The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-09-22 City Council - Full Agenda-2673o Agenda Edmonds City Council V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 22, 2020, 7:00 PM CITIZENS WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AUDIENCE COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING MAY CONNECT VIA ZOOM AT ANY POINT BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE AUDIENCE COMMENT PERIOD. CITIZENS WILL SIT IN A VIRTUAL WAITING ROOM UNTIL THEIR TURN TO SPEAK. WHEN THE CITIZEN ENTERS THE LIVE COUNCIL MEETING, THEIR TIME WILL BEGIN. THE CLERK WILL BE THE TIME KEEPER AND PROVIDE A 30-SECOND WARNING AND A FINAL WARNING WHEN THEIR TIME IS UP. THE CITIZEN WILL BE REMOVED AND THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED IN. CITIZENS MAY CONNECT WITH A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE AT: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/S/4257752525 OR JOIN THE MEETING BY PHONE AT: 888 475 4499 (TOLL FREE) OR 877 853 5257 (TOLL FREE) MEETING ID 425 775 2525 CITIZENS NOT WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN AUDIENCE COMMENTS MAY CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE LIVESTREAM ON THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, CABLE TV, OR TELEPHONE BY CALLING (712) 775-7270, ACCESS CODE 583224. "WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5. PRESENTATION 1. Municipal Court Annual Report (30 min) Edmonds City Council Agenda September 22, 2020 Page 1 AUDIENCE COMMENTS (HTTPS://ZOOM.US/S/4257752525) APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2020 2. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 3. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Melaku Ashenafi ($1,000.00) 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS (HTTPS://ZOOM.US/S/4257752525) 1. Public Hearing on the Planning Board Recommendation to Deny a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family - Urban 1" for 21 properties within a block located between 9th Ave N, Carol Way, 10th Ave N., and an unopened alley between Glen St. and Daley St. (30 min) 2. Public Hearing on Planning Board's recommendation to Approve a Comprehensive Plan map designation change for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential - Medium Density." (30 min) 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. Ordinance amending the Fireworks Code (30 min) 2. Edmonds Cares Fund Amendment Related to Increased CARES Act Funding (25 min) 3. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (20 min) 10. COUNCIL BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council Committee Reports (0 min) 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda September 22, 2020 Page 2 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Municipal Court Annual Report Staff Lead: Linda Coburn Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History The Municipal Court provides an annual report to the City Council in the first quarter of each year. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, this report was postponed until September. Staff Recommendation For information only. Narrative Judge Linda Coburn will provide the report. Attachments: State of the Court 2020 Expenditure Status Report 2019 Filings By Type By Year Filings Intake By Month & Year Intake Less Passport Fees Intake Status Report 2019 Passport Applications State of the Court 2020 PPT Packet Pg. 3 5.1.a EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT STATE OF THE COURT "Providing the Community Access to Justice with Respect and Integrity." 2020 The presiding judge usually presents the annual State of the Court report in March and focuses on the previous calendar year. COVID-19 delayed the presentation of this report until September. Thus, unlike years past, this report incorporates some information from 2020. INVESTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS PrOViding the COR11171 inirYAccess Last year we took our new mission statement and prominently displayed it both in the lobby across from the clerk's window and inside the staff area as a daily State of the Court 2020 Packet Pg. 4 5.1.a reminder to us and the public of why we do what we do and how we should do it every day. Staffing and Workload The Court employs an administrator, four full-time equivalent (FTE) clerk positions and two full-time probation officers. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) calculated the current judicial needs in Edmonds Municipal Court to be 1.02 FTE. The presiding judge is currently .75 FTE in Edmonds. The staff has worked hard to learn new systems and procedures as we transition to become paperless. Until the court has fully scanned in all paper files into the digital system, staff will continue to do its best balance old and new systems simultaneously. In 2020, the court contracted with Pacific Security to provide full-time security. We are fortunate to have Kevin Broadus assigned to Edmonds. His addition has provided a much safer environment for both staff and court users. The court has received positive feedback about Kevin from both the Edmonds Police Department and the public. He is professional and personable. A juror even took time to compliment Kevin in her juror survey. The front clerk's window is currently closed until the county enters phase three of Governor Inslee's reopening plan. However, while the clerk's window was open, staff noticed that there were fewer instances of bad behavior at the clerk's window with security nearby. The addition of a second probation officer, Sherman Mah, has allowed the court to expand pre-trial services. The court can order, when appropriate, defendants to check in regularly with probation. This option allows defendants to keep their jobs, and seek treatment or counseling. The court was fortunate that Sherman was already certified as a Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) facilitator when hired. The court now offers two MRT groups. The addition also allowed probation officer Omar Gamez to take the lead in the court's paperless project. In 2019, Uneek Maylor joined Edmonds as our current Court Administrator. She brings with her an amazing amount of knowledge and experience. Her passion for serving the public is unmatched. The city is very fortunate to have her running the daily operation of the court, especially when a new judge may be coming on board in 2021. Uneek will be able to provide support and a smooth transition to the new judge. Paperless Project The court has made great strides towards its paperless project thanks to everyone at the city's IT department. They have provided great support throughout this project. The court recognizes that the city's IT department is in high demand. This State of the Court 2020 2 Packet Pg. 5 5.1.a is one reason the court selected to proceed with Laserfiche and its forms product to create and support our paperless endeavors. This product has allowed the court to create its own forms as well as set up the supportive workflow without having to call IT every time we need a new form and process or make a change on an existing form or process. The court has worked tirelessly to do so in order to preserve the balance of the decision package to pay for other aspects of the project that are needed. In the seven years before the court started the paperless project, the court spent on average about $2,500 in court forms. In 2019, the court spent about $329. This is a savings of 82 percent. The court is not simply creating digital versions of forms. It has created dynamic forms. The dynamic forms allow the court to create workflows that assist in automated distributions. Orders are more readable and understandable because they only include relevant text. Our paperless system positioned Edmonds to be able to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic quickly. After initially suspending in -person hearings on March 16, 2020, the court was able to regroup and bring all cases back by offering remote hearings starting on May 13, 2020. The court also reconfigured the seating in the courtroom to accommodate social distancing and established protocols, such as requiring mandatory masks. Thus, court users, with some exceptions per local court rules, have the option of appearing by video, phone or in -person. It is important to note that the court has never closed its proceedings to the public. However, given that our state and city has encouraged people to self -quarantine because of the pandemic, the court elected to livestream its proceedings as a courtesy to provide more access to justice during these trying times. Our paperless project allows the court to process digital court orders and distribute them to defendants and/or attorneys during the remote hearings. It also allows parties to submit documents to the court digitally. The court has been able to create a workflow that allows for electronic filing and the automatic savings of documents into defendant files. Still to come: • Creating an online portal where public court records will be available • Establishing a text/email auto generated reminder system of court dates • Creating a lobby kiosk where users can access court records, make payments, join remote hearings, and access links to public legal resources State of the Court 2020 3 Packet Pg. 6 5.1.a • Transitioning the online payment system into the current paperless system where court users would be reminded of their outstanding balance (this would reduce administrative time processing refunds for over payments) Jail Alternatives The continued use of alternatives to jail reduces jail costs. In 2019, the City of Edmonds paid a minimum of $101.69 a day per inmate incarcerated in the Snohomish County Jail and a one-time booking fee of $125.06. Edmonds Municipal Court utilizes various alternatives to jail when appropriate. This enables the judge to consider other factors. For example, a defendant who is under the care of a doctor with ongoing medical issues may be a more appropriate candidate for electronic home monitoring (EHM) than incarceration at the jail. Pretrial services offer an effective alternative to money bail. Releasing defendants through pretrial services is less costly than holding them in jail before trial. The expansion of pre-trial services allowed the court to order 19 pre-trial defendants in 2019 to report to probation weekly or daily out of custody instead of sitting in jail. Defendants in custody must be brought to trial in 60 days. Many cases generally take longer than 60 days from arraignment to disposition or trial. Estimating 19 defendants in jail for 60 days at a cost of $101.69 per day comes to $115,927, which is a rough under estimation of the savings in jail costs because of pretrial services. In 2019, the Court allowed 1,769 days EHM in lieu of jail. Translate those days to jail at a rate of the $101.69 daily cost and that is a savings of $179,889. The court also, when relevant, orders defendants to obtain an alcohol sensor - monitoring device called a SCRAM bracelet. This device routinely monitors a defendant for the consumption of alcohol and immediately reports any violations. In 2019, defendants spent about 3,152 days on a SCRAM bracelet, saving at least $320,527 in jail costs. When appropriate, the court has given credit for completion of intensive inpatient treatment. In 2019, 161 days of inpatient treatment was completed that could have been jail days at a cost of at least $16,372. The Court also offers community service options to some defendants. A defendant may provide eight hours of service to a non-profit agency in lieu of a day in jail. Community service is ideal for a defendant who has received a short jail sentence on a minor offense or for minor probation violations. It provides an excellent alternative to State of the Court 2020 4 Packet Pg. 7 5.1.a using jail space and spending tax dollars to house offenders. This program provides an opportunity to "give -back" to our community. In 2019, defendants were given the opportunity to perform 1,600 hours of community service in lieu of 200 days of jail. Defendants also agreed to perform 452 hours of community service as part of a pre-trial diversion agreement. The total 2,052 hours of jail equates to a potential 256 days of jail that would have cost the City $26,033.1 Using conservative estimates ($101.69 a day without adding booking fees) the citizens of Edmonds potentially saved at least $658,748 in jail costs because of alternatives to confinement. In reality, not all of those days are direct jail savings. Some of the EHM is required by statute on DUI and physical control cases. Also, despite alternatives allowed, sometimes defendants fail to complete the EHM or community service hours. When that happens, they end up serving that sentence in jail. Thus, these figures are the best estimate we are able to provide. Even if the number were half of that amount, it would still be significant. Court Improvement Funds The court, because it has an elected judicial officer, continues to receive contributions from the State dedicated for court improvements. The City has received $185,578 from the State since 2006 (does not include distributions received in 2020). This money has been set aside in a court improvement account. As of December 31, 2019, the court has spent $111,942 from this account to improve the services of the court. Between 2006 and 2019 these funds were used to make the following improvements: • Pour concrete steps and handrail outside the back entrance to the administrative office. • Provide a keyless entry to the backdoor and chambers. • Reconfigure the probation office for increased safety by routing probationers through an outside door, not the main entrance to the Court's administrative office. • Offset payments on an update to the security alarm system used in the public safety facility. 1 These estimates are based on community service hours ordered in 2019 and not on completed community service hours as some ordered hours in 2019 are not completed until 2020. State of the Court 2020 5 Packet Pg. 8 5.1.a • Purchased `panic buttons" for emergency dispatch in case of an emergency in court or at the counter. • Wireless headsets for staff to use so they are not tethered to their desks. • An enhanced probation monitoring program • Video court equipment for in -custody court hearings • Rewired the generator in the public safety complex to provide service to the court/council chambers and office during a power outage. • Creation of online payment system • Buy scanners and software licenses to create paperless court system • Buy programs and services from LaserFiche to support the paperless court system • Buy IPAD, stand and signature pads to support the paperless court system and remote hearings Conducting in -custody hearings by video continues to meet its objectives: increase safety, timely hearings for defendants and cost savings. Since its inception in January 2010, the court has physically transported few inmates from the jail for court proceedings. The safety implications are obvious. Not only does this reduce jail costs, it provides more timely hearings for defendants. The systemic impact of having video in -custody calendars was obvious when the video calendar began in 2010. Police overtime expenses for transport dropped from $28,604 in 2009 to $2,651 in 2010 and have been negligible since then. That is a savings of at least $259,530 since inception, which does not factor in the increased cost of law enforcement over the years. The balance of this court improvement account at the end of 2019 was $73,635. Of that balance, $23,117 has been set aside for the paperless project as part of the original $70,821 decision package approved in 2017. As the project has progressed, the unused balance has carried over to cover the continuing project. Community Court The challenges Edmonds face is not unique. Many communities are recognizing that in order to address the issues of crime, addiction, mental health and poverty, there must be a coordinated effort between those who provide all the services needed for these members of our community and the criminal justice system. An increasingly common State of the Court 2020 6 Packet Pg. 9 5.1.a approach is by creating a "Community Court." There is no specific definition or recipe for a community court. However, the common denominator is that a community court is physically located in the community and that there is a coordinated effort for various service providers (substance abuse treatment providers, mental health providers, indigent transitional services ...) to come to the same location as community court to make it easier for these indigent defendants to connect with them. Having these providers located at the same place as court gives the court and its criminal justice partners more options to help defendants address the issues that are underlying factors to their criminal behavior. Edmonds launched what was supposed to be a six-month Community Court pilot project in January of 2020. Swedish Edmonds Hospital recognized that local health organizations often serve the same demographics as the court. The underlying issues that entangle defendants in the criminal justice system are often the same issues that cause defendants to repeatedly depend on emergency room visits. Thus, Swedish Edmonds, which is physically closer to more accessible public transportation on Highway 99 than the court, agreed to host Community Court in its meeting spaces for at least the duration of the pilot project. The court did not request any additional funding from the city in order to create the Community Court concept. That is because the court simply held a regularly scheduled calendar at a different location. Defendants must meet the following criteria to be eligible for Community Court: • Indigent • Case is post -disposition status • Alleged failure to comply issues involve substance abuse, mental health, HIV testing, or community service. • No pending serious violent felonies • No active warrants in Snohomish, King or Pierce counties at time hearing is scheduled • Court does not have concerns about safety issues Our goal is an approach that provides HEART: Healthy connections. Facilitate contact between defendants and health providers. Easy access to Court for the indigent. Alternatives to jail. Facilitate contact between defendants and nonprofits willing to provide community service opportunities. Reduce recidivism. Transitional connections. Facilitate contact between defendants and social service agencies who help the indigent transition into temporary and permanent housing. Unfortunately, COVID-19, struck and only after two months, the court suspended State of the Court 2020 7 Packet Pg. 10 5.1.a Community Court as Swedish Edmonds, understandably, had to restrict access and prioritize its own response to COVID-19. However, Community Court, during its two events in two months, showed much promise. Defendants stated it was easier to get to "court" because it was closer to more frequent bus routes along Highway 99. The following organizations volunteered to participate: Evergreen Recovery Centers, Square One treatment provider, SeaMar treatment provider, Snohomish County Health District, Volunteers of America, St. Vincent de Paul, Sunrise Services, and 211 (an information and referral service designed to connect community members to services and basic needs such as food, clothing, and assistance paying for utility bills, legal referrals and shelters). Providers answered questions, distributed handouts about services, gave away 15 hygiene kits, 19 bus passes and 18 coupons to McDonald's. Providers also gave away snacks and clean socks. Instead of sending defendants to jail for failing to get an assessment, they were able to meet with providers in the adjacent resource room and schedule intakes for their substance abuse treatment. One provider helped a defendant arrange for an assessment in King County where the defendant's insurance was active. Another defendant was able to complete all the paperwork for an assessment and schedule an in -take appointment. With COVID-19 wreaking havoc on plans for all communities and organizations, the future Community Court is unknown at this time. However, the city should not lose hope for achieving HEART through Community Court in the future. FILINGS, INTAKE AND EXPENSES 2019 Filings Overall, the filings last year decreased from 9,931 to 7,348,2 a decrease of about 26 percent. Parking tickets dropped by about 21 percent and traffic infractions dropped by about 37 percent. It appears criminal filings were generally consistent from the previous years, with only a slight increase by about 5 percent. Criminal filings totaled 939 in 2018 and increased to 985 last year. z There were a nominal number of civil hearings (14) that do not fall into the type of hearings designations the court has traditionally reported and appears to not have been included in years past. To ensure that the year to year comparisons are the same, the references to filings do not include civil hearings that do not fall into these categories. State of the Court 2020 8 Packet Pg. 11 5.1.a Year Total Criminal Filings Percent Change from Previous Year 2019 985 +5% 2018 939 +12% 2017 840 -5% 2016 923 +2% 2015 907 -12% The court has no control over the number or type of cases filed. The numbers often are related to the staffing levels of law enforcement. Intake The court in 2016 stopped referring to the money receipted as revenue. That is because the mission of a court is to administer justice and not to generate revenue. The court structures sentences to both punish and rehabilitate. Sentences are based on the crime committed, defendant criminal history, and mitigating factors. The legal financial obligations imposed must be in accordance with the law. The payments the court takes in are referred to as "intake." Total gross intake for 2019 was $923,057, a decrease in $314,453 over 2018. Net intake decreased by $99,891 from $766,200 in 2018 to $666,309 in 2019.3 Why the decrease? When filings decrease, it follows that intake decreases. In addition to that, 2019 reflects the new legal financial obligations (LFOs) legislation that went into effect mid-2018.4 Criminal cases that may have been filed in 2018 most likely were resolved in 2019. Thus, we are now seeing the impact of those changes, which include prohibiting the imposition of costs to defendants who are statutorily indigent. LFOs related to criminal matters must follow strict requirements s The Court discovered in 2017 that previous budget reports included a line item named "NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES." This line item is civic building code violation penalties. The line item that is the Court's non -traffic infractions, is named "OTHER INFRACTIONS" in the accounting system. a E2SHB 1783 went into effect June 7, 2018. The bill prohibits courts from imposing costs and conviction fees on indigent defendants. It also eliminated the 12 percent interest on all criminal LFOs except restitution. It also mandates that courts grant motions to waive accrued interest on outstanding LFOs previously imposed, except restitution. State of the Court 2020 9 Packet Pg. 12 5.1.a under the law. It is important to remember the Washington State Supreme Court's holding in State v. Blazina: By statute, "[t]he court shall not order a defendant to pay costs unless the defendant is or will be able to pay them." RCW 10.01.160(3). To determine the amount and method for paying the costs, "the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose." 182 Wn.2d 827, 838, 344 P.3d 680, 685 (2015). It is also important to remember that municipal courts are the creation of the legislature. The court's authority and power derives directly from the legislature The legislature shall prescribe by law the jurisdiction and powers of any of the inferior courts which may be established in pursuance of this Constitution. Washington State Constitution Article IV, § 12. What the court can impose regarding fines, fees, costs and assessments derive directly from statute. The Court imposing LFOs that it does not have authority to impose could put the City at risk. See State v. Hardtke, 183 Wn.2d 475 (2015). Courts across the country and here in Washington have been sued for violating the constitutional rights of the poor and creating a debtor's prison in attempts to collect LFOs against defendants whose nonpayment was not willful. The Court will continue to ensure compliance with statute and not put the City at risk. Expenses The court spent $1,001,060 of the appropriated $1,123,348 in 2019, about 89 percent. Similar to 2018, the court held five trials in 2019. Expenditures included $3,925 related to the paperless court project, that was previously approved in a decision package. The decision package for the paperless court project was $70,821. Of the total, the court has spent $25,529 in 2017 and $18,250 in 2018. A balance of $23,117 remains as the court continues completing the project in 2019. Passports State of the Court 2020 10 Packet Pg. 13 5.1.a Processing passports are not a normal court function, but has been a service this court has provided to the community since March of 2002, when the Edmonds Municipal Court received its Passport Agent Designation Certificate from the US Bureau of Consular Affairs. To date, the court has processed 15,120 passport applications. Last year, the Court processed 651 applications, grossing $22,780. Since inception, passport revenue has grossed $425,984. Unfortunately, COVID-19 caused the court to restructure its operations to allow for reduced concentrated staff at the courthouse. While the court continues to operate, it has delayed reopening its front -clerk window. Until that happens, the court has suspended processing passports. The court looks forward to, once again, offering this service in the future. Future COVID-19 has forced many people to lose their jobs. It follows that there will be an increase of defendants who meet the state's definition of being indigent. Poverty and depression often is a factor in causing people to make desperate decisions. Isolation affects mental health and reliance on alcohol and controlled substances. The court will continue to continue to do its part to keep our community safe, while holding people accountable with compassion. Courts are an important part of the community because they protect our constitutional rights and due process under the law. They provide access to justice, they promote safety, and they maintain civility. Everyone in our community benefits from what happens in the court even if some never step through the courthouse doors. The judiciary is the third branch of government. Those three legs (judicial, legislative, and executive) create a solid base of support for the common good -- serving our community. The services courts provide are not a luxury -- they are a necessity. Courts are an essential function. It is important the city continues to support the court's efforts in providing our community access to justice. State of the Court 2020 Packet Pg. 14 5.1.b EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT 01/01/2019 THROUGH 12/30/2019 Year- to- Date 001.000.23.512 COURT OFFICE Appropriation Expenditures Balance Prct Used 001.000.23.512.50.11.00 SALARIES 529,636 467,381 62,255 88.25% 001.000.23.512.50.12.00 OVERTIME 500 482 18 96.32% 001.000.23.512.50.23.00 BENEFITS 212,768 161,975 50,793 76.13% 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 SUPPLIES 5,000 4,580 420 91.59% 001.000.23.512.50.31.10 SUPPLIES JUDICIAL 600 600 0 100.00% 001.000.23.512.50.35.00 MINOR EQUIPMENT 400 3,293 -2,893 823.29% 001.000.23.512.50.35.10 SMALL EQUIPMENT -JUDICIAL 500 895 -395 179.05% 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94,425 50,773 43,652 53.77% 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 PROF SVCS - INTERPRETER 22,500 30,545 -8,045 135.75% 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 2,710 -110 104.23% 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 TRAVEL 5,000 2,318 2,682 46.36% 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 RENTAL/LEASE 2,300 2,070 230 90.00% 001.000.23.512.50.45.10 INTERFUND RENTAL 62,451 62,451 0 100.00% 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 REPAIR/MAINT 3,600 121 3,479 3.37% 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 22,163 -2,163 110.82% 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 JURY 4,600 2,867 1,733 62.33% TOTAL COURT OFFICE 966,880 815,224 151,656 84.31% 001.000.23.523.30 PROBATION 001.000.23.523.30.11.00 SALARIES 99,325 119,912 -20,587 120.73% 001.000.23.523.30.12.00 OVERTIME 300 843 -543 281.00% 001.000.23.523.30.23.00 BENEFITS 39,013 47,232 -8,219 121.07% 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 SUPPLIES 5,000 5,122 -122 102.44% 001.000.23.523.30.35.00 SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 1,230 -1,130 1230.03% 001.000.23.523.30.41.