall be required of the applicant upon such referral.
G. The provisions of subsections (D), (E) and (F) of this section shall be interpreted in accordance with the
regulations of the Federal Communications Commission including but not limited to PRB-1. In the event of
ambiguity or conflict with any of the apparent provisions of this section, the provisions of federal regulations shall
control. [Ord. 3736 §§ 8, 9, 2009; Ord. 3728 § 3, 2009; Ord. 3547 § 1, 2005].
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 4/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
17.00.030 Application of regulations.
A. Code Compliance Required. All land in the city shall be used, and all buildings shall be built, structurally altered,
or moved onto a site, only in compliance with all regulations of this zoning ordinance.
B. Setbacks – Density.
1. Any setback, yard, minimum lot size, or open space required by this zoning ordinance for one use may not
be used to meet minimum requirements of this zoning ordinance for any other use.
2. When an existing lot is subdivided, or is the subject of a lot line adjustment, the new lot lines will not make
any existing improvements nonconforming to the regulations of this zoning ordinance.
C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency
shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a
location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the
action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council.
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
G. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely
for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without
regard to the limitations of subsections (B), (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are
met:
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or structure.
“Footprint” shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in which
the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar features; and
provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded by more than 10 percent and
is found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with
current codes.
2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No
nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state
law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or
reconstruction.
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming
accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it
is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure after
complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff
decision., except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than to the hearing examiner.
The decision of the ADB hearing examiner shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC
20.07.00620.06.160.
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units.
A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which registered with the city during the registration period
which ended October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal nonconforming detached and attached
accessory dwelling units (ADU). Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined in Chapter 20.21 ECDC.
B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU shall enjoy all the protections and privileges afforded
to a nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020; provided, however, that such ADU shall be
subject to the permit review requirement of ECDC 20.100.040 to the end that the city council reserves the right to
impose additional conditions on the continued use and occupancy of the formerly illegal ADU if it is found to
constitute a nuisance or present a hazardous condition, or to revoke such registration and permit if a nuisance or
hazardous condition relating to the ADU is not abated.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 5/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit certificate confirming such status and listing the physical
dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be continued in accordance with such permit certificate;
provided, however, that the registration and permit of a formerly illegal ADU may be revoked and/or conditioned in
accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.100.040.
D. Failure to register a structure within the time period established by the provisions of this section shall be
considered to be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject to abatement. The owner of such
structure may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent evidence which
establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was
permitted by Snohomish County or the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete
compliance with the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the dates such construction
was initiated and was completed. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.75.020 Outdoor dining – Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit.
Outdoor dining not meeting the requirements of ECDC 17.75.010 shall be a secondary use requiring a conditional
use permit within the zones stated in ECDC 17.75.010(A). This use shall be established and maintained only in
accordance with the terms of a conditional use permit approved by the hearing examiner as a Type III-A decision
under the procedural requirements contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for
imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on operating hours, location of the outdoor seating,
and/or buffering of the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All seating permitted pursuant
to the conditional use permit shall be located outside of public rights-of-way. If outdoor seating is approved under
these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required for the outdoor dining. [Ord. 3871 § 1 (Att. A), 2012;
Ord. 3783 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 19, 2009; Ord. 3628 § 4, 2007; Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000].
17.100.030 Conditional use permits (CUP) – Community churches and schools requiring a CUP.
A. All new churches and schools and any nonconforming church or school whose review has been triggered
pursuant to ECDC 17.40.050 shall register with the staff on a form developed for its use. The staff shall determine
which churches qualify as neighborhood churches; churches failing to register shall be presumed to be community
churches.
B. Decisions to approve, condition, or deny a CUP; to review a CUP; or decline to renew a CUP shall be a Type III-
A decision. [Ord. 3783 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 23, 2009; Ord. 3353 § 12, 2001].
19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments.
I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read:
1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after
issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2).
2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be
extended, unless they are associated with a primary building permit for a larger construction
project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit:
Demolition permits;
Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC;
Mechanical permits;
Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits;
Grading, excavation and fill permits;
Water service line permits;
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 6/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Plumbing permits;
Gas piping permits;
Deck and dock permits;
Fence permits;
Re-roof permits;
Retaining wall permits;
Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits;
Sign permits;
Shoring permits;
Foundation permits.
3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for
an additional year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection
conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended.
Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend
the permit.
4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period
of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an
extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress
inspection conducted by the city building inspector after the previous extension, the permit
shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building
permit fee to extend the permit.
5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three
(3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit
issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required,
with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior
permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is
filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC
20.07.00420.06.040 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed
until final decision.
6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that
modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred
since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would
significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of
a new permit.
20.05.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on conditional use permit applications as Type III-A
decisions as set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
B. Appeals. Appeals shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 7/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit or, if no building permit is required, substantially
commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be
null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration date.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any extension of time shall be reviewed by the community
development director as a Type II decision.
E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be
transferred to any other property.
F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if the proposal cannot be conditioned so that the
required findings can be made. [Ord. 3783 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 37, 2009; Ord. 2270 § 1,
1982].
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
A development agreement is a Type IV development project permit application and shall be processed in accordance
with the procedures established in this title. A development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city
council after a public hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.11.010 Review procedure – General design review.
A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold
determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be approved by staff
as a Type I decision. When design review is required by the ADB, proposed development shall be processed as a
Type III-B decision. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the application as follows:
1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of applications:
a. Applications that are not consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B).
b. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which the ADB serves as
the sole decision-making authority.
c. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which all decision-making
authority is exercised both by staff, pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, and by the ADB.
The ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications.
2. The ADB shall review proposed developments at public meetings without a public hearing and make
recommendations to the hearing examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny proposals for
developments that, although consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B), are not subject to a public
hearing by the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently hold a
public hearing on the proposal.
3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this
section shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing examiner may continue
its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes to the proposal, or to obtain information needed to properly
review the proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required by this chapter.
4. Notwithstanding any contrary requirement, for a development in which the city is the applicant, the action of
the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this
section shall be a recommendation to the city council.
B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are
subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be provided
in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 39, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.12.010 Applicability.
The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 8/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
developments may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When
design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III-B
decision. [Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.11.040 Appeals.
All design review decisions of the hearing examiner or the ADB are appealable to superior court in accordance with
Chapter 36.70C RCW. appealable to the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 40, 2009;
Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.12.080 Appeals.
A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in
accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.appealable to the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07 ECDC. These are
the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable.
B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable appealable to superior court in accordance
with Chapter 36.70C RCW.to the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that
the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC.
Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal.
Reconsideration of the hearing examiner’s ruling shall be governed by ECDC 20.06.010150. The decision of the
hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.Appeal of the hearing
examiner’s ruling shall be governed by Chapter 20.07 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 48, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord.
3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.130 Building permit application.
A. Any building permit for an EPF approved under this chapter shall comply with all conditions of approval in the
conditional use permit. In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied, suspended or revoked due to a failure to
comply, the department shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project sponsor.
B. No construction permits may be applied for prior to conditional use approval of the EPF unless the applicant
signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the department’s
acceptance of the construction permit applications. The applicant shall expressly accept all financial risk associated
with preparing and submitting construction plans before the final decision is made under this chapter.
C. Building permits for an EPF which fail to comply with the conditions of approval shall be suspended and a report
made to the director. The director shall institute a proceeding before the hearing examiner to permit the EPF’s
sponsor a hearing at which to show cause why its conditional use permit should not be revoked or further
conditioned. Such hearing shall be conducted as if it were a Type III-A decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06
ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 49, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.35.080 Review process.
A. An application for a PRD has two stages. The first stage, the preliminary PRD, includes the following:
1. Pre-Application Staff Review. The preliminary plans of the proposal shall be submitted to the planning
manager for review and comment. This provides an opportunity for the developer to work with the city staff to
design a total plan which best meets the goals of the city and the needs of the developer. Such potential
problems as drainage, topography, circulation, site design and neighborhood impact should be identified and
addressed before the proposal is submitted for formal review.
2. Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant shall host a public pre-application neighborhood
meeting to discuss and receive public comment on the conceptual proposal. The applicant shall provide notice
of this meeting to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site by depositing written notice in the U.S.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 9/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Mail postage paid at least 14 calendar days in advance of the meeting to all persons and entities shown as
having an ownership interest in the land records of Snohomish County. An affidavit of mailing shall be
provided to the city by the applicant attaching its mailing list.
While this meeting will allow immediate public response to the proposal in its conceptual form, comments
submitted during this meeting are not binding to the applicant or staff. However, staff may make general
recommendations to the applicant as part of the formal application based on the input from this meeting to the
extent that said comments are consistent with the adopted provisions of the Edmonds Community Development
Code and the comprehensive plan. As a courtesy, the applicant shall provide summary minutes of the meeting
to all of those in attendance within two weeks of the date of the meeting.
3. Review by the Architectural Design Board. The design board will review the project for compliance with the
urban design guidelines, landscaping, and/or the single-family design criteria in ECDC 20.35.060 and forward
their recommendation of the site and building design on to the hearing examiner for his consideration. Their
review will be at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, but will not include a public hearing or the ability
for the public to comment on the project.
4. The Public Hearing with the Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner shall review the proposed PRD for
compliance with this section as a Type III-B decision.
If, after all appeals are exhausted, the proposal is denied, a similar plan for the site may not be submitted to the
development services department for one year. A new plan which varies substantially from the denied proposal,
as determined by the development services director, or one that satisfies the objections stated by the final
decision-maker may be submitted at any time.
An applicant who intends to subdivide the land for sale as part of the project shall obtain subdivision approval
in accordance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC before any building permit or authorization to begin construction is
issued, and before sale of any portion of the property. The preferred method is for the applicant to process the
subdivision application concurrently with the planned residential development proposal.
B. The second stage of the PRD process, the final PRD, consists of the city’s review of the final plans for
consistency with the preliminary PRD as approved. The decision at this stage will be made by city staff unless the
final PRD is submitted as a consolidated application with a permit that requires city council review, i.e., a formal
subdivision plat. The final PRD will be subject to the following review:
1. The applicant shall submit the final development plan to the development services director, conforming to
the preliminary plan as approved, and all applicable conditions of that approval. The planning manager shall
review the plan along with the city engineer and make a final decision. The plan shall contain final, precise
drawings of all the information required by ECDC 20.35.030. The applicant shall also submit all covenants,
homeowners’ association papers, maintenance agreements, and other relevant legal documents.
2. If city staff finds that the final development plan conforms to the preliminary approval, and to all applicable
conditions, staff shall approve the plan and its accompanying conditions as a covenant which touches and
concerns the subject property, incorporating by reference all maps, drawings and exhibits required to specify
the precise land use authorized. A file shall be maintained by the development services department containing
all maps and other documents or exhibits referred to in the approval. The approval shall also contain a legal
description of the boundary of the proposal. The covenant shall be recorded with the county auditor if no
subdivision plat is to be recorded.
3. The provisions of approval shall be restrictions on the development of the site. Revocation of approval or
abandonment as provided in this chapter shall eliminate all requirements imposed under the planned residential
development plan, such as alternative bulk development standards, and shall cause the old underlying bulk
development standards to be in full force and effect. [Ord. 3822 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 3, 2010; Ord. 3465 § 1,
2003].
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 10/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.45.050 Review of changes to Edmonds register of historic places properties.
A. Review Required. No person shall change the use, construct any new building or structure, or reconstruct, alter,
restore, remodel, repair, move or demolish any existing property on the Edmonds register of historic places or within
a historic district on the Edmonds register of historic places without review by the commission and without receipt
of a certificate of appropriateness, or in the case of demolition, a waiver, as a result of the review.
The review shall apply to all features of the property, interior and exterior, that contribute to its designation and are
listed on the nomination form. Information required by the commission to review the proposed changes are
established in rules.
B. Exemptions. The following activities do not require a certificate of appropriateness or review by the commission:
ordinary repair and maintenance which includes painting or emergency measures defined in ECDC 20.45.000 (K).
C. Review Process.
1. Requests for Review and Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Waiver. The building or zoning
official shall report any application for a permit to work on a designated Edmonds register property or in an
Edmonds register historic district to the commission. If the activity is not exempt from review, the commission
shall notify the applicant of the review requirements. The building or zoning official shall not issue any such
permit until a certificate of appropriateness or a waiver is received from the commission but shall work with the
commission in considering building and fire code requirements.
2. Commission Review. The owner or his/her agent (architect, contractor, lessee, etc.) shall apply to the
commission for a review of proposed changes on an Edmonds register property and request a certificate of
appropriateness or, in the case of demolition, a waiver. Each application for review of proposed changes shall
be accompanied by such information as is required by the commission established in its rules for the proper
review of the proposed project.
The commission shall meet with the applicant and review the proposed work according to the design review criteria
established in rules. Unless legally required, there shall be no notice, posting or publication requirements for action
on the application, but all such actions shall be made at regular meetings of the commission. The commission shall
complete its review and make its recommendations within 30 days of the date of receipt of the application. If the
commission is unable to process the request, the commission may ask for an extension of time.
The commission’s recommendations shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon in
reaching its decision. Any conditions agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of
approval of the permits granted. If the owner agrees to the commission’s recommendations, a certificate of
appropriateness shall be awarded by the commission according to standards established in the commission’s rules.
The commission’s recommendations and, if awarded, the certificate of appropriateness, shall be transmitted to the
building or zoning official. If a certificate of appropriateness is awarded, the building or zoning official may then
issue the permit.
3. Demolition. A waiver of the certificate of appropriateness is required before a permit may be issued to allow
whole or partial demolition of a designated Edmonds register property or in an Edmonds register historical
district. The owner or his/her agent shall apply to the commission for a review of the proposed demolition and
request a waiver. The applicant shall meet with the commission in an attempt to find alternatives to demolition.
These negotiations may last no longer than 45 days from the initial meeting of the commission, unless either
party requests an extension. If no request for an extension is made and no alternative to demolition has been
agreed to, the commission shall act and advise the official in charge of issuing a demolition permit of the
commission’s decision on the waiver of a certificate of appropriateness. Conditions in the case of granting a
demolition permit may include allowing the commission up to 45 additional days to develop alternatives to
demolition. When issuing a waiver the commission may require the owner to mitigate the loss of the Edmonds
register property by means determined by the commission at the meeting. Any conditions agreed to by the
applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval of the permits granted. After the property
is demolished, the commission shall initiate removal of the property from the register.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 11/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
4. Appeal of the Commission’s Decision on a Waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The commission’s
decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness shall be appealable to the hearing examiner
pursuant to Chapter 20.06 ECDC may be appealed to the city council within 14 calendar days. The appeal must
state the grounds upon which the appeal is based.
The appeal shall be reviewed by the council only on the records of the commission. Appeal of council’s hearing
examiner’s decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness may be appealed to superior court. [Ord.
3397 § 1, 2002].
20.50.060 Permit requirements.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this chapter
without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein,
the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of this title and ECDC Title 18.
B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted.
Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table
20.50.060(B)(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to
determine what permits are required for the proposed facility. The conditional use permit types referenced are
described in Chapter 20.01 ECDC.
Table 20.50.060(B)(1) – Permit Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities
Type of Wireless Communication Facility
Permits Required
Building Permit Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) Right-of-Way Permit
Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on an existing
structure or monopole X X (as applicable)
New structure-mounted facilities involving structure replacement
to obtain additional height X (as applicable) X (Type II) X (as applicable)
New monopole facilities (pole complies with height requirement
of the underlying zone in ECDC Title 16) X X (as applicable)
New monopole facilities (pole exceeds maximum height of zone
in ECDC Title 16) X X (Type III-B) X (as applicable)
C. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects located on public or private property shall be
reviewed and evaluated by the director, or his designee. The director of public works or his/her designee shall
review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are located partially or fully within the city rights-of-way.
Regardless of whether the director or the director of public works or their respective designees are reviewing the
application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
D. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable
design standards by the director or his designee.
E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body with
jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.).
F. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility
which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development standards established by the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under
Chapter 20.85 ECDC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based solely on the exceptions set forth in
this chapter.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 12/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
H. Third Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically based
computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the
proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and
topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the
engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The city may at its discretion require third
party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical third party review
shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third party expert review is intended
to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-specific review of engineering and technical
aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants’ methodology and
equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant.
Based on the results of the expert review, the city may require changes to the proposal. The third party review
shall address the following:
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other site or sites in the city for the use intended by the applicant; and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the city.
I. Any decision by the director or the director of public works shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a
decision by the city to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless
communication facility.
J. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the director, director of public works, or hearing
examiner without the approval of the city.
K. Co-location of additional antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to increase the
nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed; provided, no increase to the height of a nonconforming
monopole is allowed. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.080 Review time frames.
A. Co-Located Facilities (Building- and Structure-Mounted).
1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering
permit, the city shall issue a final decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is
determined to be complete. The city shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the
application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the city shall inform the applicant in writing of the
documentation needed to make the application complete. The city shall have 14 days from the receipt of the
additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. Such
decision shall be final and appealable only to superior court under the Land Use Permit Act.
2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the city and the
applicant if circumstances warrant.
3. For purposes of this section, “co-located facilities” includes any of the following types of facilities:
a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing monopole, building or structure; or
b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a monopole. For purposes of this
section, “substantial increase in the size of a monopole” means:
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 13/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
i. The mounting of the proposed antenna on the monopole would increase the existing height of the
monopole by more than 10 percent or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation
from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater; provided, however, that
the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if
necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas;
ii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one
new equipment shelter;
iii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the
monopole that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet, or more than the width of
the monopole at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the
proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if necessary to shelter the
antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the monopole via cable; or
iv. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current monopole site,
defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any
access or utility easements currently related to the site; or
c. Facilities that are a part of a distributed antenna system; provided, that the distributed antenna system
connects to an existing tower or antenna.
B. New Monopoles. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III-B conditional use permit shall meet the
requirements of Chapter 20.05 ECDC. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.110 New monopole facility standards.
A. New monopoles are not permitted within the city unless the applicant has demonstrated that:
1. Coverage Objective. There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will
eliminate such gap in service; and
2. Alternatives. No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other alternative technologies
not requiring a new monopole in the city, can accommodate the applicant’s proposed wireless communication
facility; and
3. Least Intrusive. The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the
gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this
chapter, this title, and the comprehensive plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 14/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Acceptable Monopole WCF (Possible Co-Location Opportunity)
Acceptable Monopole WCF
B. All monopole facilities shall conform to the following site development standards:
1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures
and other existing site features camouflage these facilities.
2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the
facility.
3. Equipment Enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located underground. If the
enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be underground. If there is no other choice but to
locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure
which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
4. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of
the structure which supports the antennas.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 15/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Review Criteria. The hearing examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum
height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per Chapter 20.05 ECDC), and shall determine whether or
not each of the above standards is met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the Type III-B conditional use permit
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective;
2. That no existing monopoles, structures or alternative site(s) are located within the geographic area that meet
the applicant’s engineering requirements to fulfill its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical
boundaries of the city);
3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a
sufficient height to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective;
4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant’s
proposed antenna and ancillary facilities;
5. That the applicant’s proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with antennas on the
existing monopoles or structures, or the antennas on existing structures would cause interference with the
applicant’s proposed antenna;
6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is unsuitable. Costs of
alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the
technology unsuitable; and
7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and structures or other sites
or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified
by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required.
D. Zoning Setback Exceptions.
1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks identified in
ECDC Title 16. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the
goal of this section of concealing such facilities from view.
2. The director or hearing examiner, depending on the type of application, may approve modifications to be
made to setbacks when:
a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain
portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the
existing setback requirements; or
b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or
c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance
from residentially zoned properties.
3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any setback required under the State
Building Code or Fire Code.
4. A request for a setback exception shall be made at the time the initial application is submitted. [Ord. 3961 §
1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.60.015 Design review procedures.
A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section,
and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all
applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in
accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000 and the standards and requirements of this chapter; provided, that
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 16/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review the application in accordance with the criteria
set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall
be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural design board are appealable to the hearing examiner.
1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for
the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential
for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety:
a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter;
b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter;
c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not
consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood.
B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed in
subsection (B)(1) of this section and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1)
of this section.
1. The ADB shall review any sign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards
prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests that arise from one of the
following two situations:
a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two
streets, or has an unusual geometric shape or topography;
b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that
substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity.
2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria:
a. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and
proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity;
b. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by
more than 50 percent.
C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the
planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in
accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may
make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or
artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme,
style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural
or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the city councilhearing examiner pursuant to the procedure established in
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality
and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message
expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design
or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown
area.
2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to:
a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork;
b. Minimum one-fourth-inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component;
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 17/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
c. Material/color samples;
d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight-and-one-half-inch-by-11-inch format to include a
description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a
schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist’s resume; and evidence of assumption of
liability by applicant or designee; and
e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the
historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated
historic district.
3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include:
a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no
fluorescent paints;
b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering.
Consideration should be given to anti-graffiti coating; and
c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent
structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale,
color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may
be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not
be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an
existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the
existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the
same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 4064 § 1 (Att. A), 2017; Ord. 4039
§ 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.85.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type III-A decisions in accordance with provisions of
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
B. Appeals. Appeals of hearing examiner decisions on variance shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in
accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or
the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before
the expiration and the city approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community
development director as a Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required).
E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to
any other property. [Ord. 3783 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 70, 2009].
23.40.195 Contingent review procedure for certain types of development.
A. Scope. The procedures set forth in this section shall apply to the following types of critical area restoration
projects as allowed by ECDC 23.40.215:
1. Restoration projects involving anadromous fish streams;
2. Restoration projects involving Category I or Category II wetlands;
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 18/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
3. Restoration projects involving Category I or Category II estuarine wetlands.
B. Notice of Application. Development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section shall be processed
as a Type II application, unless the process is altered according to subsection (D) of this section. In addition to the
notice provided pursuant to ECDC Title 20, notice of application for all such development shall also be sent to the
city council by email.
C. Contingent Review Process. Development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section shall be
escalated to a Type III-A process when:
1. The city receives a request from any person for a public hearing within 14 days of the date of the notice of
application; and
2. The public hearing request is accompanied by a hearing fee in the amount of 50 percent of the difference
between the Type II and Type III-A application fee.
D. Effect of Contingent Review. When the contingent review process is triggered pursuant to subsection (C) of this
section, the project applicant shall pay the other 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III-A
application fee, on top of the previously paid Type II application fee. The applicant shall pay this fee within 30 days
of notice from the city that the fee is due. If the applicant fails to pay the additional fee within the required 30-day
period, the application for the project shall be deemed withdrawn. The city shall not schedule the public hearing
until the additional fee has been paid. For these public hearings, the cost of the hearing examiner shall be borne by
the city.
E. Notice of Decision. Whether development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section is processed
as a Type II application or escalated to a Type III-A application, notice of decision shall be sent by email to the city
council in addition to any other notice that may be required by ECDC Title 20. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016].
20.100.040 Review of approved permits.
A. Scope. Any permit approved by the city under the community development code may be reviewed under this
section if the conditions of the permit are not being met, the requirements of the city code of Edmonds are not being
met, or the permitted activity is causing a nuisance or hazardous condition. A permit includes any city approval
under the community development code.
B. Initiation of Review. A review under this section may be initiated by:
1. The community development director;
2. An approved motion of the city council;
3. An application, accompanied by the application fee set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC, of three persons living in
separate dwellings located within 300 feet of the site of the allowed activity stating their belief as to how the
provisions of subsection A of this section have been met.
C. Review Procedure.
1. The director of community services shall notify the permittee in writing that the permit is being reviewed, list the
alleged deficiencies, and specify a reasonable time for the permittee to correct the deficiencies.
2. If the permittee could reasonably correct the deficiencies, but fails to do so within the specified time, the director
of community services may refer the matter to the city attorney for criminal or civil enforcement of the city code, or
the conditions of the permit.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 19/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
3. If the only reasonable ways to correct the deficiencies are for the permittee to cease the permitted activity, or for
the city to impose new or changed conditions on the permit, the director of community services shall refer the matter
to the hearing examiner for review.
4. The hearing examiner shall hold a public hearing under Chapter 20.91 ECDC to review the permit or approval,
using criteria required for the original permit, and subsection A of this section.
5. If the hearing examiner finds that deficiencies exist, and that they can be reasonably corrected by imposing new or
changed conditions on the permit, the permit conditions may be changed. The hearing examiner’s actions shall be
final, unless the original approval required city council approval. In that case, the hearing examiner’s action shall be
a recommendation to the council to be considered by the council under ECDC 20.100.030.
6. If the hearing examiner finds that the only reasonable way to correct the deficiencies is for the permittee to cease
the permitted activity, the hearing examiner may revoke the permit. The hearing examiner’s action shall be
appealable to the city council under ECDC 20.100.010.
7. If the permit is revoked, the permit shall be null and void, and all activity allowed by the permit shall cease. [Ord.
3112 § 29, 1996].
NEW SECTION
20.110.045 Suspension or revocation of permit.
The city shall retain the right to suspend or revoke a permit issued under this development code that fails to comply
with any conditions of approval of said permit, or which operates in a manner inconsistent with representation made
in the application. The suspension or revocation of a permit may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner under
Chapter 20.06. ECDC. Upon receipt of a timely appeal under Chapter 20.06 ECDC, suspension or revocation shall
by stayed pending decision on the appeal; provided that such a stay shall affect any stop work order issued by the
Director.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From: Gary Nelson [garynelsonsmail@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 10,2018 5:51 PM
To: Nathan Monroe (Planning Board)
Cc: Monillas, Adrienne; Teitzel, Dave; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Nelson, Michael; Tibbott,
Neil; Mesaros, Thomas
Subject: Hearing Examiner APPeals
Mr. Chaiffnan and members of the Planning Board:
I am submitting remarks which address the Edmonds City Council Resolution
1367 and the Edmonds Development Services Staff who have submitted to the
Planning Board the issue regarding the implementation of quasi-judicial
HEARING EXAMINER APPEALS.
The proposed change in procedure would require that citizen appeals of Hearing
Examiner decisions on Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) issues (See RCW 36.70C
attached) would go to the Snohomish County Superior Court.
Currently, appeals of the Hearing Examiner decisions are submitted to and heard
by the city council. The contemplated change impacts both applicant appeals and
appeals by interveners, such as abutting property owners, neighborhood groups,
and interested citizens who wish to address Hearing Examiner decisions on land
use applications that have been approved or denied.
These are some of the imoacts to Edm 's citizens.
1. SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FILING FEES V/OULD BE
IMPOSED
FEE CATEGORY REFERENCE
$240.00 Land use Petition RCw 36.70C.040; RCW 36.18.020(2,5)
2. CITIZENS WILL REQUIRE REPRESENTATION BY AN ATTORNEY
Typically, most attorneys will charge $200.00 to $500.00 per hour for time involved.
3. THE FILED APPEAL WILL CAUSE DELAYS IN RESOLVING EACH CASE
As of August28,2017, the waiting time for a LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9
to 10 months, dependent on case loads of Superior Court Judges
4. HEARING EXAMINER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IS QUESTIONABLE
7.1.h
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Since the City Council will be bypassed and unaware of current appeals, any observations of
hearing examiner performance are lost. The hearing examiner decisions together with city staff
submissions to the examiner or the court are sheltered from oversight by the Mayor or City
Council. The yearly Hearing Examiner Report will no longer be a timely evaluation procedure
for review ofthese decisions and appeals.
5. ADDITIONAL TIME AND EXPENSES BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner decisions will require that the City of Edmonds be represented
by the City Attorney together with planning staff at the court hearing. The City Attorney will
submit additional hours for reimbursement. The staff will be diverted from their normal job
functions in preparing and appearing in court.
6. A CHANGE CREATES AN UNFRIENDLY APPEAL PROCESS
Citizens are subjected to a process where the hearing examiner can issue any ruling and an
Edmonds citizen is not allowed to present overlooked facts to the local elected offrcials.
Representation has been sabotaged by the proposed change in process. Most citizens object to
this departure from what is expected from the city council members.
It should be noted, that on November 8r2016, a ballot measure embodied as Snohomish
Counfy Charter Amendment Proposition 4, proposed this same quasi-judicial approach
such that Hearing Examiner Appeals would be submitted to the court. The results from
Edmonds residents on this measure was 57.77" NO
It is recommended that the Planning Board report to the City
Council that the current appeals process should be retained.
Submitted by: Gury Nelson, 9710 Wharf Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
425-778-8362,sarvnelson l.com
*RCV/ 36.7 0C Definitions
"(2) "Land use decision" means a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer
with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to
hear appeals, on:
7.1.h
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
(a) An application for a project permit or other goverrìmental approval required by law before
real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used, but excluding
applications for permits or approvals to use, vacate, or transfet streets, parks, and similar types of
public property; excluding applications for legislative approvals such as area-wide rezones and
annexations; and excluding applications for business licenses;
(b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property
of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvemento development, modification,
maintenance, or use of real property; and
(c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the improvement,
development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property. However, when a local
jurisdiction is required by law to enforce the ordinances in a court of limited jurisdiction, a
petition may not be brought under this chapter.
V/here a local jurisdiction allows or requires a motion for reconsideration to the highest level
of authority making the determination, and a timely motion for reconsideration has been filed,
the land use decision occurs on the date a decision is entered on the motion for reconsideration,
and not the date of the original decision for which the motion for reconsideration was filed."
These are typical issues that would need to be filed in the Superior Court:
1. Subdivisionapplications
2. Critical area delineation
3. Zoning applications
4. Comprehensive plan designation
5. Conditional use permit
6. Special use permits such as tree removal, hydraulic permits, etc
7. Variances8. Boundary line adjustment
7.1.h
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
7.1.h
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 13
Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13th, followed by further Planning Board discussion on June 27th. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion. Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and recommendations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high-income, single-family, commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance, they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower-income housing. These developments may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing Strategy has been adopted. Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project in 2018. Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board’s suggestions was to stress “aging in place.” The solution to aging in place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate toolbox for the City to work from. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public’s concerns and ideas. However, staff could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27th. Board Member
Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She appreciates when this information is part of the Board’s packet. The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Board Member Crank left the meeting and did not return. PERMIT DECISION MAKING – QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien provided a broad overview of the City’s current decision-making processes and referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, which lays out the framework for the different types of permit decisions within the City. He explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial and administrative
7.1.i
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Exhibit 9: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 14
decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means “court like,” which implies that the proceedings must be similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision-making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision-making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them, they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if for making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following:
• Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD).
• Applications (Type IV-A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications from public agencies. Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments:
• Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III-A column and the “A” and “B” qualifiers would be removed.
Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the “A” and “B” qualifiers from the text.
• Leave site-specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council. Site-specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council.
• Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV-A). Typically, all of the subdivision improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council’s final approval is simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel.
• Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.C requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for
when a variance may be granted. Currently, public agency variances require a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed record hearing. As proposed, the Hearing Examiner would make the decision on all variance applications.
• Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not
7.1.i
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Exhibit 9: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 15
being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995. The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC 20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However, ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process.
• Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single
chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney
has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a
briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board’s review on June 27th with a potential public hearing on July 25th followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing. Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the “review of approved permits” clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet. The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision-making process, and the provision has only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision-making processes. It is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial
decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council’s request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she
suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However, he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed.
The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 27th without an additional study session. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the extended agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
7.1.i
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit 9: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 2
review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July 12th, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council’s intent to update the wetland regulations with the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING-QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision-making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution. Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003:
• Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and staff administrative design review.
• Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits, administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required.
• Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III-A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required, shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III-A decisions are not appealable to the City Council. Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments (PRDs).
• Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final PRDs and site-specific rezones.
• Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area-wide zoning map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations. Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision-making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council’s discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision-making
7.1.j
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 3
making responsibility. Some code changes have already been implemented since adoption of the resolution. For example, the City Council was removed from the appeal process for decisions related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He reviewed the current proposal as follows:
• The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would be modified by changing all Type III-B decisions that were appealable to the City Council to Type III-A decisions that are appealable to Superior Court and not the City Council. The Type III-B decision process would then be eliminated.
• The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would also be modified to make development agreements, which are currently listed as Type V legislative decisions, Type IV quasi-judicial decisions. As proposed the process for development agreements would be similar to the process for site-specific rezones.
• A number of amendments are proposed to update existing code language to be consistent with the changes proposed in Table 20.01.003. These changes were identified via an electronic search of the entire code.
• The proposal would move final plat approval for subdivisions and PRDs from being Type IV-A quasi-judicial decisions before the City Council to being Type I administrative decisions. Subdivisions and PRDs require a multi-step process that starts with preliminary plat approval by the Hearing Examiner who may identify a number of conditions. The next step is civil design and infrastructure work. By the time final plats and PRDs get to the City Council for final approval, all of the preliminary requirements have been met and often all of the improvements have been installed and there is very little the City Council can do to affect change. Consistent with recent Senate Bill
5674, which allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel, proposed amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would remove the City Council from the final approval process.
• An additional change would be made to ECDC 20.75 to update the approval time periods. During the recent economic downturn, changes were made to extend the approval period for final and preliminary plats. However, this provision has expired and will be removed.
• All references in the code to Community Development Director will be changed to Community Services Director.
• ECDC 17.00.030.C would be amended by eliminating the sentence that requires the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Currently, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed-record hearing and makes the final decision. This amendment would take the City Council out of this quasi-judicial process.
• ECDC 20.100.040 is currently a problematic code section that is likely noncompliant with State law. It allows a property owner within a certain distance of a subject property to request that the permit be opened up again once it
has been approved. Essentially, the provision could result in endless public hearings and was drafted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, which limits the number of open record hearings to just one. The provision also runs
counter to the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70A), which states that once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with
permitting criteria when approved. It also prohibits projects from being collaterally attacked through other administrative permit review processes. Given these legal ramifications, staff is recommending that the provisions be
deleted. However, to ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) would be
added.
• There is confusion between Open Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.06) versus Closed Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.07). Currently, appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decisions are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. The proposal is to combine the two sections into a single chapter and provide additional details about the appeal format and procedures before the Hearing Examiner.
7.1.j
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 4
• ECDC 20.01.003 currently identifies the approval process for development agreements as a Type V legislative action.
The City Attorney has recommended that the approval process for development agreements be modified to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board who would make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would hear the proposal in a closed record hearing format. Development agreements are similar to contract rezones and provide a way for the City to place more restrictive requirements on a project than the underlying zoning would allow. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the
development agreement. For example, a site-specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. Therefore, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial process.
Board Member Lovell clarified that, as currently proposed, Type III decisions would require an open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said that would be true in most cases, but the ADB would participate in the design
review process for applications that require SEPA. He referred back to the Table in ECDC 20.01.003, which outlines the types of actions and their respective review processes. As proposed, all of the permits that are appealable to the City Council now would be changed to be appealable to Superior Court. The only exception would be site-specific rezones and development agreements, which would be appealable to the City Council via a closed record public hearing. Board Member Lovell asked
if the City Council would have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer about what the appropriate conditions of a development agreement might be. City Attorney Taraday described how he envisions the development agreement process moving forward, starting with him
working with the staff and applicant to craft a draft development agreement to present to the Planning Board in an open record public hearing. The Planning Board would accept testimony from the applicant and public and then forward a recommendation
to the City Council as to what the terms of the development agreement should be. Following a closed-record public hearing, the City Council can adopt the development agreement exactly as recommended by the Board or they can modify it based on their discussion. Because the City Council’s hearing would be closed record, they would not be able to solicit any new information or ask questions about things that are not already on the record. If the Board doesn’t ask the questions and get all
of the pertinent information into the record during its hearing, it cannot be added to the record at a later time as part of the Council’s review. The Planning Board would be the finders of fact for the City Council. The development agreement process
is similar to the process the City currently uses to review site-specific rezones. However, instead of voting on an ordinance to adopt a development agreement, the City Council would vote to accept or modify the terms of the development agreement that is put forward by the Planning Board.
Board Member Rosen asked if there is a financial impact associated with sending appeals to Superior Court as opposed to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday answered that judicial appeals typically cost more than administrative appeals. However,
it is important to keep in mind that not everything would remain the same. For example, taking the City Council out of the appeal process would liberate them to participate in the hearing process and to appeal decisions made by the Hearing Examiner
and ADB to Superior Court. Currently, the City Council does not have the ability to appeal Type III-B decisions because they are the body who hears the appeals. If a judicial appeal is initiated for a Type III-B decision, the appellant would have to move
the appeal forward with no help from the City. Under the proposed amendment, if the appellant and the City are aligned and have the same consensus, the City Council can appeal a Hearing Examiner decision on its own, saving the taxpayers and
citizens a lot of money and time. Essentially, the City Attorney would be responsible to appeal the decision to Superior Court. He summarized that significant changes take place when you free up the City Council to appeal its own Hearing Examiner
decisions.
Mr. Lien advised that the fee for appealing decisions to the City Council is currently $500, and City Attorney Taraday added that the fee to appeal a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) decision to Superior Court is $250. The big cost difference is related to
attorney fees, as many people do not have the ability to file appeals to Superior Court on their own. He also agreed that appellants are probably less likely to appeal actions to Superior Court than to the City Council. Mr. Lien pointed out that
appellants often hire attorneys to present their cases to the City Council, as well.
Chair Monroe recognized that Resolution No. 1367 mandates that the City Council be removed from the quasi-judicial decision-making process. He asked if staff believes the proposed amendments are the only way to implement the resolution. Mr. Lien
said he does not know of any other way to accomplish the task other than altering the processes. City Attorney Taraday agreed
7.1.j
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 5
that, from a high-level overview, there is no other way to accomplish the task, but the details of the process could certainly be modified, as well. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent what the City Council asked the staff and Planning Board to do. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed changes would take the City Council completely out of quasi-judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien responded that would be true unless the City Council opposes a decision made by the Hearing Examiner and decides to appeal to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday explained that potential liability to the City and individual Councilmembers was a significant factor in the City Council’s decision to adopt Resolution No. 1367. City Councilmembers are elected to be legislators and represent their constituents, not to be judges. It is difficult for Councilmembers, who are accustomed to being responsive to their constituents, to play the role of judge and judicially apply the code based on the record in front of them. Some are unable to fill this role, and they end up making arbitrary and capricious decisions that are not consistent with law or the record. When this occurs, the City could be subjected to millions of dollars in damages. These same risks would not be present if the City Council were to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to Superior Court. While the City may not win the appeal, the risks would be minimized. City Attorney Taraday explained that, under the current process, City Council Members are unable to participate in public hearings for quasi-judicial actions because it would disqualify them from hearing an appeal under the Appearance of Fairness rules. If they no longer have to serve in this capacity, they could feel free to be a party of record and participate in hearings to represent their constituents’ viewpoints. Vice Chair Cheung asked about the process the City Council would use to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Council would probably meet in an executive session with their attorney to discuss the Hearing Examiner decision, as well as the pros and cons of moving forward with an appeal and the likelihood the City would prevail. Ultimately, the City Council would make a legislative decision about whether to appeal or not. No public hearing would be required, but the vote would need to take place in a public meeting. Vice Chair Cheung asked if the City would be responsible to pay additional attorney fees associated with the appeal. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Attorney’s Office is retained on a flat-fee basis. They get paid the same amount every month regardless of whether there is litigation or not. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City has incurred additional attorney fees for closed record appeals to the City Council when an independent attorney must be hired to represent the City’s case while the City Attorney represents the City Council. Board Member Lovell asked how other cities have addressed this issue. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) pleads with cities to do this because it significantly reduces risk. Before the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, the Executive Director of the WCIA asked them to please consider getting out of the quasi-judicial decision-making process because of the risk it creates to the City and the public. Chair Monroe reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is not to debate the merits of Resolution No. 1367, which has already been adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to decide if the proposed amendments are the right way to implement the resolution. Gary Nelson, Edmonds, observed that this issue has been debated by many jurisdictions for a number of years. Three months following the City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 1367, Proposition 4 appeared on the ballot to change the charter for Snohomish County. The issue had come before the County Council twice before and was defeated both times. The results of the ballot measure in Edmonds was interesting, as 57.7% of the precincts voted no. It appears that the majority of City residents have strong feelings about what their City Council and appointed officials are responsible to do. He said he is concerned that the proposed amendments would significantly increase the cost of appealing quasi-judicial decisions. In addition to a filing fee, appellants may have to hire an attorney to assist in the appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Nelson commented that staff put a lot of thought into many of the proposed changes, and most appear to be very reasonable. However, it is not likely that the proposed changes to the quasi-judicial appeal process will be acceptable to the residents of Edmonds. While City Attorney Taraday suggests the changes will liberate the City Council and eliminate potential conflicts, most citizens of Edmonds expect their elected officials to carry on their current role and make responsible decisions regardless
7.1.j
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 6
of their personal opinions. They have been elected to study the facts and make decisions based on law. He is disappointed with Councilmembers who say this responsibility is too difficult, and perhaps they should consider resigning their positions. The appointed officials are very responsible and capable of providing recommendations to the City Council, but the City Council should retain the right to make the final decision. Mr. Nelson expressed his belief that the current approach for appeals is accurate and responsible and the City should simply maintain this process and table the proposed amendments. However, he would like the other proposed amendments to go forward as presented. He referred to written comments (Attachment 8) he submitted prior to the meeting, including a list of LUPA issues. He summarized that although neighbors sometimes quarrel over issues, none of the issues are so difficult that appeals to Superior Court are warranted. He said he supports the current process of a Hearing Examiner decision that is appealable to the City Council. He pointed out that appealing decisions to the Superior Court can be costly and take significantly more time. In most cases, appellants have to hire an attorney to represent their case. He encouraged the Board to consider what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. They should strive to avoid increasing the financial impacts to citizens and prolonging the process of appeals. Sending appeals to the City Council is a timely approach that works. Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Nelson’s written comments (Attachment 8), which state that RCW 36.70C defines land use decisions as “a final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals.” He expressed his belief that the Hearing Examiner meets this criterion. The Hearing Examiner has the background, experience and know how to make decisions based on all the facts and City regulations, and their decisions should stand. If someone wants to appeal, they should have to go to the higher authority, which he believes is the Superior Court. He said he supports the changes as proposed. Vice Chair Cheung asked how often quasi-judicial decisions are appealed. Mr. Chave reviewed that the permit review process was originally set up in 2009 to take the City Council out of closed record appeals, but it was put back into the process in 2010. Since that time, the City Council has only heard a few appeals. Vice Chair Cheung asked if there are any other appeal options the Board could consider other than City Council or Superior Court. Mr. Lien pointed out that appeals to shoreline permits go to the Shoreline Hearings Board rather than to Superior Court, but if the Council is removed from quasi-judicial decision making, Superior Court would be the next step for all other appeals. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the City Council is in the best position to make decisions for Edmonds. He questioned why the City Council does not want to retain this decision-making ability. He said he is a little leery of giving up the values of Edmonds into the hands of the Snohomish County court. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands that the City Council would prefer not to have to make these decisions, but the same could be said for citizens who are asked to serve on juries. He recognized that there are a lot more opportunities for ex-parte communications to occur with the current process, but these same concerns could be attributed to someone who is asked to serve on a jury. Mr. Lien explained that the amendments would not remove the City Council from the process. The City Council would still be responsible for establishing the policies and regulations that are applied to specific permits. Chair Monroe agreed but pointed out that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the role of interpreting the rules and policies. He understands why the City Council supports the change, but he is not sure it will benefit the citizens and the City. Board Member Robles cautioned that a certain balance must be made between risk and inherent risk and decisions should not be made based on monetary aspects alone. He recalled a recent rezone that came before the Planning Board. A lot of work was done by the applicant and staff, but the public was not properly notified of the proposal and were ill prepared to participate in the hearing. The developers seemed to have an advantage over the citizens and the Board was constrained by the facts and couldn’t help represent the citizen’s concerns based on the constraints of the quasi-judicial process. He asked if that is analogous to what the City Council would be faced with because they would be constrained to talk only about the facts of the proposal. City Attorney Taraday commented that the Board has more latitude in an open record public hearing than the City Council has in a closed record public hearing. The Board should never feel constrained in collecting the facts and information needed to make a recommendation.
7.1.j
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 7
City Attorney Taraday referred to Vice Chair Cheung’s earlier comment comparing the City Council’s role to that of a jury. He explained that for site-specific rezone applications and development agreements, the Planning Board would serve as the jury in the sense that the Board would conduct the hearing and collect testimony and evidence from witnesses. The Board gets to make factual findings based on everything they hear and see and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Hearing Examiner would play this same role in Hearing Examiner permits. Even with the current process, the City Council does not get to play that role because they are limited to the evidence collected by the Board or Hearing Examiner. He summarized that, in court, juries are not asked to make legal decisions or answer questions of law. The judge hears the legal stuff and the jury hears the factual stuff and they come together to make a decision. Currently, the City Council is frequently asked to make legal decisions when they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 25, 2018. Chair Monroe recognized that the City Council has already made the decision to remove themselves from quasi-judicial decisions via Resolution No. 1367, and the proposed amendments are intended to implement this earlier action. However, he suggested that the motion should include a recommendation that the City Council carefully consider the concerns that have been discussed by the Board before taking final action. Mr. Lien commented that the Board can recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendments or recommend changes, regardless of the Council’s direction in Resolution No. 1367. Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Lien’s earlier comment about how the monetary impact of the proposed amendments would be less if you consider the overall process and risks. The real question is if you want the City Council to be more involved in the legislative role where they are able to represent the interest of their constituents. As pointed out by Mr. Lien and City Attorney Taraday, there are struggles that any City Council will encounter when they try to work both roles because it requires them to step out of one to be in the other. Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, and that is difficult to do when they are required to act as judge on quasi-judicial decisions. This conflict of roles is at the heart of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave commented that very few appeals end up before the City Council. If there are few appeals, maybe the risk isn’t so high. On the other hand, if there are few appeals, the proposed amendments would not create a significant impact to citizens. As a staff person, he supports wanting the City Council to represent its citizens. They are most effective when they are able to develop and oversee regulations. Citizens are much better off having their voices heard during the legislative processes that establish codes and regulations. It is better for the City Council to make decisions at the rule level rather than at the end of the process trying to figure out how to not follow the rules in order to represent their constituents. Board Member Robles observed that one law of risk management is you want the entity that is best qualified to handle the risk to carry the risk. He asked what type of citizens would end up having to litigate their way back to wholeness if the amendments are adopted as proposed. In other words, he asked who would be impacted the most? Mr. Lien said it could be anyone, from major land owners to single property land owners. Everyone would be treated the same. He advised that in most of the appeals he has heard before the City Council, attorneys have been involved. Sometimes property owners pool their resources to get representation, but it is not a requirement. City Attorney Taraday said he can think of several LUPA actions (not more than 10) that have been appealed to the City Council during his tenure as City Attorney. In at least three cases the appellants were pro say. He explained that a LUPA action is on the record and appeals to Superior Court do not require witnesses or cross examination. The court simply reads the facts from a sheet of paper. The appeal decision is based on the same record that would be sent to the City Council for consideration. Board Member Robles asked how undue influence could play into a Councilmember’s decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that anyone sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is required to disclose relationships that could cause bias. A Councilmember who is strongly anti-development would not necessary be required to disclose this information but basing a decision solely on this strong bias could create liability for the City, and that is where the biggest risk lies.
7.1.j
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 8
Board Member Rosen said the severity of the situation appears to come from City Councilmembers who cross the line. It would help him to better understand the problems they are trying to solve. Is the problem based on exposure to risk they have encountered over the many years they have been doing quasi-judicial appeals, or were the amendments initiated based on feedback from the WCIA? Mr. Chave answered that in his tenure with the City he has seen things that concerned him in terms of how things play out at the Council level. This is not simply an academic discussion but based on real-life experiences. Board Member Rosen asked, in the scheme of risk, how does the Council’s involvement in quasi-judicial appeals compare. City Attorney Taraday said the amendments are intended to manage but not eliminate risk. In his opinion, the amendments represent a very sensible way to manage risk. Divorcing politics from the land use issues, you get a better land use application process and better policies. It is important to understand that, while the City Councilmembers may have a better sense of the values of the City than a Hearing Examiner or judge, those values are not supposed to be expressed when processing land use applications. They are supposed to be expressed when adopting code regulations. Mr. Lien referred to City Attorney Taraday’s 2016 memorandum stating that not only is it a risk to the City but individual Councilmembers could also be liable for decisions made in the quasi-judicial process. CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Monroe voiced reservations about the proposed amendment to take the Council out of the quasi-judicial decision-making process, recognizing that it is nearly impossible to write codes that developers cannot eventually find loopholes around. He said he is shocked that the City Council wants to give away this power. He believes the proposed changes will eventually be adopted by the City Council but the Board should emphasize the need for the Council to take a hard and careful look at the pros and cons before making a final decision. CHAIR MONROE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK BEFORE GIVING AWAY THIS PUBLIC TRUST. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about turning over quasi-judicial decisions to a judge who may not be as familiar with the City’s codes as the City Council. The City Councilmembers are accountable to their constituents. He understands the potential conflicts of interest but agrees the Council should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. It is different for petitioners to stand in front of a judge who would expect them to present their appeal in a more legal manner versus speaking before the City Council. On the other hand, it sounds like appeals are not common and most people who appeal are probably more experienced and have their own counsel. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Monroe closed the public hearing. The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:32 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 9107 AND 9111 – 236TH STREET SW FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5 Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He reminded the Board
of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. He also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. He asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None indicated a concern. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Member’s participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report and Martin Reimers was present to represent the applicant.
7.1.j
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2016
Page 7
session is for the Council to have confidential discussions. Taking minutes or notes may make a
Councilmember uncomfortable speaking during an executive session.
Councilmember Nelson questioned whether Resolution 853 was good policy. Although the City has been
taking minutes of executive session for 20 years, he found it enlightening that a poll of 46 cities revealed
none of them took minutes or notes. If one of the purposes was to be able to disclose minutes in the
future, yet the nature of the topics will never be disclosed due to attorney-client privilege, it creates a
false/misleading purpose. He summarized it does not make a lot of sense to be taking minutes in
executive session.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked the next step if the Council chose to rescind the resolution. Mr. Taraday
said he would prepare a resolution repealing Resolution 853 for Council consideration. Mayor Pro Tem
Johnson suggested if that resolution was scheduled for Council consideration on May 24, the public
would have an opportunity to provide input at the May 17 and 24 Council meetings. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas said two weeks would give the public an ample opportunity to speak to the Council with
regard to Resolution 853.
Councilmember Teitzel said he not oppose the notion of the public providing comment but he wanted to
ensure the public understood that the rules as they currently exist under Resolution 853 create an illusion
of openness.
Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr. Passey’s comment that the number of executive session has
increased and asked whether the majority were attorney-client privilege topics. Mr. Passey answered it
was a mixture of topics; there have been a lot of real estate matters, potential and pending litigation, a few
related to discussing the qualifications of a candidate for public office, and collective bargaining.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson requested the City Attorney draft a resolution for further discussion on May 24
and action the following week, which will provide three weeks for public testimony before any action is
taken.
7. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO CONTINUE CITY’S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING
QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the Council briefly discussed this during their retreat. He explained
quasi-judicial hearings are where the City Council sits in a judicial capacity, acting like judges. Most of
time the Council acts as legislators; as legislators the Council has a great deal of discretion and are not
bound by strict criteria or standards in making legislative decisions. The public looks to the Council as
legislators; when the public appeals to the Council, they are looking to the Council as people they vote for
that they want to represent them and reflect their values which is what a good legislator does. When the
Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, the Council is forced to play a completely different role, acting
like a judge.
When the public comes to a courtroom, they expect a fair and impartial hearing. When Councilmembers
sit in a quasi-judicial hearing, they are expected to act in a fair and impartial manner regardless of who
may be in the audience asking for something. Sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity puts the Council in a
very difficult position, giving the illusion the Council can make whatever decision is being requested.
That is in fact an illusion because Councilmembers do not have the same discretion in a quasi-judicial
matter that they have as legislators. Councilmembers have much less discretion in a quasi-judicial hearing
because the decision must be made in a manner that is consistent with the previously adopted decision
criteria and standards in the zoning code. If those codes do not directly address the issue before the
Council or in a manner that allows the Council to grant the relief being requested, the Council may not be
able to grant that relief.
7.1.k
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2016
Page 8
Mr. Taraday provided a recent example, the crumb rubber issue, where some very concerned citizens
asked the Council to deny a project based on their concerns about the infill material used on those fields.
The infill was not one of the decisions before Council and ultimately a majority of the Council approved
the project but many did so reluctantly because it did not feel right. Councilmembers knew they were
doing the right thing as a judge to approve the project because it met the standards but many were unsure
about the infill material and some spoke to that from the dais. Several months later as legislators the
Council was able to adopt a temporary ban on crumb rubber.
In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi-judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested
they ask themselves if so, why? If it because they feel the Council can make better decisions than the
Hearing Examiner, that they have more expertise than the Hearing Examiner, that is a valid reason to
continue this practice so that the Council can correct the Hearing Examiner’s errors. He explained there
was another way to accomplish that, appealing the Hearing Examiner’s decision under LUPA. For
example, when the Hearing Examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with
the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a LUPA
appeal in Superior Court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council’s behalf to convince
the court that the Hearing Examiner’s decision wrong.
Mr. Taraday explained there are benefits to that process from a risk management standpoint. If he goes to
court and argues the Hearing Examiner’s decision was wrong and and the judge upholds the Hearing
Examiner’s decision, no damage claim will be filed against the City. Conversely if an appeal comes
before the Council acting as the decision maker and constituents are clamoring to overturn a Hearing
Examiner decision and the Council does so when it shouldn’t, the City could face a significant damage
claim as a result of that action. He summarized from a risk management standpoint, much of the same
thing can be accomplished by directing him to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions versus having the
Council in the position of decision-maker.
Councilmember Tibbott observed if the Council relinquishes the role of judicial reviews, the Council
could be participants in a Hearing Examiner’s review process and advocates for citizens. He found that a
powerful position and a good role for Councilmembers. He asked if it would be possible for the Hearing
Examiner to do quasi-judicial reviews on a City Council night. Mr. Taraday said the Hearing Examiner’s
regular meeting time is Thursday. If an issue was important enough, Councilmember Tibbott suggested
holding the hearing on a City Council night when citizens are more attuned to participating. Another
option would be to televise Hearing Examiner’s meeting for important topics like crumb rubber. Mr.
Taraday said Hearing Examiner meetings currently are not televised. They are held in Council Chambers
and could be televised although there would be some additional cost. Scheduling Hearing Examiner
meetings on Council nights could affect the time available for Council business meetings, which is
another reason for not having Councilmembers participate in quasi-judicial hearings. When quasi-judicial
hearings arise, they consume a significant amount of time.
Mr. Taraday explained when there is a quasi-judicial before the Council, Councilmembers are not allowed
to have any contact with proponents or opponents of that matter except for what is said at the microphone.
Councilmembers are cut off from their constituents when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. If the City
Council allowed the Hearing Examiner to hear quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers could participate
at the Hearing Examiner meeting as a member of the public but could also have unlimited contact with
constituents on that issue and play a very different role than when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was unsure she wanted Hearing Examiner hearings on Council nights; it
is already difficult to consider all the items on the agenda. She was unsure how sitting through each
other’s meetings would benefit the Council or the Hearing Examiner. Her understanding the reason this
7.1.k
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2016
Page 9
was done initially was to save appellant’s money; there is no cost to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision
to the City Council. Mr. Taraday clarified there is a $500 fee to appeal a Type IIIB Hearing Examiner
decision to the City Council. He agreed there could be a cost savings for the appellant; for example, the
Hearing Examiner makes a decision, several citizens contact the Council expressing their concern with
the decision and the Council decides to appeal. That decision saves the citizens $500 because they do not
pay the appeal fee to the Council and the Council directs the City Attorney to appeal the Hearing
Examiner’s decision on the City’s behalf.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the cost to appeal to court if the Council decided not to direct the
City Attorney to appeal the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Mr. Taraday answered the filing fee in court is
less than $500 but the total cost depends on whether the appellant hires attorney or does it pro se.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled prior to this decision, the average cost for bringing an appeal
where the appellant was not representing themselves was $5,000 which is expensive for citizens. She
recognized the current process does not take into consideration the cost of staff time, Council time, etc.
She summarized the reason for having the Council hear quasi-judicial appeals was the result of citizens’
requests because it was more economical. She agreed having the Council in a quasi-judicial role shuts the
Council out of the process. She questioned why background regarding the change was not included in the
agenda packet, recalling the change was made in 2010. She suggested having more information about
why and when the change was made.
Councilmember Teitzel said his concern was the quality of the decision. Only one Councilmember is an
attorney and although he had full confidence in the intellect of Councilmembers, in some cases acting in a
quasi-judicial role requires an understanding of the relationship between the local code and state law.
Rather than having a citizen request the Council make the decision, it would be better and higher quality
to have a judge make that decision. If the Council believes an error has been made, the Council has the
ability to direct the City Attorney to file an appeal as well as provide testimony. He supported moving
away from having Council involved in quasi-judicial appeals.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the dictionary definition of quasi-judicial, “seemingly, apparently but
not really.” He said that is fitting for the role the Council is asked to play, playing the role of a judge
when Councilmembers are actually legislators. He recalled the one quasi-judicial hearing he was involved
in was a very frustrating experience because he was unable to be a legislator and could not talk to
anybody or consider all the information he wanted to review and was limited to a narrow focus. When
this was first put in place, the intent was right, but in practice the result is not what was intended. He
found it such a frustrating experience that he recommended the Council avoid being in a quasi-judicial
role.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked how many of the quasi-judicial decisions the Council has made have been
appealed. Mr. Taraday recalled the appeal of the decision on Building 10 was dismissed and the City
prevailed in an appeal of the crumb rubber decision. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a proposal to
construct a house in critical area. Mr. Taraday said that did not go to court. Councilmember Buckshnis
recalled in 2010 citizens wanted an opportunity to come to City Council. Mr. Taraday suggested it may be
interesting to research how many times the Council has reversed the Hearing Examiner’s decision in the
last 5-6 years, suspecting it was a very rare if ever occurrence. If the point of this process in 2010 was to
provide a low cost means of reversing the Hearing Examiner and in practice that has almost never
happened because the Hearing Examiner generally does a good job, then that would be useful information
to have.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson recalled in the case Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned, a 3rd party entered
into a negotiation and purchased the property from the people who wanted to build in the critical area.
7.1.k
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2016
Page 10
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in researching whether the Council has reversed any
of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. She recalled the Council has upheld nearly every Hearing Examiner
decision; in one the Council may have upheld only part of his decision.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled another instance where a fence was lowered, perhaps that was the one
the Council only supported a portion of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. She noted the Council has only
had 7-8 quasi-judicial in the past 6 years. She recalled when the Council was first taken out of the quasi-
judicial role, citizens objected and the process was reversed. She recalled the reason was the monetary
aspect.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson pointed out the Burnstead issue as another example. She referred to a Directors
Report to the Planning Board from Development Services Director Shane Hope that described a Hearing
Examiner decision. The Hearing Examiner considered a proposed critical area reasonable use variance on
March 24; the Hearing Examiner’s decision was made on April 7; the City filed a motion for
reconsideration on April 12 but the Council was just learning about it this week. She asked when the
LUPA appeal process expired and how would the Council know about it. Mr. Taraday agreed the current
process is not set up to do what has been discussed tonight. If the City changed to a system where the City
Council was no longer in a quasi-judicial capacity but wanted to be ready to file a LUPA appeal, a
mechanism would need to be set up whereby the Council was informed of decisions in a timely manner.
There are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked whether the Council’s current quasi-judicial role precludes taking action
to file a LUPA on the City’s behalf. Mr. Taraday said it depends on whether there was an administrative
appeal to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson observed in this instance there was not but she was
unclear when the final decision was made and feared it may be too late to file an appeal. Mr. Taraday said
if administrative appeals have been exhausted and the only remaining appeal is judicial, the only question
is whether there is standing. He suggested if the Council was interested in discontinuing the current
practice, the administrative appeal process would need to be revised to clearly articulate the possibility of
the Council bringing appeals and how that process works. With regard to the decision Mayor Pro Tem
Johnson was referencing, he was uncertain when a LUPA appeal would need to be filed and if the
Council wanted to discuss it as potential litigation, he recommended that be done in executive session.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of information, relaying she received an email that
Councilmembers other than Mayor Pro Tem Johnson could not be heard on the television broadcast.
Following a brief recess to address a technical issue, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson advised apparently not all
Councilmembers could be heard on the television broadcast but minutes of the meeting will be available.
As the online streaming was operational, the issue was likely with the cable channel.
Development Services Director Shane Hope suggested following up with additional information such as
the history regarding the Council assuming this role, the reversal rate of Hearing Examiner decisions,
what other jurisdictions do with regard to quasi-judicial appeals, and if the Council chose not to be the
decision maker, how to ensure the Council received information in timely manner to make a decision
regarding an appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson observed the Council is scheduled to discuss this again at
the May 24 meeting.
Mr. Taraday invited the Council to inform if there was any other information staff could provide to assist
the Council in making an informed decision.
6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson relayed to Mayor Earling, everyone wishes they were in Hawaii with him.
7.1.k
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2016
Page 17
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the map of options and asked for a description of the Admiral Way
overpass and the merits of that location. Mr. Schaefer said although it may seem out of the way for
emergency response, it is a distinct location and it is screened from view or back-dropped visually by
hillside. It can drop into the Port property which may provide flexibility for a landing. It would follow the
Unocal access road along the bottom of the hill, climb to an overpass structure, clear the to-be-relocated
Willow Creek and the railroad and drop down into the edge of Port parking area. Councilmember
Mesaros asked whether it would have pedestrian access. Mr. Schaefer said it would be routinely used for
pedestrian and bicycle access and could accommodate an emergency vehicle when necessary.
Councilmember Mesaros commented another benefit of that alternative is the ability to circumnavigate
the marsh. Mr. Schaefer said the ability to tie it into the trails, through marina and Marina Beach Park was
identified as a community amenity. Mr. Williams said the same could be said for the Edmonds Street
alternative; it would be available for emergency vehicles to provide aid on the west side of the tracks as
well as allow pedestrians and bicycles to access waterfront amenities. Councilmember Mesaros
commented that alternative did not circumnavigate the marsh. Mr. Schaefer said the grades in all
alternatives provide ADA access.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if the Dayton Street Overpass would require Port property and demolition
of existing buildings. Mr. Schaefer agreed it would require some property but would not require any
demolition. It would launch from the north side of Dayton along the edge of the Salish Crossing property,
climb over the parking area south of the rail station, diagonally over the intersection and drop into the
Port property behind their sign. It would encroach into the yard area of new Jacobson Marine but would
not impact their building.
Council President Johnson commented one of the advantages of this presentation is it gives the public an
opportunity to hear everything that has been considered to date, especially those not able to attend public
meetings or visit the website. She asked where the Level 2 evaluation criteria were firm. Mr. Schaefer
answered they were drafted and presented to the community at the last meeting. Some comments were
received although fewer than at past meetings which is the reason the online open house was extended an
additional week and another notice issued.
Council President Johnson observed the language on the working draft page and the criteria were similar
but not exactly the same. Mr. Schaefer advised the language on the working draft had to be more brief;
the language on the working draft page is not the criteria, it is the purpose and need. He pointed out there
are multiple components of each criterion. In Level 1 the consultant team did the first assessment against
the criteria which was then validated by the Task Force. In Level 2 the consultant team is providing
information and the Task Force is taking the first cut at the rating.
Council President Johnson offered to provide Mr. Schaefer send her notes. She recalled an operational
issue that has been discussed intermittently over the last 10 years was having a ferry reservation system
on the Edmonds-Kingston route. She suggested that be considered in this effort.
Councilmember Nelson (Co-Chair of the Task Force) recognized how hard the Task Force and and Mr.
Schaefer have been working.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO CONTINUE CITY'S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING
QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS
Senior Planner Kernen Lien said this topic was discussed at the retreat and the May 10 Council meeting.
Currently, there are three ways a land use action can come before the City Council for a quasi-judicial
7.1.l
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt [Revision 1] (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2016
Page 18
decision under a closed record review: 1) site specific rezone, 2) appeal of Type III-B decision (ADB or
Hearing Examiner), and 3) public agency variance request. The Woodway Playfields quasi-judicial
hearing was an appeal of a public agency variance request.
The three issues the Council requested further information on included, 1) the history of quasi-judicial
decisions before the Council, 2) recent decisions by the Council, and 3) what other jurisdictions are doing.
With regard to the history, Mr. Lien explained the current code framework was established in 1980 and
since then the City Council has been doing quasi-judicial hearings for appeals of Hearing Examiner, ADB
and public agency variance requests. Prior to that time, the City had a Board of Adjustment, a 7-member
board that heard variances, condition use permits, etc., things the Hearing Examiner now hears. Decisions
of the Board of Adjustment went to Superior Court.
In 2009 the City established the current process framework, Type I through V permits. At that time there
was considerable discussion regarding the Council’s involvement in the quasi-judicial decision process.
Discussion was focused primarily on the Type III-B decisions by the Hearing Examiner and ADB. He
referred to minutes from the 2009 update that were emailed to Council today. Also included in the packet,
Exhibit 3, is a list of pros and cons prepared by Rob Chave in 2009 regarding Council involvement in
quasi-judicial decisions.
When the Title 20 update was passed in June 2009, Hearing Examiner and ADB appeals were taken out
of the City Council and became appeals to Superior Court. At the first Council meeting in January 2010,
an interim ordinance was passed that again inserted the Council into closed record appeals. The
discussion at that time did not focus on rezones or public agency variances, only appeals and whether to
have oral or written arguments to Council on appeals as it is easier to track whether something is in the
record when the record is written versus oral. A permanent ordinance was passed in September 2010.
Mr. Lien reviewed quasi-judicial decisions since 2010 in the 3 categories:
Seven site specific rezones
o Planning Board makes recommendation to City Council
o Council upheld 6
o One was denied on a 3-3 vote
Four public agency variance requests
Council approved most requests
Woodway Playfields was more complex and included five permits
o Hearing Examiner recommended denial of two
o By the time it reached the Council, the School District withdrew those two
o Council essentially upheld Hearing Examiner decision and added a few conditions of
approval to the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation
Type III-B decisions
o Four projects
o 5 appeals (Building 10 appealed to City Council twice)
o 2 reversed
o Regarding Building 10, the City Council reversed the ADB decision and a critical area
variance request
With regard to other jurisdictions’ quasi-judicial procedures, Mr. Lien referred to Exhibit 4, explaining
most jurisdictions have a quasi-judicial process for site specific rezones. Some include an appeal to City
Council from the Hearing Examiner, others do not.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how many times a City Council decision has been appealed to Superior
Court. Mr. Lien answered in the last 10 years, Building 10 and Woodway Playfields were appealed to
7.1.l
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt [Revision 1] (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2016
Page 19
Superior Court. There was a settlement agreement for Building 10 so no decision was issued and the City
prevailed with regard to the Woodway Playfields. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the court never
ruled on Building 10 decision so it was unknown whether the Council’s decision would have been upheld
had the court ruled. That project was of a magnitude that had the Council’s decision not been upheld,
there could have been real damages resulting from that application process.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled the Council previously discussed the cost to appeal a decision to Superior
Court versus to the City Council. Mr. Lien answered the fee for an appeal of a Type III-B decision to City
Council is $500. Mr. Taraday said the filing fee for Superior Court is $250; the cost could be much more
if the appellant hired an attorney.
Councilmember Buckshnis recommended the Council read the 2009 minutes. She commended Mr. Lien
for his research and for summarizing it for the public.
Councilmember Mesaros commented there could also be attorney costs for an appeal to City Council if
the appellant chose to hire an attorney.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Lien for the summary. He recalled going through one public agency
variance request and found the information regarding other decisions very comprehensive and helpful.
Council President Johnson commented there is also a cost to the City Council for the more elaborate
appeals that come to the City Council. For example, Burnstead and Building 10, the City engaged
separate counsel for the City Council at a cost of approximately $5,000 per case. There is also the expense
of time; they were not easy decisions and required many meetings. She said it makes sense for some
quasi-judicial proceedings to come to the City Council, those that are quick and efficient. However, for
the ones that seemingly take endless amounts of reading, study and evaluation, she preferred they go to
Superior Court because they usually end up in Superior Court anyway. She asked if a distinction could be
made in the Type III-B decisions between large and small application. She recalled two of the Type III-B
decisions were very small involving one property and two were very large and required tremendous time
and effort. Mr. Taraday said the City probably could distinguish; there would need to be criteria
established in advance for distinguishing between them. For example, the current categories of decisions
are not the universe of possible categories. One category the City Council is stuck with hearing is site
specific rezones.
Council President Johnson referred to the risk associated with Council serving in a quasi-judicial
capacity; if the City lost in an appeal to Superior Court, the City would be responsible for much more
than just the filing fee. Mr. Taraday explained the City could be required to pay damages if the City
Council’s decision was found to be arbitrary and capricious. In extreme cases Councilmembers as
individuals can be held personally liable for decisions made when serving in a quasi-judicial capacity. In
its legislative capacity, the Council has nearly absolute personally immunity. In a quasi-judicial capacity,
there is the theoretical possibility of a personal liability lawsuit because the immunity is only qualified not
absolute. For example, in the Mission Springs in Spokane Councilmembers were found not to be immune
from the personal suit filed against them.
Councilmember Tibbott thanked staff for the synopsis the Council received this afternoon and suggested
it be included in a future packet. Development Services Director Shane Hope agreed it would.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled the Planning Board heard four quasi-judicial cases, three were
straightforward and the questions Planning Board Members asked provided material for the City Council.
One was more complex and the Planning Board needed more preparation to process it adequately. If the
Council continued to hear site specific rezones, he asked if they would still go to Planning Board for a
recommendation to City Council. Ms. Hope answered yes, the process would stay the same.
7.1.l
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt [Revision 1] (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2016
Page 20
Councilmember Tibbott recommended providing Planning Board enough notice regarding upcoming
hearings so they do not engage with a project before it comes to Planning Board to avoid tainting the
process. He discussed this with two former Planning Board Members, one was in favor of the Council
moving away from quasi-judicial reviews and the other was in favor of retain the Council in that role so
he was able to see benefits on both sides, especially with rezones. If the Council continued to hear site
specific rezones, he recommended identifying ways to improve the process; for example, inform the
Council in advance so they do not engage with proponents or opponents.
Councilmember Tibbott preferred the Council not hear more extensive appeals. While on the Planning
Board, he felt members were asked to provide input regarding topics they were not trained for. There was
one lawyer on the Planning Board who was able to look at the issue from a legal perspective but other
Planning Board Members were not. There are benefits from a diversity of views looking at a project and
offers insight; however, on complex appeals that require a great deal of study, he preferred to delegate
them to the Hearing Examiner or other body. Ms. Hope agreed the Planning Board needed to have the
proper training; staff has been more proactively recently in helping the Planning Board understand their
role and legal requirements. Staff will consider how to distinguish between small and large projects for
example according to the value of the project, property size, etc.
With regard to whether the Planning Board would continue to make recommendations to the City Council
regarding rezone, Mr. Taraday said they could but they do not have to; it could be done by the Hearing
Examiner.
Quoting Councilmember Councilmember Nelson, Councilmember Mesaros said citizens elected
Councilmember to primarily be legislators, not judges. The skill set Councilmembers bring to the Council
is for pondering legislative opportunities and making choices for citizens; serving in a quasi-judicial role
puts the Council in a difficult position, a role they not be as equipped for.
Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to explain qualified immunity versus absolute immunity,
pointing out if Councilmembers are making decisions for which they are personally liable, they need to
know what that entails. Mr. Taraday offered to provide a more in-depth analysis in writing. With qualified
immunity, a Councilmember is not as fully protected personally from a suit; although there is a decent
chance of having a suit dismissed, in extreme case a Councilmember could have personal liability. The
prospect of a Councilmember being sued is not just a theoretically possibility; a Councilmember was
named in the Building 10 lawsuit.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was also concerned about the Council’s skill set to serve judges. It gives
him pause personally to act in quasi-judicial fashion, reviewing the record to determine whether an
Administrative Law Judge or Hearing Examiner made a legal error. He felt ill equipped to make that
decision as he was not an attorney and wanted to avoid being in that role in the future. He agreed the
Council could be involved in site specific rezones.
3. TITLE 19 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Building Official Leif Bjorback and Fire Marshal
Kevin Zweber. She referred to a pile of books that represented thousands of pages; the ordinance
summarizes key changes made to the code based on State requirements. Following the presentation and
Q&A, she requested the ordinance be forwarded to the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Bjorback explained every three years the International Building Code (IBC) is updated and
republished by the International Code Council. The IBC is a family of codes including commercial,
residential fire, plumbing, energy, etc. that are used in most areas of the country including the State of
7.1.l
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt [Revision 1] (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 5
years 4 months. The request is to extend the existing lease 1 year so there is a 15-year lease. The grant
documents have already been submitted, but the State staff knew changing the lease would take an act of
Council and gave the center until early September to accomplish it.
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he had never bought coffee from an espresso stand, finding it too
expensive, but recently visited the stand on 238th twice. The ladies were very nice looking and wearing a
bra and thong. At both visits, when he asked the lady if he could have “more goodies” if he gave her
$100, she acted offended. It seemed to him the Council was spending an inordinate amount of time on an
ordinance related to indecent exposure when any day of the week a person could drive from here to
California and find people dressed the same way these ladies were dressed. This espresso stand is hard to
find; if a person wants to see a scantily dressed person and pay $5 for coffee, that is their business, not the
City Council’s or Police Department’s business unless they are offering other services. He urged the
Council to leave well enough alone.
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. SENIOR CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite referred to Mr. Fleming’s comments, explaining this is a request
to authorize the Mayor to sign a lease amendment to add a year to the current lease with the senior center
so that they are eligible for a State grant for the rebuild of the senior center.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO MOVE THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXTEND THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
SENIOR CENTER FOR ONE YEAR TO NEXT WEEK’S CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CITY'S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Council has had several discussions regarding
the City Council’s role in the quasi-judicial decision making process. In June, Councilmembers expressed
interest in getting away from being the quasi-judicial decision maker on a number of types of land use
issues that the Council is currently charged with doing under the City code. She recalled the Council
requested information from the City Attorney regarding absolute versus qualified immunity. The packet
includes background materials as well as a resolution that could be placed on the next Consent Agenda
that provides direction when the Development Code is updated in near future to remove that discretionary
quasi-judicial process from the City Council’s responsibility.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council considered this six years ago and four years ago she
voted to return rights to appeal land use decisions, overturning previous Council actions that took away
citizens’ voice. She recalled whenever the City Council has reviewed a quasi-judicial matter in the past,
they have worked out correctly. She did not support changing the Council’s role in quasi-judicial hearings
because she believed citizens should have a right to voice their opinion to Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also did not support moving the Council out of quasi-judicial land use
hearings. When the Council moved back to holding quasi-judicial hearings, the Council was not sure how
that would work out; she has been involved in several quasi-judicial hearings in the past 6½ years and it
has been a good use of Council time and resources and allows citizens to appeal to the Council. In most
cases the Council upheld the Hearing Examiner’s decision. This provides a second step for citizens
without the cost of going to court at a cost of $500-$5000 depending on whether an attorney is hired. She
concluded this was a basic standard for citizen rights and shows the City Council is supportive of citizens.
7.1.m
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 6
Council President Johnson said in general the City has made progress by using a Hearing Examiner
instead of a citizen board of appeals. To the greatest extent possible, she preferred to rely on the Hearing
Examiner process and the Superior Court of Snohomish County to adjudicate any questions. She felt there
was too much risk on the City if the Council makes a mistake. For those reasons she supported the
proposal. She asked when this would be addressed in the code update. Ms. Hope answered in a few
months.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the proposal; he did not believe that he, as a
Councilmember, had enough training in the law to make a proper legal decision. The Council’s role as
legislators is to establish code, listen to citizens and ensure the code is clear so it can be interpreted
properly. The proper place for interpreting a legal question and appeal issues is via the court system. He
agreed with Council President Johnson that the Hearing Examiner process was working, there is an appeal
process is place and available to citizens and it is not the Council’s role to interpret the law.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there has been no risk to the City for nearly seven years and unless
the Council interpreted things incorrectly, there was no risk to the City. She felt it was part of the
Council’s job to represent the citizens of Edmonds. Citizens should not have to appeal to court when that
can be done by the Council.
Councilmember Nelson recalled his personal experience on the one and only quasi-judicial hearing he
participated in, commenting he did not enjoy it. However, just because he did not like something did not
mean it was not necessarily good for the City or citizens. In reviewing the decisions the Council has made
in past quasi-judicial hearings, there are more incidents where the Council has provided an oversight and
check system to help citizens and he felt there was a role in the process for Council. He appreciated the
City Attorney’s research regarding immunity, relaying it was clear the only way Councilmembers were
personally liable was if they went off the well-established legal path and felt it was well worth that risk.
Council President Johnson said as legislators, the Council has many opportunities to help citizens
including conversations with them, speaking on their behalf before the Hearing Examiner, discussing any
inequities in the codes or law and taking a legislative action. It was not necessary for the Council to be in
a quasi-judicial role. She has been very uncomfortable in the quasi-judicial role because Councilmembers
are unable to communicate directly with citizens and help them with issues. She felt the risk was real and
asked the City Attorney to speak to the subject of risk. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed it was a real
risk. He distinguished between risk to the City versus risk to Councilmember personally, stating it was
true Councilmembers have to go off the rails to find themselves personally liable, a high hurdle for a
plaintiff to clear. The real risk is to the City. The City is a member of an insurance pool; if there were a
significant plaintiff judgment against the City, while WCIA may come to the City’s short term rescue,
there is a long term cost to the City when WCIA considers it a risky city.
Mr. Taraday referred to a recent judgment rendered against the City of SeaTac, explaining while not
quasi-judicial, it was a land use case. When land use judgments go bad, they can get into the stratosphere
in terms of costs; the judgment against SeaTac was $18 million. SeaTac is appealing the judgment but it
will spawn litigation and risk for SeaTac and their insurance pool. He was aware of one other lawsuit
where the reinsurer of CIAW (SeaTac’s insurance pool) was essentially claiming they would not cover
and defend because the actions of the City officials in that matter went off the rails, beyond what they
considered a covered event. While the City can look to its insurance for coverage, there are instances that
will not be covered and taxpayers are left holding the bag. In his five years as city attorney, he could think
of at least one land use decision that while it did not translate into a dollar loss, he was not comfortable
with the risk assessment after that decision was made. The Council did things in that case that it probably
should not have done; the specifics could be discussed in executive session. In that situation there was
real risk to the City and the City was fortunate to get out of it without significant cost or judgment against
7.1.m
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 7
the City. He summarized the Council should not think quasi-judicial land use decision making is carefree;
they are playing with big dollars.
Mr. Taraday said the problem when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is Councilmembers will be tempted
to fix their constituents’ problems because the Council represents them, citizens voted for them, made
campaign contributions, etc. If a Councilmember through that temptation crosses the line even a little bit,
while probably not personally liable, could mean a multimillion dollar judgment against the City for
reading something into the code that is not there for example.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Taraday should not be using SeaTac’s $18 million judgment as an
example to scare Councilmembers because it was not quasi-judicial. In her six years on the Council, she
can think of one instance where she took issue with how things progressed, but felt they progressed
correctly. Issues arose as part of that because a Councilmember was part of process, a unique situation.
She felt Mr. Taraday was trying to scare the Council; if the Council follows the process and the record,
this process should be allowed to continue especially since situations like SeaTac have not arisen. Mr.
Taraday said his point in using SeaTac as an example was to quantify the risk and to point out millions of
dollars can be at stake in land use decisions. He was not telling the Council they could not retain this
decision making authority; the Council has been doing it for years. He simply wanted the Council to do so
with their eyes wide open about the nature of the risk.
Councilmember Teitzel commented he was elected to represent the citizens of Edmonds and did not agree
moving away from this quasi-judicial role was a disservice to citizens. He reminded if the Council felt the
Hearing Examiner’s decision was incorrect, the Council can request the City Attorney file an appeal to
Superior Court and testify on citizens’ behalf. He intended to use that process if he found an error in the
Hearing Examiner’s decision.
Council President Johnson recalled this discussion when she was on the Planning Board many years ago.
The City Attorney at that time, Scott Snyder, strongly recommended the Council not be in a quasi-judicial
role. She recalled Mark Laughlin, WCIA, also strongly advised the Council not to participate in a quasi-
judicial role and a person from MRSC gave the same advice. She asked Ms. Hope, Mr. Chave and Mr.
Taraday for their best advice regarding the Council’s involvement in quasi-judicial decision making. Ms.
Hope responded because of the risks involved and the complexity of some issues, because the Council has
a clear legislative role to assist and give direction on policies and if the Council is not in a quasi-judicial
role, has the ability to appeal decisions and take the constituent’s side, she believed moving away from
the quasi-judicial role is prudent and still allows the Council to help citizens.
Mr. Chave pointed out over the years more details and specifics in have been added to the code. The key
reason for that is to avoid too much indefensible discretion which the courts dislike. Regardless of the
Council’s decision, that trend should be recognized. He summarized the value of retaining the appeal is
outweighed by the potential value the Council can add by closer involvement with citizens.
Mr. Taraday emphasized his recommendation is insignificant; he will defer to and do whatever the
Council wants to do. To the Councilmembers who were interested in the status quo, his only
recommendation was he believed the Council could better serve constituents by getting early notice of
pending quasi-judicial actions that are coming to the Hearing Examiner, getting involved with and talking
with constituents during the process, working with him to advocate for a particularly position in front of
the Hearing Examiner and if necessary, direct him to appeal the Hearing Examiner’s decision if the
Council did not agree with it. The Council can do more to advocate on behalf of constituents via those
techniques versus sitting as judge. If the Council tries to advocate for citizens while sitting as a judge,
they can be sued. The Council cannot do both, be an advocate for constituents and a judge at the same
time. If the goal was to represent constituents, he recommended getting involved earlier at the Hearing
7.1.m
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 8
Examiner level, talking to constituents, establishing a process whereby the Council is notified of items
going to the Hearing Examiner, testifying at Hearing Examiner hearings, organizing people to rally for or
against a project, etc.
As the longest serving Councilmember present, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas disputed some of what
has been said. Neither she nor Councilmember Buckshnis have ever had a citizen approach her wanting
them to do something about their case. She recognized Mr. Taraday was uncomfortable with risk,
pointing out the Council incurs risk every day; every decision incurs some level of risk. Although she
appreciated what Councilmember Teitzel had to say, she pointed out six months as a Councilmember did
not qualify him to understand the process as well as Councilmembers who have been on the Council
longer and have been involved in previous cases. She pointed out Council President Johnson has been
opposed to this ever since she got on the Council and has asked this question of everyone who
interviewed for an appointment to Council.
Council President Johnson raised a point of order; Roberts Rules of Order state a person is not to make
arguments that are personal, are not to name people or be argumentative. She objected to Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas identifying what each Councilmember has said and arguing that point. Mayor Earling
ruled that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas may continue her testimony, however, she was not to bring up
individuals’ names.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said some Councilmembers are passionate about making this change.
She believed citizens needed to have a voice, and not the costly voice of appealing to court. She
questioned whether all Councilmembers fully understood the original reason the Council moved into the
quasi-judicial role. There is passion behind allowing citizens the ability to come to Council for a decision.
She did not mean to offend any Councilmembers but wanted the facts to be clear.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO MOVE RESOLUTION 1367 TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, A RESOLUTION OF CITY
COUNCIL CITY OF EDMONDS EXPRESSING INTENT TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL
AND OTHER VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL PERMIT
PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW UPON ADOPTION OF THE REVISED
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Council President Johnson said this vote is just showing intent and the Council will have an opportunity
to make a final decision in several months when the code is brought to the Council.
Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr. Taraday’s comment about crossing the line and the risk in these
decisions. He asked if Mission Springs v. City of Spokane was a good example. Mr. Taraday answered
yes. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to describe the Mission Springs case. Mr. Taraday
explained Mission Springs involved a grading permit and the City Council disregarding legal advice
given to them during a public meeting, advice that should have been given in executive session. That City
Attorney said publicly something to the effect that the Council needed to approve the permit and Council
did not and got sued.
Councilmember Nelson read from the Supreme Court case, where a Councilmember asked “If we direct
staff not to issue permits until the tunnels were improved, what would happen? The City Attorney
responds, “What would happen is that would be the genesis for a cause of action by the developer against
the city for unlawfully interfering with the issuance of a building permit and that is essentially the same
basis that we’re presently in federal court on, a civil rights violation.” The City Attorney goes on to say
“It’s a charter violation, the Council has no administrative authority, the Council act through ordinances
and sets policy and administrative staff is charged with following ordinances.” The City Attorney clearly
7.1.m
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 9
tells the Council what they are doing is not right and the Council ignores his advice, a very clear, bright
line. Mr. Taraday agreed it was a clear, bright line in that case; it is not always.
Councilmember Nelson recalled WCIA has also routinely brought up Mission Springs as an example of
what can go wrong. He clarified it was not something the Spokane Council did not understand or was
surprised by, it was very clear what would happen. When talking about these kinds of risks, it was
important to put it in context. Mr. Taraday said he would not give advice in a public meeting; if that
situation ever arose, he would take the Council into executive session, advise of the consequences and the
Council would need to take a vote in public without the public’s knowledge of the City Attorney’s advice.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to take a vote tonight as Councilmembers have stated their positions
and it likely would be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
3. CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled a kick off meeting was held to launch the Master Plan
process in early May. Since then there have been stakeholder interviews, an open house, a virtual open
house, project advisory meetings and an update to the Planning Board two weeks ago (draft minutes are
included in the packet). She introduced five members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) who
were present including Council President Council President Johnson, Councilmember Teitzel, Pat
Woodell, John McGibbon and Alex Witenberg. She recognized the PAC for their help.
Chris Jones, Principal and Landscape Architect, Walker | Macy, said this update is not to present
alternatives but to report on the public involvement process to date and what they have heard so far from
the community related to the park program and existing uses on the site. He used the metaphor for this
project, it’s like removing a temporary tree. He reviewed existing Park Program (activities)
Events
o Taste of Edmonds
o 4th of July Fireworks
o Wenatchee Youth Circus (concluding operation 2016)
o Sports tournaments
o Arts Festival (parking)
Existing Structures
o Boys & Girls Club (Field House)
Interested in remaining on site and expanding footprint to 18,000-25,000 square feet
Historic Preservation Committee pursuing listing of site and field house as historic
o Grand Stand
Parking
Storage
Active Recreation
o Soccer
o Tennis
7.1.m
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/4/2018
Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The Planning Board heard an introduction to this limited code update at the June 13, 2018 meeting and
held a public hearing on July 11, 2018 after which a recommendation was forwarded to the City Council.
The day after the Planning Board's public hearing, the Department of Ecology issued updated guidance
for wetland buffers. Staff informed the City Council of the updated wetland guidance at the July 24,
2018 Council meeting and confirmed that the City Council wished to update the wetland regulations
with the most recent guidance. Staff informed the Planning Board about the updated wetland guidance
at the July 25, 2018 Planning Board meeting at which time the Planning Board scheduled another public
hearing on the updated wetland buffer guidance, which was then held on August 22, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Set public hearing to receive public feedback on the proposed amendments.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds completed a comprehensive review of its critical area ordinance (CAO) as required
by the Growth Management Act in May 2016 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland
section of the CAO (ECDC 23.50) was developed from Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002 Wetlands &
CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. In June 2016, Ecology issued new guidance for wetlands under
Publication No. 16-06-001 Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Exhibit 1). At the time, the City was also
in the process of a comprehensive update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City Council
desired to have to most current wetland regulations apply to shoreline jurisdiction, so certain wetland
sections of the CAO were excepted from the SMP (which means they do not apply in shoreline
jurisdiction). Within the SMP, wetland regulations consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001 were
provided to replace the excepted sections. As a result the City of Edmonds has two versions of wetland
regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline
jurisdiction.
The City of Edmonds is required to complete a periodic review of the Shoreline Master Program by June
2019. In order to provide consistent regulations throughout the City, as part of the work program
adopted by the City Council for the SMP periodic review, the City identified updating the COA wetland
provisions excepted from the SMP to be consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001.
Following the July 11, 2018 Planning Board public hearing, the Department of Ecology issued updated
guidance on wetland buffers. A FAQ sheet on the updated guidance and Ecology recommendations are
7.2
Packet Pg. 174
included in Exhibit 2 and 3 respectively. The primary change between the 2016 and 2018 guidance is a
regrouping of the habitat scores. Wetland buffers widths are determined by the habitat score assessed
when the wetland determination is made. The 2016 wetland guidance had four potential buffer widths
based on habitat score. The 2018 guidance provides three potential buffers widths based on habitat
score. Below is a summary from the FAQ explaining why Ecology has issued the updated guidance:
We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland
data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to
make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores.
Low habitat function was previously represented by a score of 3 or 4 points and moderate
habitat function by 5-7 points. Detailed analysis of the habitat scores for the 211 reference
wetlands used to calibrate the rating system indicate that wetlands scoring 3, 4, or 5 points for
habitat are similarly distributed to those that scored <19 in the 2004 version. Habitat scores of
<19 points were considered low in the 2004 rating system. As a result, we need to adjust the
wetland buffer break points in the 2014 habitat scores. The modified tables now group habitat
scores of 3-5 into low habitat function and scores of 6-7 into moderate habitat function.
Exhibit 4 contains the proposed amendment to the City’s wetland buffer regulations consistent with
Publication No. 16-06-001 and the updated 2018 guidance.
Two other minor revisions to the CAO are also be proposed at this time. The first corrects a scriveners
error in Section ECDC 23.50.040.G.3.d and the second deletes an allowed activity in section ECDC
23.50.020.E. The allowed activity related to development within the previously developed footprint for
which specific regulations were included during the CAO update (see ECDC 23.50.040.J) and this section
should have been deleted.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001
Exhibit 2: FAQ - July 2018 Modified Habitat Score Ranges
Exhibit 3: Ecology July 2018 Code Recommendations for Modified Habitat Scores
Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance
Exhibit 5: June 13, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 6: July 11, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 7: July 24, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 8: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 9: August 22, 2018 Draft Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
7.2
Packet Pg. 175
Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates
Western Washington Version
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Publication and Contact Information
This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1606001.html
For more information contact:
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-6600
Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov
o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000
o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000
o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300
o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490
o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400
To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call
the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with
hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability
can call 877-833-6341.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
By
Donna Bunten, Rick Mraz, Lauren Driscoll and Amy Yahnke
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
This page is purposely left blank
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Table of Contents
Summary .......................................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................... 2
Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection ............................. 3
Relationship between the GMA and the SMA ................................ 4
Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter ................................ 4
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 4
DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4
IDENTIFYING, DESIGNATING, AND RATING WETLANDS .................................................... 5
REGULATED USES AND ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 7
EXEMPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 7
FOREST PRACTICES .......................................................................................................... 9
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................. 9
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts .......................... 10
WETLANDS INVENTORY ................................................................................................. 10
ABCS ............................................................................................................................. 10
BUFFERS ......................................................................................................................... 11
BUFFER AVERAGING ...................................................................................................... 13
MITIGATION ................................................................................................................... 13
MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 14
Mitigation Banking ............................................................................................... 15
In-Lieu Fee (ILF) .................................................................................................. 15
Off-Site Mitigation ................................................................................................ 16
Advance Mitigation ............................................................................................... 16
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 16
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter ...................................... 19
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions ................................................ 51
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
This page is purposely left blank
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 1
Summary
This publication replaces Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Western
Washington Version), Publication No. 10-06-002, January 2010. It also replaces the 1st
revision dated July 2011 and the 2nd revision dated October 2012.
This new publication, for the most part, contains the same guidance as the “small cities guidance” referenced above. Over the last few years, it became obvious that the
information in that document could apply to all cities and counties, not just small cities.
However, the wetland buffer table may be too restrictive for county use because it
assumes that adjacent land use intensity is high. Counties and larger cities generally have more staff and resources that allow more sophisticated approaches to assigning wetland buffers.
In addition, these jurisdictions may be able to provide additional protection for habitat
function by requiring protected wildlife corridors between the wetland and other priority habitats in exchange for buffer reduction—something that is often impossible in small, urban jurisdictions.
Check with Ecology wetland staff for more information about using this guidance in your
particular jurisdiction http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
Specific changes to this new publication include:
• Reference to the updated 2014 wetland rating system
• Updated definitions based on the updated 2014 wetland rating system
• Buffer tables that include habitat scores from the updated 2014 wetland rating
system
• Addition of buffer table to be used if minimizing measures are not used
• Emphasis on the requirement to provide wildlife corridors where possible in
exchange for buffer reduction
• Guidance on using wetlands for stormwater management facilities
• Revisions to exemptions for small wetlands
• Recommended language addressing agricultural activities in non-VSP
jurisdictions
• Addition of recent mitigation documents and guidance
• Corrected links to resource documents and web pages
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 2
Introduction
This document is intended to provide guidance and tools useful in developing a wetland
protection program for jurisdictions that are in the process of updating their critical areas
ordinances (CAOs) to meet the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements.
Wetlands are one of the five types of critical areas identified in the GMA.
We recognize that many local governments lack the planning staff and resources
necessary to develop and implement wetland standards that are both locally appropriate
and based on best available science (BAS). Nonetheless, they must comply with the
GMA requirement to designate and protect wetlands.
The first part of this document describes the important topics that should be addressed in
the wetlands section of your CAO. It includes recommendations for wetland protection
based on BAS. Appendix A is a sample CAO chapter for wetlands that incorporates
these recommendations into a format similar to that found in many local CAOs. (Please
note that the sample CAO will need to be tailored to your jurisdiction’s naming and numbering system. There are several generic “XX” references throughout the text.)
Appendix B contains definitions that are commonly used in wetlands regulations.
This document does not include the more general provisions typically found in
regulations related to all critical areas. These can be found in Appendix A of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of
Commerce (formerly the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development) in November 2003 http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
Critical-Areas-Appendix-A-Sample-Code-Provisions.pdf. This document revises the
wetland-specific provisions in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook.
The recommendations in this document and the sample ordinance may not be appropriate
for use by rural county governments. Factors to consider are the county’s rate of growth,
the nature and intensity of land uses in the county, the wetland resources at risk, and the
ability of the county to implement its CAO. We suggest that you contact us to determine whether this guidance is applicable to your county. Please use the following link to find
Ecology’s wetland specialist for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 3
Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection
Ecology has produced several different tools that can help local governments develop a
comprehensive wetlands protection program for their jurisdictions. The Washington
Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have published a
two-volume guidance document to help local governments protect and manage wetlands:
● Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-006, Olympia,
WA, March 2005). This volume is the result of an extensive search of over
17,000 scientific articles and synthesizes over 1,000 peer-reviewed works relevant
to the management of Washington’s wetlands.
● Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-008, Olympia,
WA, April 2005). This volume was developed with the assistance of local
government planners and wetland consultants. It can be used to craft regulatory language that is based on BAS. We recommend that you review Chapter 8 and its
appendices as you begin to work on updating your existing regulations. (Please
note: Appendix 8-C was revised in October 2014.)