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000 4,290 -1,290 143.00% 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 PROF SVCS - INTERPRETER 5,000 5,358 -358 107.17% 001.000.23.523.30.42.00 COMMUNICATIONS 950 209 741 21.96% 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 TRAVEL 1,500 1,104 396 73.63% 001.000.23.523.30.45.00 RENTAL/LEASE 500 30 470 6.03% 001.000.23.523.30.48.00 REPAIR/MAINT 1,280 156 1,124 12.20% 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500 349 151 69.75% 001.000.23.523.30.51.00 HOME MONITORING - INTERGOVTI 0 0 0 0.00% TOTAL PROBATION 156,468 185,836 -29,368 118.77% GRAND TOTAL EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT 1,123,348 1,001,060 122,288 89.11% Packet Pg. 15 5.1.c E U U a� �a U X 0 0 t a� 0 0 a� a a a U �a L 0 z r- 0 .4-1 U z 0 .4- U L 0 O CASE FILINGS BY YEAR 2019 IT IN PP DUI CT CN TOTAL Staff Jan 240 3 320 9 25 33 630 Feb 259 1 140 9 22 32 463 SNOW Mar 267 3 302 13 42 50 677 Apr 333 2 334 9 38 44 760 May 238 9 259 11 37 43 597 June 217 3 295 9 21 31 576 Jul 265 4 387 17 24 44 741 Aug 186 3 361 12 26 42 630 Sep 216 0 309 14 39 38 616 Oct 240 6 263 8 31 43 591 Nov 168 2 283 8 16 39 516 FT-6 Dec 174 2 269 14 24 68 551 SNOW TOTALS 2,803 38 3,522 133 345 507 7,348 6 2018 IT IN PP DUI CT CN TOTAL Staff Jan 612 1 414 9 30 35 1,101 Feb 477 0 330 7 35 43 892 Mar 414 4 417 15 29 36 915 Apr 600 2 314 14 26 41 997 May 394 2 405 14 33 33 881 June 312 0 462 10 24 41 849 Jul 325 3 507 12 31 27 905 Aug 259 1 358 14 18 41 691 Sep 258 8 350 4 24 44 688 Oct 388 3 345 16 27 46 825 Nov 229 0 204 10 26 38 507 FT-5 Dec 209 5 380 20 25 41 680 PT-2 TOTALS 4,477 29 4,486 145 328 466 9,931 6 2017 IT IN PP DUI CT CN TOTAL Staff Jan 401 0 105 4 33 44 587 Feb 339 2 91 6 27 37 502 Mar 267 1 108 1 26 45 448 Apr 337 5 92 4 23 26 487 May 298 6 106 10 23 40 483 June 234 2 59 6 20 30 351 Jul 335 4 56 11 31 31 468 Aug 420 5 246 12 32 52 767 Sep 257 4 350 10 20 34 675 Oct 482 3 293 18 26 36 858 Nov 328 1 295 7 21 34 686 FT-5 Dec 273 2 312 10 22 28 647 PT-2 TOTALS 3,971 35 2,113 99 304 437 6,959 6 0 Q d o: c a 0 U a .2 a� m a m a� U- r- 0 E U r-+ r Q Packet Pg. 16 5.1.c E U I— U a� �a _U X 0 0 t a� 0 0 a� a a a U �a L IL 0 z r_ 0 .4-1 U Cp z 0 .4- U P L 0 O U CASE FILINGS BY YEAR 2016 IT IN PP DUI CT CN TOTAL Staff Jan 231 1 51 9 17 36 345 Feb 304 4 100 10 32 32 482 Mar 357 3 37 9 41 45 492 Apr 367 8 40 5 25 45 490 May 383 11 50 4 41 54 543 June 337 2 45 5 44 42 475 Jul 344 6 38 11 19 46 464 Aug 345 6 55 6 21 39 472 Sep 349 5 116 7 27 59 563 Oct 260 3 321 8 25 27 644 Nov 336 2 276 5 17 43 679 FT-5 Dec 212 2 164 11 22 34 445 PT-2 TOTALS 3,825 53 1,293 90 331 502 6,094 6 2015 IT IN PP DUI CT CN TOTAL Staff Jan 308 6 105 12 19 39 489 Feb 298 10 139 7 33 45 532 Mar 579 3 147 5 24 62 820 Apr 393 1 106 6 24 32 562 May 422 5 114 6 14 41 602 June 452 5 52 13 27 46 595 Jul 318 3 97 5 29 40 492 Aug 288 5 91 12 33 54 483 Sep 292 4 64 10 30 44 444 Oct 262 12 73 8 26 44 425 Nov 311 3 103 6 25 30 478 FT-5 Dec 262 2 52 7 15 34 372 PT-2 TOTALS 4,185 59 1,143 97 299 511 6,294 6 2014 IT IN PP DUI CT CN TOTAL Staff Jan 283 1 113 11 38 58 504 Feb 255 2 63 9 32 43 404 Mar 257 4 176 6 40 60 543 Apr 289 5 124 6 38 49 511 May 306 4 126 7 23 48 514 June 308 8 161 5 34 49 565 Jul 399 5 129 12 28 48 621 Aug 217 2 103 4 23 53 402 Sep 266 2 139 5 35 57 504 Oct 238 2 37 5 24 45 351 Nov 386 5 92 6 25 26 540 FT-4 Dec 239 4 45 6 25 48 367 PT-4 TOTALS 3,443 44 1,308 82 365 584 5,826 6 0 Q a� o: c a 0 U R a .2 a� m CL m a� r r_ 0 E U r-+ r Q Packet Pg. 17 FILINGS COMPARISON OF YEAR TO YEAR FILINGS FILINGS Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 2020 553 473 256 77 157 438 468 548 1,282 0 2019 634 464 679 760 598 576 743 636 616 560 516 551 7,333 2018 1,101 892 915 997 884 850 905 691 688 827 507 683 9,940 a 2017 587 502 448 489 483 352 469 767 675 859 687 649 6,967 0 U 2016 345 482 492 490 543 475 466 472 563 644 679 446 6,097 Q .2 2015 489 532 820 562 602 595 492 483 444 425 478 372 6,294 2014 504 404 543 511 514 565 621 402 504 351 540 367 5,826 2013 580 665 655 660 819 685 657 687 596 795 567 443 7,809 2012 464 578 551 397 590 452 652 582 607 504 549 399 6,325 a Packet Pg. 18 5.1.e INTAKE COMPARISON OF YEAR TO YEAR INTAKE O YEAR Jan Feb March I April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 2019 $91,333 $65,872 $92,888 $92,962 $79,590 $72,885 $92,695 $80,827 $69,196 $71,824 $58,362 $54,619 $923,05( 2018 $100,656 $108,745 $134,440 $104,274 $110,611 $112,041 $110,873 $106,716 $89,357 $100,707 $82,443 $76,642 $1,237,50! 2017 $75,167 $82,456 $88,747 $80,281 $72,985 $71,286 $80,385 $86,449 $81,878 $94,802 $79,104 $79,687 $973,221, v 2016 $75,051 $80,201 $105,100 $73,343 $97,971 $82,820 $84,357 $102,051 $88,400 $82,905 $70,768 $73,584 $1,016,55. @ 2015 $76,580 $90,890 $108,159 $118,098 $99,688 $95,986 $94,717 $86,658 $82,655 $83,825 $67,783 $68,009 $1,073,05:.2 2014 $96,508 $107,733 $92,236 $78,186 $97,410 $106,006 $95,036 $87,980 $83,407 $86,919 $74,889 $72,148 $1,078,461 2013 $91,202 $95,420 $131,295 $110,170 $115,708 $103,975 $98,961 $102,042 $117,736 $109,836 $92,369 $91,307 $1,260,02, 2012 $108,565 $131,182 $124,351 $92,513 $99,963 $82,063 $86,444 $89,433 $81,753 $104,955 $100,776 $79,977 $1,181,97- >- Cd 2011 $100,041 $125,546 $140,559 $109,915 $118,137 $137,098 $98,785 $105,116 $118,823 $111,272 $111,694 $116,761 $1,393,75: 2010 $107,450 $113,768 $127,099 $107,050 $98,099 $104,968 $113,738 $116,214 $95,834 $101,363 $95,098 $91,812 $1,272,49! 0 2009 $106,559 $98,123 $123,739 $113,872 $103,319 $157,578 $65,047 $91,613 $96,496 $96,985 $85,162 $109,384 $1,247,88: m m c� r c Total $13,064,4C a� E ca Q Packet Pg. 19 INTAKE COMPARISON OF YEAR TO YEAR INTAKE LESS PASSPORT FEES Year Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Passport Tot c a_ 2020 62023 65746 57,811 27,402 31,998 48,706 52,540 60,180 406,406 5,325 288,: aD 2019 91,333 65,873 92,889 92,963 79,590 72,886 92,695 80,827 69,196 71,824 58,362 54,619 923,057 22,780 900", Q 2018 100,656 108,746 134,441 104,275 110,611 112,042 110,873 106,716 89,357 100,707 82,444 76,642 1,237,510 21,570 1,215, 0 2017 75,167 82,456 88,747 80,281 72,985 71,286 80,385 86,449 81,878 94,802 79,104 79,687 973,227 21,950 951,: v a 2016 75,052 80,202 105,101 73,344 97,971 82,821 84,357 102,052 88,400 82,905 70,769 73,584 1,016,558 19,384 997,1 '� .2 2015 76,580 90,891 108,159 118,098 99,688 95,986 94,717 86,659 82,655 83,826 67,784 68,009 1,073,053 17,410 1,055, E 2014 96,509 107,733 92,236 78,186 97,410 106,006 95,036 87,980 83,407 86,919 74,889 72,149 1,078,460 18,950 1,059, aNi m LL 2013 91,203 95,420 131,295 110,170 115,709 103,975 98,962 102,042 117,736 109,836 92,369 91,307 1,260,024 11,675 1,248, o a 2012 108,565 131,182 124,351 92,513 99,963 82,063 86,444 89,434 81,753 104,955 100,776 79,978 1,181,977 12,875 1,169, N R a 2011 100,041 125,546 140,560 109,916 118,137 137,098 98,785 105,117 118,823 111,272 111,695 116,762 1,393,752 10,075 1,383, N a� 2010 107,450 113,769 127,099 107,050 98,099 104,969 113,739 116,214 95,835 101,364 95,099 91,812 1,272,499 14,825 1,257, 2009 106,559 98,123 123,740 113,873 103,320 157,578 65,047 91,613 96,496 96,986 85,163 109,385 1,247,883 20,000 1,227, 2 c Total $13,064,406 196,819 $12,75, r E 8 R a Packet Pg. 20 5.1.g INTAKE STATUS REPORT 01/01/2019 THROUGH 12/30/2019 Year- to- EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT REVENUES Appropriation Date Balance Prct Collected 334.01.200.00 WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT 0 0 0 0.00% 336.01.290.00 JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE 16,716 16,716 0 100.00% 336.01.290.10 AOC PRO-TEM JUDGE REIMBURSEMENT 0 0 0 0.00% 336.06.260.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 45,600 45,573 -27 99.94% 336.06.510.00 DUI - CITIES 6,000 5,689 -311 94.82% 341.32.000.00 COURT RECORD SERVICES 150 78 -72 52.31% 341.33.020.00 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE 5,500 10,910 5,410 198.36% 341.33.060.00 IT TIME PAY FEE 1,000 1,321 321 132.11% 341.62.000.00 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 100 324 224 323.91% 341.49.010.00 SHARED COURT COSTS 0 0 0 0.00% 341.99.000.00 PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 21,000 22,780 1,780 108.48% 342.33.000.00 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 54,000 46,102 -7,898 85.37% 342.30.500.00 BOOKING FEES 400 2,809 2,409 702.22% 342.50.000.00 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 3,100 17,784 14,684 573.68% 352.30.000.00 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 7,500 3,515 -3,985 46.86% 353.10.000.00 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 7/03 290,000 216,648 -73,352 74.71% 353.10.020.00 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 4/07 31,000 9,078 -21,922 29.28% 353.10.040.00 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT 38,000 16,629 -21,371 43.76% 353.10.040.00 SPEEDING DOUBLE 6-10 0 0 0 0.00% 353.70.020.00 OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 800 1,232 432 154.00% 354.00.000.00 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 159,000 143,598 -15,402 90.31% 354.00.010.00 PR - HANDICAPPED 0 0 0 0.00% 354.00.070.00 PARKING INDDISZONE 800 2,938 2,138 367.25% 355.20.000.00 DWI PENALTIES 6,000 9,731 3,731 162.18% 355.20.010.00 DUI - DP ACCT 1,000 448 -552 44.80% 355.20.030.00 CRIMINAL CNV FEE DUI 200 89 -111 44.50% 355.20.040.00 DUI DP FEE 1,500 2,008 508 133.87% 355.80.000.00 OTHER CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEM PEN 135 0 -135 0.00% 355.80.010.00 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 30,000 28,338 -1,662 94.46% 355.80.020.00 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 3,600 2,548 -1,052 70.78% 355.80.021.00 CRIM CONV FEE CT 1,000 621 -379 62.10% 356.90.000.00 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD PEN 100 0 -100 0.00% 356.90.040.00 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 13,000 13,903 903 106.95% 356.90.080.00 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 600 314 -286 52.33% 0 0. d c c a 0 0 U a .2 0 T Q N rm 0 a m w 0 N m c� c c m E t 0 0 .r Q Packet Pg. 21 356.90.140.00 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 18,500 11,485 -7,015 62.08% 356.90.141.00 CRIM CONV FEE CN 500 282 -218 56.40% 357.39.000.00 COURT COST RECOUPMENTS 7,000 4,597 -2,403 65.67% 357.33.300.00 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 18,500 5,419 -13,081 29.29% 357.35.500.00 COURT INTERPRETER COST 0 0 0 0.00% 357.36.000.00 CREDIT CARD FEE 12,000 13,492 1,492 112.43% 359.00.400.00 MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 300 1,207 907 402.33% 361.40.100.00 INTEREST COURT COLLECTIONS 3,000 8,091 5,091 269.70% 369.91.030.00 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 300 12 -288 3.95% Grand Total 797,901 666,309 -131,592 83.51% ■ .r Q Packet Pg. 22 5.1.h APPLICATIONS PROCESSED FROM 2002 TO 2019 Year Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 2019 68 58 69 89 42 49 71 71 30 32 30 42 651 2018 67 59 89 61 74 61 64 34 27 31 52 678 2017 90 94 93 93 91 75 88 66 48 37 43 60 878 2016 77 92 74 78 57 57 52 42 34 57 774 2015 74 114 68 52 42 53 76 53 44 46 32 42 696 2014 81 65 89 69 50 77 65 50 51 57 39 65 758 2013 55 47 38 40 33 42 40 46 28 26 37 35 467 2012 35 44 50 52 53 43 38 57 23 19 55 46 515 2010 47 37 42 46 26 29 48 35 33 17 12 31 403 2011 65 53 77 59 51 29 92 41 47 25 27 27 593 2009 75 73 88 65 80 112 53 73 56 53 22 50 800 2008 123 103 100 79 77 76 59 66 44 55 64 41 887 2007 208 157 144 130 101 103 89 106 59 83 52 81 1,313 2006 95 90 103 60 60 71 64 63 54 65 79 100 904 2005 105 126 127 129 117 107 85 77 62 63 43 71 1,112 2004 212 181 175 136 106 97 119 120 77 69 79 103 1,474 2,003 66 155 140 146 161 119 110 96 106 92 68 116 1,375 2,002 0 0 25 54 61 46 53 109 61 105 71 118 701 Total 15,120 E 0 Q. a� o: c c Q 0 U a .2 c 0 r Q a Q r L 0 a N a c aD E 0 r Q Packet Pg. 23 State of Edmonds Municipal Court 2020 5.1 A ,-)1 V 1) 1 . Providing the CoIN tnmr y Access ustice with Respect and Inreg L O Q Q L O U R .v H IL a 0 N Co N r O U a) t r 4- 0 a) Cu N r C d t v R Q Packet Pg. 25 Courts are an important part of our Community because • they protect our Constitutional rights and due process under the law • they provide access to justice • they keep us safe and help us maintain civility Providing the Community Access to Justice with Respect and Integrity." 13 EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT MISSION STATEMENT 2019+ INVESTMENTS IMPROVEMENTS INVESTMENTS/IMPROVEMENTS • Paperless • Probation • Community Court Paperless Project LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL 5.1 A Notice Form Published 4)412020 10 56 AM L. q =4 6 Choose New PROCESS DESIGNER Process Diagram Clerk Prep - Notice Form Final Notice (Clerk's Window) Main Case Notice (clerk) Main Case Order (Judge} Ruling Notice/Order {Judge] Track #1 - Clerk Case Setting... Track #t -judge Notice Order Track #2 - Clerk Case Setting... Track #2 -judge Notice Order Create New Form Access Rights Process Options Process Diagram ► Default Stage L 5tage.2 + Stage M t2 1 1 d -M1 F wPo �d •...� } w 3 a O 0 l r ..� .... o �p r w E © M r Q Packet Pg. 31 Paperless Project Online Infraction Written Hearings Jury Questionnaire/Request for Hardship Petition for Legal Financial Obligation Relief Criminal forms/processes Electronic Filing Portal Past seven years cost of forms averaged about $2,500 a year. In 2019, court spent $329 on forms. Reduction of about 82% Probation DOUBLE THE SERVICE Probation - 2 FTEs MORAL RECONATION THERAPY (MRT) - 2 groups Expanded Pre -Trial Services Paperless Project coordination EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY COURT SIX-MONTH PILOT BEGAN JANUARY 6, 2020AT SWEDISH EDMONDS HOSPITAL Q �'�� ;' • � � '- � � Packet Pg. 35 5.1.i OUR GOAL ISTO PROVIDE HEART E L 0 Q NN� I.b 0 Healthy connections. Facilitate contact between defendants and health a L providers. Easy access to Court for the indigent. a Alternatives to jail. Facilitate contact between defendants and nonprofits N willing to provide community service opportunities. N 0 U Reduce recidivism. 4- 0 Transitional connections. Facilitate contact between defendants and social N service agencies who help the indigent transition into temporary and permanent housing. a Packet Pg. 36 AUDITORIUM MEETING ROOMS - FOURTH FLOOR Signage was placed in both main entrances to provide direction to Community Court '1 Packet Pg. 37 r Q COURT PROVIDED SECURITY • Everyone attending had their bags checked and were checked for weapons. 18 defendants appeared. Packet Pg. 38 r Q 5.1.i COURT ROOM Probation officers, Prosecutor, Judge, Court Clerk, Public Defenders r� a 7 Packet Pg. 39 TRANSITION BETWEEN RESOURCE ROOM AND COURTROOM Vendors present: Snohomish Health District Volunteers of America SeaMar Evergreen Recovery St.Vincent de Paul Square One 211 Packet Pg. 40 r a VENDORS SET UP AT TABLES AROUND THE EDGE OF THE ROOM In addition to providing handouts for other services, they provided: 15 Hygiene kits Snacks 3 pairs of socks 19 bus passes 18 $10 gift cards (McDonald's) Community Court suspended after two months because of COVID-19. E L 0 Q N� Q 0 a a O N O N 0 v m t 0 m d E z a Packet Pg. 41 I i 5.1.i VENDORS SET UP AT TABLES AROUND THE EDGE OF THE ROOM Evergreen Recovery's table had several pamphlets available. 7 ; i J. T Packet Pg. 42 E L 0 Q NN� I.b 0 C C Q O V C a a O N O N 3 0 V O t O O r R r Cn r C d E t v R .r .r Q INTERACTION BETWEEN DEFEN DANTS AN D VENDORS Chairs were set up in the middle of the resource room where defendants could sit and wait for their case to be called. They also could sit and wait in the courtroom as well. Packet Pg. 43 r Q COURT INACTION Court staff was able to access court system remotely. Sitting around a table together — much like tribal courts -- created a more congenial feel to the proceedings. Packet Pg. 44 E L 0 Q NN� I.b 0 Q 0 V .2 a a O N O N 0 c� m 0 m M c m E r r Q SUCCESS STORIES • Easier to get to (relied on bus instead of unreliable "friends") • Scheduled assessments/appointments (locally and in King County where defendant's insurance was valid) • Completed all paperwork for assessment 1 Packet Pg. 45 0 a as 0 c c a 0 0 U IL a 0 N O N 0 U a) 0 a) W r c m E R r r Q The Numbers EXPENDITURES, INTAKE & FILINGS 5.1 A 2019 2018 $1,123,348 $1,001,060 $122,288 89% $1,035,031 $995,469 $39,562 96% E L O Q N� Q L O U R .v a a 0 N Co N O U a) t r 4- 0 a) Cu N r C d t v R Q Packet Pg. 47 5.1 A Q Packet Pg. 48 Total Filings 7,763 7,919 6,325 7,809 5,826 6,294 6,097 6,967 9,931 Civil Filings Criminal Filings 5.1 A Infraction 4,477 Traffic Parking 4,486 2,803 1,674 -37% 3,522 964 -21 % Packet Pg. 52 Intake 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Comparison of Year to Year Intake 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Intake NOTE: COVID-19 caused court to close front -clerk's window and restructured staff to have fewer people in the office while some worked at home. Thus, court has not processed passports since March. 5.1 A .prz Gross Total Net Total Public Defender Recoupment $1,237,510 $766,200 $923,057 $666,309 $30, 729 $314,453 $99,891 $16, 629 -25 -13% E L O Q N� Q L O U R C IL IL O N CO N r L O U a) t r 4- 0 CU a Packet Pg. 55 5.1 A Q Packet Pg. 56 Courts are Not Revenue Centers By statute, '[t]he court shall not order a defendant to pay costs unless the defendant is or will be able to pay them.' RCW 10.0 1. 160(3). To determine the amount and method for paying the costs, 'the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose.' -- State v. Blazing, 182 Wn.2d 827.,838, 344 P.3d 680, 685 (2015) 5.1 A Q Packet Pg. 58 STATUTORY AUTHORITY "THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PRESCRIBE BY LAW THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF ANY OF THE INFERIOR COURTS WHICH MAYBE ESTABLISHED IN PURSUANCE OF THIS CONSTITUTION." Article IV, Section 12 of the Washington State Constitution 5.1 A D t-4 r o rI End of 2018 2019 Contributions: $16,250 2019 Paperless Court Expenditures: $3,030 2020 Contributions to date: $12,1 14 $61,310 $77,560 $74,530 Q Packet Pg. 60 5.1 A F4,-IP1Rp Ex0out«e Packet Pg. 61 Providing the Community Access to Justice with Respect and Integrity." 13 EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT MISSION STATEMENT 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 09-15-2020 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 63 7.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES September 15, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Nelson advised Agenda Item 9.1, Council Discussion of City Code Chapter 6.60, was not ready for Council review and he recommended it be removed from the agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, MINUS ITEM 9.1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. INTERVIEWS 1. INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR THE CEMETERY BOARD Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 64 7.1.a Mayor Nelson introduced Cemetery Board Candidate Ashley Robinson. Councilmembers introduced themselves. Ms. Robinson provided an opening comment: I moved to the Edmonds bowl about 2'/2 years ago and live not far from the cemetery. The cemetery is one of the places we love to walk through. At the start of the pandemic, they talked with their daughters about the Spanish Influenza of 1918 and visited the cemetery, looking for markers with deaths in 1918 and talked about what pandemics mean to the history of communities and societies. The cemetery is part of how they talk about things in their household. I'm a history major and worked for a history museum previously. As morbid as cemeteries are, I love them and they are a favorite place to visit when traveling such as Greyfriars Cemetery in Edinburgh. There are so many cool elements and you can learn so much about history and where we are today as a society. When I saw the opening on the Cemetery Board, I saw it as a great opportunity to give back to the community in a way that connects with me and my personal interests. The Council interviewed Ms. Robinson: • (Councilmember Buckshnis) Welcome and I agree, I always go to the cemetery when visiting somewhere new because it provides a wealth of information, especially in Europe and the old country. The Cemetery Sexton Cliff knows a great deal about the cemetery, including the location of many gravesites. Dale Hoggins retired from the Cemetery Board but is still around and you will also enjoy him. Glad you enjoy being part of the community and understand history; Edmonds has a rich history. • (Councilmember Paine) Thank you for volunteering. Benefits of the cemetery include the open space and environmental aspects. Would you be comfortable sharing thoughts about how to have a greener cemetery? This is actually an area of interest for myself. An online celebrity, Caitlin Doughty, has written a few books about green funeral services and how society talks about cremation, embalming and green burial. I find her viewpoints really interesting. I love the `Ask a Mortician " web series and I've read a few of her books. I'm interested to find out more; there are some elements that make people uncomfortable because it feeds on society's superstitious viewpoints, but there is something natural about talking about green spaces in cemeteries. In Sacramento I lived next to the historical cemetery; I loved the oak trees, rose gardens and beautiful vegetation in the cemetery. It's an amazing legacy that anyone buried there is part of the flowers, trees and helping to give off oxygen in the air. As a pet owner of a recent deceased pet, I wondered how to make him part of the everyday experience of my backyard. I am absolutely open to green burial practices, alternative burial practices, and the history. • (Councilmember Olson) I was at Cemetery Board meeting when they were discussing the Memorial Day event that didn't happen live this year. I'm really excited about you as is the Board and pleased you applied; you bring a lot of enthusiasm. • (Councilmember Distelhorst) Thank you for volunteering time for one of City's boards. • (Councilmember L. Johnson) Thank you for volunteering. We also brought our kids to the cemetery shortly after the lockdown began because, 1) it was a safe space to distance, and 2) for the history. • (Councilmember K. Johnson) Sounds like this will be a very good fit between your interests and the needs on the Cemetery Board. I wish you much luck and enjoyment of everything about the cemetery. Ms. Robinson thanked the Council for the opportunity. Although she has lived in Edmonds a short time, she truly loves being a member of the community and being part of the Cemetery Board is a great opportunity to start giving back to a town that gives them so much. She thanked the Council for their public service and for taking time to interview her. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 65 7.1.a Council President Fraley-Monillas advised confirmation of the appointment to the Cemetery Board is Item 8.6 on the Consent Agenda. 2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITY Mayor Nelson introduced Sister City Commission Candidate Katy Renz. Councilmembers introduced themselves. The Council interviewed Ms. Renz: • (Councilmember Paine) What brought you to volunteer to go to Hekinan? I saw a flyer at school, I've been with the Edmonds School District for over 20 years, it looked very enticing so I inquired and last summer I was able to be a chaperone which was quite an honor and a wonderful experience. • (Councilmember Olson) I saw on your application that in addition to going to Hekinan, you were a host for one of the teachers who came from Hekinan as a chaperone. Yes, it wasn't planned, but things happen and I was happy to step in and experience hosting someone. It was a wonderful experience and made the whole thing complete. Councilmember Olson suggested she share a highlight during her closing comments. • (Councilmember Distelhorst) Thank you for applying and for your prior involvement. What did you feel was the major difference between traveling to Japan versus hosting someone from Japan? Both were really enriching because when I was in Japan, I stayed in someone's home and when I hosted someone, they stayed in my home. We learned a lot more about each other's cultures and it was fun to show someone around my city. I also knew the teacher because when I was in Hekinan, the same teacher was with us the whole time so we already had a connection. • (Councilmember L. Johnson) Thank you for applying and what you are doing to teach our children in the Edmonds School District. • (Councilmember Buckshnis) I think it's wonderful you are applying because when the delegation spoke about their trip to Hekinan, they all really enjoyed it. The Sister City is a special connection with Hekinan. What was your favorite food in Hekinan? I already like sushi so it was comfortable to eat. Breakfast was always unique, a different kind of egg prepared in a different manner. I liked a lot of the food, a couple weren't my favorites, but I tried everything. • (Councilmember K. Johnson) How was the communication when you were in Japan and when they were here? There's a translator app that was very helpful. The family I stayed with spoke English pretty well, but when there was a problem, we talked to each other through the app. We spent hours doing that and it was very enjoyable. • (Council President Fraley-Monillas) I've been to Japan and one of the places I struggled the most was figuring out the airport where there was a lot in English. Did you experience that challenge? Everything went smoothly. One student left their passport somewhere so the student and I went back and found it. We followed people and worked as a group. Council President Fraley-Monillas said this was one of her favorite boards/commissions; the Sister City Commission keeps the two cities connected. She thanked Ms. Renz for volunteering. Ms. Renz explained the program allows students to exchange with another family and the family they stay with sends a student to stay with them. The delegation went on daily field trips to temples, castles, factories, museums, and aquariums. It was truly an experience because staying with a family allows you to be immersed in the culture. Although she has done a lot of traveling, there is nothing like living with a family and their culture. She thanked Edmonds for the opportunity and for creating the Sister City Commission. She looked forward to serving on the commission; she likes organizing things, showing people around and hosting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 66 7.1.a Council President Fraley-Monillas advised confirmation of the appointment to the Sister City Commission is Item 8.7on the Consent Agenda. 6. PRESENTATIONS SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT UPDATE Katie Curtis, Prevention Services Acting Director, Snohomish Health District, reviewed: • COVID Response o Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) ■ Situation continues to evolve, with guidance and information shifting accordingly ■ Encourage following www.snohd.org/covi and social medial channels (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) for latest information o Graph of Number of COVID-19 Cases in Snohomish County by date for 1/19/2020-9/2/2020 ■ Second peak of COVID infections in Snohomish County in July ■ Case counts continuing to drop o Graph of Snohomish County COVID-19 Case Rate per 100,000 for 2-week Rolling Periods 3/01/20-08/29/20 o Snohomish County Snapshot & Weekly Reports ■ On website on Mondays o Key Priorities ■ Testing capacity ■ Case investigations & contact tracing ■ Long-term care facilities, first responders, schools, childcares and employer notifications ■ PPE availability and healthcare capacity ■ Mid- and long-range planning ■ Ongoing communications - Translated materials & expanding outreach In our Communities o Day -to -Day Work Continues ■ 4,500+ inspections on restaurants, grocery stores, espresso stands, caterers and mobile food vehicles ■ 1,000+ complaints addressed (food, pools, septic and solid waste) ■ -500 permits for pools and spas that we routinely inspect ■ 200+ public and private schools with kitchen permits and required safety inspections ■ Suicide prevention campaign and messaging ■ Childcare health outreach Program provided 70 health and safety trainings to childcare providers in Edmonds ■ Assisted 9 health care clinics in Edmonds with the Vaccines for Children Program ■ Working with 15 active TB cases in Snohomish County o Resources for Local Businesses ■ Signs - Please Wear a Cloth Face Cover - Please Wash Your Hands - Spread Kindness, Not COVID-19. Please keep your distance o Outreach While Social Distancing ■ Working to develop more curriculum and toolkits that schools, childcares and community groups can use remotely ■ Exploring ways to engage with the community on important health topics & needs virtually Moving Forward Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 67 7.1.a o Continuing Essential Work ■ Issuing birth and death certificates ■ Tracking and responding to other communicablc cough & STDs. ■ Supporting children's health needs ■ Inspecting food establishments, pools & spas, etc. ■ Reviewing permit applications ■ Providing refugee health screenings ■ Responding to complaints and violations o Implementing Our Strategic Plan ■ Mission - Spearhead efforts to protect, promote and community. ■ Goals diseases like tuberculosis, whooping advance the collective health of our - Reduce the rate of communicable disease and other notifiable conditions - Prevent or reduce chronic diseases and injuries - Provide high -quality environmental health services - Improve maternal, child, and family health outcomes - Provide legally required vital records - Address ongoing, critical public health issues - Support increased access to medical, oral, and mental health care - Build a more sustainable organization o Monitoring Budgets & Projections ■ 2020 budget was balanced, with $16.75 million in revenues/expenditures. ■ Current budget includes 113 full-time equivalent positions. ■ Graph of Budget Projections 2021-2026 o Per Capital Contributions ■ Naloxone purchase & coordination for cities ■ Support general fund activities not covered by other funding: - Data & Reports • Community Health Assessment & Improvement Plans - Healthy Communities Suicide Prevention • Safe Routes to School/Complete Streets • Healthy Housing Health Fairs & Community Events - Child Care Health Outreach Public Health Foundation o Working over the last year to research feasibility & models o Ad hoc committee met since April to provide recommendations to Board of Health. o Now recruiting foundation board members. o Purpose: To provide support for priorities identified in community health assessments, community health improvement plans, and/or emerging public health issues in Snohomish County Stay in Touch o Blog & Newsletters ■ Sign up for our blog, newsletters, alerts and more at 222.snohd.org/NotifyMe o Social Media ■ Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram For more information, please contact o Shawn Frederick, MBA Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 68 7.1.a Administrative Officer 425.339.8687 SFrederick@snohd.org o Katie Curtis Prevention Services Acting Director 425.339.8711 KCurtis@snohd.org Councilmember Olson asked if information about the new Public Health Foundation was on the website. Ms. Curtis answered she believed there was and if not, she will send it. Councilmember Buckshnis welcomed Ms. Curtis providing an update on local information anytime because many people are asking questions. She asked if a spike in COVID cases was anticipated as a result of Labor Day, noting Washingtonians seemed to respect social distancing but that was not true nationwide. She also inquired about projections related to flu season. Ms. Curtis said there have been spikes 7-10 days following major holidays from people getting together. Snohomish Health District has 50 case investigators so there are enough to handle the workload, reaching out to people quickly. The District is also doing a lot of outreach to encourage people to get their flu shot to avoid people getting COVID and the flu or try to distinguish between the two because they have similar symptoms. The District is planning how to address the upcoming flu season and she hoped the flu did get a foothold with everyone wearing masks but that remains to be seen. Councilmember Buckshnis said the smoke in the air hasn't helped recently. She appreciated the information provided in the presentation in addition to COVID. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Curtis for the work the Health District is doing. He asked if there would be increased testing capacity when kids return to school or would there be only one Health District testing facility. Ms. Curtis answered testing has been done once a week at the Lynnwood Food Bank and the District is looking at Snohomish County data to see if there are other areas in the county that are not being served either by primary healthcare providers or by the Health District. The Broadway location is somewhat central and has easy freeway access but the Health District is keeping an eye on the data and investigating other areas. Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Curtis for addressing vaccinations, recalling she read in the national media that vaccination rates are down, due to a lot of factors. She recalled there was a significant whooping cough outbreak 1-2 years ago. She asked how the Health District will help with vaccinations for diseases that have devastating impacts to the community along with the pandemic. Ms. Curtis answered the Health District's vaccine program which includes a nurse, a vaccine coordinator and a supervisor, has been reaching out to healthcare providers as the data indicates a lot of children are behind on their vaccine schedules due to the difficulty getting into primary care providers earlier this year. The District is reaching out to healthcare providers to encourage them to bring kiddos in for vaccines and have been doing messaging to the community via social media as well as considering how to engage key stakeholders in the community to champion vaccines addressing those who may have barriers to getting vaccines. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed concern with how the homeless population, especially in Edmonds, is remaining safe. She was told the Snohomish Health District had a major role in that and asked what the District was doing to help the homeless population. Ms. Curtis answered the District has been working with providers who do outreach to the homeless population through Snohomish County Human Services as well as providing isolation and quarantine at the Monroe fairgrounds where those potentially coming into a shelter situation experiencing symptoms can be housed until their COVID test results are back. There is a lot of work to be done in Snohomish County with regard to the homeless and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 69 7.1.a the District is working on ways to better engage service providers who are doing outreach to the homeless. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how the homeless did handwashing or personal protection devices, and whether the District was distributing materials to help them stay safe. Ms. Curtis answered the District has partnered with Snohomish County Human Services who has been doing the bulk of that work as well as trying to get cloth face coverings out to locations where the homeless have access to them; for example, Sno Isle Library and the Mukilteo Fire Department have begun handing out masks. She agreed handwashing was not an ideal situation. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the Health District does not have enough staff to manage the huge homeless population within Snohomish County which is the reason they work through Snohomish County Human Services. Thousands of people are technically homeless within Snohomish County. She thanked Ms. Curtis for making this presentation, noting she is temporary in her position in Prevention Services but she has worked for the Health District for awhile and is a rising star. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she continues to forward emails to Councilmembers that she receives from the Snohomish Health District. The Health District does COVID testing but no longer does vaccinations. The Health District discontinued immunizations about three years ago and this year discontinued WIC and other programs due to funding. WIC is being handled by another organization. The Public Health Foundation is a fundraising board; the Health District needs to continue raising exceptional amounts of money to keep providing public health services in Snohomish County. Due to budget cuts across Snohomish County, there is not enough money to provide basic services which is the reason the Public Health Foundation was developed. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the Health District currently purchases Naloxone and coordinates distribution to cities. Naloxone is available to Edmonds due to the per capita funding the City provides the Health District; cities that did not provide per capita funding pay for that service. She recalled Chief Lawless' comments last year about the need for those services as the police department did not have the staff to keep track of usage, expiration dates, stocking, etc. Each police vehicle carries two doses of Naloxone. She encouraged Councilmembers to reach out to her with any questions. She chairs the Health District's budget committee; the budget has been challenging and has required closing departments. She said the Health District was lucky to have Ms. Curtis. 2. PFD FINANCIAL PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL Joe McIalwain, Executive Director, Edmonds Public Facilities District/Edmonds Center for the Arts, expressed his appreciation for the City's support. He introduced the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board President David Brewster and Operations Director Matt Keller. Mr. McIalwain reviewed "Finding Our Light": • Mission o To celebrate the performing arts, strengthen and inspire our community, and steward the development and creative use of the ECA Campus. Purpose o Present a diverse mix of music, dance, theatre, comedy and special attractions from around the world. o Serve as a host for performances and events produced by a wide range of local and regional organizations. o Inspire people of all ages and abilities through our extensive education and outreach programming (on site and throughout the community). Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 70 7.1.a o Steward the health and creative use of our historic facilities. o Generate tourism and economic activity for the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County. Programs: Presented Artists Aaron Neville Great Big Sea Patti LuPone Al Jarreau Indigo Girls Paula Cole Al Stewart Jeff Bridges & The Abiders Paula Poundstone Angelique Kidjo Jesse Cook Pilobolus Arlo Guthrie Joan Armatrading Pink Martini Arturo Sandoval Joan Osborne Poncho Sanchez Big Bad Voodoo Daddy Johnny Clegg Preservation Hall Jazz Band Blind Boys of Alabama Keb' Mo' Randy Newman Bruce Hornsby Ladysmith Black Mambazo Richard Thompson Buddy Guy Lila Downs Ricky Skaggs Chris Thile Lily Tomlin Rita Moreno Christopher Cross Los Lobos Roger McGuinn Clint Black Lyle Lovett & John Hiatt Roseanne Cash Colin Hay Mandy Patinkin Rufus Wainwright Cowboy Junkies Manhattan Transfer Sergio Mendez Dianne Reeves Marc Cohn Shawn Colvin Don McLean Martin Sexton Smothers Brothers Dr. John Mary Chapin Carpenter Taj Mahal Ed Asner Mavericks The Tenors Four Tops Michael Feinstein Travis Tritt Gaelic Storm Nitty Gritty Dirt Band Willie K • Programs: Hosted Events Aging Options Gothard Sisters Seattle Radio Theatre Babak Kivavchi GPA Live Seattle Repertory Jazz Orch. Ballyhoo Theatre Halau Hula O' Moani Mokihana Shoreline Young Life Barclay Shelton Dance Islamic Center of Puget Sound Cascade Symphony Orchestra KNKX Radio Sno Isle Libraries TEDx Cedar Creek Memory Care La Jolla Booking Agency Sno King Community Chorale Club Pro BA Lift Every Voice Foundation Sno King Music Educators Assoc. Comm. Christian Fellowship Lynnwood High School Sno King Youth Club DeMiero Jazz Festival Mojgan Nazariyan Steenman Associates DSA Fine Art & Jewelry Morning Islands LLC Stella Maris Academy Edmonds Chamber of Comm. Northsound Church Stroller Strides Edmonds Comm. College Northwest Jr. Pipe Band Terrace Park School PTA Edmonds Jazz Connection Olympic Ballet School University Mechanical Contractors Edmonds Senior Center Olympic Ballet Theatre Vladimir Chernov Edmonds Co Op Preschool PIMA Medical Institute Voice Art Group Edmonds H.S. Class of 1957 Premera Blue Cross WA Council for the Blind Elks Club Puget Sound Partnership Washington School of Dance Everett Chorale Association Rick Steves' Europe WBAC Grand Prix Exem Entertainment Russian American Entertainment Group Windermere Real Estate Edmonds • Programs: Education and Outreach Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 71 7.1.a o "Arts for Everyone", KIDSTOCK!, Student Matinees, Artists in Schools, Teacher Workshops, Dementia Inclusive Programs: Film Presentations, Improvisational Theatre, "Sing Along" Outreach, Summer Camps, Teen Tix Impact 0 600+ theatre events, meetings, workshops and special events each year 0 85,000 people served annually ■ 64% come from outside of Edmonds 0 10,000 Students and Seniors benefit from ECA Outreach Programs annually 0 150+ volunteers, $300,000 gift of time each year o QUALITY OF LIFE o Arts & Culture Economic Impact Study - 2017 ■ $7.5 million impact What Now? Impact of COVID-19 on ECA and the Arts & Entertainment Industry o What is NOT happening now? ■ 600+ theatre events, meetings, workshops and special events each year ■ 85,000 people served annually ■ 64% come from outside of Edmonds ■ 10,000 Students and Seniors benefit from ECA Outreach Programs annually ■ 150+ volunteers, $300,000 gift of time each year ■ QUALITY OF LIFE Impact on ECA (to date) o 16 Team Members Laid Off in March — Production, Facilities, Box Office, Event Management. 0 13 Team Members Working Half -Time (Shared Work Program) as of May 16. o Estimated Losses to Date: $1.25 Million o Canceled/Postponed Presentations: 25 to date. o Canceled/Postponed Rental Events: 90+ to date. o Also Canceled Many Education and Outreach Programs Impact on the Industry o The arts contribute $763.6 Billion to the US Economy annually, which is 4.2% of GDP. 0 5 Million jobs have been lost nationwide as a result of the closure of arts organizations and entertainment venues. o A complete reshuffling of the industry is underway the relentless uncertainty of the timing and the conditions under which reopening might occur causes more economic damage each day, including the permanent closure of venues nationwide. What's Next? What is the ECA and the Industry doing to regroup and reimagine? o Ours was one of the first industries to close. And ours will be one of the last industries to reopen. o The United States Government has not provided emergency relief specific to the arts and entertainment industry, and it is unlikely such relief will come. o Artists, Agents, Peer Organizations — Working together to determine the best ways to reopen and re-engage with our audiences while following health guidelines. o Recent survey of ticket buyers to performing arts events suggests: ■ Just 50% of pre -pandemic attendees will feel safe to return to performing arts events within the first year after a vaccine is identified and dispersed. ■ 80% will feel safe to return by the end of year 2. ■ 100% will feel safe to return by the end of year 3. What's Next for ECA? o Facility Cleaning, Reconfiguration, Traffic Flow o Options for Live Performance (pre Phase 4): ■ If allowed — Two Shows in One Night Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 72 7.1.a ■ If allowed — Live Streaming (legal and financial challenges) o Outdoor Events (logistical and financial challenges) o New and Reimagined Programs —"Window to the Arts, Kidstock!, others What's Next for ECA? o Bridge the Gap — (the "Gap" Remains Undefined) o Keep the Team Together o Continue Long -Range Planning o Stay Nimble and Creative o Stay Communicative and Relevant to Our Audiences and Supporters EPFD Board President Brewster reviewed: Bright Spots for ECA o Renewed support from the City of Edmonds in 2020 has proven to be even more critical than ever. THANK YOU! o Contributed revenue overall remains strong, and is currently the lifeline for our organization ■ Center Stage in May exceeded fundraising goal ■ ECA Gala and Auction — FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25 — Online — www.ec4arts.org Mr. Keller reviewed: Financial Update — Operations and Capital o July 2020 Financial Report — Overview ■ 30% drop in revenue compared to prior year ■ Corresponding 28% drop in expenses ■ 10% above last year in contributed revenue ■ Capital investments to facility ■ Better than anticipated Tier 1 and 2 funds ■ Less impact to direct sales tax rebate than anticipated ■ Final net position is approximately $130,000 ahead of last year Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo, she was expecting more doom and gloom. She asked why Tier 1 and 2 were not impacted. Mr. Keller answered Tier 1 is locked in by contract, guaranteed throughout the life of the tax revenue; Tier 2 is tied to the prior year's performance. This year has not been impacted and he anticipated the impact next year will not be as great as initially thought in March/April. That is a silver lining and there is hope. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there is hope because he is there and has done a great job. Councilmember Buckshnis she asked if the reason July looked less prosperous was due to the season which typically starts in September. Mr. Keller explained the season is typically split between two fiscal years. The 2019-2020 season began in September 2019 and ended this summer; the 2020-2021 begins in September 2020. There is typically a drop in revenue in the summer; this year was an anomaly due to the pandemic. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the EPFD anticipated borrowing from the City for bond payments. Mr. Keller answered the goal is not to, and the EPFD is looking at private partnerships to bridge the gap until patrons can come to the theater, but it would not be completely out of the realm of possibility. He recalled the EPFD was able to make payments on the loan for the last two years and $125,000 was budgeted this year, but he anticipated that would not happen in 2020. Councilmember Buckshnis commented we're all in this together; the entertainment venues are having a tough time. She commended the EPFD on the audit. Mr. Keller thanked staff and the boards, noting staff is dedicated and has been dealing with a situation that is not easy, working 20 hours a week. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 73 7.1.a Mr. Keller reported 2019 represented the second year in a row of positive net growth between operations and non -operating. Contributed revenue was higher than budgeted, there was strong performance revenue and the rental and hosting department brought in great numbers. Overall there was nearly $200,000 in capital investment and great year for tax revenue. Although 2020 will be a particularly difficult year, the EPFD Board and staff are happy to show the organization was moving in the right direction in 2018 and 2019 and once the facility reopens, that will again be the focus. Council President Fraley-Monillas, Council liaison to the EPFD, thanked Mr. McIalwain, Mr. Brewster and Mr. Keller for all their work. She found the accountability to ensure the future to be great. The interest from the EPFD board members is phenomenal along with the work they do to figure out a way to move forward. She appreciated the EPFD's open books and willingness to explain. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis about the City and the EPFD working together. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Mr. McIalwain, Mr. Brewster and Mr. Keller for keeping it real, noting it was hard to hear but refreshing they were proceeding realistically while maintaining a positive attitude for the future. Performing arts is central to her children's education and they miss it and will be celebrating when they can return to enjoying it live and being a part of it on stage. Councilmember Paine looked forward to being able to hear live music as it is an essential service. Art is the air we breathe and everyone in the arts community loves the ECA. She recognized the wonderful ECA volunteers and encouraged the ECA to continue the magic they put together. Councilmember K. Johnson encouraged everyone associated with the ECA to participate in the 4' Avenue Cultural Corridor survey that is available now. It is an important aspect of the ECA's front yard and the City would like to have more people involved in the survey. She encouraged them to spread the word to the ECA community. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the survey closed, but a decision was made to extend it. She expressed appreciation for the complete packet as many people do not know the history. The ECA was having a great year and now is back in the trenches again. The history shows the ECA has perseverance. Mr. McIalwain expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet with the Council. It has been a journey for many years; the ECA was hitting its stride and will do it again. He referred to the 2008 downturn and now this, but the ECA is still here and will be back the minute it's allowed. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (httys://zoom.us/s/4257752525) Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Greg Lange, Edmonds, Co -Chairman, Sister City Commission, commented on Katy Renz's nomination as a Sister City Commissioner. He has had the pleasure to known her in multitude of ways, first meeting her through a mutual friend where he learned she was also a teacher at Maplewood K-8 in the Edmonds School District. He worked at Maplewood for a few years after moving to Edmonds and has many good acquaintances who work there who let him know what a great teacher she is. When she applied to be a chaperone for the Sister City exchange program, he was reminded how well she works with teens. She proved to be an excellent chaperone during the 2019 exchange program, both in Hekinan and in Edmonds. During his own ambassadorial visit to Hekinan this past February, her name was often mentioned in the way well -respected people are mentioned in Japan. Friends in Hekinan eagerly looked forward to her returning someday. Due to her commitment as a chaperone and her continued interest in remaining connected to the Sister City Program, he urged the Council to accept his endorsement to appoint Katy Renz as a commissioner on the Edmonds Sister City Commission. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 74 7.1.a (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Item 8.5 be removed for discussion. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. The agenda items approved are as follows: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL BUDGET RETREAT MINUTES OF JULY 29, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. AMENDMENT OF EDMONDS CARES FUND ORDINANCE 6. CEMETERY BOARD CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT 7. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATE TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 5. AMENDMENT OF EDMONDS CARES FUND ORDINANCE (previously Consent Agenda Item 8.5 Councilmember K. Johnson recalled last week she asked about mailing a postcard and not heard whether that was something the City could do and how much it would cost. It is important that as many people in need receive the funds rather than just drawing down the account and giving more funds to people who have already applied. She asked how much it cost to mail out postcards about the Waterfront Connector. Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said he did not know. Since last week, staff had a discussion with the partners and agreed to try things that would have a higher efficacy in reaching people in need. There was a substantial increase in outreach to organizations that serve Edmonds such as veterans, disabled, and senior organizations and each agency the City has contract with has a network of agencies they work with. Mr. Doherty explained approximately 190 letters were mailed yesterday to the owners/managers of all the apartment buildings in Edmonds. Most people in single family houses in Edmonds are likely above the income eligibility criterion. The goal was to tap into locations where the population would be most likely to meet income requirements. There are already more applications being submitted as a result of the outreach. He would like to try that first and if there is a substantial increase, that will be an indication of its effectiveness before doing a mailing to all City residents, recognizing that a great many of them will be unable to take advantage of the funding opportunity. Councilmember K. Johnson encouraged staff and the partners to do the outreach and to find ways to communicate the availability of the funds, perhaps My Edmonds News, the Edmonds Beacon, etc. Mr. Doherty agreed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 75 7.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson said some people may have a need but are not aware of the program. Mr. Doherty said since school just started, information is being provided to families, flyers are being distributed at the foodbank and other places where information can be provided, etc. He agreed the traditional media and/or social media does not reach everyone. The letter to apartment owner/managers was also emailed to Councilmembers and he suggested they forward the flyer to any networks they were involved with. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE AMENDMENT OF EDMONDS CARES FUND ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson advised registration opened today for the Learning Enhancement & Activities Program (LEAP) for 2" d — 6' graders, a childcare program the City is offering to provide academic support as well as other opportunities during distance learning. Scholarships are available for those who qualify, particularly those on reduced or free lunches. Registration information is available on the City's website on the Parks webpage. Mayor Nelson said after learning of limited social distancing and mask -wearing on the fishing pier, staff increased communications on social media and described what could happen if that behavior did not approve. As a result, there has been excellent compliance, more people practicing social distancing and wearing masks and, although not official, it appears the fishing pier will not need to be closed. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson referred to the focus on mental health in September and said the smoke this week has added another layer of heaviness to what everyone is feeling. She reminded people to "fill their cup," because they cannot give when they are empty. Everyone differs in what fills them; do whatever you need to do to fill your cup such as exercise especially yoga, meditation, being in nature, color really helps. Gardens have added color during the summer months but going forward people may need to fake it by adding art to their gardens to add color. Garden Gear, Bountiful Home, Ace Hardware, C'est la Vie and others are good local places for garden art. Another good way is light such as lighting available for people with a seasonal light disorder. Scents are another way to lift one's mood such as candles, soap, lavender. Councilmember Olson encouraged people to plan a break from alcohol if they have been drinking a little more under the current circumstances or relying on other substances such as marijuana. As vaping has a bad connection for COVID, she encouraged anyone who is vaping to discontinue it completely. There has never been a greater level of need in the community. As seen in the ECA's presentation, certain industries had a lot of layoffs and many people are struggling. She suggested that once your own cup is filled, give your time, energy, money, grace and care whenever possible. Councilmember Paine suggested the word of the day be volunteerism. She appreciated the many people in and around Edmonds who are generous with their time and talent. Volunteering is another way to fill your cup and it helps the community. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out tonight was a short meeting and recalling City Clerk Scott Passey's presentation about Council procedures in March, suggested it was time to review those procedures so we can "get our house in order." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 76 7.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with filling your cup via volunteering. She said Mayor Nelson's statement about the dog park resulted in people putting their masks on. Councilmember Buckshnis advised tomorrow's Economic Development Commission retreat tomorrow at 4 p.m. will be available online. She forwarded an email from a citizen regarding the U.S. District Court decision in favor of the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, regarding the 5G cells and their proliferation. There is a Children's Defense Fund due to concern with 5G wireless technology. She suggested scheduling an update from City Attorney Jeff Taraday, recalling he had someone following this case. She has read the case and it is landmark for Edmonds. She recalled the Council did a resolution regarding health benefits and said new Councilmembers should be informed about the 5G rollout. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was a sports trifecta this weekend, the NFL started, the NHL is in Stanley Cup finals and the Storm finished second in the regular season and start the championship next Sunday. Watching sports on TV with piped in fan noise is the new normal, but it was great to have them back and they fill her cup a lot. Councilmember L. Johnson reported the smoke will continue through at least Friday. She learned about a hack a number of people are using as an air purifier: combine a box fan with a 20x20 filter with a MERV rating of 13 or more which removes 90% of PM2.5 (smoke) and helps with indoor air quality. She recommended not burning candles or using artificial scents, keeping cooking with a gas stove to a minimum to help with indoor air quality, not vacuuming because it stirs up the dust, and keeping windows shut to keep smoke out and keep the indoor air quality as good as possible, especially for families with allergies and asthma. She reminded everyone to wear their mask and keep safe. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Go Seahawks. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that it would have been nice to have the procedures suggested by Mr. Passey on the agenda. The list of future and schedule agenda items is being condensed and prioritized along with other items requested by the Council. Tonight's Council meeting would not have been as short if the City Code Chapter 6.60 had not been removed. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported she appointed a committee to work on the code of conduct. She was hopeful they will return with a recommendation for a public discussion and Council input. She has requested the committee complete the code within 4-6 weeks. Council President Fraley-Monillas read the following statement: "This in regard to a few citizens' questions in the last week regarding the executive session held on September 8'. First and foremost, I want to indicate that this complaint was not about staff working for the City of Edmonds. The executive session was requested from one Councilmember regarding a formal complaint of a senior Councilmember. The session was held on September 8'. The Councilmember filing the complaint stated three issues, there was a violation of the current code of conduct, our current code of ethics and a violation of the Robert's Rules of Order. Council met in executive session and the complaining Councilmember indicated she had earlier had an hour discussion with the senior Councilmember and that an apology in executive session was what the complaining Councilmember wanted. Due to time constraints, we couldn't finish the discussion. Subsequently, the complaining Councilmember decided to withdraw the complaint. This is only the second time in over ten years that I've been on the Council that a Councilmember has brought a complaint forward to the full Council about a Councilmember. The other complaint ended in a censure of a sitting City Councilmember. Executive sessions should never be used for this type of personal issues or grievances. First, the complaint was never decided by the full Council for validity, nor was it brought into the public eye. The Council was not allowed the ability to publicly discuss the merits Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 77 of these three complaints or not. When something in brought to executive session, the Council then owns the product, but the most disturbing part of this whole incident is the lack of transparency of the issue. That Councilmember felt the situation was serious enough to file a legitimate complaint, but after speaking to the senior Councilmember before the executive session, decided that there wasn't a complaint beyond an isolated apology. Transparency is an issue we hear over and over again from our citizens. I hope this incident has taught a lesson regarding transparency to the public when it comes to the Council. We are held, and should be held, to a much higher level of transparency as Councilmembers." Councilmember Distelhorst reminded of the free "Question, Persuade, Refer" suicide prevention training by Wendy Burchill, Snohomish Health District on Thursday at 7 p.m. the He pointed out people learn how to do CPR or know the acronym FAST to recognize someone having a stroke but what do you do when someone is having a mental health or suicidal crisis? This training teaches you how to ask questions, start a conversation and persuade someone to stay alive and refer the individual to professional resources. It is great training for parents and younger people concerned about their parents and grandparents. Further information and links to the event are available on WeCare.Edmondswa.gov. Mayor Nelson displayed his "You Are Not Alone" pin. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 78 7.1.a Public Comment for 9/15/20 Council Meeting: From: Emily Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:27 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds Scarecrow Festival - Covid Edition Dear Edmonds Councilmembers, Mayor, Staff, and fellow residents, The Edmonds Historical Museum is excited to announce the 8t" Annual Edmonds Scarecrow Festival! This free, fun, and family -friendly event will add a bit of whimsy and normalcy during the 2020 Fall season. We encourage residents and businesses to craft a homemade scarecrow to display during September and October. Submit a photograph and category of your scarecrow to the Edmonds Historical Museum to be entered in the contest! Submit your scarecrow entry from now until Oct. 15 (6pm). Vote for scarecrows between Oct. 16 and Nov. 1'. Winners will be announced Monday, Nov. 2"d More information, registration, and voting is located on The Scarecrow Festival webpage at: https://historicedmonds.org/annual-scarecrow-festival/ RELEASE THE SCARECROWS! Cheers, Emily Scott From: Finis Tupper Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 7:55 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Emergency Manager Dear Councilmembers: As you discuss changes to our city laws, please be mindful of the concept of government separation of powers and duty place on you to represent the citizens. One point I would make is take the City Attorney of the discussion. He has taken the city council and the citizens out of the process in all recent decisions such as closing Sunset Ave., closing Main St., allowing plastic bags, etc. etc. You serve for the citizens benefit and not the Mayor and city employees. The opinions of taxpayers should be your primary concern. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 79 7.1.a Mr. Taraday has throw the kCity Council and the citizens under the bus. Your opinions and the citizens opinions serve no purpose in any discussion or decision it is only the City Attorney's argument that matters. You are given only his choices and pretty much hamstring to consider nothing else. On a lighter note, who is the Emergency Manager? When was this person hired? How much does the Emergency Manager make? Is this position in the 2020 Budget? Really HR participated in these drafting these code changes? God Bless us for the failures of city staff are just amazing. Finis Tupper From: Ken Reidy Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:42 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Neill Hoyson, Jessica <Jessica. Neil IHoyson@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Public Comments for September 15, 2020 City Council meeting I do not have time to reduce my public comments to 450 words. I've already wasted tons of time over the last few weeks trying to meet Council's arbitrary 450-word limit for written comments. I could see such a requirement if Edmonds City Government was willing to facilitate the ability of the public to hear or see written comments at the same time people are attending the public meeting — but the City has chosen to not provide for such. If you want to waste more time of a citizen willing to provide you public comment - I'll simply find another citizen to submit half of the following comments: City Council Ratification of a Mayor's Proclamation of Emergency can: 1) further ensure legal immunities for emergency actions taken by the City; 2) facilitate requests by the City for State and Federal assistance under the State and Federal Disaster Assistance Programs; 3) authorize the Mayor to take additional preventive measures necessary to protect and preserve public health and safety; and 4) establish a time frame for the duration of the Proclamation while retaining the policy making authority to extend or shorten the duration of the authorities granted under the Proclamation if necessary. The City Council's ratification process also affords policy makers the opportunity to modify any aspect of the Mayor's Proclamation of Emergency. Adoption of a Resolution of Ratification provides great documentation of the policy adopted. When done as soon as practical, Ratification keeps the local emergency proclamation in effect which allows the City to procure services and supplies immediately necessary and to make and issue orders and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 17 Packet Pg. 80 7.1.a regulations on matters necessary for the protection of health and life safety. The Resolution of Ratification can promote RCW compliance. This action may also promote the opportunity for potential cost recovery by the City for expenses incurred in this emergency. The City Council Agenda Packet for 9/15/2020 includes Council discussion of City Code Chapter 6.60. The agenda packet discloses that "Input was also sough(t) from... City Attorney Jeff Taraday". The agenda packet also states that: "Once the initial draft of the update was complete, Councilmember Paine removed herself from the process to allow the administration to complete the update as this was addressing an administrative function. Updating our policies is not an administrative function! As I've requested before, please minimize to the greatest extent possible the City Attorney's involvement in the Legislative Process. Citizens do not elect a City Attorney to make policy. If City Council wants to include the City Attorney in the Legislative Process, perhaps we should make the City Attorney position an elected office where citizens know when they vote that the City Attorney will play a role in the Legislative Process. Per City Attorney Jeff Taraday at the 1:59:05 mark of the May 5, 2020 City Council meeting: "The Proclamation is just saying there's an emergency." Please see the March 5th Proclamation. It says much more that "there's an emergency". Please pay attention to Section 3 which addresses City Code, RCW's, competitive bidding, public notice and contracting: SECTION 3 In order to prepare for, prevew, and respond to this emtrgericy, pursuant to chapter 6.60 EC:C and R W 38.52.070(2), the requirements ofcompelitivo bidding and public notice are hereby waived with reference l� any oontrarl rolating to the City'S leaa0 or pur We Of alupplies. cquiprneut, personal services, or public works as defined by FRCW 39,04.0 10, or to a -Ay coatmcl for the selection and award of professional andlor technical consultant contracts. Each city department director is hereby authorized to exercise the powers vested in this proclamation in light of the demEinds ofa dangerous and escalating emergency situation without regard to time consuming procedures and formalities otherwise normally prescribed by law (exoepting mandatory constitutinn$I requirements). Ratification of a Proclamation of Emergency by City Council is hardly process for the sake of process. It is hardly a little procedural thing. I find it outrageous that the City Attorney would suggest that such an important Council responsibility is merely a little procedural thing. Incredible. For one thing, the Ratification step is Council's opportunity to modify the Proclamation of Emergency. I previously provided Edmonds City Council examples of two other City Councils, Seattle and Anacortes, modifying their Mayor's recent Proclamation of Emergency. I encourage Edmonds City Council to research what the Seattle and Aberdeen City Councils decided they needed to modify in each City's Proclamation of Emergency. My opinion is that the idea that in Edmonds only Orders need to be ratified is a very incomplete idea. Is Mr. Taraday attempting to make it more difficult for Council to play its very important role related to Proclamations of Emergency? In my opinion, reducing Council's role seems to be a theme in 2020. Please appreciate that our CEMP clearly states that: The Proclamation of Local Emergency is made by the Office of the Mayor and is the legal method which authorizes the use of extraordinary measures to accomplish tasks associated with disaster response. The proclamation is normally a prerequisite to state and federal disaster assistance. The Proclamation of Local Emergency must be ratified by the City Council as soon as practical following the emergency. Again, ratification of a Proclamation of Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 18 Packet Pg. 81 7.1.a Emergency by City Council is hardly process for the sake of process. Furthermore, the act of resolving via Resolution provides solid documentation and evidence that City Council agrees with and supports the Proclamation of Emergency. Again, please minimize to the greatest extent possible the City Attorney's involvement in the Legislative Process. He has not been elected by your constituents to play such a large role in the legislative process. For example, Councilmember Paine says that she and Mr. Taraday went back and forth on this issue. Why didn't the citizens have a seat at that table? The Proclamation of Emergency issued by Mayor Mike Nelson said far more than "There's an Emergency", full stop, nothing more than that. The Proclamation directs action and waives competitive bidding and public notice requirements. Please request Mr. Taraday make full public disclosure as to why he represented otherwise to City Council. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 82 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #244051 through #244134 dated September 17, 2020 for $4,742,435.16 and wire payment of $42,963.66. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64393 through #64396 for $600,079.43, benefit checks #64397 through #64401 and wire payments of $595,855.34 for the pay period September 1, 2020 through September 15, 2020. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 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: claims 09-17-20 wire 09-17-20 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-17-20 payroll summary 09-15-20 payroll benefit 09-15-20 Packet Pg. 83 7.2.a vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244051 9/17/2020 076040 911 SUPPLY INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice INV-2-4887 244052 9/17/2020 078056 AIDAN DANIEL FARR SP NEEDTRUST 1-21475 244053 9/17/2020 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 244054 9/17/2020 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 244055 9/17/2020 001528 AM TEST INC PO # Description/Account INV-2-4887- EDMONDS PD- MACHA MOCK TURTLENECK 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total #792373 UTILITY REFUND #792373 Utility refund due to estimatf 411.000.233.000 Total 49985 WWTP: PO 387 CS300 PO 387 CS300 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total ; 10690 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CF 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 Total 117427 WWTP: SAMPLE #20-A0012690, CA SAMPLE #20-A0012690, CARBON 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 117428 WWTP: SAMPLES 20-A0013035-13( SAMPLES 20-A0013035-13036 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 117429 WWTP: SAMPLES: 20-A0012685-12 SAMPLES: 20-A0012685-12689 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Page: 1 �a .y Amoun 0 a aD r CU d 29.9£ :a N 3.0( 32.9< m c 31.9( M' 31.9( c �a 0 1,756.0( a 106.5£ 193.7 0 2,056.Z 0 a a Q 239,601.6( 239,601.6( N ti 0 100.0( E M 125.0( aD E t 405.0( Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 84 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244055 9/17/2020 001528 001528 AM TEST INC 244056 9/17/2020 070976 AMERESCO INC 244057 244058 244059 244060 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2020-793A(1) 2020-793G(1-1) 9/17/2020 001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC 840129 9/17/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9/17/2020 066963 ART WALK 9/17/2020 078050 BALL, STEVEN E 1991906876 BID-GRANTArtWalk 06102020 Ball PO # Description/Account Total : WWTP: C511 PH 6 PROF SERV THE C511 PH 6 PROF SERV THRU 8/31/� 423.100.76.594.39.