In October 2013, Ecology released an update of the science pertaining to wetland buffers. The new information on buffers provides a refinement of our knowledge and revisits the
conclusions and key points in the 2005 synthesis.
• Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-011, Olympia, WA, October 2013.
Ecology, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has also developed a two-part guidance
document aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation in Washington State:
● Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and
Guidance (Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
#06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 1 provides a brief background on wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies’ permitting
decisions, and detailed guidance on the agencies’ policies of wetland mitigation,
particularly compensatory mitigation. It outlines the information the agencies use
to determine whether specific mitigation plans are appropriate and adequate.
● Wetland Mitigation in Washington State–Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans
(Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011b,
Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 2 provides technical information on preparing
plans for compensatory mitigation.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 4
Ecology has also developed a wetland ratings system for western Washington. The rating
system is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for
protection.
• Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29,
Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Links to all of these documents can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/index.html.
Relationship between the GMA and the SMA
You may be planning to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that will rely on the
CAO for protection of wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology
does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The
SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the local government requiring
Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the CAO must meet the “no net loss of ecological functions” requirement (WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)(i)).
You should be aware that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) may preclude or alter
the administration of your CAO. For example, certain activities exempted under the
CAO will not qualify for exemption under the SMP. In addition, activities allowed without permits under the CAO may require permits under the SMP.
For assistance with CAO-SMP integration, please use the following link to find the
shoreline planner for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/contacts/index.html.
Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter
Your wetlands chapter will exist as one of several in your critical areas ordinance. Below
we describe some of the important subsections in the wetlands chapter and include our
recommendations for protecting wetlands based on the best available science.
Purpose
The chapter typically begins with a purpose statement, followed by designation criteria, which include a definition of wetlands and the methods by which they are identified and
rated and other details listed below. The purpose statement may also state that this
chapter is intended to be consistent with the requirements of 36.70A RCW and to
implement the goals and policies of your Comprehensive Plan for protecting wetlands.
Definitions
Your wetlands chapter may include a separate list of definitions, or the definitions may be included in the general definitions section of the CAO. Appendix B is a list of
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 5
definitions relevant to your wetlands chapter. This list includes terms identified in state
law and agency guidance documents. Clarity and consistency in the use of these terms
will make ordinance implementation easier.
Identifying, Designating, and Rating Wetlands
The first steps in regulating wetlands are to define what is being regulated and specify how these areas will be identified. The GMA requires the use of the following definition of wetlands and specifies how to identify and delineate them.
In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, counties and cities are required to use
the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(21): “Wetland” or “wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-
wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage
ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland
areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.
Wetlands are subject to a local government’s regulatory authority if they meet the criteria in this definition. This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and isolated
wetlands. These wetlands can provide critical functions and habitat and should be
regulated. The GMA does not allow flexibility in adopting a modified definition of
wetlands.
Irrigation practices, such as the Irrigation District ditches in Sequim, can result in human-
created wetlands. More frequently, however, irrigation practices may augment natural
sources of water to a wetland. Wetlands that form along irrigation ditches that were
intentionally created in uplands may be exempted from regulation. However, if a wetland is the unintentional by-product of irrigation activities, the wetland should be regulated. If a wetland disappears as the result of a change in irrigation practice, it will not be regulated in
the future. However, most wetlands will not disappear completely as a result of local
changes in irrigation practices because of natural sources of water or regional irrigation
influences. Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/irrigation.html for more information on how Ecology regulates irrigation-influenced wetlands.
Ecology is most concerned about those changes in land use that would eliminate wetlands
as the result of fill or grading, such as a conversion to commercial or residential use.
These activities should be regulated by the CAO, and appropriate protection standards
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 6
(such as buffers and mitigation) should be required in order to minimize the loss of
wetland area and function.
Many jurisdictions use the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to determine whether wetlands exist within their boundaries. Since the NWI is based on photographs that are
over 30 years old and provides only a general approximation of wetland location, it
cannot be used alone to designate wetlands. Wetlands are those areas that meet the above
definition of “wetland.” Wetlands are also dynamic systems that change over time. It is
important to adopt the GMA definition and to have regulations in place to protect wetland functions and values, should wetlands that do not currently appear on the NWI or other
maps be identified in the future.
State laws require that wetlands protected under the GMA and the SMA be delineated
using a manual that is developed by Ecology and adopted into rules (RCW 36.70A.175; RCW 90.58.380). The Department of Ecology adopted a wetland delineation manual in
1997 (WAC 173-22-080) that was based on the original 1987 Corps of Engineers manual
and subsequent Regulatory Guidance Letters.
During the last few years the Army Corps of Engineers has updated and expanded their delineation manual with regional supplements. To maintain consistency between the state
and federal delineations of wetlands, Ecology has repealed WAC 173-22-080 (the state
delineation manual) and replaced it with a revision of WAC 173-22-035 that states that
delineations should be done according to the currently approved federal manual and
regional supplements. The changes became effective March 14, 2011.
The GMA states that “wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted
pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the
department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380.” RCW 90.58.380 allows the Department of
Ecology to adopt rules that incorporate changes to the manual. Therefore, the currently approved federal manual and regional supplements should be used for delineating wetlands in GMA jurisdiction. See:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html.
Local governments are not required to rate or classify wetlands when regulating them. However, methods that classify, categorize, or rate wetlands help target the appropriate
level of protection to particular types of wetlands and avoid the “one-size-fits-all”
approach. If a local government uses a wetland rating system, it must consider the
criteria described in WAC 365-190-090(3).
The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Effective January 2015), (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, October 2014) is a useful
tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. The revised
rating system represents the best available science, as it is based on a better
understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect them. It provides a quick “snapshot” characterization of a particular wetland. In many
cases, it will provide enough information about existing wetland functions to allow
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 7
adequate plan review and land use decisions to be made without the additional expense of
a separate wetland functional assessment.
While local governments are not required to use Ecology’s revised rating system, we strongly encourage you to adopt wetland regulations that require its use. Most
qualified wetland specialists are using the revised rating system. In cases where state and
federal permits are required, the use of this rating system would benefit applicants by
eliminating the need to rate wetlands according to a different local standard. If you
choose not to use the state’s wetland rating system, you must provide a rationale for this decision according to WAC 365-190-090(3).
We recommend that you include language that describes the four categories of wetlands.
This text is different for eastern and western Washington jurisdictions. Please refer to
Appendix A, Section XX.020.B.1-4 for the specific category descriptions.
Regulated Uses and Activities
Your wetland section should list those uses and activities that are regulated under the critical areas ordinance. Some of these items include: removal, excavation, grading, or
dredging of material of any kind; draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland, water
level, or water table; the construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any
structure; etc. More extensive examples are provided in the sample ordinance. Wetlands are often impacted by unauthorized clearing and grading that takes place
before application for development permits. You should make sure your CAO
adequately regulates clearing and grading. If it doesn’t, you should adopt a separate
clearing and grading ordinance. The Department of Commerce (formerly Community, Trade and Economic Development) published technical guidance on developing a clearing and grading ordinance: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
Clearing-and-Grading-Technical-Guidance-Final-2005.pdf.
Most forest practices (as defined in RCW 76.09 are exempted from the provisions of a wetlands chapter in the CAO. However, those forest practices that are Class IV general should be regulated. These activities constitute a conversion from forestry to some other
use. As such, buffers and wetland protections are appropriate.
Exemptions
Your wetlands section should identify those activities in or near wetlands that are
regulated and those that are exempt from regulation. Exemptions include activities that
will have little or no environmental effect or are an emergency that threatens public health or safety. In the case of emergency response activities that affect wetlands and
buffers, the responsible party should be required to obtain after-the-fact permits and to
rectify impacts. Some jurisdictions place the exemptions or exceptions in a general
exemptions section near the front of the CAO. However, some exemptions or exceptions
may apply only to wetlands, so it may be more practical to have these specific exemptions in the wetlands section.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 8
Exempt activities should be limited to those that will not have a significant impact on a
wetland’s structure and function (including its water, soil, or vegetation) and those that
are expected to be very short term. Local governments should, however, also consider
the cumulative impacts from exempted activities. They can result in a loss of wetland acreage and function that are not replaced through compensatory mitigation.
The scope, coverage, and applicability of a critical areas ordinance should capture the full
range of activities that are detrimental to wetland functions. Therefore, exemptions
should be supported by the scientific literature and be carefully crafted to minimize the potential for adverse impacts. However, a local government should not assume that an
exemption is appropriate in the absence of science to refute the exemption. The language
should clearly state whether a given activity is exempt from applicable standards in the
code or whether it is exempt from needing a permit but still must comply with the code.
Exemptions should be limited and construed narrowly.
For more information on this topic, please refer to Chapter 8 of Wetlands in Washington
State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication #05-06-008,
Olympia, WA, April 2005:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0506008.html).
The GMA, in RCW 36.70a.030(21), requires local governments to regulate wetlands that
meet the GMA-required definition of “wetland” (see the definition of “wetland” in the
previous section). This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and hydrologically isolated wetlands, two types of wetlands that have been exempt from federal regulation at times. PCCs are wetlands that have been ditched and drained for active agricultural use before December 23, 1985. Isolated wetlands are those wetlands that have no surface
hydrologic connection to waters of the United States. These wetlands must be regulated by
your CAO. Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/isolated.html for
more information on how the state of Washington currently regulates isolated wetlands.
The scientific literature does not support exempting wetlands that are below a certain size.
While we recognize an administrative desire to place size thresholds on wetlands that are
to be regulated, you need to be aware that it is not possible to conclude from size alone
what functions a particular wetland may be providing. Ecology has developed a strategy for exempting small wetlands when additional criteria are considered. This language is
present in the sample ordinance. However, impacts to small wetlands are NOT
exempt from the requirement to provide compensatory mitigation for those impacts.
If an in-lieu fee (ILF) program or a mitigation bank is available in your area (see page
15), these mitigation alternatives can help prevent a net loss of wetland function from impacts to small wetlands in your jurisdiction.
Exceptions are typically addressed in a CAO in the context of reasonable use of property.
For more information about this regulatory tool, see Section VII of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf .
You should keep in mind that the Shoreline Management Act does not allow reasonable
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 9
use exceptions, providing instead a variance pathway to afford regulatory relief. If you
decide to incorporate your CAO into your SMP when the latter document is
updated, you will need to address this potential inconsistency.
Forest Practices
Class I, II, and III forest practices should be exempted from the wetlands section of your CAO. These activities are regulated through RCW 76.09, the Forest Practices Act.
Agricultural Activities
In 2011 the Washington Legislature created the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) as
an alternative for meeting GMA requirements related to protecting critical areas and
agricultural lands. In 2015 the state provided funding for participating counties to begin the
VSP planning process. For more information on this program, see
http://www.scc.wa.gov/voluntary-stewardship/.
For the GMA update cycle beginning 2015, some counties will begin addressing critical
area issues related to agriculture through a VSP work plan.
If your jurisdiction is not in a participating county or not in a participating watershed, then you must review and revise your development regulations for protecting wetlands as they
apply to agricultural activities (see RCW 36.70A.710).
If your jurisdiction is in a VSP watershed designated by a participating county, your GMA
responsibilities to protect critical areas from agricultural activities in or near wetlands will be achieved through the VSP work plan.
However, it is important to keep in mind that federal and state regulations, such as the Clean
Water Act and the State Water Pollution Control Act are still applicable in all jurisdictions
regardless of participation or non-participation in the VSP. The VSP does not alter the responsibility of property owners to meet water quality standards, protect wetlands, and
comply with state and federal environmental regulations.
Ecology recommends the following for non-VSP jurisdictions:
“Existing and ongoing agricultural activities” are often exempted from the provisions of a
CAO. These activities should be clearly defined and should not include removing trees,
diverting or impounding water, excavation, ditching, draining, culverting, filling, grading,
or similar activities that introduce new adverse impacts to wetlands or other aquatic
resources. Maintenance of agricultural ditches should be limited to removing sediment in existing ditches to a specified depth at date of last maintenance. Conversion of wetlands
that are not currently in agricultural use to a new agricultural use should be subject to the
same regulations that govern new development.
Ecology encourages the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), farm conservation plans, and incentive-based programs to improve agricultural practices in and near
wetlands. The goal of the BMPs should be to ensure that ongoing agricultural activities
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 10
minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and
wildlife habitat.
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts
Wetlands Inventory
You may wish to pursue accurate identification and rating of all wetlands in your
planning area based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-
06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014) and the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. These documents can be downloaded at:
• http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/ratingsystems/index.html (rating
systems)
• http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html (delineation manual and supplements)
While this approach may initially be more labor intensive and expensive, such
information will allow rapid review of development proposals and can help your jurisdiction prioritize areas for preservation or acquisition.
This approach is consistent with BAS. It can help with the development of a landscape-
analysis approach to protecting wetlands in your jurisdiction. Landscape analysis for
critical areas facilitates and informs long-range planning. The City of Aberdeen used this approach in their CAO update. (See Section XX.050.B in the sample ordinance.)
ABCs
The most basic approach to protecting wetland functions and values can be summarized
as the A-B-C Approach, or Avoid-Buffer-Compensate. This means that a CAO should
contain language to ensure that:
1. Wetlands impacts are avoided to the extent practicable.
2. Wetlands are buffered to protect them from adjacent land-use impacts.
3. Unavoidable impacts are compensated, or replaced.
Your CAO should provide requirements on how to reduce the severity of impacts to
wetlands. When an alteration to a wetland is proposed, impacts should be avoided,
minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 11
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action;
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and/or
6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
Buffers
Establishing standards for wetland buffers is usually the most challenging part of developing a CAO. However, developing a predictable, reasonable approach for
establishing buffers that includes the best available science is not as difficult as it may
seem.
The scientific literature is unequivocal that buffers are necessary to protect wetland functions and values. The literature consistently reports that the primary factors to
evaluate in determining appropriate buffer widths are:
1. The wetland type and functions needing protection (buffers filter sediment, nutrients, or toxics; screen noise and light; provide forage, nesting, or resting habitat for wetland-dependent species; etc.).
2. The types of adjacent land use and their expected impacts.
3. The characteristics of the buffer area (slope, soils, vegetation).
The widths of buffers needed vary widely, depending on these three factors. For
example, providing filtration of coarse sediment from residential development next to a
low-quality wetland would require only a relatively flat buffer of dense grasses or forest/shrub vegetation in the range of 20 to 30 feet. However, providing forage and nesting habitat for common wetland-dependent species such as waterfowl, herons, or
amphibians in a high-quality wetland adjacent to residential development would require a
buffer vegetated with trees and shrubs in the range of 200 to 300 feet. This illustrates the
necessity of using an approach to buffers that incorporates wetland type and functions (based on an appropriate rating system), types of land use, and the environmental characteristics of the existing buffer.
Your CAO should require buffers for activities that will impact wetland functions.
Ecology’s complete buffer recommendations are presented in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 12
in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014). We recommend using the tables
shown in the sample ordinance.
Tables XX.1 and XX.3 are derived from the more-detailed tables in Volume 2. They are easy to use and are based on BAS. This approach provides the important balance of
predictability and flexibility. Determination of buffer size is simply a matter of applying
the results of the wetland rating system score to the buffer matrix, based on the wetland
category and wildlife habitat score. It generally requires smaller buffers for those
wetlands that do not have much wildlife use.
Table XX.1 requires the use of the minimizing measures in Table XX.2. These measures
are intended to reduce the impacts of the adjacent land use on the wetland. If impacts are
reduced, the size of the buffer required to protect the wetland’s functions can be reduced.
The buffer widths in Table XX.1 represent a 25% reduction in our recommended buffers in Volume 2.
Table XX.1 also requires the protection of a wildlife corridor between wetlands that score
5 or more habitat points and any other Priority Habitat. This requirement is particularly
applicable in large or rural jurisdictions where species need to have access to other habitats to meet their life needs. A buffer is the usual means of providing this necessary
habitat. However, if buffer reduction is allowed, we cannot ensure that these species will
have adequate access to habitat without providing a connective corridor. In urban areas,
the best solution is a landscape-based approach that takes into account actual species use
and spatial arrangement and connectivity of habitats. Without such an approach, jurisdictions should use the guidance provided in the sample wetland chapter.
If your jurisdiction is small and urban, providing a wildlife corridor may not be an option.
You should consult with Ecology wetland staff to determine whether using Tables XX.1
and XX.2 alone will provide adequate protection for your wetland functions.
Table XX.3 shows the buffer widths required if the minimizing measures in Table XX.2
are not implemented and if a wildlife corridor is not protected. These buffers are wider
than those in Table XX.1, because the impacts to the wetland functions are potentially
greater.
The buffer tables XX.1 and XX.3 do not consider land-use intensity in the buffer
calculation, since it is presumed that most urban land uses will be high or moderate
intensity. However, if your jurisdiction has an activity that can be considered low
intensity, such as a passive recreation area or nature park with undeveloped trails, you may wish to prescribe a smaller buffer for that area only. The buffer for an area should
be no less than 75% of the otherwise required buffer. Such a “low-intensity” buffer is not
appropriate for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Of course, if your jurisdiction
includes rural land uses, you should consider using the buffer tables in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014).
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 13
Some wetland types listed in the buffer tables may not be present in your jurisdiction
(e.g., coastal lagoons, bogs, interdunal wetlands, etc.). If you are certain that these
wetlands do not occur within your jurisdiction and would not be introduced by future
annexations, you may remove those wetland types from the buffer tables.
You may wish to adopt an even simpler approach to wetland buffers, one based only on
wetland category. In this case, buffers must be large enough to protect the most-sensitive
wetlands from the most-damaging land-use impacts. Please refer to Table 8C-1 of
Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014) for this example.
Ecology’s buffer recommendations are based on a moderate-risk approach to protecting
wetland functions. This means that there is a moderate risk that wetland functions will be
impacted. Adopting smaller buffers represents a high-risk approach, and you need to be prepared to justify why such an approach is necessary and to offer alternative means of
protecting wetland functions that help reduce the risk.
Ecology’s buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the
buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased.
Buffer Averaging
Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain
circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. The width
of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a parcel.
We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report. The report
should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the current functions of the
wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be taken to ensure that there is no loss of wetland function due to the buffer averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point after averaging should be no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer.
If you choose to adopt narrower buffer widths than those supported by BAS, then further
reductions to the buffer width should not be allowed under any circumstances.
Mitigation
Applicants are required by state and federal permitting agencies to show that they have followed mitigation sequencing and have first avoided and minimized impacts to
wetlands wherever practicable. Your CAO should include the definition of mitigation
sequencing and require applicants to demonstrate that they have applied avoidance and
minimization. For more information and sample checklists, see
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/avoidance.html.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 14
Unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset by compensatory mitigation. Your
CAO should include standards for the type, location, amount, and timing of the
mitigation. It should also include clear guidance on the design considerations and
reporting requirements for mitigation plans.
Ecology’s recommendations for the amount of mitigation (ratios) are based on wetland
category, function, and special characteristics. Requiring a greater area for mitigation
than the wetland area that will be impacted helps offset both the risk that compensatory
mitigation will fail and the temporal loss of functions that may occur. We recommend using the ratio table shown in the sample ordinance. It is derived from the more-detailed
tables in Part 1 of the joint agency guidance on mitigation: Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State, Parts 1 and 2 (Ecology Publications #06-06-011a & b, March 2006).
As an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance, Ecology has developed a credit-debit tool for calculating when a proposed wetland mitigation project
adequately replaces the functions and values lost when wetlands are impacted. The tool
is designed to provide guidance for both regulators and applicants during two stages of
the mitigation process:
1. Estimating the functions and values lost when a wetland is altered (debits), and
2. Estimating the gain in functions and values that result from the mitigation
(credits).
The Department of Ecology, however, does not require the use of this credit-debit
method. It provides one method for determining the adequacy of compensatory wetland
mitigation. It does not set any new regulatory requirements. The document and
worksheets can be downloaded at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/creditdebit/index.html.
In 2008 the Corps and the EPA issued a rule governing compensatory mitigation. The
rule establishes performance standards and criteria to improve the quality and success of
compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in-lieu fee programs. For more
information on the federal rule, see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmitigation_index.cfm.
By adopting mitigation standards based on the state and federal guidance and rules, you
will be providing consistency for applicants who must also apply for state and federal
permits.
Mitigation Alternatives
Various options are available for mitigation, in addition to the traditional on-site concurrent option. These options include placing the mitigation away from the project
site (off-site mitigation), building mitigation in advance of project impacts, and using
third-party mitigation providers such as wetland banks and in-lieu-fee programs.
Deciding which option should be used depends on what works best for the applicant and
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 15
for the environment. Some of these options may not be available in your area at this
time. However, we recommend that your CAO allow these options. They can be
effective and valuable tools in preventing a net loss of wetland functions.
Some project applicants may propose mitigation that is consistent with sound ecological
principles but is located outside of your jurisdiction. You may wish to include language
in your CAO that enables your government to allow such out-of-jurisdiction mitigation
opportunities.
In addition to the following options, you might want to consider allowing transfer of
development rights (TDR) as a tool for protecting wetlands. The Department of
Commerce is working with four Puget Sound counties in a pilot TDR program. For more
information, contact the Commerce planner for your jurisdiction or see: Commerce
Regional Assistance Teams.
Mitigation Banking
A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands, streams, and/or other aquatic resource areas
have been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the
purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A
mitigation bank may be created by a government agency, corporation, nonprofit organization, or other entity. The bank sells its credits to permittees who are required to
compensate for wetland impacts. Mitigation banks allow a permittee to simply write a
check for their mitigation obligation. It is the bank owner who is responsible for the
mitigation success. Mitigation banks require a formal agreement with the Corps,
Ecology, and the local jurisdiction to be used for federal or state permits.
Ecology adopted the final Wetland Mitigation Banks Rule (WAC 173-700) in 2009. The
purpose of the rule is to provide a framework for the certification, operation, and
monitoring of wetland mitigation banks. To learn more about wetland banking and the
rule, see Ecology’s website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/banking/index.html.
In-Lieu Fee (ILF)
In this approach to mitigation, a permittee pays a fee to a third party in lieu of conducting
project-specific mitigation or buying credits from a mitigation bank. ILF mitigation is used mainly to compensate for impacts to wetlands when better approaches to
compensation are not available or practicable, or when the use of an ILF is in the best
interest of the environment.
An ILF represents the expected costs to a third party of replacing the wetland functions lost or degraded as a result of the permittee’s project. Fees are typically held in trust until
sufficient funds have been collected to finance a mitigation project. Only a nonprofit
organization such as a local land trust, private conservation group, or government agency
with demonstrated competence in natural resource management may operate an ILF
program. All ILF programs must be approved by the Corps to be used for Section 404
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 16
permits. To learn more about ILF programs, see Ecology’s website at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/mitigation/ilf.html.
Off-Site Mitigation
This refers to compensatory mitigation that is not located at or near the project that generates impacts to wetlands. Off-site mitigation is generally allowed when on-site mitigation is not practicable or environmentally preferable.
The 2008 federal rule on compensatory mitigation requires that some type of watershed
approach be used in siting mitigation. Ecology, the Corps of Engineers, and EPA have developed guidance to help applicants select potential off-site mitigation sites. To download a copy of this guidance, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed
Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication #09-06-032, December 2009),
please see https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0906032.html.
Advance Mitigation
When compensatory mitigation is implemented before, and in anticipation of, future
known impacts to wetlands, it is referred to as “advance mitigation.” Advance
mitigation has been used mostly for large mitigation projects that are constructed in
distinct phases where the unavoidable impacts to wetlands are known. Advance
mitigation lets an applicant provide all of the compensation needed for the entire project affecting wetlands at one time, which may result in more favorable mitigation ratios.
Although similar to mitigation banking, advance mitigation is different in several ways.
Most importantly, advance mitigation is used only to compensate for the permittee’s
specific project (or projects) with pre-identified impacts to wetlands. Wetland banks provide mitigation for unknown future impacts within a specific “service” area. The
advance mitigation can be used only by the permittee. Advance mitigation may not be
sold unless it is changed to a wetland bank. Ecology, WDFW, and the Corps have
developed guidance to help applicants develop advance mitigation proposals. To
download a copy of this guidance, Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, December 2012), please see
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1206015.html
Conclusion
We hope you find this information helpful. If you have questions about this document or
need additional assistance with the wetlands section of your critical areas ordinance update, please call Donna Bunten at (360) 407-7172 or donna.bunten@ecy.wa.gov.
You may also contact one of Ecology’s regional wetland specialists. They are available
to work with you during your update process. For example, they can offer presentations
to elected officials and planning commissions. They can also provide technical assistance including help with wetland delineation, wetland rating, ordinary high water
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 17
mark determination, and project review. Please use the following link to find the wetland
specialist for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
For assistance with other aspects of your critical areas ordinance update, please contact the Department of Commerce at (360) 725-3000.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 18
This page is purposely left blank
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 19
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter
(Western Washington)
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 20
This page is purposely left blank
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 21
Subchapter XX.XX
Wetlands Sections: XX.010 Purpose
XX.020 Identification and Rating
XX.030 Regulated Activities XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
XX.060 Critical Area Reports
XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation
XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement
XX.010 Purpose
The purposes of this Chapter are to:
A. Recognize and protect the beneficial functions performed by many wetlands,
which include, but are not limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing
habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and discharging ground water; contributing to stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks and shorelines; storing
storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; and improving water quality
through biofiltration, adsorption, and retention and transformation of sediments,
nutrients, and toxicants.
B. Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the functions and values of wetlands throughout (name of jurisdiction).
C. Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to
wetlands.
1. Compliance with the provisions of the Chapter does not constitute
compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits, HPA permits, Army Corps of Engineers Section
404 permits, NPDES permits). The applicant is responsible for
complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in
this Chapter.
XX.020 Identification and Rating
A. Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of
their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplement. All areas within
the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Wetland delineations are
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 22
valid for five years; after such date the City shall determine whether a revision or
additional assessment is necessary.
B. Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of
Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as
revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for
determining whether the criteria below are met.
1. Category I. Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine
wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage
Program/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old-growth forested wetlands
larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands
that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands
that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more
sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed
and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a
human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions.
2. Category II. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal
wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3)
wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20
and 22 points).
3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be
adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project; and (3)
interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16
and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often
less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions
(scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are
wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve.
However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions,
and should be protected to some degree.
C. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal
modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant’s knowledge.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 23
XX.030 Regulated Activities
A. For any regulated activity, a critical areas report (see Chapter XX.060 of this
Chapter) may be required to support the requested activity.
B. The following activities are regulated if they occur in a regulated wetland or
its buffer:
1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel,
minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind.
2. The dumping of, discharging of, or filling with any material.
3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table.
4. Pile driving.
5. The placing of obstructions.
6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure.
7. The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing,
harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that
would alter the character of a regulated wetland.
8. "Class IV - General Forest Practices" under the authority of the "1992
Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations," WAC 222-
12-030, or as thereafter amended.
9. Activities that result in:
a. A significant change of water temperature.
b. A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of the
sources of water to the wetland.
c. A significant change in the quantity, timing, or duration of the water
entering the wetland.
d. The introduction of pollutants.
C. Subdivisions. The subdivision and/or short subdivision of land in wetlands
and associated buffers are subject to the following:
1. Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 24
2. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be
subdivided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new
lot is:
a. Located outside of the wetland and its buffer; and
b. Meets the minimum lot size requirements of Chapter XX.XX.
XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
A. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts (Chapter XX.070.A.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in Chapter XX.070.A.2 through 6. If available, impacts
should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program or
mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. In
order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the requirements in Chapter XX.060 must be submitted.
1. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers
b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated
buffers
c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic
d. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014
update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as
revised and approved by Ecology)
e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Area1 for a Priority
Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or
species of local importance identified in Chapter XX.XX.
2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not
contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the
buffer provisions contained in this Chapter.
1See page 6 of “Priority Habitat and Species List,” Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Olympia,
Washington. 177 pp.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 25
B. Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in
wetlands. These activities do not require submission of a critical area report, except
where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland
buffer. These activities include:
1. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, provided that they implement
applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the latest
editions of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG); or develop a farm conservation plan in coordination with the local conservation district. BMPs and/or
farm plans should address potential impacts to wetlands from livestock,
nutrient and farm chemicals, soil erosion and sediment control and
agricultural drainage infrastructure. BMPs and/or farm plans should
ensure that ongoing agricultural activities minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and wildlife habitat.
2. Those activities and uses conducted pursuant to the Washington State
Forest Practices Act and its rules and regulations, WAC 222-12-030,
where state law specifically exempts local authority, except those developments requiring local approval for Class 4 – General Forest
Practice Permits (conversions) as defined in RCW 76.09 and WAC 222-
12.
3. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or
functions of the existing wetland.
4. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water
sources.
5. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a wetland, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer, provided that the
drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or
percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific
studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground
water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column will be disturbed.
6. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of non-native invasive
plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to
hand removal unless permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments. All
removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 26
disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of
according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Re-
vegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species.
7. Educational and scientific research activities.
8. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the
maintenance or repair does not expand the footprint of the facility or right-
of-way.
9. Stormwater management facilities. A wetland or its buffer can be physically or hydrologically altered to meet the requirements of an LID, Runoff Treatment or Flow Control BMP if ALL of the following criteria
are met:
a. The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III
wetland with a habitat score of 3-4 points, and
b. There will be “no net loss” of functions and values of the
wetland, and
c. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species, and
d. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as
outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of
Chart 5 in the “Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach,” (available here:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0906032.html); or the wetland is
part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals
identified in a Shoreline Master Program or other local or
regional watershed plan, and
e. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the
discharge follows the natural routing, and
f. All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management are followed, including but not limited to local and state wetland
and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits, and
g. Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils
will require permits. Existing functions and values that are lost would have to be compensated/replaced.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 27
Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of New and Redevelopment
projects can be considered within wetlands and their buffers. However,
these areas may contain features that render LID BMPs infeasible. A site-
specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is feasible at the project site.
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
A. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in
accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland
and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high.
1. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in
Table XX.1 can be used if both of the following criteria are met:
• A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide
is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as
defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are available on the WDFW web site at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm )
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the
wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection
such as a conservation easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a
qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is
available, Table XX.1 may be used with the required measures in
Table XX.2 alone.2
• The measures in Table XX.2 are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
2. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in Table
XX.2 are required for the use of Table XX.1
3. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table
XX.2, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then
Table XX.3 must be used.
2 See discussion in the Introduction, page 12 as to whether this applies in small urban jurisdictions.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 28
4. The buffer widths in Table XX.1 and XX.3 assume that the buffer is
vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If
the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with
invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer
should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are
provided.
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category I:
Based on total score 75 105 165 225
Category I: Bogs and Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
190 225
Category I:
Coastal Lagoons 150 165 225
Category I:
Interdunal 225
Category I:
Forested 75 105 165 225
Category I:
Estuarine
150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
Based on score 75 105 165 225
Category II:
Interdunal Wetlands 110 165 225
Category II:
Estuarine
110
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 60 105 165 225
Category IV (all) 40
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 29
Table XX.2 Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands
(Measures are required if applicable to a specific proposal)
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights • Direct lights away from wetland
Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation
plantings adjacent to noise source
• For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining,
establish an additional 10’ heavily vegetated buffer strip
immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer
Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while
ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing
adjacent development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
• Use Low Intensity Development techniques (for more
information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual)
Change in water
regime
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
disturbance
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer
edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate
for the ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a
conservation easement
Dust • Use best management practices to control dust
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 30
Table XX.3 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category I:
Based on total score 100 140 220 300
Category I:
Bogs and Wetlands of High Conservation Value
250 300
Category I: Coastal Lagoons 200 220 300
Category I: Interdunal 300
Category I: Forested 100 140 220 300
Category I: Estuarine 200 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
Based on score 100 140 220 300
Category II:
Interdunal Wetlands 150 220 300
Category II:
Estuarine
150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 80 140 220 300
Category IV (all) 50
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 31
5. Increased Wetland Buffer Area Width. Buffer widths shall be increased
on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Administrator when a larger
buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. This
determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the
wetland. The documentation must include but not be limited to the
following criteria:
a. The wetland is used by a state or federally listed plant or animal species or has essential or outstanding habitat for those species, or has
unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor
nesting trees; or
b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion-control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
c. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than
30 percent.
6. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when
all of the following conditions are met:
a. The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its
habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a “dual-rated” wetland
with a Category I area adjacent to a lower-rated area.
b. The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of
habitat or more-sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower-functioning or less-sensitive portion as
demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland
professional.
c. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either ¾ of the
required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category
III, and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
7. Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all
of the following are met:
a. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 32
b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland’s
functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a
qualified wetland professional.
c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required
without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either ¾ of the
required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
B. To facilitate long-range planning using a landscape approach, the
Administrator may identify and pre-assess wetlands using the rating system and establish
appropriate wetland buffer widths for such wetlands. The Administrator will prepare maps of wetlands that have been pre-assessed in this manner.
C. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured
perpendicular from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a
wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or
enhanced wetland. Buffers must be fully vegetated in order to be included in buffer area
calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be
considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations.
D. Buffers on Wetland Mitigation Sites. All wetland mitigation sites shall have
buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter. Buffers shall be based on
the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site.
E. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this Chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced
condition. In the case of compensatory mitigation sites, removal of invasive non-native
weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond (Section XX.070.J.2.a.x).
F. Impacts to Buffers. Requirements for the compensation for impacts to buffers are outlined in Section XX.070 of this Chapter.
G. Overlapping Critical Area Buffers. If buffers for two contiguous critical
areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer applies.
H. Allowed Buffer Uses. The following uses may be allowed within a wetland
buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this Chapter, provided they are not
prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to
minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
1. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water,
vegetation, or wildlife.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 33
2. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved
critical area report, including:
a. Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways are limited to
minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They
should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located
only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the wetland buffer area,
and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for
pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing non-treated pilings
may be acceptable.
b. Wildlife-viewing structures.
3. Educational and scientific research activities.
4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or
private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the
maintenance or repair does not increase the footprint or use of the facility
or right-of-way.
5. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require
tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water
sources.
6. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a buffer, with entrance/exit
portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer boundary,
provided that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to
the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column.
Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water
down through the soil column would be disturbed.
7. Enhancement of a wetland buffer through the removal of non-native
invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be
restricted to hand removal. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on
the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds
must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan
appropriate to that species. Revegetation with appropriate native species
at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 34
8. Repair and maintenance of non-conforming uses or structures, where
legally established within the buffer, provided they do not increase the
degree of nonconformity.
I. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Buffers:
1. Temporary markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland buffer and the
clearing limits identified by an approved permit or authorization shall be
marked in the field with temporary “clearing limits” fencing in such a way
as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. The marking is
subject to inspection by the Administrator prior to the commencement of permitted activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained
throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if
required, are in place.
2. Permanent signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued
pursuant to this Chapter, the Administrator may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and
attached to a metal post or another non-treated material of equal
durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one (1) every fifty
(50) feet, or one (1) per lot if the lot is less than fifty (50) feet wide, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The
signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved
by the Administrator:
Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact [Local Jurisdiction]
Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship
b. The provisions of Subsection (a) may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Fencing
a. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the
wetland or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site.
b. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this
Subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species
migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner
that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 35
XX.060 Critical Area Report for Wetlands
A. If the Administrator determines that the site of a proposed development includes, is likely to include, or is adjacent to a wetland, a wetland report, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be required. The expense of preparing the wetland report
shall be borne by the applicant.
B. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum:
1. The written report shall include at a minimum:
a. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal;
identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland-related
permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project.
b. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon.
c. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field
data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic data, etc.
d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland
delineations, wetland ratings, or impact analyses, including references.
e. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the
proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate
conditions within 300 feet of the project boundaries using the best
available information. f. For each wetland identified on site and within 300 feet of the project
boundary, provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and
score for each function, per Wetland Ratings (Section XX.020.B) of
this Chapter; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on-site portion or estimate entire wetland
area including off-site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation
communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site
assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the
wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g.,
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 36
algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates,
classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not
only the portion present on the proposed project site.
g. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of
acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field
delineation and survey and an analysis of site development
alternatives, including a no-development alternative.
h. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and
buffers resulting from the proposed development.
i. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation
sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing (Chapter XX.070.A) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas.
j. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and
compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any
wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land-use activity.
k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that
addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland
functions.
l. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and its buffer. Include
references for the method used and data sheets.
2. A copy of the site plan sheet(s) for the project must be included with the written report and must include, at a minimum:
a. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and
required buffers on site, including buffers for off-site critical areas that
extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical areas; grading and clearing limits; and areas of proposed impacts to
wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates).
b. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and
outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall
contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s)
associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 37
XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation.
A. Mitigation Sequencing. Before impacting any wetland or its buffer, an
applicant shall demonstrate that the following actions have been taken. Actions are listed in the order of preference:
1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action. 2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative
steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations. 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments.
6. Monitor the required compensation and take remedial or corrective measures when necessary.
B. Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation:
1. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent
or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be
consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State–Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans—Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-
011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington)
(Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009).
2. Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with Subsection H of this Chapter.
3. Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool
described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation
in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication
#10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) consistent with
subsection H of this Chapter.
C. Compensating for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall
address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve
functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 38
compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when
either:
1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through
a formal Washington state watershed assessment plan or protocol; or
2. Out-of-kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet
watershed goals formally identified by the City, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types.
D. Approaches to Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished
wetland and buffer functions shall rely on the approaches listed below.
1. Wetland mitigation banks. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the mitigation bank instrument. Use of credits from a
wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC is allowed
if:
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide appropriate
compensation for the proposed impacts; and
b. The impact site is located in the service area of the bank.
c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the certified mitigation bank instrument.
d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits is consistent with
replacement ratios specified in the certified mitigation bank instrument.
2. In-Lieu Fee Mitigation: Credits from an approved in-lieu-fee program
may be used when all of the following apply:
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts.
b. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the approved in-lieu-fee program instrument.
c. Projects using in-lieu-fee credits shall have debits associated with the
proposed impacts calculated by the applicant’s qualified wetland
professional using the credit assessment method specified in the
approved instrument for the in-lieu-fee program.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 39
d. The impacts are located within the service area specified in the
approved in-lieu-fee instrument.
3. Permittee-responsible mitigation. In this situation, the permittee performs the mitigation after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for
implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible
mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off-site
location within the same watershed. Permittee-responsible mitigation
shall be used only if the applicant’s qualified wetland professional demonstrates to the approval authority’s satisfaction that the proposed
approach is ecologically preferable to use of a bank or ILF program,
consistent with the criteria in this section.
E. Types of Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland and buffer functions shall rely on a type listed below in order of preference. A lower-
preference form of mitigation shall be used only if the applicant’s qualified wetland
professional demonstrates to the approval authority’s satisfaction that all higher-ranked
types of mitigation are not viable, consistent with the criteria in this section.
1. Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic
functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net
gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into:
a. Re-establishment: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or
historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in a
gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include
removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles.
b. Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or
historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a
gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres.
Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland.
2. Establishment (Creation): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site to develop a wetland on an upland or
deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Establishment results in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically involve excavation
of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod,
create hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
a. If a site is not available for wetland restoration to compensate for expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the approval authority may
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 40
authorize creation of a wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the
applicant’s qualified wetland professional that:
i. The hydrology and soil conditions at the proposed mitigation site are conducive for sustaining the proposed wetland and that
creation of a wetland at the site will not likely cause hydrologic
problems elsewhere;
ii. Adjacent land uses and site conditions do not jeopardize the viability of the proposed wetland and buffer (e.g., due to the
presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds, stormwater runoff,
noise, light, or other impacts); and
iii. The proposed wetland and buffer will eventually be self-sustaining with little or no long-term maintenance.
3. Enhancement. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific
function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water
quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat.
Enhancement results in a change in some wetland functions and can lead
to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in
wetland acres. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the
proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination
of these activities. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or
associated buffers shall demonstrate how the proposed enhancement will
increase the wetland’s/buffer’s functions, how this increase in function will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland
functions at the mitigation site will be protected.
4. Protection/Maintenance (Preservation). Removing a threat to, or
preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This includes the purchase of land or easements, or repairing
water control structures or fences. This term also includes activities
commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not
result in a gain of wetland acres. Permanent protection of a Category I or
II wetland and associated buffer at risk of degradation can be used only if:
a. The approval authority determines that the proposed preservation is the
best mitigation option;
b. The proposed preservation site is under threat of undesirable ecological change due to permitted, planned, or likely actions that will not be
adequately mitigated under existing regulations;
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 41
c. The area proposed for preservation is of high quality or critical for the
health of the watershed or basin due to its location. Some of the
following features may be indicative of high-quality sites:
i. Category I or II wetland rating (using the wetland rating system for
western Washington)
ii. Rare or irreplaceable wetland type (for example, bogs, mature forested wetlands, estuarine wetlands) or aquatic habitat that is rare
or a limited resource in the area;
iii. The presence of habitat for priority or locally important wildlife
species; or also list has provides biological and/or hydrological connectivity;
iv. Provides biololgical and/or hydrological connectivity;
v. Priority sites in an adopted watershed plan.
d. Permanent preservation of the wetland and buffer will be provided
through a conservation easement or tract held by an appropriate natural
land resource manager, such as a land trust.
e. The approval authority may approve other legal and administrative
mechanisms in lieu of a conservation easement if it determines they are
adequate to protect the site.
f. Ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation generally range from 10:1 to 20:1, as determined on a case-by-case
basis, depending on the quality of the wetlands being impacted and the
quality of the wetlands being preserved. Ratios for preservation as the
sole means of mitigation generally start at 20:1.
F. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall generally be conducted within the same sub-drainage basin and on the site of the
alteration except when the applicant can demonstrate that off-site mitigation is
ecologically preferable. The following criteria will be evaluated when determining
whether the proposal is ecologically preferable. When considering off-site mitigation, preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an
in-lieu-fee program, or advance mitigation.
1. There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub-drainage
basin (e.g., on-site options would require elimination of high-functioning
upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub-drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the
capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 42
include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer
conditions and required widths, available water to maintain anticipated
hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood
storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity);
2. On-site mitigation would require elimination of high-quality upland
habitat.
3. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved
wetland functions than the altered wetland.
4. Off-site locations shall be in the same sub-drainage basin unless:
a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or
conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site;
or
b. Credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank are used as
compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the certified bank instrument;
c. Fees are paid to an approved in-lieu-fee program to compensate for the
impacts.
5. The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be
appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore,
compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or
enhancement of an atypical wetland. G. Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory
mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will impact wetlands. At the
least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and
prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation
projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
1. The Administrator may authorize a one-time temporary delay in
completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation
when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified
wetland professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that
could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction
difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing
plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater
survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 43
delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written
justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude
implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification must be verified and approved by the City.
H. Wetland Mitigation Ratios3:
Category and Type of Wetland Creation or Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement
Category I:
Bog, Natural
Heritage site
Not considered
possible Case by case Case by case
Category I:
Mature Forested 6:1 12:1 24:1
Category I:
Based on functions 4:1 8:1 16:1
Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1
Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1
Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1
I. Credit/Debit Method. To more fully protect functions and values, and as an
alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State Parts I and II (Ecology Publication #06-06-011a-b, Olympia, WA,
March 2006), the administrator may allow mitigation based on the “credit/debit” method developed by the Department of Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for
Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report, (Ecology
Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised).
3 Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through
creation or re-establishment. See Table 1a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance –Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as
revised). See also Paragraph D.4 for more information on using preservation as compensation.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 44
J. Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or
buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall
be required, meeting the following minimum standards:
1. Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area report for wetlands must
accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include
the minimum parameters described in Minimum Standards for Wetland
Reports (Section XX.060.B) of this Chapter.
2. Compensatory Mitigation Report. The report must include a written report
and plan sheets that contain, at a minimum, the following elements. Full
guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State– Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication #06-06-
011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised).
a. The written report must contain, at a minimum:
i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name,
qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s)
of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation
concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal
wetland-related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity
map for the project.
ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands.
iii. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to
be altered. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime,
vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and
functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and
wetland rating, based on Wetland Ratings (Section XX.XX) of
this Chapter.
iv. Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including
location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and
uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils,
landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions.
Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation
actions are NOT undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress through natural succession?).
v. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an
analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for
enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 45
Include illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic
conditions were used to determine the estimates of future
hydrologic conditions
vi. A description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall
goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the
targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and
categories of wetlands.
vii. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities.
viii. Performance standards (measurable standards for years post-
installation) for upland and wetland communities, a monitoring
schedule, and a maintenance schedule and actions proposed by
year.
ix. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
wetlands after the development project has been implemented,
including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for
remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands).
x. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation, plant
materials, construction materials, installation oversight,
maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual
monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for
a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring.
xi. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and
buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation
areas.
b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain,
at a minimum:
i. Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed
areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed
wetland and/or buffer compensation actions.
ii. Existing topography, ground-proofed, at two-foot contour
intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area(s). Also
include existing cross-sections (estimated one-foot intervals) of
wetland areas on the development site that are proposed to be
altered and for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer
compensation.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 46
iii. Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including
future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by
dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water
regimes.
iv. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed
compensation areas. Also identify any zones where buffers are
proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards
identified in this Chapter.
v. A planting plan for the compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of
plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering
patterns, total number of each species by community type, and
timing of installation.
K. Buffer Mitigation Ratios. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory buffer mitigation shall replace those buffer functions lost from
development.
L. Protection of the Mitigation Site. The mitigation area and any associated
buffer shall be located in a critical area tract or a conservation easement consistent with
Chapter XX.XX.
M. Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a period necessary to
establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five
years. If a scrub-shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring may be
required for ten years or more. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring
elements that ensure certainty of success for the project’s natural resource values and functions. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial five-year period, the
applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions
until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved.
N. Advance Mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre-identified impacts to wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts if the mitigation is implemented
according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality
regulations consistent with Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-
Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, Olympia, WA, December
2012).
O. Alternative Mitigation Plans. The Administrator may approve alternative
wetland mitigation plans that are based on best available science, such as priority
restoration plans that achieve restoration goals identified in the SMP. Alternative
mitigation proposals must provide an equivalent or better level of protection of wetland functions and values than would be provided by the strict application of this chapter.
The Administrator shall consider the following for approval of an alternative
mitigation proposal:
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 47
1. The proposal uses a watershed approach consistent with Selecting Wetland
Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington)
(Ecology Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009).
2. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open
space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas.
3. Mitigation according to Section E is not feasible due to site constraints such as parcel size, stream type, wetland category, or geologic hazards.
4. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the
proposed mitigation site.
5. The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving
compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. A monitoring plan
shall, at a minimum, meet the provisions in Section J.
6. The plan shall be reviewed and approved as part of overall approval of the proposed use.
7. A wetland of a different type may be justified based on regional needs or
functions and values; the replacement ratios may not be reduced or
eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental alternative.
8. Mitigation guarantees shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in
Section J.2.a.viii.
9. Qualified professionals in each of the critical areas addressed shall prepare
the plan.
10. The City may consult with agencies with expertise and jurisdiction over
the critical areas during the review to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately
safeguard critical areas.
XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement
A. When a wetland or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Chapter, all
ongoing development work shall stop, and the critical area shall be restored. The City
shall have the authority to issue a “stop-work” order to cease all ongoing development
work and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner’s or other responsible party’s expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this
Chapter.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 48
B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain
stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the City. Such a plan shall
be prepared by a qualified professional using the currently accepted scientific principles
and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in Subsection C below. The Administrator shall, at the applicant or other responsible
party’s expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate
plans shall be returned to the applicant or other responsible party for revision and re-
submittal.
C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. The following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a wetland, provided that if the
applicant or other responsible party can demonstrate that greater functions and habitat
values can be obtained, these standards may be modified:
1. The historic structure, functions, and values of the affected wetland shall
be restored, including water quality and habitat functions.
2. The historic soil types and configuration shall be restored to the extent
practicable.
3. The wetland and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types,
sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated
at the location of the alteration.
4. Information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of this Chapter shall be submitted to the Administrator.
D. Site Investigations. The Administrator is authorized to make site inspections
and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Chapter. The Administrator shall
present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property.
E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted
of violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
1. Each day or portion of a day during which a violation of this Chapter is
committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any
development carried out contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall
constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the
statutes of the state of Washington. The City may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter. The civil penalty shall
be assessed at a maximum rate of $XX dollars per day per violation.
2. If the wetland affected cannot be restored, monies collected as penalties shall be deposited in a dedicated account for the preservation or
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 49
restoration of landscape processes and functions in the watershed in which
the affected wetland is located. The City may coordinate its preservation
or restoration activities with other cities in the watershed to optimize the
effectiveness of the restoration action.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 50
This page is purposely left blank
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 51
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions
(Western Washington)
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 52
This page is purposely left blank
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 53
Appendix B – Wetland Definitions
Agricultural Activities, Existing and Ongoing – Those activities conducted on lands
defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops
and livestock, including but not limited to operation, maintenance and conservation
measures of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, irrigation systems, changes
between agricultural activities, and normal operation, maintenance or repair of existing serviceable structures, facilities or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into
agricultural use are not part of an ongoing activity. An operation ceases to be ongoing
when the area in which it was conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural
use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years, unless the idle land is registered
in a federal or state soils conversation program. Alteration – Any human-induced change in an existing condition of a critical area or its
buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading, filling, channelizing,
dredging, clearing of vegetation, construction, compaction, excavation, or any other
activity that changes the character of the critical area.
Best Available Science – Current scientific information used in the process to designate,
protect, or restore critical areas; that is, derived from a valid scientific process as defined
by WAC 365-195-900 through 925.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that:
(a) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high
concentrations of nutrients, animal waste, toxics, or sediment;
(b) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and ground water flow and
circulation patterns and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands;
(c) Protect trees, vegetation, and soils designated to be retained during and
following site construction and use native plant species appropriate to the
site for re-vegetation of disturbed areas; and
(d) Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical areas.
Bog – A low-nutrient, acidic wetland with organic soils and characteristic bog plants, as
described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA,
October 2014).
Buffer or Buffer Zone – The area contiguous with a critical area that maintains the
functions and/or structural stability of the critical area.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 54
Coastal Lagoon – A shallow body of water partly or completely separated from the sea
by a barrier beach that receives periodic influxes of salt water, as described in
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Critical Areas – Critical areas include any of the following areas or ecosystems: critical
aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically
hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands, as defined in RCW 36.70A and this Chapter.
Creation – The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to
develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously
exist. Creation results in a gain in wetland acreage and function. A typical action is the
excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod and hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
Cumulative Impacts or Effects – The combined, incremental effects of human activity
on ecological or critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the
effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular
place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact
analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions.
Development – A land use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of
structures; grading, dredging, drilling, or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving of pilings; or any project of a temporary or permanent
nature which modifies structures, land, wetlands, or shorelines and which does not fall
within the allowable exemptions contained in the City Code.
Enhancement – The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a wetland to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for
specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife
habitat. Enhancement results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline
in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Examples are
planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, and modifying site elevations to alter hydroperiods.
Estuarine Wetland – A vegetated wetland with a water regime that is predominately
tidal, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Functions and Values – The services provided by critical areas to society, including, but
not limited to, improving and maintaining water quality, providing fish and wildlife
habitat, supporting terrestrial and aquatic food chains, reducing flooding and erosive
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 55
flows, wave attenuation, historical or archaeological importance, educational
opportunities, and recreation.
Growth Management Act – RCW 36.70A and 36.70B, as amended.
Hazardous Substances – Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the
physical, chemical, or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303-
100.
Impervious Surface – A surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water
into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non-vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an
increased rate of flow from the flow present under pre-development or pre-developed
conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops,
walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving,
gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater.
In-Kind Compensation – To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose
characteristics and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a
regulated activity.
In-Lieu-Fee Program – An agreement between a regulatory agency (state, federal, or local) and a single sponsor, generally a public natural resource agency or non-profit
organization. Under an in-lieu-fee agreement, the mitigation sponsor collects funds from
an individual or a number of individuals who are required to conduct compensatory
mitigation required under a wetland regulatory program. The sponsor may use the funds
pooled from multiple permittees to create one or a number of sites under the authority of the agreement to satisfy the permittees’ required mitigation.
Infiltration – The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil.
Interdunal Wetland – A wetland that forms in the deflation plains and swales that are
geomorphic features in areas of coastal dunes, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology.
Isolated Wetland – A wetland that is hydrologically isolated from other aquatic
resources, as determined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Isolated wetlands may perform important functions and are protected by state law (RCW 90.48) whether or not they are protected by federal law.
Mature and Old-Growth Forested Wetland – A wetland having at least 1 contiguous
acre of either old-growth forest or mature forest, as described in Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 56
Mitigation – Avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts.
Mitigation, in the following sequential order of preference, is:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
(c) Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and
habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation
of the project;
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
(e) Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and
(f) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial
action when necessary.
Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures.
Monitoring – Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological,
hydrological, and geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of
required mitigation measures through the collection and analysis of data by various
methods for the purpose of understanding and documenting changes in natural ecosystems and features. Monitoring includes gathering baseline data.
Native Vegetation – Plant species that occur naturally in a particular region or
environment and were present before European colonization.
Off-Site Compensation – To replace critical areas away from the site on which a critical
area has been impacted.
On-Site Compensation – To replace critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a
critical areas has been impacted.
Ordinary High Water Mark – That mark which is found by examining the bed and
banks of water bodies and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so
common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, that the soil has a character distinct from that of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 57
Preservation – The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland
conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This term includes the purchase of land or
conservation easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural
protection. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres but may result in a gain in functions over the long term.
Project Area – All areas, including those within fifty (50) feet of the area, proposed to be
disturbed, altered, or used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed
structures. When the action binds the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan, planned unit development, or rezone, the project area shall include the
entire parcel, at a minimum.
Prior Converted Croplands – Prior converted croplands (PCCs) are defined in federal
law as wetlands that were drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated,
including the removal of woody vegetation, before December 23, 1985, to enable production of an agricultural commodity, and that: 1) have had an agricultural
commodity planted or produced at least once prior to December 23, 1985; 2) do not have
standing water for more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season, and 3) have
not since been abandoned.
Qualified Professional – A qualified professional for wetlands must be a professional
wetland scientist with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands
professional, including delineating wetlands using the federal manual and supplements,
preparing wetlands reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and
implementing mitigation plans.
Re-establishment – The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former
wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in
wetland acres and functions. Activities could include removing fill, plugging ditches, or
breaking drain tiles.
Rehabilitation – The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions and processes of a
degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result
in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or returning tidal influence to a wetland.
Repair or Maintenance – An activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design
of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged
condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter critical areas are not
included in this definition.
Restoration – Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature, including:
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 58
(a) Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat,
or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an
unauthorized alteration; and
(b) Actions performed to re-establish structural and functional characteristics of a critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management
activities, or catastrophic events.
SEPA – Washington State Environmental Policy Act, 43.21C RCW.
Service Area – The geographic area within which impacts can be mitigated at a specific
mitigation bank or an in-lieu-fee program, as designated in its instrument.
Soil Survey – The most recent soil survey for the local area or county by the National
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Species – Any group of animals or plants classified as a species or subspecies as
commonly accepted by the scientific community.
Species of Local Importance – Those species of local concern designated by the City in Chapter XX.XX due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation.
Species, Listed -- Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or state
endangered, threatened, and sensitive, or priority lists (see WAC 232-12-297 or page 6 of
“Priority Habitat and Species List,” Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008,
Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.)
Stream – An area where open surface water produces a defined channel or bed, not
including irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other
entirely artificial watercourses, unless they are used by salmonids or are used to convey a
watercourse naturally occurring prior to construction. A channel or bed need not contain
water year-round, provided there is evidence of at least intermittent flow during years of normal rainfall.
Unavoidable Impacts – Adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved.
Washington Administration Code (WAC) – Administrative rules implementing state
laws.
Wetlands – Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include
those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands
created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 59
of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Wetland of High Conservation Value – A wetland that has been identified by scientists
from the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WHNHP) as an important ecosystem for maintaining plant diversity in Washington State. See http://www.dnr.wa.gov/data-
information-natural-heritage-features .
Wetland Mitigation Bank – A site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in
exceptional circumstances, preserved, expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable impacts to wetlands or other aquatic
resources that typically are unknown at the time of certification to compensate for future,
permitted impacts to similar resources.
Wetland Mosaic – An area with a concentration of multiple small wetlands, in which each patch of wetland is less than one acre; on average, patches are less than 100 feet
from each other; and areas delineated as vegetated wetland are more than 50% of the total
area of the entire mosaic, including uplands and open water.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001 (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Exhibit 2: FAQ - July 2018 Modified Habitat Score Ranges (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Exhibit 2: FAQ - July 2018 Modified Habitat Score Ranges (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
July 2018 Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Section XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
A.1.d Do not score 6 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or
as revised and approved by Ecology) B.9.a The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 3-5 points, and
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
A. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in
accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the
habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high.
1. For wetlands that score 6 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in Table XX.1 can be used if both of the following criteria are met:
• A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is
protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are available on the WDFW web site at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm )
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified
biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, Table XX.1 may be used with the required measures in Table XX.2 alone.1
1 See discussion in the Introduction, page 12 as to whether this applies in small urban jurisdictions.
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Ecology July 2018 Code Recommendations for Modified Habitat Scores (Introduction to Updating Critical Area
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
July 2018 Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
• All of the measures in Table XX.2 are implemented, where applicable, to
minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. 2. For wetlands that score 3-5 habitat points, only the measures in Table XX.2 are required for the use of Table XX.1
3. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table XX.2, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then Table XX.3 must be used.
4. The buffer widths in Table XX.1 and XX.3 assume that the buffer is vegetated
with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that
adequate functions of the buffer are provided.
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Ecology July 2018 Code Recommendations for Modified Habitat Scores (Introduction to Updating Critical Area
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
July 2018 Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat
score
Wetland Category 3-5 6-7 8-9
Category I:
Based on total score 75 110 225
Category I:
Bogs and Wetlands of High Conservation Value
190 225
Category I: Interdunal 225 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category I: Forested 75 110 225
Category I: Estuarine and Coastal Lagoons
150 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II: Based on score 75 110 225
Category II: Interdunal Wetlands 110 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
Estuarine and Coastal
Lagoons
110
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 60 110 225
Category IV (all) 40
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Ecology July 2018 Code Recommendations for Modified Habitat Scores (Introduction to Updating Critical Area
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
July 2018 Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Table XX.2 Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands
(All measures are required if applicable to a specific proposal)
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights • Direct lights away from wetland
Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source
• For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining,
establish an additional 10’ heavily vegetated buffer strip
immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer
Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while
ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing
adjacent development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
• Use Low Intensity Development techniques (for more
information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual)
Change in water
regime
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
disturbance
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer
edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement
Dust • Use best management practices to control dust
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Ecology July 2018 Code Recommendations for Modified Habitat Scores (Introduction to Updating Critical Area
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
July 2018 Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Table XX.3 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat
score
Wetland Category 3-5 6-7 8-9
Category I:
Based on total score 100 150 300
Category I:
Bogs and Wetlands of High Conservation Value
250 300
Category I: Interdunal 300 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category I: Forested 100 150 300
Category I: Estuarine and Coastal Lagoons
200 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II: Based on score 100 150 300
Category II:
Interdunal Wetlands
150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
Estuarine and Coastal Lagoons
150 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 80 150 300
Category IV (all) 50
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Ecology July 2018 Code Recommendations for Modified Habitat Scores (Introduction to Updating Critical Area
Edmonds Page 1/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Wetlands. A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal delineation manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035, that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the wetland designation criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title.
B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating system found in the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029. Consistent with the wetland rating system criteria and parameters within this document, wetlands that are rated for ecological functions with highest point totals (23 points or higher) perform ecological functions associated with water flow, water quality and habitat at highest levels, whereas wetlands that are rated with lowest point totals (15 points or lower) perform ecological functions at lowest levels. Wetlands that are rated with points between 16 and 22 points perform ecological functions at moderate to high levels.
1. Category I. Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old-growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions.
2. Category II. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points).
3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project; and (3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree.
5. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant’s knowledge.
1. The City of Edmonds Wetland Rating Categories:
a. Category I Wetlands. Category I wetlands are those that represent a unique or rare wetland type; are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The following types of wetlands are Category I:
i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre;
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 2/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
ii. Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR;
iii. Bogs;
iv. Wetlands with mature and old-growth forests larger than one acre;
v. Wetlands in coastal lagoons;
vi. Wetlands that perform functions at high levels as indicated by a score of 23 points or more based on functions.
b. Category II Wetlands. Category II wetlands are those that are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. The following types of wetlands are Category II:
i. Estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre;
ii. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions as indicated by a score of 20 to 22 points based on functions.
c. Category III Wetlands. Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions as indicated by a score of 16 to 19 points based on functions.
d. Category IV Wetlands. Category IV wetlands are those with the lowest levels of functions as indicated by scores below 16 points based on functions.
All wetlands should be rated consistent with the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington using the 2014 Western Washington Rating Form.
C. Date of Wetland Rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date of adoption of the rating system by the local government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications.
D. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Maps produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to identify potential wetland areas. The inventory and cited resources are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds, project applicants, and/or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation.
E. Delineation. The exact location of a wetland’s boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified professional wetland scientist applying the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.
F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a lacustrine (lake) environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands existing along the periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided in this section. Consistent with guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional wetlands along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent emergent vegetation in shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds shoreline master program.
G. Edmonds Marsh. The city has a 23-acre Edmonds marsh wetland which in addition to a wildlife habitat and natural resource sanctuary is also classified by the state as a priority habitat.
H. Other Significant Wetland.
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 3/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
1. Good Hope Pond.
2. Mouth of Shell Creek. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Allowed Activities – Wetlands
23.50.020 Allowed activities – Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include:
A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland.
B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources.
C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed.
D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species.
E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or wetland buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or increase the impact to a wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Wetlands
23.50.040 Development standards – Wetlands. A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas.
B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title.
C. Category I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category I wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title.
D. Category II Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category II wetlands, the following standards shall apply:
1. Water-dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas.
2. Where non-water-dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that:
a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and
b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer.
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 4/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
E. Category III and IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category III and IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan.
F. Wetland Buffers.
1. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high.
a. For wetlands that score 6 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in subsection F.1.e can be used if both of the following criteria are met:
i. A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, subsection F.1.e may be used with the required measures in subsection F.1.f alone.
ii. The measures in subsection F.1.f are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
b. For wetlands that score 3-5 habitat points, only the measures in subsection F.1.f are required for the use of subsection F.1.e
c. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in subsection F.1.f, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then subsection F.1.g must be used.
d. The buffer widths in subsection F.1.e and subsection F.1.fg assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.
e. Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if subsection F.1.f is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in Feet) Based on Habitat Score
Wetland Category 3-5 6-7 8-9
Category I: Based on total score 75 110 225
Category I: Bogs and wetlands of high conservation value 190 225
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 5/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Category I: Forested 75 110 225
Category I: Interdunal 225 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category I: Estuarine and Coastal Lagoons
150 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II: Based on score 75 110 225
Category II: Interdunal wetlands 110 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II: Estuarine and Coastal Lagoons
110 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 60 110 225
Category IV (all) 40
f. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands (All measures are required if applicable to a specific proposal).
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights • Direct lights away from wetland
Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation planting adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10-foot heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outter wetland buffer
Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use low intensity development techniques (for more information see stormwater ordinance and manual)
Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 6/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract to protect with a conservation easement
Dust • Use best management practices to control dust
g. Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if subsection F.1.f is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided
Buffer Width (in Feet) Based on Habitat Score
Wetland Category 3-5 6-7 8-9
Category I: Based on total score 100 150 300
Category I: Bogs and wetlands of high conservation value 250 300
Category I: Forested 100 150 300
Category I: Interdunal 300 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category I: Estuarine and Coastal Lagoon
200
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II: Based on score 100 150 300
Category II: Interdunal wetlands 150 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II: Estuarine and Coastal Lagoons
150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 80 150 300
Category IV (all) 50
1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths in subsection (F)(1)(d) of this section have been established in accordance with best available science. The buffers are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington.
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 7/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
a. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in subsection (F)(2) of this section, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
b. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in subsection (F)(2) of this section, then a 33 percent increase in the width of all buffers is required.
c. The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the buffer is composed of nonnative vegetation, lawn, or bare ground, then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may be required to either develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard width or widen the standard width to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.
d. Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Table.
Wetland Category Minimum Buffer Width (Wetland scores 3 – 4 habitat points)
Buffer Width (Wetland scores 5 habitat points)
Buffer Width (Wetland scores 6 – 7 habitat points)
Buffer Width (Wetland scores 8 – 9 habitat points)
Category I: Based on total score 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category I: Bogs and wetlands of high conservation value
190 ft 190 ft 190 ft 225 ft
Category I: Forested 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category I: Estuarine 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft
Category II: Based on score 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category III (all) 60 ft 105 ft 165 ft 165 ft
Category IV (all) 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft
2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. The standard wetland buffer widths in subsection
(F)(1)(d) of this section assumes implementation of the following measures, where applicable to a specific proposal:
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights • Direct lights away from wetland
Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10 ft heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer
Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland • Apply integrated pest management
Storm water runoff • Retrofit storm water detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use low impact development techniques (per Puget Sound Action Team publication on LID techniques)
Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 8/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Dust • Use best management practices to control dust
Disruption of corridors or connections • Maintain connections to off-site areas that are undisturbed • Restore corridors or connections to off-site habitats by replanting
3. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site-specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria:
a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas;
b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and
standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or
c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with this subsection (F)(3) may substitute.
d. The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the director that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species.
4. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland
alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland.
5. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter.
6. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond.
G. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses.
1. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the city of Edmonds, the applicant shall mitigate impacts to achieve no net loss of wetland acreage and functions consistent with ECDC 23.50.050 and other applicable provisions of this title.
2. At the discretion of the director, standard wetland buffers may be averaged or reduced when consistent with all criteria in this subsection (G). Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be preferred over wetland buffer reduction with enhancement. Wetland buffer reduction shall only be approved by the director when
buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site.
3. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging with Buffer Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a standard wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that:
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 9/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
a. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland;
b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places;
c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard buffer; and
d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced by more than 25 percent to less than 50 percent of the standard buffer width.
4. Buffer Width Reductions through Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the director, and only when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category III and IV wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer width reductions by no more than 25 percent of the standard width; provided, that:
a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland;
b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees;
c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D); and
d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards including but not limited to:
i. Percent vegetative cover;
ii. Percent invasive species cover;
iii. Species richness; and
iv. Amount of large woody debris.
5. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
a. All activities allowed by ECDC 23.50.020, Allowed activities – Wetlands.
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 10/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
b. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife.
c. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including:
i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability, are generally located only in the outer 25 percent of wetland buffers, and are located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the width of the wetland buffer, trails may be placed in the outer 25 percent of the remaining wetland buffer. The trail shall be no more than five feet in width and for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. The director may allow trails within the inner 25 percent of wetland buffers when required to provide access to wildlife viewing structures, fishing access areas, or connections to other trail facilities;
ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and
iii. Fishing access areas down to the water’s edge that shall be no larger than six feet.
d. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category III or IV wetlands only; provided, that:
i. No other location is feasible; and
ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland.
iii. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category I or II wetlands.
iv. Projects shall also comply with all applicable requirements in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Management, including Minimum Requirement No. 8, Wetland Protection.
H. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands.
1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place.
2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director:
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact the City of Edmonds
Regarding Uses and Restrictions
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 11/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
b. The provisions of subsection (H)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Permanent Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer under the following circumstances; provided, that the director may waive this requirement:
a. As part of any development proposal for single-family plats, single-family short plats, multifamily, mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area; provided, that breaks in permanent fencing may be allowed for access to permitted buffer uses (subsection (G)(5) of this section);
b. As part of development proposals for parks where the adjacent proposed use is active recreation and the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area;
c. When buffer averaging is employed as part of a development proposal;
d. When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal; or
e. At the director’s discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area.
I. Additions to Structures Existing within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers.
1. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section; provided, that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this title; and provided, that all impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, wetland buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing:
a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer;
b. Outside of a wetland buffer averaged (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(3) of this section;
c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(4) of this section;
d. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 300 square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum three-to-one (3:1) ratio (enhancement-to-impact);
e. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 500 square feet of new footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum five-to-one (5:1) ratio (enhancement-to-impact), and that storm water low impact development (LID) techniques and other measures are included as part of the wetland/buffer enhancement plan.
2. Where meeting wetland buffer enhancement requirements required by subsection (I)(1) of this section would result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area.
3. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the sequencing in subsection (I)(1) of this section (i.e., additions proposed within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director’s discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210.
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 12/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
J. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a wetland buffer; provided, that the following conditions are met:
1. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.005;
2. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the wetland edge as is feasible;
3. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the wetland and not represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development;
4. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent wetland and associated buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development;
5. Enhancement is provided as wetland or buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within the footprint of existing development occurring in a wetland buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer; and
6. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the wetland buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration.
K. Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts (ECDC 23.40.120.B.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in ECDC 23.40.120.B.2 through 6. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. In order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the requirements in ECDC 23.50.030 must be submitted.
1. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers
b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers
c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic
d. Do not score 6 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology)
e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Area1 for a Priority Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or species of local importance identified in Chapter 23.90 ECDC.
2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this Chapter.
K. Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands. The director may allow small, hydrologically isolated Category III or IV wetlands under 1,000 square feet in area to be exempt from the avoidance sequencing provisions of ECDC 23.40.120 and the wetland development standards provisions of subsection (F) of this section. At the discretion of
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
Edmonds Page 13/13
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
the director such wetlands may be altered; provided, that a submitted critical areas report and mitigation plan provides evidence that all of the following conditions are met:
1. The wetland is less than 1,000 square feet in area;
2. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife;
3. The wetland is not adjacent to a riparian area;
4. The wetland has a score of three to four points for habitat in the adopted Western Washington rating system; and
5. A mitigation plan to replace lost wetland functions and values is developed, approved and implemented consistent with ECDC 23.50.050. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance (Introduction to Updating Critical
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 12
ADUs can be a key strategy, and he is glad to see the concept reflected in the draft document. He emphasized that the Housing Strategy is the beginning of the conversation, and any kind of real structural change will have to go through another process, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process where issues such as infrastructure impacts will be discussed. Chair Monroe asked if the fire and police departments have been involved in the Housing Strategy process. Mr. Shipley said the draft document is intended to provide broad-level list of housing strategies. As the City begins to select strategies for implementation, the fire and police departments will be invited to engage in the discussions and share their thoughts on potential impacts. Mr. Lien announced that there is a link to the Housing Strategy website on the City’s homepage, and the Housing Strategy website has a link for written comments. All written comments will be incorporated into the record. The Board took a short break at 9:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. INTRODUCTION OF CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE – WETLANDS Mr. Lien reviewed that the City completed a comprehensive review of its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) in May 2016, with adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland section (ECDC 23.50) of that document was based on the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) “Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities.” However, in June of 2016, the DOE subsequently issued new guidance for wetlands in a publication titled, “Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates.” When the more recent guidance was published, the City was in the process of completing a comprehensive update of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the City Council indicated a desire to incorporate the most current regulations within the SMP, which means that the regulations in the SMP are different than what’s in the CAO. Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA) conflict with each other. The SMA rules in shoreline jurisdictions within 200 feet of shorelines, and the GMA rules outside of the shoreline jurisdictions. The CAO implements the GMA and the SMP implements the SMA. Currently, the City has two versions of wetland regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and another that applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The City is required to complete a periodic review of the SMP by June 2019, and the overall plan is to update the CAO before
completing the periodic review of the SMP and then adopt the CAO again. Mr. Lien advised that the SMP adopted most of the CAO regulations, but there were some that were excepted out. In particular, the wetland ratings were excepted out because the new guidance came out after the CAO was adopted. The proposed amendments would update the CAO to be consistent with the most recent wetland guidance from the DOE. When the SMP is revised, the City will adopt the updated CAO and then one set of wetland regulations will apply to the entire City. Mr. Lien advised that two other minor revisions to the CAO are also being proposed. He reviewed that during the last CAO update, a new provision was added that dealt with adding or developing within the footprint of existing development that required some enhancement. A proposed amendment would delete the “allowed activity” section in ECDC 23.50.020.E, to be consistent with the updated regulations. Another amendment would correct a scrivener’s error in the Wetland Buffer Averaging section. As part of the CAO update, the wetland buffer cannot be reduced by more than 25%, but language was inadvertently
left in that said a buffer could be reduced by 50%. He summarized that the main intent of the amendments is to make sure that the wetland regulations, ratings, buffers and mitigation measures, as well as a section dealing with small wetlands, are updated consistent with the most recent wetland guidance. Board Member Rosen asked if the proposed amendments would maintain, strengthen or weaken the protection of wetlands. Mr. Lien answered that because the changes are based on the DOE’s newest guidance document that is based on Best Available Science (BAS), the City’s regulations would be strengthened to provide greater protection. The first change has to do with how wetlands are categorized, and the proposed amendment would simply add more description without significantly changing the protection. He explained how wetland determinations and categorizations are done using the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington and advised that the buffer requirements in the DOE’s newest guidance document are similar to those in the current CAO. However, the newest guidance requires certain mitigation measures for each wetland classification. If the mitigation measures are not met, the buffers are enlarged. To make this clear, the update includes two buffer tables, one to identify the buffers that apply if you do the required mitigation measures and a second table with wider buffers that would
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Exhibit 5: June 13, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 13
apply if you don’t do the mitigation measures. He noted that most of the wetlands in Edmonds are Category III or IV, and the Edmonds Marsh is a Category II. The SMP update established a 125-foot setback around the Edmonds Marsh (110-foot buffer and a 15-foot building setback). Mr. Lien advised that a public hearing on the proposed amendments is scheduled for July 11th. Chair Monroe asked if there are any cons to the proposed amendments. Mr. Lien said he could not come up with any. The amendments will provide greater protection and are consistent with the latest guidance from the DOE. Chair Monroe asked if the proposed amendments would further limit a developer’s ability to develop near a wetland. Mr. Lien answered, provided a developer does the mitigation measures, the buffer requirements would not change. He briefly reviewed the mitigation measures, noting that none of them are particularly onerous over what is currently required. There is also flexibility in the code via buffer averaging and buffer width reductions. In addition, development is allowed within the previously developed footprint with enhancement, and there is flexibility for some small additions within the buffers. He reminded the Board that much of Edmonds was developed before any environmental regulations, and a lot of the current development is within the buffer areas. Board Member Lovell asked if the City has a map that identifies the wetlands areas by category. Mr. Lien answered that this would be a very expensive proposition. However, the web map includes all of the critical area layers. It is a generalized map and not a regulatory map. The most prevalent critical areas in Edmonds are geologically hazardous areas. Anytime development is proposed within a critical area, the applicant is required to fill out a Critical Area Checklist and City staff does a quick map review and site visit. When an applicant applies for a Development Permit, staff takes a closer look at the critical area to determine whether or not a Critical Area Report will be required. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the June 27th agenda will be a continued discussion and possible recommendation on the Housing Strategy and an introduction to the SMP periodic review. The July 11th agenda will be public hearings on the CAO update and code updates for permit decision making. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe commented that the public hearing went well, and the comments were evenly split between pros and cons. He heard support for the ADU concept. However, the City needs to do a better job of educating the public on the housing issues. There seems to be a perception that homelessness equals crime and drugs, which is an unfair representation of that population. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell cautioned that the Board will face challenges when and if the Strategy is adopted by the City Council and it comes back to them to develop a specific implementation plan that includes regulation and zoning changes. These changes will require a lot of work by the Board. Board Member Crank recalled comments she made early in the Housing Strategy discussion about the importance of educating
and communicating with the public. When people hear the term affordable housing, they tend to think crime-ridden projects. She challenged the Planning Board and the City Council to be very intentional with what this term means and not just leave it to interpretation. They have to do a better of job of conveying the intent to provide housing opportunities for people who already live in Edmonds. They are not trying to move people into Edmonds from other communities. The community she lived in in the Bay Area used in-lieu fees to purchase property when it became available to accommodate affordable housing complexes that were owned by the city. A process was established that the first people who could apply to live in the units were teachers, public safety workers, and certain long-term residents. These complexes are now full of people who already lived or worked in the City. She hopes the Board will use this example and keep in mind who they are trying to serve with the strategies. Board Member Rubenkonig said that during the break, numerous people commented on how much they appreciated how well the meeting was conducted and the information that was provided. Several specifically said that what they felt got the people
most concerned was the graphic in the Housing Strategy of the tiny homes that are similar to those that have been used in
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Exhibit 5: June 13, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2018 Page 11
Board Member Robles expressed his belief that the public might be misunderstanding Strategies 4 and 5 and an additional education component might be appropriate to better communicate their intent. In his opinion, the best way to deal with homelessness and crime is to have social workers and police officers who can live in the community. Board Member Rosen supported Chair Monroe’s recommendation relative to Strategies 4 and 5 but felt the Board should go further to encourage a better forum for public input, perhaps with a combination of open house and public hearing. Director Hope agreed it would be helpful to provide an example of the process for implementing a strategy or action, but she recommended that it not become part of the actual draft Housing Strategy. Chair Monroe clarified that Board Member Lovell’s recommendation would add an explanation of the public process that would be required before the action items under each of the strategies could be implemented. This additional information would make it clear that the document is a strategy plan and not an action plan. Director Hope said the strategy mentions that public processes would be required before any code amendments could occur. Chair Monroe agreed, but suggested that the language should walk through the actual steps that will be required. Rather than providing the process for every single action item, one example would be sufficient. CHAIR MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES AND OBSERVATIONS:
• ADD AN EXPLANATION AND EXAMPLE OF THE PROCESS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT ANY CODE CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION ITEMS.
• MAKE THE LANGUAGE LESS PRESCRIPTIVE (REPLACE SHOULD WITH COULD).
• ENCOURAGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO DO MORE PUBLIC OUTREACH VIA A PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE AND/OR PUBLIC SURVEY.
• THERE IS STRONG PUBLIC CONCERN RELATIVE TO STRATEGIES 4 AND 5. BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISIONS, THE BOARD ENCOURAGES THE CITY COUNCIL TO SEEK ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER CITIZEN INPUT, DIALOGUE AND EDUCATION. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board took a short break at 9:08 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATES TO SPECIFIC WETLAND REGULATIONS Mr. Lien reviewed that the City completed the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update in May of 2016, and the Department
of Ecology (DOE) issued new guidance on wetlands in June of 2016. At that time, the City was in the process of doing a comprehensive update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the Council wanted it to include the most recent
regulations, so certain wetland sections of the CAO were excepted from the SMP. This means they do not apply in the shoreline jurisdictions. Wetland sections consistent with the new guidance were provided to replace the excepted sections. As a result,
the City now has two versions of wetland regulations; one that applies within the shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of the shoreline jurisdictions.
Mr. Lien advised that the City is required to complete a periodic review of the SMP by June of 2019. In order to provide
consistent regulations throughout the City, the work program for the SMP update will include updating the CAO wetland provisions excepted from the SMP to be consistent with the most recent guidance. When the SMP is revised, the City will
adopt the updated CAO and then one set of wetland regulations will apply to the entire City. He referred the Board to the DOE’s new wetland guidance (Attachment 1), as well as the draft amendments to the CAO, which are outlined in Attachment 2. He reviewed that, as proposed, the following sections would be amended to match what is currently in the SMP:
• ECDC 23.50.010.B – Wetland Ratings
• ECDC 23.50.040.F.1 – Standard Buffer Widths
• ECDC 23.50.040.F.2 – Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands
• ECDC 23.50.040.K – Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Exhibit 6: July 11, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2018 Page 12
Mr. Lien explained that once these sections have been updated, the SMP will be amended to reference the CAO. The result would be one set of regulations that apply throughout the City. In addition to updating the four sections listed above, staff is proposing changes to ECDC 23.50.020.E to remove an older reference that should have been deleted when the CAO was last updated and a new section was added having to do with development within the footprint of development. In addition, ECDC 23.50.040.G.3.d would be amended to correct a scrivener’s error. He summarized that the proposed changes are straightforward, basically adopting the regulations that are already in the SMP into the CAO. The amendments to the CAO will be adopted into the SMP as part of the periodic update. Mr. Lien recommended the Commission forward the proposed amendments to the CAO to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Lien to share information about his new position and his background and experience relative to SMP and CAO issues. She also asked Mr. Lien to share whether or not the proposed amendments are consistent with the DOE’s process for adopting revisions. Lastly, she commented that none of the proposed amendments would alter the City Council’s previous tailored approach to buffers. Mr. Lien said his new title is Environmental Programs Manager, and he has been working in planning and environmental regulations for close to 20 years. He has worked on two or three complete CAO updates and has been with the City of Edmonds for about 10 years. During that time, he has worked on comprehensive reviews of both the CAO and SMP. His current responsibilities include a mix of current and long-range planning. He is well versed in the City’s code and processes and how the code provisions are applied on the ground. Mr. Lien explained that the SMP is under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the CAO is under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The two documents do not play together. Within the shoreline jurisdiction, the SMP and the SMA rule and outside of shoreline jurisdiction the GMA and CAO rule. Updating the CAO is not a DOE process and the DOE does not have to approve it. However, they must follow the regular code update process, which involves a public hearing by the Planning Board, a recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Council, a notice to the Department of Commerce, etc. The City Council will make the final decision regarding the proposed amendments. The SMP periodic review process is outlined by the DOE, and the City’s process is consistent. This public hearing is strictly related to the CAO. Mr. Lien said Board Member Rubenkonig’s third comment is more related to the SMP than the CAO, particularly as it pertains to the Urban Mixed Use 4 shoreline environment. The proposed amendments would not change the SMP or the Urban Mixed Use 4 shoreline environment. However, the overall intent is to do the CAO update in conjunction with the SMP period review so they can readopt the CAO and have one set of regulations that apply throughout the City as opposed to two. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, so the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS WETLAND REGULATIONS BE UPDATED CONSISTENT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PUBLICATION NUMBER 16.06.001. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe announced that the July 25th agenda will include a presentation on the SMP periodic review, a public hearing on a proposed rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 (File No. PLN20160044), and a public hearing on a code update for permit decision making. He reminded the Board that the public hearing for the rezone application will be quasi-judicial. He asked that a discussion about the Board’s retreat also be placed on the July 25th agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments.
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Exhibit 6: July 11, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 22
fortunate that opportunity was available when they wanted to make that move. The economics of families
moving in will provide additional revenue for City. He emphasized the Housing Strategy is a strategy, a lot
of planning will follow. He summarized people are moving here and the City needs to prepare.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there was not much in the strategy about senior housing and
veteran housing. She suggested coalition building to create that type of housing was important. Ms. Hope
responded diverse housing needs includes veterans, seniors, families, etc.
Councilmember Mesaros commented Compass Housing Alliance who is partnering with Edmonds
Lutheran Church on their project have been meeting housing needs in the community for 100 years.
Approximately 12-15 years ago, Compass built a facility specifically for veterans on 200th, south of Costco
in Shoreline. The firm he was associated with for 22 years helped raise $4 million in private philanthropy
for that facility and the project received a number of government grants. The building looks like a nice,
ordinary apartment building and it is not apparent it is subsidized housing for veterans. He anticipated with
partners like Compass, there will be other quality projects.
Councilmember Teitzel commented he was very partial to the needs of the senior population, noting he was
Medicare eligible. Edmonds has the highest average age in Snohomish County and a lot of seniors want to
age in place in Edmonds. For that reason, he likes the proposal related to ADUs and DADUs which will
enable people to stay in Edmonds.
Councilmember Johnson commented the State of Washington has a deferred tax program for low income
seniors; application forms are available from the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office. For anyone having
difficulty paying their utility bills, she suggested contacting the utility for a reduce rate; Edmonds, the PUD
and Snohomish County all have programs.
Mayor Earling asked Ms. Hope to pass on his thanks to the Edmonds Housing Strategic Task Force. He
was encouraged by the draft strategy, noting there was still time in the process to answer questions. He
emphasized this was a strategy, not immediate direction. He recognized the man who spoke tonight who
said he read the entire report and it answered most of his questions. He encouraged the public to take the
time to read the report.
2. SENIOR CENTER LEASE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
This item was rescheduled to the August 7 Council meeting.
3. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE UPDATE
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed.
Background
o Completed CAO update in May 2016
o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06-
001
o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program
o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act
Within shoreline jurisdiction, the SMA rules
Outside of shoreline jurisdiction, the GMA and CAO rule
As a result, the City had two wetland regulations, one that applied in shoreline jurisdiction
and one that applied outside of shoreline jurisdiction
o SMP Periodic Review
SMP Excepted Sections
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Exhibit 7: July 24, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 23
o ECDC 23.50.010.B, Wetland Ratings.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands.
o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
History Repeats Itself (almost)
o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018 and forwarded recommendation to City
Council to update to the 2016 guidance
o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018
“If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you
use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update.”
o Staff is seeking verification of the Council’s intent to have the most recent wetland guidance
incorporated within the City’s wetland regulations
Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance
o “We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland
data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to
make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores.”
Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables
2016
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
If Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category 1: Based on total score 75 105 165 225
2018
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
If Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-5 6-7 8-9
Category 1: Based on total score 75 110 225
Does the Council wish to have staff update the wetland regulations consistent with the most recent
wetland guidance from the Department of Ecology?
It was the consensus of the Council that they wanted staff to update the wetland regulations consistent with
the most recent guidance from Department of Ecology.
10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling encouraged the public to attend the Police Department open house on Thursday from 6 to 8
p.m. at the police station. He reported hundreds of people enjoyed the Sand Sculpture Contest at the beach
today. For the first time, he judged the great artwork created by younger participants.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Mesaros reported he also had a delightful time at the Sand Sculpture Contest at Marina
Beach this afternoon. He completed a triathlon on Sunday and came in third out of four in his age group.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Exhibit 7: July 24, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
APPROVED AUGUST 8TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 25, 2018
Chair Monroe 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 Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Alicia Crank (excused) Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was modified to add a discussion about the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as Item 5b and a discussion about the Board’s retreat as Item 8a. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board Members to the written Development Services Director’s Report and invited Board Members to comment. Board Member Lovell announced that he attended the July 18th Economic Development Commission meeting where they agreed to cancel their August 15th meeting. AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board held a public hearing on CAO updates to specific wetland regulations on July 11th and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council. He recalled that the purpose of the proposed amendments was to bring the wetland regulations in the CAO up to date with the Department of Ecology’s (DOEs) 2016 Guidance. The intent was to adopt the updated CAO sections as part of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) during the upcoming periodic
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Exhibit 8: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 2
review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July 12th, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council’s intent to update the wetland regulations with the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING-QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision-making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution. Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003:
• Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and staff administrative design review.
• Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits, administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required.
• Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III-A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required, shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III-A decisions are not appealable to the City Council. Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments (PRDs).
• Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final PRDs and site-specific rezones.
• Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area-wide zoning map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations. Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision-making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council’s discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision-making
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Exhibit 8: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
SUBJECT TO SEPTEMBER 12TH APPROVAL
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 22, 2018
Chair Monroe 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 Nathan Monroe, Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair (excused) Alicia Crank (excused) Mike Rosen (excused)
STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA A discussion about the Planning Board Retreat was added under “Unfinished Business,” and the remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director’s Report and invited Board comments. Board Member Lovell strongly recommended that a member of the Board attend the public open house on the Housing Strategy on August 27th at 7 p.m. in the Brackett Room on the 3rd Floor of City Hall. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed to attend. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATES TO SPECIFIC WETLAND REGULATIONS Mr. Lien reviewed that the City completed a comprehensive review of its Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) in May of 2016. In June of 2016, the Department of Ecology (DOE) issued new guidance
7.2.i
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Exhibit 9: August 22, 2018 Draft Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 22, 2018 Page 2
for wetlands (Publication No. 16-06-001). At that time, the City Council was also in the process of a comprehensive update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City Council indicated a desire to have the most current wetland regulations apply to shoreline jurisdictions, so certain wetland sections of the CAO were excepted from the SMP and wetland regulations consistent with the new guidance was added to the SMP to replace the excepted sections. This resulted in the City having two versions of wetland regulations: one that applies within shoreline jurisdictions and another that applies outside of shoreline jurisdictions. Mr. Lien advised that the City is required to complete a periodic review of the SMP by June 2019. In order to provide consistent wetland regulations throughout the City, the City Council asked that the CAO wetland provisions that were excepted from the SMP be updated to be consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001. The Board had a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the CAO on July 11th, but the DOE issued new guidance for wetlands on July 12th. He notified the City Council of the new guidance, and the City Council confirmed that they wanted the most up-to-date guidance incorporated into the CAO. Mr. Lien referred to a FAQ sheet on the updated guidance and the DOE’s recommendations (Attachments 2 and 3 in the Staff Report). He reviewed that the primary change between the 2016 and 2018 guidance is a regrouping of the habitat scores. Wetland buffer widths are determined by the habitat score assessed when wetland determination is made. The 2016 guidance has four potential buffer widths based on habitat score, and the 2018 guidance provides three. He explained that a low habitat function was previously represented by a score of 3 or 4 points and moderate habitat function by a score of 6 or 7 points. A habitat score of 8 or 9 was classified as high habitat function. The DOE has regrouped the scores so that the habitat score of 5 was combined with scores of 3 and 4 into the low habitat function category and scores of 6 or7 falls into the moderate habitat function. Mr. Lien advised that two other revisions to the CAO are also proposed. The first corrects a scrivener’s error in ECDC 23.50.040.G.3.d and the second deletes an allowed activity in ECDC 23.50.020.E. The allowed activity relates to development within the previously developed footprint for which specific regulations were included during the CAO update. ECDC 23.50.020.E is no longer applicable and should be deleted. Mr. Lien reported that he was notified via email that the DOE has reviewed the update and approves of the proposed changes. Board Member Lovell recalled that, at their last meeting, he proposed some changes to ECDC 20.80.100 to provide greater clarity as to who is responsible to pay fees when appeals are filed. Mr. Lien indicated that the language has been updated, but noted that the changes to ECDC 20.80.100 are related to the SMP periodic review and not the CAO update. Chair Monroe opened the public hearing. As there was no one in the audience to participate, he subsequently closed the hearing and returned to the Board for deliberation and a recommendation. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the minutes of August 8th, noting Mr. Lien’s comment that following the public hearing and public comment period, staff would respond to comments received and then the Board could formalize its recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien advised that this comment was related to the SMP periodic review and not the CAO update. To clarify for the Board, Mr. Lien explained that the current SMP excepts four provisions that are contained in the City’s current CAO:
• ECDC 23.50.010.B – Wetland Ratings
• ECDC 23.50.040.F.1 – Buffer Requirements
• ECDC 23.50.040.F.2 – Standard Buffer Widths
• ECDC 23.50.040.K – Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses
He further explained that the City adopted a specific version of the CAO into the SMP that did not include these four provisions.
Instead, similar versions of these sections, consistent with Publication No. 16.06.001, were added to the SMP. The CAO is used outside of shoreline jurisdictions and the SMP is used inside shoreline jurisdictions. As part of the work program adopted
by the City Council, they agreed to amend the four provisions in the CAO that were excepted from the SMP to bring them up to date with the DOE’s 2016 guidance and then the 2018 guidance. When the SMP periodic review is done, it will readopt the
7.2.i
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Exhibit 9: August 22, 2018 Draft Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 22, 2018 Page 3
CAO with the changes that are currently proposed (Attachment 4). This will result in one set of wetland regulations that apply throughout the City. Mr. Lien reviewed that, at the Board’s last meeting, he presented proposed amendments to the SMP, noting that they are waiting for the Edmonds Marsh Study to get further along before moving them forward to a public hearing. He summarized that the CAO amendments must be adopted first before they can be incorporated into the SMP. Although the CAO amendments relate to the SMP update, they are separate and require a separate action. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CRITICAL AREA WETLAND REGULATIONS BE UPDATED CONSISTENT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PUBLICATION NO 16-06-001 (WETLAND GUIDANCE FOR CAO UPDATES) AND THE UPDATED BUFFER GUIDANCE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ON JULY 12, 2018 AS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING BOARD RETREAT Chair Monroe suggested that the retreat be scheduled for September 12th. However, a few Board Members indicated they would be unavailable on that date. Chair Monroe agreed to poll the Board Members to identify a date that works best, likely either September 12th or September 26th. Board Member Lovell recalled the Board’s discussion at their last meeting about potential retreat topics. Two ideas were to bring in a guest speaker to talk about Blockables or conducting a review of a property that might be appropriate for affordable housing to see what would be required. He agreed with the point made by Board Member Cloutier that these two discussions should be held at a working meeting so the public has an opportunity to participate. However, he suggested it might be appropriate to invite a guest speaker to talk about the housing situation within Snohomish County in general. Board Member Lovell said some of the other topics discussed relate to economic development and tourism, which fall under the Economic Development Commission’s purview. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the City Council recently considered a proposal from the Economic Development Commission to amend the BD zoning provisions to allow three-story development. The Historic Preservation Commission voiced opposition to this change, and particularly voiced concern about how it could change the historic character of the downtown. She suggested it might be helpful to discuss historic areas and the steps that other communities have taken to preserve them. Board Member Robles recalled that the Board did well anticipating the housing issue. They recognized potential problems early on and put their heads together to talk about solutions. Perhaps the Board could do the same with other hot-button issues and get ahead of them with anticipatory policies. For example, short-term rentals could become a hot-button issue in Edmonds. While it is a small issue now, it is a growing problem in other areas as more opportunities for this type of use become available. Board Member Lovell suggested it might also be worthwhile to invite a guest speaker to discuss the Buildable Lands Analysis as a place to start when looking at viable options for housing alternatives in Edmonds. Mr. Chave said he could explore the potential of someone from the County coming to the retreat to present this information to the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested another topic might be the impact of Snohomish County’s urban centers on the City of Edmonds boundaries, since code in Snohomish County allow a different type of development. Mr. Chave said the Board could also have a discussion with staff about the subjects that are coming down the pike. He said staff is currently working to establish a list of projects that will need to be added to the Board’s extended agenda. Chair Monroe agreed to meet with Ms. Hope and Vice Chair Cheung to finalize agenda topics and a date for the retreat. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
7.2.i
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Exhibit 9: August 22, 2018 Draft Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Introduction to Updating Critical Area Regulations for Wetlands)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/4/2018
CIP-CFP Discussion
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Rob English
Background/History
On August 14, 2018, the Public Works and Parks Committee discussed the development of the 2019-
2024 CIP/CFP.
Staff Recommendation:
This item is for discussion.
Narrative
The item provides an opportunity for staff and the City Council to discuss the development of the 2019-
2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP).