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.41.00 WWTP: CONSTRUCT SVC C511 PH Construction Services thru 8/31/20 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 Retainage withheld thru 8/31/20 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 10.4% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 Total RICHARDSON.APWA MEMBERSHIF Richardson.APWA Membership Rene 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 Total PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 Total BID/ED! GRANT TO ARTWALK EDMi BID/Ed! Grant approved on 8/13/202( 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 Total BIRD FEST PRESENTER PHOTOGF Bird Fest presenter: Photography 9/1; 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 7.2.a Page: 2 aD L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 630.0( 0 U d L 818,319.6E N 85,105.2, 2,858,553.5( c -142,927.6E c �a 297,289.5E o 3,916,340.21, ">, M a E 233.0( 233.0( c �a 0 a 61.1E Q 6.3E N 67.5, ti rn 0 1,500.0( 1,500.0( c aD E t 50.0( u Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 85 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244060 9/17/2020 078050 078050 BALL, STEVEN E 244061 9/17/2020 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 244062 9/17/2020 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 244063 9/17/2020 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 244064 9/17/2020 069454 BOSS CONSTRUCTION INC 244065 9/17/2020 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Total 09102020 Core DIVERSITY COMMISSION 250 DEC) Diversity Commission order of 250 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Total 763783 UNIT 49 - PARTS UNIT 49 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.1 % Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 1194670 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 571.6 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 571.6 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Total E4FE.Pmt 7 E4FE.PMT 7 THRU 8/28/20 E4FE.Pmt 7 thru 8/28/20 422.000.72.594.31.65.20 E4FE.Ret 7 422.000.223.400 Total 338642 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i 7.2.a Page: 3 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 50.0( 0 U d L_ 275.0( N 28.6( y 303.6( m c d 570.3E -a c �a 57.6" — 627.95 �a a E 633.5, 633.5d o �a 0 259,847.8( a Q -12,992.3� o 246,855.41 ti rn 0 1,176.7( .E 1,176.7( a� 1,176.7( E U �a Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 86 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244065 9/17/2020 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 244066 244067 244068 9/17/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 21795173 21910450 9/17/2020 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 474132 PO # Description/Account 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total : DEV SVCS COPIER - MONTHLY CO Contract charge 8/1 /20 - 8/31 /20 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 DEV SERV COPIER -MONTHLY CON Dev Svcs copier - monthly contract 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 Total PM: YOST POOL PUMP REPAIR PM: YOST POOL PUMP REPAIR 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 Total 9/17/2020 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 16803 WWTP:7/2020 M/O+SEWER 7/2020 M/O & SEWER 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 16804 WWTP: 8/2020 M/O+SEWER 8/2020 M/O & SEWER 7.2.a Page: 4 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 1,176.6� 'D U d 122.3E 122.3E m z 122.3E u 122.31 c 5,196.3( c �a 0 217.4, �a a 22.6, U 217.4; o �a 22.6, o 480.1 f a Q 0 N 2,564.0( rn 266.6E N 2,830.6E E .ii U c 42,307.0( E t U �a Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 87 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 5 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 244068 9/17/2020 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 42,307.0( Total: 84,614.0( 244069 9/17/2020 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 9056920000 WWTP: 7/10-9/9/20 FLOWMETER 8' 7/10-9/9/20 FLOW METER #87902E 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 24.4( Total : 24.4( 244070 9/17/2020 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC RO43180 UNIT 437 - REPAIRS UNIT 437 - REPAIRS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 79.4� Tota I : 79.45 244071 9/17/2020 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 12553 JULY BACKGROUND CHECKS BACKGROUND CHECKS - JULY 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 300.0( OVERAGE FOR BACKGROUND CHI 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 20.0( 12800 AUGUST BACKGROUND CHECK BACKGROUND CHECKS 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 200.0( OVERAGE FOR BACKGROUND CHI 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 7.0( Total : 527.0( 244072 9/17/2020 076319 DIAMOND MOWERS INC 0183789-IN UNIT 19 - PARTS/ BEARING SPANNI UNIT 19 - PARTS/ BEARING SPANNI 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 159.6� Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.4E 0184468-IN UNIT 19 - PARTS/ BEARING UNIT 19 - PARTS/ BEARING 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 93.5( Total: 262.6° 244073 9/17/2020 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 20-4034 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR 7/29, Page: 5 Packet Pg. 88 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244073 9/17/2020 064531 DINES, JEANNIE (Continued) 244074 9/17/2020 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 20-3031.1 244075 9/17/2020 074674 ECOLUBE RECOVERY LLC 244076 9/17/2020 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1911090220 1764 1768 1773 1784 PO # Description/Account council meeting minutes for 7/29, 9/1. 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Total EBJA.TO 20-03.SERVICES THRU 8/< EBJA.TO 20-03.Services thru 8/30/20 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 Total FLEET - REMOVAL OF OLD OIL FIL1 FLEET - REMOVAL OF OLD OIL FIL1 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 Total PM: CEMETERY SUPPLIES: NUTS, PM: CEMETERY SUPPLIES: NUTS, 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: MALLET, MINERALS PM SUPPLIES: MALLET, MINERALS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BATTERY FOR T� PUBLIC SAFETY - BATTERY FOR T� 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: COUPLING PM SUPPLIES: COUPLING 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: BROOM, SHOVEL 7.2.a Page: 6 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 914.4( m 914.4( .L N m 3,952.0( 3,952.0( m c d 103.0( 103.0( — 0 L �a a 4.1, E U 0.4< o �a 19.1f a a 1.9� Q 0 N ti 2.3£ 0 0.2E E M 25.7 aD E 2.6£ �a Q Page: 6 Packet Pg. 89 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244076 9/17/2020 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 244077 244078 244079 9/17/2020 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 9/17/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 1787 2020-13 2020-15 2020-17 5-00080 5-10351 9/17/2020 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR173539 PO # Description/Account PM SUPPLIES: BROOM, SHOVEL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 07/2020 RECREATION SERVICES C 07/2020 Recreation Services Contrac 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 08/2020 RECREATION SERVICES C 08/2020 Recreation Services Contrac 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 09/2020 RECREATION SERVICES C 09/2020 Recreation Services Contrac 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 Total IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 INTERURBAN TRAIL INTERURBAN TRAIL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total PLANNING COPIES Planning Dept: copies made above 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 7.2.a Page: 7 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 37.9E u L 3.9E N m 10.5E v 1.1( c 110.4' c �a 0 6,250.0( �a a 6,250.0( 0 6,250.0( Ta 18,750.0( o a a Q 52.8E N ti 57.4' N 110.31 E 2 U c 159.9 t U 16.6z Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 90 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 244079 9/17/2020 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINE (Continued) 244080 9/17/2020 078057 ESTATE OF LAURENCE S LARSEN 3-54300 244081 244082 244083 244084 9/17/2020 069042 EVERETT HYDRAULICS INC Description/Account Total ; #40258282-810-CJ4 UTILITY REFUN #40258282-810-CJ4 Utility refund du( 411.000.233.000 Total 0000029350 UNIT 43 - PARTS UNIT 43 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9/17/2020 076712 FARWEST CORROSION CONTROL CO 0020429-IN 9/17/2020 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 9/17/2020 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0911795 Total : WWTP: PO 309 ICCP SYSTEM ANN ICCP SYSTEM ANNUAL INSPECTIC 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total WATER - SUPPLIES WATER - SUPPLIES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WWTP: PO #373 FLG TEES PO #373 FLG TEES- 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total 8550076 WWTP: PO #379 STRUTS, TUBES PO #379 STRUTS, TUBES- 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.2.a Page: 8 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 176.61 as U d L_ 260.6< 260.6: m t v 320.0( m c 31.3E -a 351.3E 0 L �a 1,806.0( a 1,806.0( E U 0 1,049.0E > 0 L CL 109.0E Q 0 299.9E ti 23.4( o 1,481.5( 287.3 � (D E t 29.8E u Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 91 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 244084 9/17/2020 009815 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) 244085 9/17/2020 075846 FRONTIER PRECISION INC 219920 244086 9/17/2020 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 160426 244087 9/17/2020 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS Description/Account Total ; INV 219920 - ACCT G011790 - EDM( TRIMBLE YEARLY MAINT. 9/20-9/21 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 Total FLEET - TIRE INVENTORY FLEET - TIRE INVENTORY 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 WA STATE TIRE TAX 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1053302 OLD PW - SECURITY OLD PW - SECURITY 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 244088 9/17/2020 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC W3X8610010 244089 9/17/2020 078052 JIN ENTERPRISES INC 244090 9/17/2020 075265 KBA INC 09162020 Jin Enter 3005477 Total : Total ; WWTP: TO 1 & TO 6.2019 7/25-8/21 TO 1.2019: $1763.10 ($328.10+ $14" 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total E7MA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/20 E7MA.Services thru 8/31/20 7.2.a Page: 9 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 317.2E 0 U d L_ 872.1( N 90.7( 962.8( m c d 353.7E -a c �a 2.0( — 0 37.1 a 392.9( E U 4- 55.0( c �a 5.7( 0a 60.7; Q 0 N ti 2,582.1( 2,582.1( o E 2 U 8,000.0( +: 8,000.0( W E t U �a Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 92 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244090 9/17/2020 075265 KBA INC 244091 244092 244093 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 9/17/2020 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER SUPPLY COMPANY 420416 9/17/2020 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 9/17/2020 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 420417 46342 4670621 4670754 PO # Description/Account 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.Services thru 8/31/20 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.Services thru 8/31/20 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 Total : TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES 8X8X14 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES 8X8X14 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 STREET - SUPPLIES/ 2X4X10 STREET - SUPPLIES/ 2X4X10 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 Total E7MA.TO 19-02.SERVICES THRU 1/ E7MA.TO 19-02.Services thru 1/29/2( 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.TO 19-02.Services thru 1/29/2( 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.TO 19-02.Services thru 1/29/2( 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 Total SHREDDING SERVICES AUGUST 21 shredding services 8/20 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 shredding services 8/20 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 INV 4670754 - ACCT 2185-952778-8 SHRED 3 -65 GAL BINS 7.2.a Page: 10 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 9,555.6z 'D r U d 5,384.6E 8,090.8( 23,031.1 S v m c 262.3E 27.2E 0 198.6( a 20.6E 508.9( 0 �a 0 2,405.5E a a Q 1,355.5E c N 2,036.8' 5,797.9: c6 0 E 17.9E c 17.9E E t U co Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 93 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 11 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 244093 9/17/2020 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 12.0' Total: 47.9: 244094 9/17/2020 006048 LN CURTIS AND SONS INV418484 INV418484 - EDMONDS PD FLAMELESS TRI-CHAMBER 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 917.7( STINGER GRENADE BALLS W/OC 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 921.2E CS STINGER GRENADE BALLS 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 785.7E 10.4% Sales Tax 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 272.9, Tota I : 2,897.E , 244095 9/17/2020 078045 LOLA CREATIVE LLC 09162020 Lola CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 8,000.0( Total : 8,000.0( 244096 9/17/2020 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC E0127630 M.C.H. - PAINT M.C.H. - PAINT 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 80.5' 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.3E Total : 88.91 244097 9/17/2020 076177 MCKINSTRY LOCKBOX 2020-157A FACILITIES - CITY ENERGY UPGRA FACILITIES - CITY ENERGY UPGRA 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 27,198.6E Total : 27,198.6F 244098 9/17/2020 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC 70865 FAC MAINT SHOP & LIBRARY - SUF FAC MAINT SHOP & LIBRARY - SUF 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 260.0( 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 11 Packet Pg. 94 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244098 9/17/2020 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC 244099 9/17/2020 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 244100 9/17/2020 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 244101 9/17/2020 078049 NEUFELD-KAISER, WHITNEY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota I : 334453 PM SUPPLIES: HEDGE TRIMMER A PM SUPPLIES: HEDGE TRIMMER A 001.000.64.576.80.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.35.00 334499 ROADWAY - GARDEN SPRAYER ROADWAY - GARDEN SPRAYER 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Tota I : 0589829-IN PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 06102020 Neufeld-Kai 244102 9/17/2020 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S010232835.001 Total : BIRD FEST PRESENTER - BEGINNI Bird Pest presenter - Beginning Birdin( 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total WWTP: PO 388 COMSERVER PO 388 COMSERVER 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 Total 7.2.a Page: 12 aD L 3 c (a Amoun y 0 a a� 27.0z 287.01 u L_ N 291.2( y U 30.2f m c d 43.9( c (a 4.5, o 369.9° �a a E 361.0( 0 37.5E ii 398.5E c L Q a Q 50.0( N 50.0( ti rn 574.3E 21.0z c 61.9, t 657.31 Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 95 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244103 9/17/2020 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 244104 244105 9/17/2020 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account N025293 UNIT 14 - PARTS/ HOSE UNIT 14 - PARTS/ HOSE 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 3685-486757 FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-487029 FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-490475 UNIT 57 - PARTS/ FILTERS UNIT 57 - PARTS/ FILTERS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-491303 UNIT 14 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER UNIT 14 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-491306 UNIT 49 - PARTS/ BRAKE DRUM UNIT 49 - PARTS/ BRAKE DRUM 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 9/17/2020 068451 OSW EQUIPMENT & REPAIR LLC 507433 UNIT 10 - PARTS UNIT 10 - PARTS 7.2.a Page: 13 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 450.41 u L 44.1E 494.6, m v 78.6E a� 8.1 E �a 0 -78.6E �a a -8.1 E U 69.3 0 Ta 7.2- o L a a Q 35.2< o N 3.6E rn 0 140.7E . R U 14.6z }; 270.8E E t v �a Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 96 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244105 9/17/2020 068451 OSW EQUIPMENT & REPAIR LLC 244106 9/17/2020 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 244107 9/17/2020 073150 POLLARD, ANDREA F 244108 9/17/2020 073231 POLYDYNE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota I : OS33690 WWTP: PO 390 HEAT CABLE PO 390 HEAT CABLE 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 OS57445 WWTP: PO 390 THERMOSTAT PO 390 THERMOSTAT 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 Total 145 FLAGGER CLASS - STREET, PARK,' FLAGGER CLASS - STREET, PARK; 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 FLAGGER CLASS - STREET, PARK; 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 FLAGGER CLASS - STREET, PARK,' 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 Total 1480755 WWTP: PO 266 POLYMER (CLARIFI PO 266 POLYMER (CLARIFLOC) 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 Total 7.2.a Page: 14 W L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 94.4( 'D r U d 9.8, .L 104.2E N Y V m 100.4E m c 10.4E � c �a 168.5z o 9.8E a 18.5E 307.86 0 �a 0 186.6, a a Q 186.6; " 0 N 186.6E 560.0( c6 0 E 2 11,040.0( u c 1,148.1E E 12,188.1E �a Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 97 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244109 9/17/2020 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 244110 244111 244112 244113 9/17/2020 078047 RICH MARKETING LLC 9/17/2020 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 0000053883 STORM - STREET SWEEPING DUM STORM - STREET SWEEPING DUM 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 Total: 3055 E7FG.PUGET SOUND STARTS HER E7FG.Puget Sound Starts Here Caml 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 Total 7616-09 PM PAINT SUPPLIES PM PAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9/17/2020 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3166 9/17/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202554 200326460 200650851 201184538 201383270 Total ; AUGUST PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTF AUGUST PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTF 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total WWTP: 8/5-9/2/20 FLOWMETER 101 8/5-9/2/20 FLOW METER 2400 HIGI 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 HICKMAN PARK HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 CITY PARK GAZEBO CITY PARK GAZEBO 7.2.a Page: 15 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 1,407.0( U 1,407.0( N v m 300.0( 300.0( m c d 130.9< 13.6, 144.5! a E U 29,548.4, o 29,548.4, 0 CL a 16.6( Q 0 N ti 13.7z rn 0 17.11 M c 16.0' E t U co Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 98 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244113 9/17/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 201441755 244114 244115 201453057 201790003 202250635 202289450 205184385 221732084 9/17/2020 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Release of Liens 9/17/2020 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 PO # Description/Account 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total RELEASE OF 7 LIENS FOR FINANC release of 7 liens for finance 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 release of 7 liens for finance 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 Total PARKS MAINT GARBAGE & RECYC PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 7.2.a Page: 16 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 17.1; 'D U m 175.5< N m 63.7.E U m c 18.9E M' c �a 13.7z o 0 �a a 72.5" E U 45 22.3( 0 0 L 100.5( a 547.9 , Q 0 N ti 140.0( o� 0 140.0( E 280.0( R U c aD E 1,022.9z �a Q Page: 16 Packet Pg. 99 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 17 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 244115 9/17/2020 038300 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO (Continued) Total : 0 1,022.9' 0 244116 9/17/2020 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 93141/4 STORM - WORK WEAR M. JOHNSC STORM - WORK WEAR M. JOHNSC 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 260.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 27.1 , m Total: 288.1: 244117 9/17/2020 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L138310 08-2020 AUDIT FEES m 08-2020 Audit Fees a0i 001.000.39.514.20.41.50 2,222.9, 08-2020 Audit Fees �a 111.000.68.543.30.41.50 82.51 _ 08-2020 Audit Fees 421.000.74.534.80.41.50 913.9, a 08-2020 Audit Fees 422.000.72.531.90.41.50 490.4( •� 08-2020 Audit Fees U 423.000.75.535.80.41.50 1,286.9( c 08-2020 Audit Fees '70 423.000.76.535.80.41.50 125.7, p 08-2020 Audit Fees Q 511.000.77.548.68.41.50 162.8� Q 08-2020 Audit Fees 512.000.31.518.87.41.00 47.3< N Total : 5,332.61, 244118 9/17/2020 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3005237337 INV 3005237337 - CUST 6076358 - E MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE N E 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.3( .m Total: 10.3E c 244119 9/17/2020 078055 STEVEN DUENKEL 7-09905 #774421 RT UTILITY REFUND 0 #774421 RT Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 251.6E Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 100 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244119 9/17/2020 078055 078055 STEVEN DUENKEL 244120 9/17/2020 076324 SUPERION LLC 244121 9/17/2020 078051 SWIFT, KAELI 244122 9/17/2020 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 244123 9/17/2020 075587 THE UPS STORE #6392 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 287361 06102020 Swift 100967 0021 0022 244124 9/17/2020 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 108925 244125 9/17/2020 077354 URBAN WILD ANIMAL TRAINING LLC 9026 CANINE CLICKER PO # Description/Account Total PROF SVCS - PLANNING DEPT ETrakit Credit Card installation 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 Total BIRD FEST KEY NOTE SPEAKER 9/ Bird Fest key note speaker 9/12/20 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total DIGITAL ADVERTISING CREATIVE C Creative District digital advertising 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 VisitEdmonds digital advertising Aug 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 Total WWTP:7/20 & 7/31/20 SHIP CHGS 7/20 Ship Chg: $13.91 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 WWTP: 8/2020 SHIP CHG 8/2020 SHIP CHG 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Total PARK MAINTENANCE DUMP FEES PARK MAINTENANCE DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total 9026 CANINE CLICKER CLASS INS- 9026 CANINE CLICKER CLASS INS- 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 7.2.a Page: 18 aD L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 251.61 0 U d L_ 1,750.0( N 182.0( y 1,932.0( m c d 500.0( -a 500.0( 0 L �a 3,322.2, a E 1,000.0( 4,322.2, o �a O CL 24.8� Q 0 17.9� ti 42.8f rn 0 E 315.0( u 315.0( }; c aD E t U 121.5( Q Page: 18 Packet Pg. 101 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 19 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 244125 9/17/2020 077354 077354 URBAN WILD ANIMAL TRAINING LL( (Continued) Total : 0 121.5( 0 244126 9/17/2020 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.04-28 CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE P 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 6,359.3, Total : 6,359.3: 244127 9/17/2020 073472 WAPRO 1586 WAPRO TRAINING/SUSAN QUAN WAPRO training for Susan Quan 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 25.0( m 1669 WAPRO TRAINING/LACEY GRAY d WAPRO training for Lacey Gray 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 25.0( r- Total : 50.0( — 0 244128 9/17/2020 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 11888232 FAC MAINT - COVID DISINFECTANT L >. �a FAC MAINT - COVID DISINFECTANT a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4,629.0( E 10.4% Sales Tax fd 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 U 481.4, 11913190 PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES 0 PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES > 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 736.5E a 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 76.6( Q Total: 5,923.51 N 244129 9/17/2020 078053 WELLSPRING FAMILY SERVICES Edmonds 2009 HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RE ti Housing and supplemental relief fund c 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 47,528.7E Total : 47,528.71 9 z 244130 9/17/2020 069605 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 2020-EDM-AUG PROF SVCS - BUILDING }; Prof Svcs: Plan Review (Rosewood (D 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 999.2E t Total: 999.2E u Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 102 7.