Attachments:
Final - CIP 2018-2023
Final - CFP 2018-2023
7.3
Packet Pg. 272
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2018-2023
1
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
2
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2018-2023)
Table of Contents
FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE
GENERAL
016 Building Maintenance Public Works 7
112 Transportation Public Works 9 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 12
126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 14
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
17
421 Water Projects Public Works 19
422 Storm Projects Public Works 20
423 Sewer Projects Public Works 22
423.76
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
24
PARKS – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
28
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
52
132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 57
3
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
4
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CIP
GENERAL
5
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
6
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 016 - Building Maintenance
PROJECT NAME CFP 2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000
Anderson Center Accessibility $20,000 $5,000 $25,000
Anderson Center Window Sill Tuck Pointing $0
Anderson Center Interior Painting $60,000 $20,000 $80,000Anderson Center Exterior Painting $250,000 $15,000 $265,000Anderson Center HVAC Design $25,000 $25,000Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $85,000 $40,000 $125,000Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $50,000 $50,000Anderson Center Lobby Remodel $30,000 $5,000 $35,000Anderson Center Exterior Flashing $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
Anderson Center Blinds $5,000 $5,000 $10,000
Anderson Center HVAC control install $20,000 $5,000 $5,000Anderson Center Steam Radiator Retrofits $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $20,000Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $50,000 $20,000 $70,000Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $60,000 $15,000 $75,000Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $20,000 $20,000 $40,000Anderson Center Carpeting Hard Flooring $10,000 $10,000Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $50,000 $50,000
Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $225,000 $225,000
Anderson Center Roof Flashing Replacement $75,000 $75,000Anderson Center Roof Replacement $390,000 $50,000 $440,000Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $12,000 $12,000City Hall Carpet/Flooring Replacement $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000City Hall Window Failed Window Seal Replacements $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000City Hall Elevator Replacement $190,000 $5,000 $5,000 $200,000City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $160,000 $10,000 $170,000
City Hall Roof Repairs $5,000 $100,000 $105,000
City Hall HVAC Design $20,000 $20,000
City Hall Electrical Infrastructure Design $35,000 $35,000City Hall Building Controls Upgrade $15,000 $15,000City Hall HVAC $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000City Hall Lobby Remodel/Design $50,000 $5,000 $55,000City Hall FF&E 3rd Floor Conference Rooms $40,000 $2,500 $42,500City Hall Security Measures $30,000 $10,000 $5,000 $15,000City Park Maintenance Building Gutters $35,000 $35,000
City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $45,000 $2,500 $5,000 $62,500
ESCO III Project $0ESCO IV Project $0ESCO __ Project $100,000 $200,000 $200,000City Wide Electric Vehicle Charging Station Replacement $80,000 $80,000Fishing Pier Rehab $2,000 $0Fire Station #16 Painting $60,000 $60,000Fire station #16 Generator $5,000 $5,000
Fire Station #16 Carpet $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $35,000
Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $50,000 $50,000Fire Station #17 Ceiling repairs $90,000 $90,000Fire Station #17 Carpet $15,000 $15,000Fire Station #17 Exterior Painting $50,000 $50,000Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000 $15,000Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000 $15,000Fire Station #20 Exterior Painting $90,000 $90,000
Projects for 2018-2023
77.3.aPacket Pg. 279Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $20,000 $20,000Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $5,000 $60,000 $65,000Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $0
Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $1,000 $10,000 $5,000 $15,000
Library Skylight Replacement $0Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition $350,000 $350,000Library Wood Trim $5,000 $5,000 $10,000Library West Deck Waterproofing and Garage Repair $20,000 $60,000 $5,000 $65,000Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $50,000 $50,000Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $35,000 $35,000Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $0
Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning $8,000 $8,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Flooring Replacement Partial $15,000 $5,000 $5,000Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000 $25,000Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $65,000Museum East Window Replacement $20,000 $85,000 $85,000Museum Exterior Repairs Masonry $80,000 $15,000 $95,000Museum Exterior Door Replacement $5,000 $5,000 $5,000City Wide Capital renewal $0 $0
Misc. / Unanticipated Building Maintenance $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $10,000 $10,000Public Safety Exterior Door Replacement $75,000 $75,000
Public Safety Exterior Painting $100,000 $100,000
Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $25,000 $5,000 $30,000
Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $30,000 $30,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000Public Works Failed Window Seal Replacement $10,000 $5,000 $1,000 $5,000 $11,000Public Works Carpeting $10,000 $30,000 $5,000 $35,000Public Works South Elevation Concrete and Drainage Repairs $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 $85,000Public Works Decant Improvements $0Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance $0Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)$5,000 $0
Total Projects $368,000 $575,000 $609,500 $392,500 $2,513,000 $343,500 $337,500 $4,771,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$80,000 $75,000 $30,000 $110,500 $118,000 $5,000 $61,500Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Contribution from Gen Fund #001 and other $100,000 $530,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Contribution from REET Fund #126 $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Contribution from REET Fund #125 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000Unsecured Funding $390,000 $2,000,000WA Dept. of Ecology Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0WDFW & RCO Grants for Fishing Pier (Secured)$2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Reimbursement from 125 Fund for Fishing Pier $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Snohomish County Historical Preservation Grant $10,000Utility Grant Funding (Estimated)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues $492,000 $605,000 $720,000 $510,500 $2,518,000 $405,000 $461,500
Total Revenue $492,000 $605,000 $720,000 $510,500 $2,518,000 $405,000 $461,500Total Project ($368,000)($575,000)($609,500)($392,500)($2,513,000)($343,500)($337,500)Ending Cash Balance $124,000 $30,000 $110,500 $118,000 $5,000 $61,500 $124,000
In 2018, Fund 16 will be eliminated and projects will be budgeted in Capital Renewal in the General Fund. 87.3.aPacket Pg. 280Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 112 - Transportation Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
Preservation / Maintenance ProjectsAnnual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.)$1,151,800 $300,000 $750,000 $750,000 $1,800,000220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W $10,000 $084th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW $96,000 $624,000 $720,000Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $425,000 $500,000Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW $750,000 $750,000Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000
Safety / Capacity Analysis228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $63,198 $0228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W X $75,000 $300,000 $375,00076th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $4,657,383 $296,000 $296,000Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization X $124,000 $440,000 $136,000 $5,000,000 $4,300,000 $10,000,000 $19,876,000SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 $903,000Main St. @ 9th Ave. X $120,000 $776,000 $896,000220th St SW @ 76th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $55,000 $330,000 $1,800,000 $3,795,000 $5,980,000Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 $2,806,000Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 $2,335,000Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 $3,215,000Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,300,000SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $30,000 $164,000 $194,000SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements X $75,000 $420,000 $495,000SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $200,000 $1,138,000 $1,338,000SR-104 @100th Ave W. Intersection Improvements / Access Management X $150,000 $867,468 $1,017,468Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $15,855 $0220th St. SW Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave $5,000 $0
Non-motorized transportation projectsSunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.X $20,000 $170,000 $170,000 $1,870,000 $2,210,000232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to SR-104 X $200,000 $1,105,000 $1,305,000238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $15,450 $0236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $468,641 $7,000 $7,000236th St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W X $213,000 $1,182,000 $1,395,00084th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW X $90,000 $90,00080th Ave. W from 212th St. SW to 216th St. SW X $210,000 $1,229,000 $1,439,0002nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $30,000 $30,000218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W X $200,000 $1,105,000 $1,305,000Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $105,000 $105,000216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W X $157,000 $157,000238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 X $55,708 $300,266 $300,266Citywide Pedestrian Crossings Enhancement $70,345 $159,655 $1,260,000 $1,419,655Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S X $156,000 $633,000 $789,000Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $230,000 $681,000 $680,000 $1,591,000Dayton St. from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave. X $22,500 $27,500 $200,000 $227,500ADA Curb Ramps Improvements $44,775 $0Audible Pedestrian Signals $20,000 $095th Pl. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW X $105,000 $445,000 $550,000Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) $548 $0Minor Sidewalk Program X $52,300 $0Railroad St. Sidewalk from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104 X $160,000 $702,000 $862,000SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non-Motorized Transportation Improvements X $224,000 $986,000 $1,210,000SR-104 @ Hwy. 99 Multi-Use Path $145,000 $555,000 $700,000Pedestrian Improvement (SR-104 Off Ramps)X $50,000 $200,000 $250,000ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $500 $0Bike-2-Health $665,398 $6,500 $6,500Admiral Way Crosswalk $110,500 $110,500
Traffic Calming Projects
Projects for 2018-2023
97.3.aPacket Pg. 281Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Traffic Calming Program / non-motorized transportation safety $20,000 $0
Ferry ProjectsFerry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St.X $357,000 $357,000
Traffic Planning ProjectsCitywide ADA Transition Plan $76,000 $0Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector X $175,000 $785,000 $30,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $16,815,000Trackside Warning System @ Dayton/Main St. RR Crossings X $329,000 $0
Total Projects $8,063,401 $2,642,921 $2,360,500 $0 $12,799,000 $25,108,468 $37,492,000 $80,402,889
Debt Service Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $18,688 $18,597 $18,507 $18,416 $18,325 $18,234Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction $22,030 $21,918 $21,812 $21,706 $21,600 $21,495 $21,389Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization $34,526 $34,362 $34,197 $34,033 $33,869 $33,704 $33,539
Total Debt $75,244 $74,877 $74,516 $74,155 $73,794 $73,433 $54,928
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Beginning Cash Balance $91,960 $645,997 $942,417 $1,297,901 $1,473,746 $1,462,652 $107,719Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $182,400 $194,000 $330,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000Reimbursement - Fund 125 Annual Street Preservation Program $304,500Reimbursement - Fund 126 Annual Street Preservation Program $847,300Contribution - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $300,000Reimbursement - Fund 126 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th to 84th $2,500Reimbursement - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $624,130Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $3,501
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $301,498
Reimbursement - Utility Companies for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $125,195
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for 89th Pl. W Retaining Wall $16,400
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $15,855
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 238th St SW Walkway from 100th to 104th $9,888Reimbursement - Fund 126 for 236th St SW. Walkway from SR104 to Madrona School $130,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 236th St SW. Walkway from SR104 to Madrona School $57,867
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 238th St SW. Walkway from SR104 to Hwy. 99 $22,239Reimbursement - Fund 125 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements $25,000Reimbursement - Fund 126 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements $19,775Reimbursement - Fund 125 Audible Pedestrian Signals $20,000Reimbursement - Fund 125 - for Minor Sidewalk Program $52,300Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Traffic Calming Program $20,000Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Citywide ADA Transition Plan $76,000Contribution - General Fund for Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector $33,000 $150,000Contribution - Various Agencies for Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector $140,000Contribution - General Fund Trackside Warning System $39,000Contribution - General Fund for Admiral Way Crosswalk $70,500Contribution - Port of Edmonds for Admiral Way Crosswalk $40,000Reimbursement - Fund 126 Trackside Warning System $290,000Traffic Impact Fees $330,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Total Revenues $3,640,308 $1,629,997 $1,482,917 $1,547,901 $1,723,746 $1,712,652 $357,719
Grants 2018-2023
2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
(Federal) for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave $7,500(Federal) for 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW $96,000 $624,000(Federal) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $63,198(Federal) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $2,355,339 $207,200(TIB) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $1,247,720 $88,800(State) Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization $124,000 $440,000 $136,000 $5,000,000 $4,300,000(Federal) 220th St SW. Adaptive from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave.$5,000(Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.$17,300 $140,195(State) for 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W. to 104th Ave w.$5,906(State) 238th St. SW from SR104 to Hwy 99 $27,122 $300,266(Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary $280,774 $7,000(Federal) Citywide Pedestrian Crossings Enhancements $70,345 $159,655 $1,260,00010 7.3.aPacket Pg. 282Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
(State) Dayton St. from 3rd to 9th $22,500 $27,500 $200,000(Verdant) Bike-2-Health $602,644(TIB) Bike-2-Health $62,754 $6,500(State) Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector $142,000 $495,000 $30,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $5,034,102 $1,968,116 $2,250,000 $0 $5,000,000 $4,300,000 $0
Grants 2018-2023
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured)Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc)$750,000 $750,000Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $425,000
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $750,000
Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W $75,000 $300,000Hwy. 99 Gateway / Revitalization $10,000,000196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $122,000 $87,500 $535,000Main @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements $120,000 $776,00076th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $285,450 $1,557,000 $3,795,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements $142,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
Hwy 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000Hwy 99 @ 234th St. SW Intersection Improvements $259,500 $1,297,500 $1,500,000Pesestrian Improvements (SR-104 Off Ramps)$43,250 $173,000SR-104 @ 226th / 15th Intersection Improvements $15,000 $164,000
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements $75,000 $420,000
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements $173,000 $1,138,000
SR-104 @ 100th Ave W. Intersection Improvements / Access Management $150,000 $867,468Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St $147,000 $1,618,000232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. to SR-104 $200,000 $1,105,000236th St. SW Walkway from Madrona Elementary to 97th Pl W.$106,500 $1,182,000
84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th to 234th $90,000
80th Ave. W Walkway from 212th to 206th $210,000 $1,239,000
218th St. SW Walkway from 76th to 84th $100,000 $1,105,000
Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd to 4th $105,000216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W $137,000Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S $78,000 $548,000
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th $199,000 $590,000 $590,000
95th Pl. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW $105,000 $445,000
Railroad St. Sidewalk from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104 $138,400 $608,000
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. Non-Motorized Transportation Improvements $174,000 $986,000SR-104 @ Hwy 99 Multi-Use path $95,000 $480,000Ferry Storage Improvements $179,000Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $12,000,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,984,100 $19,561,468 $37,402,000
Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $5,034,102 $1,968,116 $2,250,000 $0 $11,984,100 $23,861,468 $37,402,000
Total Revenues & Grants $8,674,410 $3,598,113 $3,732,917 $1,547,901 $13,707,846 $25,574,120 $37,759,719
Total Projects ($8,063,401)($2,642,921)($2,360,500)$0 ($12,799,000)($25,108,468)($37,492,000)
Total Debt ($75,244)($74,877)($74,516)($74,155)($73,794)($73,433)($54,928)
Ending Cash Balance $535,765 $880,315 $1,297,901 $1,473,746 $835,052 $392,219 $212,79111
7.3.aPacket Pg. 283Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund
PROJECT NAME CFP 2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
Park Development Projects*
Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $249,690 $150,000 $5,000 $5,000 $160,000
Brackett's Landing Improvements $18,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000
City Park Improvements $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
Civic Center Improvements/Grandstand demolition X $100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
Sunset Avenue Walkway $0Fishing Pier & Restrooms $100,000 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $125,000Community Garden X $10,000 $145,000 $145,000Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000Marina Beach Park Improvements $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000
Mathay Ballinger Park $0 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $5,000 $5,000
Meadowdale Playfields $500,000 $0
Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $10,000Seaview Park Improvements $25,000 $25,000 $10,000 $5,000 $40,000Sierra Park Improvements $0Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion X $250,000 $350,000 $170,000 $520,000Yost Park / Pool Improvements $115,000 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 $220,000
Parklet development, 4th Ave cultural corridor $0 $0 $0
City Gateway replacements $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Edmonds Marsh Walkway $50,000
City Park Storage Building $0 $150,000 $150,000
Veteran's Plaza $116,000 $0Hickman Park $50,000 $50,000Outdoor Fitness Zones $0 $75,000 $75,000
Citywide Park Improvements*
Citywide Beautification $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $126,000
Flower Pole Replacement $20,000 $0
Misc Paving $0 $0
Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $225,000
Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $20,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Specialized Projects*
Aquatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign)X $0
Trail Development*
Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements $10,000 $10,000 $20,000
Planning
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility & Restoration X $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $150,000Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $0Civic Center Master Plan $20,000 $0Waterfront Development / Waterfront Walkway $100,000 $0
Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $0
Total Parks Projects $1,769,690 $1,726,000 $896,000 $706,000 $631,000 $656,000 $616,000 $5,181,000
Projects for 2018-2023
127.3.aPacket Pg. 284Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Public Works ProjectsAnnual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chips Seals, etc.)$304,500 $550,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,800,000ADA Curb Ramp Improvements $25,000 $50,000 $50,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals $20,000 $0
Minor Sidewalk Program $52,300 $100,000 $100,000
Building Maintenance $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Interfund Services $6,040 $6,040
Total Public Works Projects $401,800 $706,040 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $2,456,040
Total Project Costs (Parks & Public Works) $2,171,490 $2,432,040 $1,246,000 $1,056,000 $981,000 $1,006,000 $966,000 $7,637,040
Reimbursements
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Waterfront Redevelopment/Walkway Completion)
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Veteran's Plaza)
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Outdoor Fitness Zones)
Reimburesement to Park Fund 132 ( City Park Storage rebuild)
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 Civic Grandstand demo
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza)
Reimbursement to Building Maintenance Fund 016 (Fishing Pier)
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Community Garden)X
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Pavement Preservation Program)$304,500
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (ADA Curb Ramp Improvements)$25,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Audible Pedestrian Signals)$20,000Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Minor Sidewalk Program)$52,300Reimbursement to Fund 117 (Minor Sidewalk Program)$1,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 016 (Building Maintenance)Total Reimbursements $401,800 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Projects & Reimbursements $2,573,290 $2,433,040 $1,246,000 $1,056,000 $981,000 $1,006,000 $966,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st) $ 2,259,950 $ 1,563,180 $ 578,020 $ 544,285 $ 498,914 $ 522,681 $ 517,661
Real Estate Tax 1/4% $ 1,430,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
Donations
Interest Earnings $ 44,720 $ 46,880 $ 12,265 $ 10,629 $ 4,767 $ 980 $ 830
Total Revenues 3,734,670$ 3,010,060$ 1,790,285$ 1,554,914$ 1,503,681$ 1,523,661$ 1,518,491$
Total Revenue 3,734,670$ 3,010,060$ 1,790,285$ 1,554,914$ 1,503,681$ 1,523,661$ 1,518,491$ Total Projects -$2,171,490 -$2,432,040 -$1,246,000 -$1,056,000 -$981,000 -$1,006,000 -$966,000Ending Cash Balance 1,563,180$ 578,020$ 544,285$ 498,914$ 522,681$ 517,661$ 552,491$
*Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects. 137.3.aPacket Pg. 285Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 126 - Special Capital/Parks Acquisition
PROJECT NAME CFP 2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $82,030 $80,830 $79,630 $83,430 $82,130 $80,180 $83,880 $490,080Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $60,300 $54,300 $53,398 $52,500 $56,600 $60,100 $59,000 $335,898Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,630 $26,850 $26,840 $27,190 $27,090 $26,970 $27,200 $162,140
Total Debt $171,960 $161,980 $159,868 $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080 $988,118
Parks ProjectsCivic development $210,000 $210,000Land Misc. Open Space $70,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000Waterfront Redevelopment $0 $150,000 $150,000
Parks Capital Projects Manager $0 $162,650 $136,585 $299,235
Total Parks Projects $70,000 $722,650 $136,585 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,659,235
Public Works ProjectsAnnual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, etc.)$847,300 $655,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,905,00084th St SW Overlay from 220th to 212th $24,000 $156,000 $180,000Hwy 99 Gateway/Revitalization x $10,000 $290,000 $290,000Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $15,855 $5,000220th Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W $42,000 $42,000Sunset Ave Walkway x $75,900 $75,90089th Pl. Retaining Wall $16,400 $125,000 $125,000238th Walkway from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 x $260,335 $260,335236th Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona x $130,000 $0ADA Curb Ramp Improvements $19,775 $0Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $20,000 $20,000ADA Transition Plan $76,000 $0Trackside Warning System $290,000 $0Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector x $500,000 $500,000Downtown Restroom $238,640 $0Grants & Project Accountant $5,320 $5,320Building Maintenance $300,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000
Total Public Works Projects $1,963,970 $1,212,555 $1,596,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $5,403,555
Total Project Cost (Parks and Public Works)$2,033,970 $1,935,205 $1,732,585 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $7,062,790
Reimbursements
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program $847,300 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for 220th St Overlay from 84th to 76th $2,500 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conv $15,855 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for 236th Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona x $130,000 $0Reimbursement to Fund 112 for ADA Curb Ramp Improvements $19,775 $0Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $0Reimbursement to Fund 112 for ADA Transition Plan $76,000 $0Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Trackside Warning System $290,000 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 132 for Downtown Restroom $238,640 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 016 for Building Maintenance $300,000 $0
Reim. to Fund 117 for 238th St. Walkway from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 x $2,603 $2,603
Total Project & Reimbursements $1,940,070 $2,603 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,603
Projects for 2018-2023
147.3.aPacket Pg. 286Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023
2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,977,490 $1,247,630 $598,745 ($60,746)($66,688)($75,508)($86,023)Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,430,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000Interest Earnings $46,070 $48,300 $32,962 $7,178 $7,000 $6,735 $6,420
Total Revenues $3,453,560 $2,695,930 $1,831,707 $946,432 $940,312 $931,227 $920,397
Grants 2018-2023
2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $3,453,560 $2,695,930 $1,831,707 $946,432 $940,312 $931,227 $920,397Total Debt ($171,960)($161,980)($159,868)($163,120)($165,820)($167,250)($170,080)
Total Project & Reimbursements ($2,033,970)($1,935,205)($1,732,585)($850,000)($850,000)($850,000)($850,000)
Ending Cash Balance $1,247,630 $598,745 ($60,746)($66,688)($75,508)($86,023)($99,683)157.3.aPacket Pg. 287Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 129 - Special Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
$0
Total Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Beginning Balance (January 1st)$17,922 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Investment Interest
Total Revenues $17,922 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants 2018-2023
2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues & Grants $17,922 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Construction Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Ending Cash Balance $17,922 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Projects for 2018-2023
In 2018, Fund 129 will be eliminated.167.3.aPacket Pg. 288Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 132 - Parks Construction
PROJECT NAME CFP 2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $0
City Park $20,000 $0Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage $0Dayton Street Plaza $30,000 $0Civic Center Acquisition/Development/Stadium demo $35,000 $750,000 $11,000,000 $300,000 $12,050,000
Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion x $1,875,000 $1,000,000 $2,875,000City Park Revitalization $0Community Garden $0Wetland Mitigation $0
Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek/Marina Beach $200,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,200,000Fishing Pier Rehab $0Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)X $0Outdoor Fitness Zones $100,000 $100,000
City Park Maintenance Storage Building $60,000 $60,000Veteran's Plaza $537,710 $0
Total Projects $622,710 $2,985,000 $12,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $18,285,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023 2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$449,440 $1,804,600 $2,322,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624Beg Balance Park Impact Fees $735,710 $1,205,160Park Impact Fees $469,450 $262,864 $500,000
Beginning Cash Balance MilltownBeginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage TourReimbursement from Fund 125 Waterfront developmentReimbursement from Fund 126 for Waterfront development
Park Impact Fees/Waterfront developmentReimbursement from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage TourReimbursement from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage TourReimbursement from Fund 125 for City Park Storage Building
Reimbursement from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage TourReimbursement from Fund 120 for Way-Finding Signage Grant MatchReimbursement from Fund 125 for Outdoor Fitness ZonesReimbursement from Fund 125 for Veteran's Plaza
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Civic Demolition
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Community GardenReimbursement from Fund 125 for Waterfront RedevelopmentReimbursement from Fund 126 for Civic AcquisitionContribution from 01 for Edmonds Marsh $200,000Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Marsh/Marina Beach Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier
Investment InterestTotal Revenues $1,854,600 $3,272,624 $2,822,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624
Projects for 2018-2023
177.3.aPacket Pg. 289Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Grants 2018-2023 2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Grants/ Loans (Secured)
4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service)Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom)
Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ)RCO City Park Fire Insurance City park storage $60,000RCO State grant /Civic Acquisition ( $1M directly to escrow)
Snohomish County grant $125,000Snohomish County Tourism for Way-FindingConservation Futures/Civic Acquisition Wetland Mitigation
RCO/Civic Demolition $35,000Outdoor Fitness Zones grantVeterans Plaza: various donations/grants $537,710RCO/Fishing Pier
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $572,710 $185,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)Outdoor Fitness Zones $100,000
RCO Waterfront Development ( Sr Ctr)$500,000 $1,000,000Edmonds Marsh/Marina Beach $1,500,000 $1,500,000Veterans PlazaSr. Ctr 50% of parking lot $500,000
Civic Development $4,000,000Bond funding/Civic $6,000,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0 $1,100,000 $11,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0
Grants Subtotal $572,710 $1,285,000 $11,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0
Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $2,427,310 $4,557,624 $13,822,624 $3,822,624 $3,822,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624
Total Construction Projects (622,710)($2,985,000)($12,000,000)($1,800,000)($1,500,000)$0 $0
Ending Cash Balance $1,804,600 $1,572,624 $1,822,624 $2,022,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624 $2,322,624
*Projects may be partially eligible for 1% for Art18
7.3.aPacket Pg. 290Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 421 - Water Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
2015 Replacement Program $02016 Replacement Program $3,780 $02016 Waterline Overlays $0 $0
Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements $245,070 $70,250 $70,250
2017 Replacement Program $2,345,551 $52,000 $52,000
2017 Waterline Overlays $356,900 $02018 Replacement Program $385,000 $2,018,080 $2,018,0802018 Waterline Overlays $250,000 $250,0002019 Replacement Program $299,079 $2,200,664 $2,499,7432020 Replacement Program $2,763,510 $2,763,5102021 Replacement Program $449,946 $3,059,050 $3,508,996
2022 Replacement Program $467,944 $2,684,412 $3,152,356
2023 Replacement Program $486,661 $3,389,788 $3,876,449
2024 Replacement Program $506,128 $506,128Five Corners Reservoir Recoating $209,449 $2,200,000 $2,200,000212th & 76th Improvements $39,150 $39,150Sunset Ave Walkway $75,000 $575,000 $650,0002016 Water System Plan Update $76,069 $4,000 $4,000
Total Projects $3,621,819 $4,932,559 $2,200,664 $3,213,456 $3,601,994 $3,746,073 $3,895,916 $21,590,662
Reimbursements & Contributions
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$624,130 $0Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2017 Watermain)$0
Total Reimbursements $624,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Water Projects $4,245,949 $4,932,559 $2,200,664 $3,213,456 $3,601,994 $3,746,073 $3,895,916 $21,590,662
Revenues & Cash Balances 2018-2023
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Beginning Balance (January 1st)Connection Fee Proceeds $200,000 $300,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 423 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$57,279Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 422 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$94,590
Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 422 (2017 WL)$59,804
2015 Bond
General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $70,000 $123,900 $128,856 $134,010 $139,370
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $481,673 $423,900 $228,856 $234,010 $239,370 $100,000 $100,000
Unsecured Revenue 2018-2023
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Projects for 2018-2023
197.3.aPacket Pg. 291Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CFP 2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total (2018-2023)
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. $44,249 $0
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump Station (See Note 1)X $80,700 $1,930,000 $50,000 $1,980,000Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Design/Construction (See Note 1 and Note 2)X $459,278 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,800,000
Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements $200,000 $500,000 $50,000 $750,000Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $82,500 $82,500 $550,000 $715,000
Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment /
Stabilization $11,119 $0Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr $42,764 $438,360 $438,360
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration (See Note 1)X $60,386 $922,950 $922,950Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 2)X $450,000 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,550,000
Improvements - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW $0
Improvements - Dayton 3rd to 9th $70,250 $70,250
Improvements - 2017 Waterline Replacement (Storm)$3,000 $3,000
Improvements - Sierra Pl- 12th Ave N to Olympic $356,140 $2,000 $2,000
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $102,386 $250,000 $3,050,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,872,000 $1,946,880 $10,718,880Lake Ballinger Associated Projects $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $412,000
$0
238th Walkway (SR-104 to Hwy 99)$70,711 $70,711
Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management plan)$2,000 $5,000 $200,000 $205,000
$1,223,022 $4,058,271 $4,400,500 $3,250,500 $3,270,000 $2,292,000 $2,366,880 $19,638,151
Transportation-Related Projects
Compliance-Related Projects
Total Project
Edmonds Marsh Related Projects
Northstream Projects
Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
Annually Funded Projects
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 422 Storm Projects for 2018-2023
PROJECT NAME
SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects
207.3.aPacket Pg. 292Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total (2017-2022)
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW
Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System)$0
2017 Water Replacement Project $59,804 $076th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $3,501 $0
236th SW Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona $57,867 $0238th St. SW Walkway from 100th to 104th $9,888 $0238th Walkway (SR-104 to Hwy 99)$22,239 $0
Utility Replacements Dayton btwn 3rd & 9th Ave $94,590 $0$0
Total Reimbursements to 112 Fund $247,889 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project $0City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $0
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration $3,950 $3,950Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects $1,125 $1,250 $1,250 $3,625
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh $076th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $0Improvements - Sierra Pl- 12th Ave N to Olympic $0
238th Walkway (SR-104 to Hwy 99)$707 $707Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump $10,000 $10,000
Total Reimbursements to 117 Fund $0 $14,657 $1,125 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $0 $18,282
$247,889 $14,657 $1,125 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $0 $18,282
$1,470,911 $4,072,928 $4,401,625 $3,251,750 $3,271,250 $2,292,000 $2,366,880 $19,656,433
2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
$30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000
$384,505
X $546,750
$414,505 $577,750 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
X $375,000 $37,500 $37,500
X $225,000 $225,000 $225,000
X $950,000 $25,000
$0 $950,000 $25,000 $0 $600,000 $262,500 $262,500
Notes:
1. All or part of this project funded by secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details.
2 Assumes grant funding is 75% of total project costs per year beginning 2018
3. Assumes grant funding is 50% of total project costs per year beginning 2017
Total Reimbursements
Total Project & Reimbursements
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023Beginning Balance (January 1st)Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge)
Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 1)Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management -Seaview Infiltration (See Note 1)
Total Secured Revenues
Unsecured Revenue 2018-2023Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)
Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See
Note 2)Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 2)
Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See Note 3)
Total Unsecured Revenues
Projects for 2017-2022
Reimbursements
To 112 - Street Fund
To 117 - Arts
217.3.aPacket Pg. 293Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CFP 2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
$0
212th & 76th Improvements $0 $18,590 $18,590
Sunset Ave. Walkway $50,000 $150,000 $200,000
Dayton 3rd to 9th $70,250 $70,250
2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $0
2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $62,308 $0
2016 Sewerline Overlays $0
2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $1,182,352 $10,000 $10,000
2017 Sewerline Overlays $101,656 $0
2018 Swereline Overlays $200,000 $200,000
2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $257,113 $1,628,462 $1,628,462
2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $295,726 $2,179,739 $2,475,465
2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $304,598 $1,695,809 $2,000,406
2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $313,736 $1,696,683 $2,010,419
2022 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $323,148 $1,666,550 $1,989,698
2023 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $336,074 $1,889,212 $2,225,286
2024 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $349,517 $349,517
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 1 $134,330 $0
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 2 $90,000 $729,030 $729,030
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $437,091 $450,204 $463,710 $482,258 $501,549 $2,334,811
Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study $110,000 $37,000 $37,000
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study $110,420 $109,893 $109,893
$2,048,179 $3,098,951 $2,921,427 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $2,634,882 $2,740,278 $16,388,828
Reimbursement to Fund 421 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$57,279 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$301,498 $0
$358,777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,406,956 $3,098,951 $2,921,427 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $2,634,882 $2,740,278 $16,388,828Total Projects, Transfers & Reimbursements
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects
Total Projects
Reimbursements & Contributions
Total Reimbursements
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 423 - Sewer Projects Projects for 2018-2023
PROJECT NAME
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations
227.3.aPacket Pg. 294Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc)
Unsecured Revenue 2018-2023New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
Total Unsecured Revenue
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023Beginning Balance (January 1st)Sewer Connection Fees2015 Bond
237.3.aPacket Pg. 295Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 423.76 - Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NAME CFP 2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
(2018-2023)
Repair and Replacement $25,000 $250,000 $300,000 $575,000Construction Projects - In House $0Construction Projects Contracted $2,125,000 $605,000 $5,600,000 $5,700,000 $250,000 $600,000 $250,000 $13,005,000Debt Service - Principle and Interest $256,163 $255,371 $255,929 $256,371 $256,902 $222,847 $550,000 $1,797,420
Total Project $2,381,163 $885,371 $5,855,929 $5,956,371 $756,902 $822,847 $1,100,000
Projects less revenue from outside partnership $2,346,113 $860,321 $5,840,879 $5,841,321 $741,852 $822,847 $1,100,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2023
2017 Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000Intergovernmental$2,346,113 $860,321 $5,840,879 $5,841,321 $741,852 $822,847 $1,100,000Interest Earnings $50 $50 $50 $50 $50Miscellaneous (biosolids, Lynnwood, etc)$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects $20,000 $10,000 $100,000
Subtotal $2,581,163 $1,085,371 $6,055,929 $6,506,371 $1,306,902 $1,372,847 $1,650,000
Total Revenue $2,581,163 $1,085,371 $6,055,929 $6,506,371 $1,306,902 $1,372,847 $1,650,000
Total Project ($2,381,163)($885,371)($5,855,929)($5,956,371)($756,902)($822,847)($1,100,000)Ending Cash Balance $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000
Interest earned estimated at 0.75% per year
Contribution breakdown by agency
2017
Estimate 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Edmonds 50.79%$1,191,520 $436,931 $2,966,407 $2,966,632 $376,764 $417,899 $558,657
Mountlake Terrace 23.17%$543,688 $199,371 $1,353,565 $1,353,668 $171,917 $190,687 $254,914Olympic View Water & Sewer District 16.55%$388,305 $142,392 $966,724 $966,797 $122,784 $136,189 $182,061Ronald Sewer District 9.49%$222,599 $81,627 $554,183 $554,225 $70,387 $78,072 $104,368TOTALS100.00%$2,346,113 $860,321 $5,840,879 $5,841,321 $741,852 $822,847 $1,100,000
*In 2019 per the agreement, fund balance will increase to $550,000.