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 244131 9/17/2020 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000044119-M TRAFFIC - 24/7 FLASHER SYSTEM 0 m TRAFFIC - 24/7 FLASHER SYSTEM 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 6,850.0z u Freight L 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 243.4z 10.4% Sales Tax Y 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 737.7, Total: 7,831.2( u 244132 9/17/2020 077736 WING ENTERPRISES INC 0002081682 WWTP: PO 346 OUTER FOOT KEPI. c PO 346 OUTER FOOT REPLACEME � 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 27.0( -a Total: 27.0( 244133 9/17/2020 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE' a 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 6.4' PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.4 U PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE' c 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.4 -jj PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE 0 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.4< a PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE' Q' Q 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.4< .r PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE' N 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.4< 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M c6 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 139.71 E 425-775-1344 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION fd 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION U 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 74.6E y 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE E UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI U 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 72.2< Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 103 vchlist 09/17/2020 9:30:42AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244133 9/17/2020 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 244134 9/17/2020 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 84 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 84 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 21 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun y (Continued) 0 425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 m 111.51 .L Total: 526.7, N Y 33478 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES m TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 196.7.' Freight c 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 30.8E 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 23.6, Total: 251.2f o L Bank total : 4,742,435.1E a Total vouchers : 4,742,435.1 f ,E 76 U 4- 0 El O N ti O O N E 2 V a+ C E t V f6 Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 104 7.2.b vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OOPM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 0091 US BANK - EW - AUGUST JOB POSTING - AWC 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 0747 PW CC - 9/07/2020 BE A NOTARY - NOTARY STAMP/ Ml 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 AMAZON - SUPPLIES/ SPONGES 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 AMAZON - MOTORIZED TV LIFT FO 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 AMAZON - COMPOSTABLE BOWLS 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 AMAZON - CAR CHARGERS FOR C 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 AMAZON - COMPOSTABLE PLATES 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 AMAZON - DISH SOAP 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 0881 UTM SEPT 2020 CC AMAZON - JAIL CT ROOM SPEAKEF 001.000.23.523.30.35.00 AMAZON - COURT ROOM MONITOF 001.000.23.523.30.35.00 AMAZON - WORK PHONE CASE CC 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 1558 MONITORS, BLUEBEAM, SERVER, CDW-G - HP ProBook 450 G7 15.6" E 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Amazon - Laptop cases - Oty 29 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 Amazon - Logitech M535 Bluetooth rr 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 BulkRegister.com - Domain Name 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 Page: 1 m L 3 c ea Amoun wo 0 a m 50.0( m =a N Y 57.5( t 8.7E m c 607.4E 14.3, 44.1 , �a 0_ 35.3, E .ii 16.8( U 4- 0 R 141.4, p L a 649.6� Q 0 47.4E N r` rn 0 1,141.9E m L 435.9, 3 c 33.1- E t 16.1E El Page: 1 Packet Pg. 105 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OO13M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Amazon - Laptop case 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 CDW-G - HP Care Pack for ProBook 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Samsung U32J590 32 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Zoom - Cloud recording 100GB & wel 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Newegg.com - Intel NUC Mini Barebo 001.000.41.521.30.35.00 Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 22" M( 001.000.41.521.30.35.00 Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 22" M( 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 22" M( 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 Newegg.com - Intel 660p Series M.2 ; 001.000.41.521.30.35.00 Zoom - Webinar 100 prorated monthl, 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 ServerSupply.com - Cisco WS-C296( 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Samsung Ultra HD 4K 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 BlueBeam - Standard End User Licer 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Amazon - Laptop cases - Oty 15 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 1885 PD TRAINING CARD #2 -1885 09/07 FUEL - ASSESSMENT CTR TRAVEL 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 1937 HOME DEPOT - E172SO PARTS HOME DEPOT - E172SO PARTS 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 7.2.b Page: 2 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 20.9E m L 185.4; `a N Y 4,835.2E t 145.2E m c 587.2E 220.7E 110.3E �a a 110.3E E 190.9; U 0 31.3E 0 L 1,519.0( a Q 4,702.7f c N 4, 399.4, rn 0 223.0`, y L �3 73.3 E t 5.9' a Page: 2 Packet Pg. 106 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OOPM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) AMAZON - FLEET PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 AMAZON - UNIT 64 PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 AMAZON - FLEET PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 ZORO - E172SO/ 25 GALLOM SPOT 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 PAYPAL - E173PO & E174PO PART 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 AMAZON - UNIT 69 PARTS/ TOUNGI 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 AMAZON - FLEET CRIMPING TOOL 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 AMAZON - FLEET PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 WORK & MORE - STEEL TOE BOOT 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 UPS STORE - FLEET SHIPPING 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 FISHERIES SUPPLY- PARTS FOR F 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 GOOD TO GO - 51-SWR TOLL FEE 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 THE UPS STORE - UNIT 527 SHIPPI 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 ZORO - UNIT 47 PARTS/ SAFETY IN 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WA DOL - E178FM VEHICLE REGIS' 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 AMAZON - E174PO SEAT BELT EXT 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 AMAZON - UNIT 62 PARTS/ BRACKI 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.2.b Page: 3 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 18.8f m L 35.9, `a N Y 30.4E t 182.1( m c 206.5( 74.1E 31.5, �a a 53.5- E 119.2e U 0 23.3" 0 L 29.4- a Q 3.5(c N 33.0- rn 0 244.8`, y L 3 63.5(; c d 15.4, E t U 108.1E a Page: 3 Packet Pg. 107 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OO13M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) HOME DEPOT - E174PO PARTS 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 ALLIED ELECTRONICS - FUEL ISLA 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 HEARTLAND - UNIT 435 PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 2519 PD 1 TRAINING CARD -2519 09/07/,2 SHIP TO WSP TOX. LAB 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 SAKs TO SORENSON FORENSICS 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 SAKs to SORENSON FORENSICS 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 SAKs TO SORENSON FORENSICS 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 2985 WWTP: PRESSURE WASHER, PAPI Lowe's: PO 371 electric pressure was 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Amazon: Paper Towel Rolls: $27.99+; 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Best Western - Harbor Inn: Eric 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 3048 THOMPSON CC -3048 09/07/20 RECORD FOR CPL APPLICATION 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 APRON & AIR GUN FOR ARMORY 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 8 WEBCAMS FOR COMMAND STAF 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 NOTARY APP FOR BROMAN 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 FLASH DRIVE 10 PACK 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES - SUPPLY ROOK 7.2.b Page: 4 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 11.0( m L 195.7E `a N Y 193.3( t 20.3' m c aD 337.2 - c �a 299.2E o 483.8( a E 385.6E 0 30.9( 0 a Q 7.4� N ti 56.7z c6 0 m 521.1 , 3 107.2( CD 67.7z �a Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 108 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OOPM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 OFFICER OF YEAR PHOTOS - HALL 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 DOL NOTARY LICENSE - BROMAN 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 BOX OF BUBBLE WRAP 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 BOTTLE OF GUN LUBE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 MONITOR ARMS - CHIEFS OFFICE 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 MONITOR ARMS CRIME PREV. OFF 001.000.41.521.30.35.00 MONITOR ARMS - RECRUIT/LD OFF 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 HOOKS/HANGERS - EVID. LOCKER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 FRAME PROMOTION CERT - MORP 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3269 LWYC SEPT 2020 CC AMAZON - JURY ROOM TABLES 001.000.23.523.30.35.00 3314 LAWLESS CC -3314 09/07/20 SWAT SUPPLIES 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 TRAIL CAM MONTHLY DATA PLAN 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 3355 MOLES CC - 9/7/2020 HOO-RAG - COVID FACE MASKS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 AMAZON - COVID FACE MASKS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 4171 MCCLURE CC -4171 09/07/20 CANVA GRAPHICS MONTHLY SUBS 7.2.b Page: 5 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 110.2f 5.9< =a 30.0( ui Y m 23.7- 12.0, m c a� 330.1( c �a 330.1( o 330.1( a 54.8E •� U 199.0E o �a 0 350.7( a Q 557.5( N ti 9.9� o� 0 m L 328.5 3 c a� 284.3E E t �a Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 109 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OO13M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK (Continued) 4697 4787 4929 PO # Description/Account 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 RETIREMENT POSTERS office stationery 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 retirement poster framing- 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 DAWSON CC -4787 09/07/20 10 COMMUNITY TRANS. TICKET BC 001.000.39.565.40.41.00 DEV SVCS US BANK Amazon: Desk Lamp for Webcam me 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 Amazon: Earbuds for webmeetings 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Amazon: Thumb Drive Memory Stick: 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 MBP Webinar Registrations 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 Amazon: Office Supplies (lead refills) 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Seattle Times 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Amazon: Wireless mouse (CWayland 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 Amazon: Electric Stapler 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 Click2Mail: Mailing for Planning 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 Amazon: Surge Protector (CWayland 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 7.2.b Page: 6 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 12.9E m L 7.7E N 82.9E m t 0.81 w m 8.7( (D c �a 500.0( — 0 �a 29.9E a E 19.91 u 0 26.8E 0 890.0( a a Q 9.5E 0 N 50.5( ti d6 12.9� m L 39.7( 3 c 122.4z E t 34.1 z Q Page: 6 Packet Pg. 110 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OO13M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Adobe Creative Cloud Subscription 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Amazon: Wireless keyboard/mouse 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 Amazon: Book for SHope (The Color 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 WABO: Code books for building staff 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 Survey Monkey: Annual 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Zoom: monthly subscription (Dev Svc 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 International Code Council: Webinar 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Amazon: Batteries 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Amazon: Office Supplies 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 4929 Aug 2020 REFUND DSD VISA s Refund: Duplicate Regisration (ECar 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 5593 CITY CLERK'S CC PAYMENT amazon - office supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 5639 PAYFLOW PAYMENT PROCESSOR Payflow payment processor 7.2.b Page: 7 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 59.9E m L 50.9E 'a N Y 11.1E � t 2,301.1, m c 384.0( 199.9( 90.0( �a a 19.9E E 74.8< U 0 17.4E 0 L 16.8E a Q 66.9E c N 239.3 - rn 0 m -80.0( 3 c 136.8E E t �a Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 111 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OO13M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 Payflow payment processor 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 Payflow payment processor 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 5923 COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DE\ Domain name renewal enjoyEdmond: 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 Bird Fest Advertising Cornell 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 Facebook ad Creative District 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Seminar for director Puget Sound 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 Business Recruitment ad 425 Magazi 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 6614 HAND SANITIZER, MASKS, AIR FIRE Amazon - Clipboard 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 Amazon - Citrus air freshner 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 Amazon - Disposable face masks 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 Amazon -Purell hand sanitizer 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 Amazon - Refill cards 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 Amazon - Business card holder 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 6654 SULLIVAN CC - 9/7/2020 SUPPLY HOUSE - OLD PUBLIC WO 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 TNEMEC CO. - LIBRARY SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.2.b Page: 8 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 13.2; 13.2 , =a 13.2( ui Y m t 20.0E w m 625.0( W 5.0£ 82.5, �a a 900.0( E U 9.91 o �a 19.7� o L a 17.6E Q 124.61 N ti 10.9" o� 0 m 5.8, 3 c CD 393.0E E t 590.2.E Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 112 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:0013M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) VIDEO ONLY - PUBLIC SAFETY PAF 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FRANK LUMBER - M.C.H. - DOOR 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7565 STRUM CC -7565 09/07/20 FUEL - M/C TRAINING IN ARLINGTC 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 FUEL - M/C TRAINING IN SHELTON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 2 NIGHTS LODGING - SHELTON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 FUEL - M/C TRAINING IN SHELTON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 8017 ENG CREDIT CARD AUGUST 2020 Traffic Counter Repair & Maintenance 001.000.67.518.21.48.00 Water Sample Dipper 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 6-No Dog Pooping Signs 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 E8GA.ROW Permits (City of Lynnwoc 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 Clipboards- 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 E7FG.Liquid Adhesive for Public 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 8305 APPLE ICLOUD FOR WILLIAMS CIT APPLE ICLOUD FOR WILLIAMS CIT 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 8842 WFOA CONFERENCE REGISTRATI( GFOA - Implementing CARES Act Fu 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 WFOA- Conference registration for E 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 7.2.b Page: 9 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 33.1 m L 461.8, `a N Y m 14.8E 19.71 m c aD 432.3( c �a 13.8z — 0 �a a 310.3z E 175.5� U 0 66.1 £ 0 2,333.9� a a Q 226.2E 0 N 52.8E rn 0 m 0.9� 3 c CD 220.0( E t 350.0( Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 113 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:0013M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9172020 9/17/2020 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 9573 CAFR REPORTING FEE GFOA - FY2019 CAFR Reporting 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 9821 GREENMUN CC -9821 09/07/20 KEYS FOR AMMO LOCKER 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 BROTHER LABEL TAPE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 KEY RINGS FOR PATROL 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 HDMI 8x8 MATRIX VIDEO SWITCHE 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 TLO DATABASE SEARCHES JUNE/, 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 HDMI CABLES 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 PROJECTOR MOUNT ADAPTER 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 REMOTE HOLDERS 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 APPLE MONTHLY CLOUD STORAGI 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 TLO DATABASE SEARCHES 08/20 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 B I D-1 687/0907 BID/ED! CREDIT CARD BID/Ed! Facebook advertising August 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 BID/Ed! Domain registration Grid Ser, 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 BID/Ed! Zoom meeting 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 Total Bank total 7.2.b Page: 10 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 610.0( =a N 43.0( m t 35.2, m 39.3E 496.7� 322.4, �a a 14.7E E 68.6E U 0 71.1E 0 0.91 a a Q 84.1 0 N ti 184.0z c6 0 m 240.0( 3 16.5z 42,963.6E E t 42,963.6E a Page: 10 Packet Pg. 114 vchlist 09/17/2020 1:31:OOPM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.b Page: 11 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun Total vouchers : 42,963.6E Page: 11 Packet Pg. 115 7.2.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project vi Funding Project Title Number Number a� STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB E WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 Q. STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA L 3 SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC c WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC r STIR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC p CL STIR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA U L STIR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA Y STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC v WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA r STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA m STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB o L WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA v STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA STIR2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC Q STIR2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB CL Q STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC c N STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB ti r STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC c STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB E STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA Z STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB a STIR76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA d rn STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC c m STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD m STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB Li STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA m STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB E t STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA U STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA r r Q STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Revised 9/16/2020 Packet Pg. 116 7.2.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 9/16/2020 Packet Pg. 117 7.2.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title EOAA i046� 2020 Guardrail Installations STR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i048 2020 Traffic Calming STR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force i049 STR EODC i050 c546 STM EOFB c547 c548 WTR EOJA c549 551 PRK EOMA c536 s025 STR E1CA c368 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project Civic Center Playfield (Constructio Civic Center Playfield (Design) Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Updat 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements co CL STR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) v STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway.100th Ave to 1QA&t n STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Da li htin /Edmonds Marsh Restoration Y9 9 a E4FD ke Ballinger Associated Projects Q STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump StationMOP N 4GC asin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c E4MIM monds Fishing Pier Rehab STR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System E Bikelink Project 3 Z STR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector o a c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facilit d N SWR ESGB s0l l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) a Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating Li UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates c d Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) Q STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Stormwater Comp Plan Update Revised 9/16/2020 Packet Pg. 118 7.2.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E71FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW - STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) 2019 Waterline Replacement PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) NSTR E8AB i028 STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overla STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps WE STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM M c521 � 71st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWR 19 Sewerline Replacement Project _ c516 WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install 2019 Downtown Parking Study STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades 2019 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program E i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) 1W STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design loomE9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 9/16/2020 Packet Pg. 119 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) 7.2.c Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title E8MA * c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab A& WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study JL Trackside Warning Systerr� WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating Bikelink Project STIR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector E5FD Seaview Park Infiltration Facility , WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC M 2018 Waterline Replacement Project STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW MIRK E7MA mmim Waterfront Development & Restoration (Desig WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement E9MPA Concrete Regrade & Drainage AN& SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project 4th St. & 71st Ave Stor ements WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) c544 STM EOFA c546 SWR EOGA c548 c549 PRK EOMA c551 c552 STIR E7AC i005 i014 STIR E6AB i015 i017 Revised 9/16/2020 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project Annual Water Utility Replacement Project Civic Center Playfield (Construction) Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion Minor Sidewalk Program Packet Pg. 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) 7.2.c Funding STR STR STR STR STR STR STR STR WTR STR STR STR STR SAM STR STR STR PRK UTILITIES Engineering Project Number E7AB E� E7DC EBCA EBDB EBDC E9AB Project Accounting Number i024 i025 i026 Fi028 i029 i033 i036 i037 i038 i039 Project Title Audible Pedestrian 89th PI W Retaining Wall Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 220th Adaptive 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th ADA Curb Ramps 2019 Overlay Program 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps 2019 Traffic Calming 2019 Guardrail Install E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program 2020 Overlay Program _ E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay 1W E9DC Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming EODB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program E0D ^itywide Bicycle Improvements Project E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) `EOC aterline Ov E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) ESNA solo STR E6AA s014 s017 STM EBFA s018 WD Slope Repair & Stabilization' Standard Details Updates ke Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization Stormwater Comp Plan Update 2018 Lorian Woods Study s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STR E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design STR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update Revised 9/16/2020 Packet Pg. 121 7.2.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E91FA STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E71FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STIR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC STIR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STIR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA Revised 9/16/2020 Packet Pg. 122 7.2.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STIR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STIR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STIR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STIR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STIR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 9/16/2020 Packet Pg. 123 7.2.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 976 (09/01/2020 to 09/15/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pav Correction 0.00 -71.28 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 23.65 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 740.26 29,921.60 122 VACATION VACATION 1,481.84 62,371.44 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 155.00 6,499.62 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 21.00 784.59 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 97.50 3,462.63 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 7.00 288.50 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 9.00 334.56 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 10.00 524.94 150 REGULAR HOURS Kellv Dav Used 84.00 3,692.91 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 222.27 11,109.02 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 1.00 52.63 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,889.50 641,069.93 194 SICK Emerciencv Sick Leave 99.50 5,229.02 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 191.00 8,707.32 205 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME .5 30.00 577.98 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 150.00 7,117.24 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,763.72 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 17.00 1,710.30 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 250.80 17,000.65 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 5.00 396.20 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,084.42 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 78.00 0.00 603 COMP HOURS Holidav Comp 1.0 27.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 217.75 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 2.0 4.00 0.00 901 SICK ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 32.57 0.00 903 MISCELLANEOUS CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 0.00 337.50 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 64.25 aco MISCELLANEOUS Accreditation 1 % Part Time 0.00 9.85 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 176.12 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC 11 Certification 0.00 94.50 09/17/2020 Packet Pg. 124 7.2.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 976 (09/01/2020 to 09/15/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 85.37 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 173.90 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 487.04 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 1.00 deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI 0.00 86.96 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 238.24 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 799.63 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 518.14 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 914.74 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 5,964.06 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 423.89 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 11.00 0.00 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 80.00 2,713.18 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 1,291.70 51,776.40 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 238.24 less MISCELLANEOUS LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 83.19 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 935.91 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 768.02 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 5,447.59 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 1,548.04 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 1,219.98 Ig15 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 7.5% 0.00 583.73 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 421.00 Ig5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 732.57 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 344.77 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 305.69 Ig9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 193.99 ooc MISCELLANEOUS 5% OUT OF CLASS 0.00 157.50 nds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 101.78 pfml ABSENT Paid Familv Medical Leave 51.32 0.00 pfmp ABSENT Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup 35.90 0.00 Orns SICK Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 81.78 2,358.05 Ono ABSENT PAID FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PA 17.00 0.00 09/17/2020 Packet Pg. 125 7.2.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 976 (09/01/2020 to 09/15/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,354.51 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ; 0.00 188.98 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 295.58 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 188.98 St REGULAR HOURS Serqeant Pav 0.00 136.97 str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 506.62 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 119.12 21,461.34 $888,723.52 Total Net Pay: $600,079.43 09/17/2020 I Packet Pg. 126 7.2.e Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 976 - 09/01/2020 to 09/15/2020 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 64397 09/18/2020 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 5,994.00 0.00 64398 09/18/2020 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 631.76 0.00 64399 09/18/2020 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 2,465.82 0.00 64400 09/18/2020 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,904.00 0.00 64401 09/18/2020 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 4,678.33 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK 18,673.91 0.00 Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3095 09/18/2020 awc AWC 324,596.96 0.00 3097 09/18/2020 edm CITY OF EDMONDS 240.00 0.00 3099 09/18/2020 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 28,126.51 0.00 3100 09/18/2020 us US BANK 110,391.05 0.00 3101 09/18/2020 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 106,889.22 0.00 3103 09/18/2020 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,785.69 0.00 3105 09/18/2020 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 1,152.00 0.00 0.00 577,181.43 Grand Totals: 595,855.34 0.00 9/17/2020 Packet Pg. 127 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Melaku Ashenafi ($1,000.00) Staff Lead: Finance Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by Melaku Ashenafi by minute entry. Narrative Melaku Ashenafi PO Box 1513 Lynnwood WA 98036 ($1,000.00) Attachments: Ashenafi, Melaku - Claim for Damages - For Council Packet Pg. 128 RECEIV 7.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM ENNA CITY CLERK Date Claim Form Received by City n Please take note that F �L"�� 1 r ' iuyykt-who currently resides at Ir LJe1 V1 mailing address home phone # work phone # and who resided at, " at the time of the occurrence wind who a is claiming damages against �}1 17ui I L�L't?� wthe sum of $ i, L arising out of the following circumstances listed below. p DATE OF OCCURRENCE: C Z 11 / ^ TIME: I LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: (year) DRIVER: Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: Yes No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (make) (model) OWNER: Address: Phone#: Name: Address: d a� M M C L E V L id) Farm Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 129 7.3.a * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * L V `VVkV\ : «I , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be sul} a to disclosure. pursuant to RCW 42.56. X X Signature of Claimant(s) State of Was ingtop County ❑ ol,* 1 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence at i '1C I u kt1 I Lopi 414eh ft I is ttlje person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged thate� } signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be(his ) free and volunt ry act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: I v a4`c�l Title J My appointment expires: ^ 9 " Please present the completed claim form to: FABIENNE ROSCHE NOTARY PUBLIC#133168 STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 29, 2024 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. m E R E U Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 130 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Public Hearing on the Planning Board Recommendation to Deny a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family - Urban 1" for 21 properties within a block located between 9th Ave N, Carol Way, 10th Ave N., and an unopened alley between Glen St. and Daley St. Staff Lead: Brad Shipley Department: Planning Division Preparer: Brad Shipley Background/History This proposal seeks to change the existing comprehensive plan map designation for 21 properties (7.2 acres), located between 9th Ave. N (west), Carol Way (north), 10th Ave N (east), and the unopened alley between Glen St. and Daley St. (south), from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" Applicants have expressed interest in subdividing their property at 530-9th Ave. N. into two lots. The applicant's property is estimated 17,500 ft2 and does not contain the necessary lot area for a two -lot subdivision under existing Residential Single Family-12 (RS-12) zoning -which requires minimum lot size of 12,000 ft2. If the amendment is approved, the result would allow owners of the affected properties to apply for a subsequent rezone of their property from RS-12 to either RS-8 or RS-6; however not all properties potentially affected by this application are suitable for a future rezone due to Glen St. not meeting the current Engineering Division standards for street width, fire access limitations, and constraints on the ability for it to be widened in the future. Staff Recommendation Staff provides two options for City Council consideration: A. Staff recommends that City Council DENY a change in designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" for 21 parcels included in this proposal. B. Staff recommends that City Council tentatively APPROVE a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" for the two parcels, 522 and 530-911h Ave. N., that can provide access via 91h Ave. N. Note: Since Comprehensive Plan amendments can generally be updated only once per year and there are other Comprehensive Plan amendments under consideration for this year, all tentatively approved amendments will be brought back to City Council for final approval at the end of year. Narrative See Staff Report, attached. Packet Pg. 131 8.1 Attachments: Staff Report Presentation Planning Board Minutes Public Comment Letters Packet Pg. 132 8.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: The City of Edmonds Planning Board From: Brad hipley, As Tanner Date: August 19, 2020 u IIR1111h1N Public Hearing: Wednesday August 26, 2020 at 7:00 PM City Council Chambers / Public Safety Complex 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds WA I. INTRODUCTION A. SUMMARY This proposal seeks to change the existing comprehensive plan map designation for 21 properties (7.2 acres), located between 91h Ave. N (west), Carol Way (north), 10'h Ave N (east), and the unopened m alley between Glen St. and Daley St. (south), from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family- U Urban 1" Applicants, Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf, have expressed interest in subdividing their a property at 530-91h Ave. N. into two lots. The applicant's property is estimated 17,500 ftz and does o not contain the necessary lot area for a two -lot subdivision under existing Residential Single Family- 12 (RS-12) zoning —which requires minimum lot size of 12,000 ft2. If the amendment is approved, the result would allow owners of the affected properties to apply for a subsequent rezone of their property from RS-12 to either RS-8 or RS-6; however not all properties ; potentially affected by this application are suitable for a future rezone due to Glen St. not meeting the current Engineering Division standards for street width (Attachment 6), fire access limitations, and E constraints on the ability for it to be widened in the future. r r a B. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf 2. Site: Block comprised of 21 parcels (approximately 7.2 acres) located between 9`h Ave. N (west), Carol Way (north), 10`h Ave N (east), and the unopened alley between Glen St. and Daley St. (south) Packet Pg. 133 3. Request: To change the Comprehensive Plan designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family - Urban L" 4. Review Process: Legislative "Type V" actions — final decisions are made by City Council after reviewing Planning Board's recommendation. 5. Major Issue: Compliance with ECDC 20.00 (changes to the Comprehensive Plan). II. FINDINGS A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) E The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), found in Chapter 43.21C RCW, is a state law that requires the City to conduct an environmental impact review of any action that might have a E significant adverse impact on the environment. The review includes the completion of an a environmental checklist by the City. A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued on August 11, 2020 (Attachment M 9). The appeals period expires August 26, 2020. If no appeals are filed by this date, the SEPA a determination is final. .y B. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE z This application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division, Fire District, Public Works m a Department, and the Building Division. No comments were received from the Fire District, E 0 Public Works Department, or the Building Division. v Engineering Division noted in their memorandum (Attachment 7) that Glen St. does not meet c 0 a� current Engineering standards for street width. If the scope of properties considered for future 'L rezone include properties that increase the number of lots receiving access via Glen St., then the Engineering Division will require a traffic study and improvements to Glen St., including = widening and a through connection between 9th Ave. N. and 10`h Ave. N. Alternatively, if a rezone application is submitted for the two properties identified in a Engineering's memorandum, 522 and 530 Glen St., and there is no increase to the number of lots being accessed via Glen St., then Glen St. will not need to be improved and no traffic study Q. would be required. C. PUBLIC COMMENTS Cn To date, no public comments have been received. D. PUBLIC NOTICE a� E Pursuant to Section 20.03 of the ECDC, a notice of the public hearing was posted on the City of z M Edmonds' website, published in the Everett Herald, and mailed to property -owners within 300 a feet of the site. All legal requirements for public notice have been satisfied (Attachment 8). E. SETTING 1. Proposed designation and development of the site. The proposal would change the comprehensive plan map designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1." This is a non -project action; no development is proposed with this application. 2 l P a g e Packet Pg. 134 8.1.a 2. Current designation and development of the site. The site is designated "Single Family -Resource" and currently developed with a single family home. 3. Designation and development in the vicinity. The neighborhood is developed primarily with single family homes, with a more intense development pattern consisting of single family homes, multi -family homes, and commercial to the south and west of the subject area. Comprehensive plan map designations within 1/4-mile of the subject area include: Single Family -Urban 1, Single Family -Resource, Multi -Family -High Density, Public, and Arts Center Corridor. 4. Previous proposals in the vicinity. No similar proposals in the immediate vicinity have been found in the City's permit system. F. ZONING COMPLIANCE A zoning change is not required as a condition of the proposal. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year. Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may only be adopted if the x following findings are made: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public a interest? r_ The proposed amendment seeks to change the comprehensive plan map designation to a Q. designation that is compatible with the surrounding area. The proposal has limited public interest to the property -owners involved. Cn 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city? z The proposed amendment is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of `,.° Q the city. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? The comprehensive plan designation requested allows the same uses as currently exist. There would be no shift in the balance of land uses if this proposal is approved. 3 l P a g e Packet Pg. 135 8.1.a 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? There are access constraints for any property -owner seeking to short plat their property in a manner that increases the number of lots requiring access from Glen St. The review team identified two parcels (522 and 530-9th Ave. N)—one of which is owned by the applicant —where access could be provided via 9th Ave. N. and not be subject to the constraints that limit development along Glen St. Utilities are readily accessible along 9th Ave. N and Glen St. III. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city C. The proposal would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city. D. Not all of the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation due to access constraints. Two parcels, 522 and 530-9th Ave. N, are physically suitable. IV. RECOMMENDATION A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to DENY a change in designation from c "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" for 21 parcels included in this proposal. W B. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation M from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" for the two parcels, 522 and 530- 9th Ave. N., that can provide access via 9th Ave. N. z c� a V. PARTIES OF RECORD Robert Grimm and Carolyn Manglesdorf 1 530 9th Ave N, Edmonds, WA, 98020 City of Edmonds 4 l P a g e Packet Pg. 136 8.1.a VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Narrative 3. Zoning Map 4. Comprehensive Plan Map 5. Critical Areas Map 6. Notice of Complete Application 7. Engineering Memorandum, dated April 20, 2020 8. Public Notice requirements 9. SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) 10. SEPA Checklist 5 l P a g e r- a Packet Pg. 137 City of Edmonds Land Use Application "I ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW X COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT p ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # &2ZUl9l10D7 ZONE�- ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE j Z t REC'D BY AW—A D ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE 71 D �� RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ n STAFF n pB n ADB ❑ C C ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • Area bounded on His west by 9th Ave N., on the north by Carol WY , on tho east by IM Avo N. PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION hn sn ilh by nrnrsert es south t T Glen Si. e�nandlnn from 62 %ICJ. on lhe_1vssLlsz 5t] t t va . an the east. PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangeladorf PHONE # 425-672-6099 ADDRESS 530 9th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 E-MAIL teutonicriderQoorneastnet FAX# TAX ACCOUNT# SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Comprehensive plan amendment to Chan a desl oaibon from Sin be Fori'My. Reuwurce to Single Faintly. Urban 1. Sea attached cover tatter DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See attached cover letter APPLICANT Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorl PHONE# 425-672-6099 ADDRESS 530 9th Ave N. Edmonda, WA 98020 E-MAIL teutonicrider(Mcomeast.net FAX# _ CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Robert Grimm and Carolyn Man elsdort PHONE # 425-672-6099 ADDRESS 530 9th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 E-MAIL teutonicrider®comeast.net FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the mClow SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE December 20, 2079 Property Owner's Authorization I, Robert Grimm and CarobM Man elsdorl certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and corroci statement•. I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this applic ion. I RE SIGNATURE OF OWNER I);�'1'I: December 20, 2019 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. DEC 2 3 20119 Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Applicallon Page I of I DEVEL Packet Pg. 138 r- a E� 7, 9 8.1.a N H 7, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Grimm — Mangelsdorf We are submitting an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of an existing residential area within the City of Edmonds from the current Single Family, Resource to Single Family, Urban 1. The area covered by our application comprises a tract of land bordered by 9th Ave N. to the west, Carol Way to the north,10th Ave N. to the east, and seven properties south of Glen Street located between 522 91h Ave N. on the west and 505 10th Ave N. on the east. A total of 21 properties fall within the rezone area (See Figure 1). 6 E The applicants recognize that Single Family, Resource designations are often based upon proximity to areas m of landslide hazards or probability of severe erosion. However, the attached Critical Areas — Vicinity Map E a indicates that these factors are not a concern in the proposed area. a In addition, as shown in the attached Comp Plan — Vicinity Map, properties to the south and immediately east of the proposed area currently have a Single Family, Urban 1 designation. Therefore, this proposed a - amendment is in keeping with that of surrounding and nearby properties. Approval of this amendment would be consistent with multiple aspects of the City of Edmonds c z Comprehensive Plan, including: a E Community Sustainability L) • Constitutes land use that supports the ability of residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally. c o a, • Offers flexibility for existing housing needs and to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices. • Allows opportunities for residents to choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time. 2 • Allows the possibility of additional housing units in an already -developed area, thereby preserving natural areas and habitats. a Housing Goals t= o a a� • Encourages infill development consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The property is economically and physically suitable for the use the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow. c E There is no adverse change to the health, safety or welfare of the public interest due to this change. U r r a Applicants: e Robert Grimm Date: %Z 1 Z 61.,d" 1 Carolyn Mangelsdorf RECEIVE DEC ? 3 201. DEVELOPI CI Packet Pg. 139 W El I Ll tp 8.1.a r City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map V, L MENEM IN= INE1111 I r1111 ��i■ ■boo 111 ■■i■ ■�� 11■1�■ II ■�� 1111 ■■■ ■ 1� 1�11■■■1 ■IIIIIIII moll ��1111111 IIII IIIII■ 1: 9,028 0 376.17 752.3 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION ... nn, ■1NIdCC Legend 0 ReZones PRD RoW Comprehensive Plan . Retail Core . Arts Center Corridor Downtown Mixed Commercial Notes Downtown Convenience Downtown Mixed Res Downtown Master Plan Shoreline Commercial Planned Residence -Office Single Family Urban1 Single Family Urban2 Single Family Urban3 Single Family - Resource Single Family - MP Multi Family - Medium Den Multi Family - High Densi Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Planned -Neighborhood Mixed Use Commercial Corridor Development Edmonds Way Corridor Medical r Q Packet Pg. 141 1 city of Edmonds critical Areas Map D5 T if ..' 7 L 1 mr, �I�iG "alla, ~W ~�LfL EWE ,��.aLriLJL�L.