Projects for 2018-2023
247.3.aPacket Pg. 296Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CIP
PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
25
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
26
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CIP PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS
27
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center
Field/Court/Stage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $160000
700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities
and children’s play equipment. In 2018, we will be replacing the play equipment, which is
beyond its use full life.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center
serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Professional services $150,000
Engineering & Administration
Construction $ $5,000 $0 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $150,000 $ $5,000 $0 $5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
28
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom upgrades.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study Engineering & Administration
Construction $ $ $5,000 $0 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $ $ $5,000 $0 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
29
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Continued pathway, access improvements and ongoing upgrades to City Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Make ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the
PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $ $5,000 $5,000 $ $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $ $5,000 $5,000 $ $5,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
30
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center
Improvements / Stadium Demolition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Improvements / Stadium Demolition As part of the master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds
available to assist with this. In addition, the City will begin the design development process for the completion of the master plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE:
The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning and Study $500,000
Construction $500,000
TOTAL $500,000 $500,000
31
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $125,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and renovate restroom facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
32
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Locate and develop a community garden site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This was formerly planned for the Former Woodway HS
site. This is adopted as part of the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $145,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $145000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT NAME: Community Garden ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $145,000
33
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $15,000
89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $5,000 $ $5,000 $0 $5000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $5,000 $ $5,000 $0 $5000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
34
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $8-10M
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin development of Master plan, daylighting Willow Creek.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $ $ $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $ $ $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
35
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
78th Place W. & 241st St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park. This next year the City will be creating a pathway from the park to the Interurban trail to promote both pedestrian and bicycle access to/from the park and neighborhood.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $20,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
36
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse
Grounds
ESTIMATED COST: $5,000
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care, recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $ $0 $5,000 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $ $0 $5,000 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
37
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street
connecting to Yost Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $ $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0
New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements
38
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $40,000
80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed-Of-Right PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Maintenance of tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area. Replace roof on restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court, parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $25000 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $25000 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
39
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,595,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett’s Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study $343000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $7000 $170000 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $350000 $170000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
40
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park / Pool
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $220,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
41
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Parklet Development, 4th
Avenue Cultural Corridor
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $0
A parklet is a small urban park that is made by creating a sidewalk extension that provides more space and amenities for people using the street. Usually parklets are installed on top of
parking lanes and use one or more parking spaces, but do not permanently impact the underlying street. Parklets typically extend out from the sidewalk at the level of the sidewalk to the width of the adjacent parking space creating a patio and seating area, often including plantings. Parklets are public space and open to everyone.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop one or more parklets on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. The first parklet will be created on 4th Avenue adjacent to the ECA. The design will be developed with Parks crew and an artist/landscape consultant.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide a small urban park along the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor with views of Puget Sound and seating on a popular walking route. Parklets are a resting and a gathering space and highlight the social function integral to streets. The importance of additional small gathering spaces is referred to in both the Community Cultural
Plan and the PROS Plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Construction $0 $0 $ $0 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $ $0 $0
42
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Gateway
Replacements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct new gateway elements at SR 104 and 5th Ave. S and at Sunset and Main St. to replace aging and deteriorated signage. In addition, find a new location on the north entrance to Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The PROS Plan, Community Cultural Plan and Streetscape Plan all refer to the importance of these visual “gateways” to the City of Edmonds. New signage with artistic elements will enhance the gateways and reinforce Edmonds reputation as a cultural destination for visitors.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Repairs & Maintenance
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $0 $40000 $0 $0 $0
43
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Storage Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $150,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new City Park Storage Building
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Construct a new City Park storage building to replace the previous storage building which was destroyed by fire in 2016.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Construction $150000 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $150000 $0 $0 $0 $0
44
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hickman Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Secure park slope erosion area in northwest corner of park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The northwest area of Hickman park has experienced some erosion on the slope that borders private residences. This project seeks to take care of our current assets, as is a priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Construction $50000 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $50000 $0 $0 $0 $0
45
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Professional Services $75000
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $75000 $0 $0 $0 $0
46
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include Library, Senior Center, outdoor
plazas, City Park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree
plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023 .
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21000
1% for Art
TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21000
47
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and
equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway
entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration
Construction $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
48
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade /
Playground Partnerships
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring
jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create
neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create
additional facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $ $0 $25,000 $0 $25000
1% for Art
TOTAL $ $0 $25,000 $0 $25000
49
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved
Trail / Bike Path Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 20,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the
goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the
comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to
meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
50
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CIP PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
FUND 126 – SPECIAL CAPITAL/ PARKS
ACQUISITION
51
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $988,118
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $80,830 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $54,300
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $26,850
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
Principal & Interest
$161,980 $159,868 $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080
TOTAL $161,980 $159,868 $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
52
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open
Space / Land
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that
fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Land $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
53
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,595,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelop waterfront to secure access to Puget Sound and walkways along the beachfront for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction 150000 $0 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
54
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development
/ Stadium Demolition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $510,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, develop a signature downtown park
at this site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
The Civic Master plan will be complete by early 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant
funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning 210,000
Construction $0 $0 $0 $ $
TOTAL $210,000 $0 $0 $ $
55
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CIP PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
FUND 132 – PARKS CONSTRUCTION
56
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development
/ Stadium Demolition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, the City will begin the design
development process for the completion of the master plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied
for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Design 750,000
Construction $0 $11,000,000 $300,000
TOTAL $750,000 $11,000,000 $300,000
57
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,875,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot
and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett’s Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $1,875,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,875,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
58
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow
Creek Daylighting
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $0 $ $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $ $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
59
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Construction $100000 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
60
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Storage Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $60,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new City Park Storage Building
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Construct a new City Park storage building to replace the previous storage building which was destroyed by fire in 2016.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Construction $60000 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $60000 $0 $0 $0 $0
61
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Final - CIP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2018-2023
1
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
2
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CFP
GENERAL
3
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
4
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Parks, General, and Regional Projects
(2018-2022)
$3,000,000 Public Vote $3,000,000
$5,250,000 REET 1 / Grants $750,000 $4,500,000 $0
Design $500,000 Park Impact Fees $500,000
$3,000,000 G.O. Bonds $3,000,000
$11,750,000 Total $750,000 $11,000,000 $0 $11,750,000
$0 Capital Campaign
RCO Phase1 $0 REET 2
Complete $0 School District
$0 Foundation
$0 Grants
$0 Total 8M
$0 Public Vote
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total $3-4M
$2,845,000 REET / Grants $1,675,000 $1,170,000
RCO WWRP Design $0 G.O. Bonds
ALEA Permitting $500,000 Park Impact Fees $750,000
Construction $0 Private Partnership
$3,345,000 Total $2,425,000 $1,170,000
EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured)
US DOT Completed $0 State Funds
$0 Total Unknown
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants
$0 Total Unknown
Total CFP #REF!Annual CFP Totals $3,175,000 $12,170,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
RCO Local Parks
PurposeProject Name
Development of 8 acre downtown signature parkCivic Center Development
Grant Opportunity 2024-2038202320222021202020192018Revenue Source(2018-2023) Total Cost
Current Project Phase
Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)Acquire and develop property for a year round public market.
Community Park / Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High School: Phase 2 and 3 In cooperation with ESD#15 develop a community park and athletic complex.
Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal Facility Relocate ferry terminal to Marina Beach.
Replace / Renovate deteriorating building in City Park.
Waterfront Redevlopment/Waterfront Walkway Completion Rehabilitate grounds, parking, beach access and area around Senior Center, walkway access.57.3.bPacket Pg. 338Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
6
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
This page intentionally left blank
7
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,750,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. Develop the recently adopted master plan for Civic Park, including demolition of the stadium.
Develop plan adding amenities and recreation components, restrooms to accommodate increased growth.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Civic Center Development.
The acquisition and development of Civic Center is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Design $500,000 $1,000,000
Construction $250,000 $10,000,000
TOTAL $750000 $11,000,000
8
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project for all 3 phases.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an additional $6-8M.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024- 2038
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $6-8M
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6-8 M
9
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities
Maintenance & Operations Building
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this
existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City
parks and Capital facilities for the long term.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $3m - $4m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
10
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,595,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett’s Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide
condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide a new Senior and Community Center and
provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $2,425,000 $1,170,000 0 0 0 0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
11
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
12
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
13
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
14
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2018-2023)
Safety / Capacity Analysis
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$375,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$75,000 $300,000 $8,690,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)$1,356,000
$375,000 Total $75,000 $300,000 $10,046,000
$296,000 (Federal or State secured)$296,000
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $57,740 (Local Funds)$57,740
$353,740 Total $353,740 $0
$9,576,000 (Federal or State secured)$440,000 $136,000 $5,000,000 $4,300,000
State $10,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$10,000,000 $170,000,000
Appropriation Design $300,000 (Local Funds)$290,000
$20,166,000 Total $440,000 $426,000 $5,000,000 $4,300,000 $10,000,000 $170,000,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$744,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$122,000 $87,500 $535,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $158,500 (Local Funds)$71,000 $87,500
$903,000 Total $193,000 $175,000 $535,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$776,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$120,000 $776,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$896,000 Total $120,000 $776,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$5,637,450 (Federal or State unsecured)$285,450 $1,557,000 $3,795,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $342,550 (Local Funds)$55,000 $44,550 $243,000
$5,980,000 Total $55,000 $330,000 $1,800,000 $3,795,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$2,806,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $23,000 (Local Funds)
$2,806,000 Total $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$2,313,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$142,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $22,000 (Local Funds)$22,000
$2,335,000 Total $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$3,192,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$152,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $23,000 (Local Funds)$23,000
$3,215,000 Total $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
2024-2038202120222023Grant Opportunity (2018-2023) Total CostPurpose 202020182019Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
Install two-way left turn lanes and sidewalks to improve capacity and pedestrian safety (project split with Snohomish County)
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W.
76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements to improve intersection delay and level of service (LOS).
Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety improvements along SR-99 Corridor.
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W Intersection Improvements Improve intersection safety by converting a stop controlled intersection for NB and SB movements to a signalized intersection.
Install traffic signal to improve intersection delay and Level of Service (mini roundabout is an alternative solution).
Main St. and 9th Ave S
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements Convert split phasing operation for EB and WB movements to concurrent through movements, with protected / permissive LT phasing.
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn lane.
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvement Widen 216th St. SW to add a left turn lane for eastbound and westbound movements.
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvement Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to add a westbound right turn lane (for 325' storage length) and a soutbound left turn lane (for 275' storage length). 157.3.bPacket Pg. 348Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2018-2023)
2024-2038202120222023Grant Opportunity (2018-2023) Total CostPurpose 202020182019Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$3,057,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$259,500 $1,297,500 $1,500,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $243,000 (Local Funds)$40,500 $202,500
$3,300,000 Total $300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$216,250 (Federal or State unsecured)$43,250 $173,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $33,750 (Local Funds)$6,750 $27,000
$250,000 Total $50,000 $200,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$179,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$15,000 $164,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $15,000 (Local Funds)$15,000
$194,000 Total $30,000 $164,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$495,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$75,000 $420,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$495,000 Total $75,000 $420,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,311,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$173,000 $1,138,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $27,000 (Local Funds)$27,000
$1,338,000 Total $200,000 $1,138,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,183,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,183,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$15,441,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $15,441,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,017,468 (Federal or State unsecured)$150,000 $867,468
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$1,017,468 Total $150,000 $867,468
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$3,017,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $3,017,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)$610,000
$0 Total $610,000
Install traffic signal to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety; revise geometry to allow for safer turns.
Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements Install traffic signal to reduce the intersection delay and improve Level of Service.
SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection / Westgate Area Improvements Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, midblock pedestrian crossings along 100th Ave. W, and rechannelization with bike lanes / sharrows along 100th Ave. W.
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements Convert EB and WB LT along SR-104 to protected LT phasing; upgrade ADA curb ramps; and add C-Curb for access management
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements
Hwy 99 @ 234th St. SW Traffic Signal Install new traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW to provide safer vehicular / pedestrian crossings, combined with corner widenings.
Pedestrian Improvements (SR-104 Off - Ramps)Install pedestrian crossing improvements at the SR-104 Off Ramps onto Hwy. 99
Install traffic signal to improve Level of Service and intersection delay. Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements Extend left turn storage area for WB movement on SR-104 w/ various bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW)Install two-way left turn lanes and sidewalk to improve capacity and pedestrian safety (split with Snohomish County)
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements Add a 2nd WB left turn lane (split with Shoreline).167.3.bPacket Pg. 349Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2018-2023)
2024-2038202120222023Grant Opportunity (2018-2023) Total CostPurpose 202020182019Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$94,100 (Federal or State secured)$140,195
Possible $2,017,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$147,000 $1,618,000
RCO / TIB Grant Design $873,000 (Local Funds)$105,705 $148,000 $977,000
for construction $2,984,100 Total $245,900 $295,000 $2,595,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,305,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$200,000 $1,105,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$1,305,000 Total $200,000 $1,105,000
$7,000 (Federal or State secured)$7,000
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Local Funds)
$7,000 Total $7,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,288,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$106,500 $1,182,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $106,500 (Local Funds)$106,500
$1,395,000 Total $213,000 $1,182,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$90,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$90,000 $495,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$90,000 Total $90,000 $495,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,439,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$210,000 $1,229,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$1,439,000 Total $210,000 $1,229,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $30,000 (Local Funds)$30,000
$30,000 Total $30,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,305,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$200,000 $1,105,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$1,305,000 Total $200,000 $1,105,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$105,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$105,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$105,000 Total $105,000
218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W Provide safe sidewalk along a missing link of 218th St. SW. from 76th Ave. to 84th Ave.
Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link.
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway
84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW Improve pedestrian safety along 84th Ave. W. from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW.
80th Ave. W from 212th St SW to 206th St. SW Improve pedestrian safety along 80th Ave. W, within proximity to Edmonds-Woodway High School.
Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link.
Improve pedestrian safety along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to SR-104.
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104
236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR-104) to Madrona Elementary Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian connection from SR-104 to Madrona school.
Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian connection from Madrona Elementary
236th St SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W
Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects
Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. Provide walkway on the west side of Sunset Ave, with various utility upgrades.177.3.bPacket Pg. 350Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2018-2023)
2024-2038202120222023Grant Opportunity (2018-2023) Total CostPurpose 202020182019Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$137,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$137,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $20,000 (Local Funds)$20,000
$157,000 Total $157,000
$300,266 (Federal or State secured)$300,266
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Consturction $331,046 (Local Funds)$331,046
$631,312 Total $631,312
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$704,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$156,000 $548,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$789,000 Total $156,000 $633,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,591,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$230,000 $681,000 $680,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$1,591,000 Total $230,000 $681,000 $680,000
$227,500 (Federal or State secured)$27,500 $200,000
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Design $0 (Local Funds)
$227,500 Total $27,500 $200,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$409,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$84,000 $325,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $141,000 (Local Funds)$21,000 $120,000
$550,000 Total $105,000 $445,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $100,000 (Local Funds)$100,000
$100,000 Total $100,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Possible Grant $746,400 (Federal or State unsecured)$138,400 $608,000
Conceptual $115,600 (Local Funds)$21,600 $94,000
$862,000 Total $160,000 $702,000
Minor Sidewalk Program Complete short sidewalk stretches throughout the City.
Railroad St. Sidewalk from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104 Reconstruct and widen existing sidewalk along Railroad St.
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W Provide sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W (completing missing link)
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 Provide sidewalk on north side of 238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 (completing missing link)
Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S Provide sidewalk on one side of Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
95th Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW Provide sidewalk on one side of 95th Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW completing missing link.
Maplewood Dr. From Main St. to 200th St. SW Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. Sidewalk along 200th St. SW (direct link to Maplewood Elementary School).
Dayton St. from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave. Complete missing link along Dayton St. from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave. 187.3.bPacket Pg. 351Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2018-2023)
2024-2038202120222023Grant Opportunity (2018-2023) Total CostPurpose 202020182019Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Possible Grant $1,160,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$174,000 $986,000
Conceptual $50,000 (Local Funds)$50,000
$1,210,000 Total $224,000 $986,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$630,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $630,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$990,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $990,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$315,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $315,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$315,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $315,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$765,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $765,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,170,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,170,000
84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW Provide sidewalk on one side of 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW
236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Provide sidewalk on one side of 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Provide sidewalk on one side of 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave W
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non-Motorized Transportation Improvements
Extend bike lanes within proximity of intersection and install new ADA compliant curb ramps
80th Ave. W from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th Ave. W from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW (completing missing link)
191st St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W Provide sidewalk on one side of 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. to 76th Ave. (completing missing link)
104th Ave. W / Robinhood Lane from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W Provide sidewalk on west side of 104th Ave. from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W (completing missing link)197.3.bPacket Pg. 352Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2018-2023)
2024-2038202120222023Grant Opportunity (2018-2023) Total CostPurpose 202020182019Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,350,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,350,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$585,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $585,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$357,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$357,000
Conceptual $0 (Local Funds)
$357,000 Total $357,000
Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector $525,000 (Federal or State secured)$495,000 $30,000
$16,000,000 (Federal or State Unsecured)$2,000,000 $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $11,000,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $650,000 (Local funds)$150,000 $500,000
$140,000 (CT, Sound Transit, Port of Edmonds, BNSF)$140,000
$17,315,000 Total $785,000 $530,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $11,000,000
Total CFP $76,074,120 Annual CFP Totals $2,645,452 $1,156,000 $0 $11,204,000 $24,778,468 $36,442,000 $217,912,000
Totals Source 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2023-2038
$11,371,961 Total Federal & State (Secured)$1,705,961 $366,000 $0 $5,000,000 $4,300,000 $0 $0
$60,641,568 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $5,557,100 $18,642,468 $36,442,000 $215,946,000
$140,000 (Sound Transit, Port of Edmonds, BNSF, CT)$140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$3,987,391 Local Funds $799,491 $790,000 $0 $646,900 $1,751,000 $0 $1,966,000
80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW from 188th St. SW to OVD Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW from 188th St. SW to OVD
Revenue Summary by Year
189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W Provide sidewalk on one side of 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
Install a grade-separated overcrossing over the railroad tracks as an extension of Edmonds Street connecting to Brackett's Landing North park.
Ferry/Railroad
Traffic Planning Projects
Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St. Improve ferry queueing by extending ferry storage area along SR-104 (striping changes). 207.3.bPacket Pg. 353Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W to three lanes
(with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow along this corridor.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2022 (pending funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
$75,000 $300,000
Construction $10,046,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $300,000 $10,046,000
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99
to 95th Pl. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,421,000
21
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right-turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level of service to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Design was completed in May 2016. The project was advertised in June 2016 but the lowest bid was rejected since it was ~ approx. $1.3 Million over budget. The project was re-advertised in February 2017 (under budget) and construction began in May 2017. The project is scheduled to be
completed in December 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
Construction $353,740
1% for Art
TOTAL $353,740
22
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway/Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $190,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access
control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater
management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in September 2017 and should be
completed between 2024 and 2038 (pending addition funding / $10M from Connecting
Washington allocation has been secured).
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
$440,000 $426,000 $5,000,000 $4,300,000 $10,000,000
Construction $170,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $440,000 $426,000 $5,000,000 $4,300,000 $10,000,000 $170,000,000
23
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be
implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are
met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St. SW.
SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this project (pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
$193,000 $175,000
Construction $535,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $193,000 $175,000 $535,000
24
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $896,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini-roundabout.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the
intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
$120,000
Construction $776,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $120,000 $776,000
25
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,925,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for
eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D.
SCHEDULE: Engineering, ROW, and construction scheduled between 2018 and 2023 (unsecured funding).
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & ROW & Administration
$55,000 $330,000 $1,800,000
Construction $3,795,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $55,000 $330,000 $1,800,000 $3,795,000
26
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #4)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding).The
project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering, ROW, & Administration
$175,000 $1,091,000
Construction $1,540,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
27
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for eastbound and
westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & ROW & Administration
$164,000 $334,000
Construction $1,837,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
28
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage length. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #2).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and
safety.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding for all phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
& ROW $175,000 $1,085,000
Construction $1,955,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
29
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 @ 234th St.
SW to provide safer crossing of Hwy. 99 for vehicles and non-motorized transportation (project identified in Hwy. 99 Sub Area Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions along the corridor.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding for all
phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $300,000 $300,000 Construction $1,200,000 $1,500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
30
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pedestrian Improvements (SR-104 off ramps) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $250,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install pedestrian improvements at the two SR-104 Off ramps entering onto Hwy. 99 (project identified in Hwy. 99 Sub Area Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian conditions along the Hwy. 99
Corridor.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2022 (unsecured funding for all phases).
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration &
ROW $50,000
Construction $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 $200,000
31
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 226th St. SW /
15th St. SW Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $194,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend the left turn lane for the westbound movement on SR-104. Complete various pedestrian and bicycle intersection improvements. This project was
identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve non-motorized transportation safety at the
intersection and improve traffic flow along the SR-104 corridor.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
$30,000
Construction $164,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $164,000
32
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis
(completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
$75,000
Construction $420,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $420,000
33
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
To Hwy 99
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
$200,000
Construction $1,138,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000
$1,138,000
34
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,183,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The
projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2024 and 2038
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $983,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,183,000
35
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the
through lane when insufficient gaps are provided.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2024 and 2038 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since
half the project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
$2,000,000
Construction $13,441,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $15,441,000
36
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid-block pedestrian crossing along 100th Ave. W, improve safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re-striping of 100th Ave. W with the potential addition of bike
lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis
(completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non-motorized transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2022 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction $867,468
1% for Art
TOTAL $150,000 $867,468
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements / Access
Management
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468
37
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non-motorized transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038. The project cost would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds
since half the intersection is in Shoreline.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$453,000
Construction $2,564,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,017,000
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000
38
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay.
(ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2024 and 2038
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000
Construction $510,000
1% for Art TOTAL $610,000
39
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,200,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing
waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway and parking alternatives. Construction isn’t scheduled to occur until 2022 when utility improvements are scheduled along this stretch. No grant funding has been secured for the construction phase. The design phase will be completed in 2021.
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$245,900 $295,000
Construction $2,595,000
1% for Art TOTAL $245,900 $295,000 $2,595,000
40
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 232nd St. SW Walkway
from 100th Ave. W to SR-104
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $1,105,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (unsecured funding)
41
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway from Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an ~ 800’ sidewalk on the south side of 236th St. SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route near
Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW.
SCHEDULE: Construction was completed in June 2017. The project was funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program, Fund 422 for stormwater improvements, and REET
funds for the pavement reconstruction. The remaining funding is to complete the Federal
Documentation.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
Construction $7,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $7,000
42
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway
from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from
Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
$213,000
Construction $1,182,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $213,000 $1,182,000
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022
43
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2023 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction $495,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $90,000 $495,000
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway
from 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
44
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W Walkway
from 206th St. SW to 212th ST. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,439,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non-motorized
transportation safety (including for school kids due to proximity of several schools).
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
$210,000
Construction $1,229,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $210,000 $1,229,000
45
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. to Main St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on
2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: 2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $30,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000
46
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 218th St. SW Walkway
from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration & ROW
$200,000
Construction $1,105,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000
47
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’) on
Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2021 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
$10,000
Construction $95,000
1% for Art TOTAL $105,000
48
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #4 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2021 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study Engineering & Administration
$30,000
Construction $127,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $157,000
49
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to SR-104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $748,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #12 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan. Install 7’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: The design phase was completed in early 2017. The project was advertised in May 2017 but the lowest bid was rejected since it was over budget. The project will be re-advertised in early 2018. A TIB grant was secured to fund
the design and construction phases.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $631,312
1% for Art TOTAL $631,312
50
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S. This project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (funding unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$156,000
Construction $633,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $156,000 $633,000
PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from
8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $789,000
51
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway
from Main St. to 200th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,591,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St.
SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W,
adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #22 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood
Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized
transportation to walk to / from school.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2021 and construction in 2022 / 2023 (funding
unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study Engineering & Administration
$230,000
Construction $681,000 $680,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $230,000 $681,000 $680,000
52
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St Walkway between 3RD Ave. S and 9th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $250,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S and additional sidewalk improvements along the rest of the stretch
(ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 and 2019. A TIB grant was
secured for this project in 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
$27,500
Construction $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $27,500 $200,000
53
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th Pl. W from 224th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #9 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2021 and construction in 2022 (funding
unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$105,000
Construction $445,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $105,000 $445,000
PROJECT NAME: 95th Pl. W Walkway from
224th ST. SW to 220th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $550,000
54
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Minor Sidewalk Program ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: varies
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete missing sidewalk along short segments throughout the City.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration & ROW
$10,000
Construction $90,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000
55
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from Dayton St. to SR-104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $862,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad St. from
Dayton St. to SR-104.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve non-motorized transportation safety along Railroad St. from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to various destination points (such as Senior Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds…).
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2021 and 2022 (unsecured funding for all phases). A TAP grant application was submitted in September ’17 to fund the design and construction phases (13.5% local match required). The ROW phase will be 100% funded by
the City.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration & ROW $160,000
Construction $702,000 1% for Art
TOTAL $160,000 $702,000
56
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W non-motorized transportation safety improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,2100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all corners and new ADA curb ramps.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve non-motorized transportation safety along this
section of the Interurban Trail.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2021 and 2022 (unsecured funding for all phases). A TAP grant application was submitted in September ’17 to fund the design and construction phases. The City of Shoreline would fund the local match. The ROW phase will be 100% funded by the City.
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration &
ROW $224,000
Construction $986,000 1% for Art TOTAL $224,000 $986,000
57
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave.,
with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation
Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction $540,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $630,000
PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway
from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000
58
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction $840,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $990,000
PROJECT NAME: 104th Ave. W Walkway
from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000
59
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$55,000
Construction $260,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $315,000
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W Walkway
from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
60
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St.
SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$60,000
Construction $255,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $315,000
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway
from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
61
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W.
This project ranked #11 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction $650,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $765,000
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway
from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $765,000
62
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
This project ranked #12 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$175,000
Construction $995,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,170,000
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway
from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,170,000
63
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$270,000
Construction $1,080,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,350,000
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W / 180th St.
SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,350,000
64
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction $470,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $585,000
PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. SW Walkway
from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
65
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage
Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to
local driveways.
SCHEDULE: 2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$50,000
Construction $307,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $357,000
66
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project builds a grade-separated overcrossing over the railroad
tracks as an extension of Edmonds Street connecting to Brackett’s Landing north park (project identified in Edmonds Waterfront Alternatives Access Study completed in 2016).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide access for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. The overpass could be utilized to offload passenger vehicles from a ferry during an extended closure of the railroad track crossings.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2038. A State Appropriation for $700,000 was secured in 2017. Community
Transit, Sound Transit, BNSF, and the Port of Edmonds are contributed $140,000 to get this project
started (Unsecured funding for Design and Construction Phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-2038
Planning/Study $785,000 $530,000
Engineering &
Administration
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
Right of Way /
Environment
Mitigation
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
Construction $12,000,000 $11,000,000
TOTAL $785,000 $530,000 $2,000,00 $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $11,000,000
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Street Waterfront
Connector
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $29,000,000
67
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
68
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CFP
STORMWATER
69
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
70
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Stormwater Projects
(2018-2023)
$0 (Federal or State secured)Design $975,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$950,000 $25,000
$1,015,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$990,000 $25,000$1,990,000 Total $1,940,000 $50,000
RCO SRF Grant $0 (Federal or State secured)
Possible Grant/TBD Study $675,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$225,000 $225,000 $225,000$450,000 (Debt/Stormwater)$75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000$1,125,000 Total $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Ecology Grant $546,750 (Federal or State secured)$546,750Possible Grant/TBD Design $450,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$375,000 $37,500 $37,500$728,575 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$376,200 $76,125 $126,250 $125,000 $12,500 $12,500$1,725,325 Total $922,950 $76,125 $126,250 $500,000 $50,000 $50,000
Total CFP $4,840,325 Annual CFP Totals $2,937,950 $201,125 $201,250 $800,000 $350,000 $350,000
Totals Source 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
$546,750 Total Federal & State (Secured)$546,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,100,000 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$950,000 $25,000 $0 $600,000 $262,500 $262,500$2,193,575 Debt / Stormwater Fees $1,441,200 $176,125 $201,250 $200,000 $87,500 $87,500
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements.Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce intersection flooding.
Revenue Summary by Year
Willow Creek/Daylighting Daylight channel to allow better connnectivity with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding.
Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project - Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat.
Project Name Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Grant/Date
Current Project
Phase
(2018-2023)
Total Cost 2023Revenue Source 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
717.3.bPacket Pg. 404Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
72
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104
Drainage Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2.4M
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and other new infrastructure.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and State Hwy 104.
SCHEDULE: Construction scheduled for 2018 though may be pushed back due to possible
delayed release of grant funds.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $100000
Construction $1830000 $50,000
1% for Art $10000
TOTAL $1,940,000 $50,000
73
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5M to $10M
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building on the studies completed in 2013 and 2015 that assessed the feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel, this project will likely construct a new tide gate and 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for design and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. This project,
along with its companion CIP projects “Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements” and “Dayton Street Pump Station,” will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. Approximately $65,000 of the $157,331 grant from the Recreation and Conservation Office
(RCO) remains and will be used to pay for the 2018 expenditures.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2025
COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Construction 1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
74
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)
CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow
Reduction/Management Project
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2M to $10M
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision
that will be addressed by restoration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was
completed in 2014. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. The City applied for and won a grant from the Department of Ecology for $633,750 to design and construct a stormwater infiltration facility in Seaview Park. The dollars allocated in the out years are to implement additional water quality and flow control projects in the Perrinville Creek basin as recommended by the Flow
Reduction Study.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased
flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream
reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be controlled or these improvements will be washed away.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023 Construction at Seaview park to take place in 2018. Open sites to be determined. COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $35,000 $10,000 $20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Construction $886,825 $65,000 $105,000 $450,000
1% for Art $3950 $1125 $1,250 $1,250
TOTAL $925,775 $76,125 $126,250 $501,250 $50,000 $50,000
Perrinville Creek
75
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Final - CFP 2018-2023 (CIP-CFP Discussion)