�� it •d oil email 0 376.17 752.3 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is f reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurat WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliabl © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIO 8.1.a �- W f x 0-0 iu.,-. rnoumiak � Legend CID E Creeks Q ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas to Earth Subsidence and Landslide L! Minimum Buffer Adjacent to H; d Wetlands d Wetlands Boundary N —• - Wetland Boundaries Not Complel y t Wetland Known Extents i Floodplains E ® A O U ® AE C O ® VE Q1 X 'L 0 ReZones = i PRID V RoW 3 Landslide Hazard Area 40% a ❑ Severe Erosion Hazard 15%-409 O ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas 15%-40% y N c tv Q [Notes Packet Pg. 142 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION January 21, 2020 Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf 530-91" Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: COMPLETE APPLICATION, CLARIFICATION REQUESTED —COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT (AMD20190007) Dear Mr. Grimm and Ms. Mangelsdorf: Thank you for submitting the required documentation and application fees for the above - referenced application; your application is complete according to ECDC 20.02.003. However, while the application is technically complete, additional information or clarification is required Please address all comments by providing updated documents, as appropriate: SEPA Environmental Checklist. The proposal is considered a non -project action. Non -project actions are required to complete Schedule D of the SEPA Environmental Checklist. Please complete this section to the best of your ability and return to the Development Services Department. As the process moves forward, the City may request additional information, if needed. The City will proceed with the associated public notice requirements once hearings are scheduled with Planning Board and City Council. However, please keep in mind that a complete response to this information request must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC 20.02.003.D). If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Brad Shipley Associate Planner It r a Packet Pg. 143 MEMORANDUM Date: April 20, 2020 To: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: AMD2019-0007 — Comp Plan Amendment Grimm — 530 911 Ave N Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. It is my understanding that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is the first step in a series of steps the applicant is seeking in order to subdivide their proprety. The current application indicates a phased project involving a comp plan amendment, rezone application and ultimately property subdivision. The comp plan amendment and future potential rezone areas are shown below in green. The applicant owns the property at 530 9tn Ave N, shown by the red dot. DALEY ST x Glen Street is a mostly private road that does not meet current Engineering Division standards for roadway width. With a rezone of this area, additional transportation impacts are presumed and therefore, assessement of the transportation system would be required. While not required during the current comp plan amendment phase, a transportation study would need to be submitted with any future rezone application. At a minimum, widening Glen Street to City r- a City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 144 8.1.a standards and providing a through connection from 9th Ave N to 1 Oth Ave N would be required. Should the rezone be limited to 530 and 522 9th Ave N and access with a future subdivision on 530 9th Ave N (shown in blue below) be restricted to 91h Ave N, then Glen Street would not need to be improved to City standards. In addition, a traffic study would not be required. Thank you. r- a Packet Pg. 145 `/)C. I S911) Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination - File Number AMD2019-0007 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Description of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for a block containing 21 properties from Single Family -Resource to Single Family -Urban 1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from Planning Board. Name of Applicant: Robert Grimm and Carol Mangelsdorf, Property Owners Location: All property located between 91h Ave. N, Carol Way, 1 Oth Ave. N, and an unopened alley between Glen St. and Daley St. (see attached Vicinity Map). File No.: AMD2019-0007 Date of Notice: August 11, 2020 Comments on Proposal Due: August 26, 2020 (see public hearing information below). Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at http://edmondswa.goy/public-notices- text/development-notices.html under the development notice for application number AMD2019-0007, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. r- 0 City Contact: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner, (425) 771-0220, brad.shipleykedmondswa.gov 0- d 0 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATIONCn c Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on Wednesday, August 26, d 2020 at 7:00 u.m. z Join the Zoom meeting at: 0 https://zoom.us/j/93282361794 a Meeting ID: 932 8236 1794 Dial by your location (253) 215-8782 US (Tacoma) *SEPA NOTICE ON REVERSE SIDE* Packet Pg. 146 8.1.a *NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REVERSE SIDE* STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Lead Agency: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. Date of Issuance: August 11, 2020 SEPA Appeal Deadline: August 26, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. Appeals must be filed in writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. VICINITY MAP City of Edmonds. AMD2019-0007 TyCW TAINtN t115rAPL. - /o Sit am su an 9/6 Mt, CASCADE DR tors - ' CASCADE IN 7.7 710 2 b 1 R - Legend '3" h1l n9 L n` A s» vlt .... , . _ ._ 5 n!• nc ReZones rn to 2 - PRO m n, ROW +7r m n ror CAROL WAY i r — — — — — r — — —--��, D SIERRA PL !o) .. Comprehensive Plan Raul Cae tt1t. 6)7 ! , Ana Cents Candor 6i1 _ nn .— Caaradat tDoaraovm Comedence 1f1. ' eel ® DmmRoxn A4ved Ref 'a atti e» 6+• 1 9p), 9j9 9a1 91 .t 1 P, _ W �, f)7 -Jot `{ DvxNvvn Mash Plen SMreeneCommvdN •- 1 'Ca46$f •, f � � ,T a .7p 8 RfrnM Res4mce-Olfu O Smpte FamlyU 1 1 9" 91tt 1 © Sr gle Famly In ,ant )Ii )[a L--------rrr------ f 1 SrHa Fan+r llrGiN Lr7-]J - _ liir IFY.-Pt blow Fa^ah. Re - ` Sing%Fa 0y W rz - T y •• " - ° _ ` •. _ _ _ _ L ')' . MWa Famfy-Madi+n Den DALF.Y ST 7 ■ Mde FwOy Hyh Derd ' aiJ Heronhanaod cdnanarew z Ot6 '� " 6 G r o : o u b, b _ _ £ a I C awyc rav - r at) !J PLwndJleteNomooa , _ _ MaM Ux Cmtmerdpl gg _61• NRA,WL ST W,•C«ma — 1:4,514 O n A,mcM Notes 18808 3762 Feet Apphcation to amend the Comprehens w rots mapnauser genernee stark oatwtfrom an lneernet mapplM vleam Hfa Plan Map designation from Single Family afe.eaeardr Data layers Wtappearon tNs map mays may na Ce aawa[e. Resource to Single Family Urban l for all WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere _enl' or othewke""'ble. propemes outltnedm due. D City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Packet Pg. 147 8.1.a FILE NO.: AMD2019-0007 APPLICANT: Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 11t' day of August, 2020, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property owners within 300-feet of the property that is subject of the application referenced above. The names were provided by the applicant. I, Debbie Rothfus, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 11 th day of August, 2020, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed:_AWL Packet Pg. 148 8.1.a FILE NO.: AMD2019-0007 APPLICANT: Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE OF APPLICATION On the 11`h day of August, 2020, the attached Notice of Application was posted in compliance with ECDC 20.03.002 at the subject site of the above -referenced application. I, Brad Shipley, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 11 `h day of August, 2029 at Edmonds, Washington. l iQ a Packet Pg. 149 8.1.a ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. RECEIVED FEB 112020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all property -owners located within 300 feet of the project site. }hature of Apolkant or Applicant's Representative Ikf1 �t(N is t�_kPi Subsg tied and sworn to before me this day of 6 . M JO P�It y2 = \.send Z 6tary Public in and for the State of Washington ' O z 0atiZ p �, i aIt l jlldll�?,� R e s i d i n g at Signjaatture/of Applican/tt or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this � 1-41 day of �\o��e�\\1111jtt u A. oA i {J5 2,182® � o � A 10 ry Public in and for the State of Washington 1= Packet Pg. 150 EcoFriendly Easy feel® Labels i I Bend along line to i Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM AVE(� S 8.1.a Use Avery® Template 51600 j 2703-240-022-0700 0043-420-630-3800 2703-240-022-0900 Greg and Vivian Olson Patrick and Kristi Ganacias Judith Tourtellot 503 9th Ave N. 506 9th Ave N. 529 9th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98202 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 2703-240-022-1000 2703-240-021-9800 2703-240-022-0500 Randy and Deborah Johnson Aseem Prakash and Nives Dolsak Robert and Cecelia Campbell 643 9th Ave N. 647 9th Ave N. 657 9th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98202 2703-240-022-0200 2703-240-022-0100 0056-980-000-0101 Paul Webster Suellen and Mark Cholvin Martin and Bonnie Hart 707 9th Ave N. 715 9th Ave N. 911 Carol Way _ E Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 m E 0056-980-000-0102 0056-980-000-0200 0056-980-000-0300 a Stanley Dexter and Jeanette Carter Living Trust Trevor and Erika Hill Captain Donald Moore a f6 921 Carol Way 931 Carol Way 941 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98202 Edmonds, WA 98020 a m 0056-980-000-0400 0056-980-000-0500 0059-270-000-0100 c Clifford and Judith Fenlason Alfred and Deborah Alseth Robert and Rachel Thorn d a� L 951 Carol Way 961 Carol Way 1005 Carol Way CL E Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 ti 0059-270-000-1200 0043-420-820-2000 0043-420-630-3600 0 a� Howard Anderson and Leanne Smith -Anderson Dolores Morgan Jeanne Schwarz L 1006 Carol Way 853 Daley St. 911 Daley St. _ Edmonds, WA 98202 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 2 ° 0043-420-630-3300 0043-420-630-3100 0043-420-630-2900 a Larry Laporte George and Elena Suciu Clifford and Linda Schultz 0 921 Daley St. 929 Daley St. 935 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98202 0 r C0 0043-420-630-2700 0043-420-630-2500 0043-420-630-2300 Brian and Meagan Baldwin Mark and Angelica Irwin Joshua and Kelly Anderson E 941 Daley St. 945 Daley St. 951 Daley St. t r Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Q 0043-420-630-2100 0043-420-440-3900 0055-600-010-0200 Alan Williams Jacob Black and Emily O'Neill Mary Hovander 959 Daley St. 1003 Daley St. 1009 Glen St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 0055-600-020-0200 Philip Wenzel and Kristen Holmes 1010 Glen St. Edmonds, WA 98020 ttiquettes faciles a peter I ` Repliez a la hachure afin de wWW Packet Pg. 151 Utilisez le ciabarit AVERY@ 51600 i Sens de reveler le rebord Po -u M� ' 1-800 i rhArnamant p p i EcoFriendly Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 0054-890-000-0809 Bob Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf 530 9th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0804 Jerry Capretta 938 Glen St. Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0802 Joanna and Benjamin Sun 943 Glen St Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0807 Donald Sandall 925 Glen St Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0801 Virginia Deaver 612 9th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0703 Leigh Bennett 930 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0702 Alfred and Deborah Alseth 960 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 i� Bend along line to Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edger"" ; 0054-890-000-0811 Silvia Heldridge 930 Glen St. Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0815 Salintip Jongjitirat 511 10th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0816 James and Margaret Cannon 941 Glen St. Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0805 Silvia Heldridge 923 Glen St Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0706 Lionel and Janice Kagley 702 9th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0704 HalYaphe 940 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0810 Mavis and Stephen Roe 522 9th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 9 AVER 8.1.a 0054-890-000-0812 Richard Garberson 934 Glen St. Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0803 William and Jenina Quinn 615 10th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0813 Barbara Chessler 939 Glen St Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0806 Robert and Susan Scheid 604 9th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0707 Stacey and Tamara Grund 920 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0705 Steven and Misty Alseth 950 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 0054-890-000-0814 r Mark and Jill Demaray a 505 10th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 0 r c E t U fC a+ EI Etiquettes faciles a peler SeA de Repliez a la hachure afin de i www. Packet Pg. 152 Utilisez le aabarit AVERYO 51600 ! .tiw„e„,o„, reveler le rebord Pop-upmc ; 1-800- 8.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH905677 AMD2019-0007 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/11/2020 and ending on 08/11/2020 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The am t of the fee f r such publication is $119.09. Subscribed and sworn b e me on this day of Linda Phillips - _ . • 8� Pub1►c A#y Washington - _ 4'^�0e�zsrzort Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds -LEGAL ADS 114101416 BRAD SHIPLEY r_ r Q Packet Pg. 153 8.1.a Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination - He Number AM02.019-0007 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Description of Proposal. The applicant Is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for a block containing 21 properties from Single Family -Resource to Single Family -Urban 1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from Planning Board. Name of Applicant: Robert Grimm and Carol Mangelsdorf, Property Owners Locallom All properly located between 9th Ave. N, Carol Way, 10th Ave, N, and an unopened alley between Glen St. and Daley St. 2see attached Vicinittyy Map). ile No.: AMD2019-0007 Date of Notice: August 1 t, 2020 Comments on Proposal Due: August 26. 2020 (see public hearing information below). Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate In any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to Initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at http:/Iedmondswa.gov/public-notices-textidevelopment- notices.hlml under the development notice for application number AMD2019-00b7, by emalling the Cry contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. City Contact: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner, (425) 771-0220, brad.stilpley@edinondswa.gov PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on Wednesday_Au usl 26 2020 al 7:00 .m. Join the Zoom meeting at: hops: /zoom.us/y93282 517 4 Meeting ID: 932 8236 1794 Dial by your location (263) 215-8782 US (Tacoma) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL Y ACNTI(SEPA) NOTICE MOET SIGFICANCE Lead A e�ncV: The City of Edmonds Is SEPA lead agency for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds' has Issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAG 197-11-340 for the above project, Date of Issuance August 11, 2020 SEPA Apga Deadline, August 26 2020 at 4:00 p.m. Appeals must be Bled in writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. VICINITY MAP Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 08/12/2020 08:13:06 am Page: 1 Packet Pg. 154 Classified Proof Pubnshed: August 11, 2020. EDH905677 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 08/12/2020 08:13:06 am Page: 3 Packet Pg. 155 a STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE • PO Box 42525. Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 • (360) 725-4000 www.commerce.wa.gov 04/13/2020 Mr. Brad Shipley Associate Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Sent Via Electronic Mail Re: City of Edmonds--2020-S-1341--60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment Dear Mr. Shipley: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment as required under RCW 36.70A.106. We received your submittal with the following description. Proposed comprehensive plan map amendments. We received your submittal on 04/10/2020 and processed it with the Submittal ID 2020-S-1341 Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. Your 60-day notice period ends on 06/09/2020. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for comment. a Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of 1= adoption. If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at Cn reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov, or call Michelle Whitfield, (360) 725-3053. E Sincerely, Review Team a Growth Management Services Page: 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 156 of ED,11 8.1.a y O N CITY OF EDMONDS z 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Proponent proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation for properties listed below from Single Family -Resource to Single Family -Urban 1. Proponent: Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf, property owners. Location of proposal, including street address if any: All properties located between 91h Ave. N, Carol Way, loth Ave N, and the unopened alley between Glen St. and Daley St.. See attached Vicinity Map. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by August 26, 2020. Project Planner: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager a Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 0 a Date: August 11, 2020 Signature: Yoe_ P-cr <, XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than August 26, 2020. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. 2 Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Q XX Posted on Auqust 11, 2020, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit(g-)_ecy.wa.gov). XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available by request. Please email brad. shipley(a edmondswa.gov to receive a copy. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DNS AMD20190007 8/10/20 SEPA Packet Pg. 157 8.1.a Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section XX Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Email: SEPAunitCaD_ecy.wa.gov XX COMCAST Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 1525 751h St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Washington State Dept. of Commerce 906 Columbia Street SW P.O. Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300 XX DNR SEPA Center P.O. Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 SEPACENTER@DNR.WA.GOV XX Puget Sound Regional Council Attn.: S.R.C. 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 XX Snohomish County Planning & Development Services 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Public Works 3000 Rockefeller M/S 607 Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 Attachments: Vicinity Map SEPA Environmental Checklist PC: File No. AMD20190007 SEPA Notebook XX XX xx xx Gary Kriedt, Senior Env. Planner King County Transit Division Attn.: Env. Planning & Real Estate, MS KSC-TR-0431 201 South Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104-35856 City of Shoreline Attn.: Permit Services Manager 17500 Midvale Avenue North Shoreline, WA 98133-4905 Edmonds School District No. 15 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 Community Transit Attn.: Kate Tourtellot 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 Olympic View Water & Sewer District 8128 2281h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1 G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david. matulich()pse.com XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf 530 9tth Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 2 of 2 SEPA DNS AMD20190007 8/10/20,SEPA Packet Pg. 158 OF ED40 U~ CP St. 1 Purpose of Checklist: 8.1.a #P71 R E C E I %fz DEC 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: IL For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of c the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be d read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. M A. BACKGROUND N as 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: E 0 R 2. Name of applicant: Robert Grimm and Carolyn Mangelsdorf Q 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Edmonds WA 98020 425-672-6099 4. Date checklist prepared: 12117119 5. Agency requesting checklist: CitE o Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Revised on 9116116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page I of 28 Packet Pg. 159 8.1.a Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2019 If Amendment approved, Rezoning application 2020 If Rezoning application is approved, Lot line adjustment 2021 (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. JOur long-range plan is to subdivide our lot and build a smaller, second home on the property (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. / We have not prepared any environmental information and are relying on the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Vicinity ✓ Map (STAFF COMMENTS) �� I�\ 't 1 G,Pc L M� R E T [ !L 1M 1 /�+ iR 7i c) r� UA i �%,, ji L "Rix, 10 11.- 1' a A "J4 &1 i yr 1,4' -D U--/ c> 1? ":. c r-t i 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. /None that we know of (STAFF COMMENTS) Nj()ij t0 Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 2 of 28 Packet Pg. 160 8.1.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. None that we know of (STAFF COMMENTS) j2 IR„f+Igs Nh+J,;-� IA,- or CI- D irl EtiJ T , JZA9�-L-0,IJ ny Jt-J.sic�,�, 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. This is a proposal to amend the comprehensive plan for an existing residential area comprised of 21 properties. This area is currently designated Single Family, Resource. We are requesting this area be designated Single Family Urban 1 (STAFF COMMENTS) 'I N C—' C_Q?W R t n 1J tMV-P o Al ce� ni 7T % C .A r' f W k-5 ta 12 `Xj + D j7 a-, i A E' '� J �1 � �c++J A N D �j�►QzDiV+off PN-c-06 � 12.Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your p �fopographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The requested amendment concerns the area bounded on the west by 91 Ave N., on the north by Carol Way, on the east by 101 Ave N, and on the south by properties south of Glen Street between 522 91 Ave N, and 505 10' Ave.N. 1= 0 Q. m +a r co r c m E 0 +a a This area is currently designated Single Family, Resource, and we are requesting it be designated Single Family, Urban 1 Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 3 of 28 Packet Pg. 161 8.1.a The following parcels are included in this area Address Square Feet Parcel number 530 9th Ave. N 19,625 548900000809 930 Glen St. 16,819 548900000811 934 Glen St. 16,109 548900000812 938 Glen St. 13,506 548900000804 511 10th Ave. N 14,315 548900000815 615 10th Ave. N 15,515 548900000803 943 Glen St 13,637 548900000802 941 Glen St. 14,365 548900000816 939 Glen St 14,051 548900000813 925 Glen St 13,000 548900000807 923 Glen St 11,128 548900000805 604 9th Ave. N 8,620 548900000806 612 9th Ave. N 13,977 548900000801 702 9th Ave. N 20,902 548900000706 920 Carol Way 13,691 548900000707 930 Carol Way 17,241 548900000703 940 Carol Way 10,807 548900000704 950 Carol Way 18,344 548900000705 960 Carol Way 16,933 548900000702 522 9th Ave. N 13,720 548900000810 505 10th Ave N 10,997 548900000814 (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Flat to gently sloping El Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 4 of 28 Packet Pg. 162 8.1.a b. Z C. (STAFF COMMENTS) What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Less that 10% (STAFFCOMMENTS) T Og tkoe° V— f.OV6"> St-kE,HTL,. j 'To :1tt4� 610kArO lA_ _k'G'+� la AigAS VIA C45T' Triz V't 6 1r-S d-tiD What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Unknown, generally clay and sand (STAFF COMMENTS) --A L nEny1C ,L) tj A-&Abj &At- 0 0 u,, PcC- X d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No filling or excavation is being proposed ,101 (STAFF COMMENTS) Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. R Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page S of 28 Packet Pg. 163 8.1.a No clearing or construction is being proposed M (STAFFCOMMENTS) c c.,,,v tit c. lM es 4 , ,,,.n_r > wi t'<- Oc I�G C� 0— o;Z D w 1-7 H.. A tE'o �rvl it r2 L V — c.. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No additional construction is being proposed 1� (STAFF COMMENTS0 T U itAr 'OC' V L. Q n 0A r< .� 04. 14 � 4� W � a 7 T 4 'r I aM g e-r , C>tv 1. o I- e A - CZ-'' f ca f A c, . '5-T o w la 'i rc pit- E Apo Vk-JILT c-14"r a a c9 wIlid-. al�Qma, Ar! ou" 4rn- IS N#)ricat-,v oo--) 6(-rc RND t-t^#T- Le-T C,r.J-:;-r•-srCzC. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) Ell E t- i w i L t. il-C CJ u r t2 r D T a__9 (2. , u r�2C T 1 5 T E w I T ff G I"T !q Cv ti D r N ty C 1 F D C V 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and 2 industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. a There would be no emissions produced by this change V- 0 a d (STAFF COMMENTS) '( co i itx6yep It, oi,I...UVtw— � Q1 A'R l N Li [� �% T C �i 1 '%Cc fi v1 �7 r CA - r" i of-;5? tl-" c ri o, v 0 .r .r b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Q No /111 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 6 of 28 Packet Pg. 164 8.1.a 3. (STAFF COMMENTS) WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is no known surface water body (STAFF COMMENTS) S r rF a S •fl T t' 490 A+ 06 T -r- S Ec� C,iZr,_ek_ A,D �'7� FY. F[7a�� I-f1i�i>,, ,i C-tZGcrL. �ezar �L4c 1`4' P o C_1 r, r 5ct4 N n. (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredge material will be placed or removed (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No withdrawal or diversions will be required (STAFF COMMENTS) i� a Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 7 of 28 Packet Pg. 165 8.1.a (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No discharge of waste material is being, proposed (STAFF b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No ground water will be withdrawn (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged (STAFF t-" Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 8 of 28 Packet Pg. 166 8.1.a C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Current runoff patterns will not be affected (STAFF COMMENTS) b hi A c. Y i f � . �j ( oy ,� q 77, j� t- i L c '(,� 1 V iGy`J 6 7 6'� l i� pr tj 1/'- w I u1 zG, i N^ iJ X & Y +% lA,+ G Y- T �i (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste materials will be produced (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: None i (STAFF COMMENTS) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: 1= Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 9 of 28 Packet Pg. 167 8.1.a b. X deciduous tree: alder a I spen, other: X evergreen tree fir, _ Oda pine, other: X shrubs _X Grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Nothing, will be removed or altered (STAFF COMMENTS) iY P c V r-- e.-co . L.AP-05e-^?,#Nh 6)(41_0_667_ Mout,-a NO T,I —0L :5 61: THE 1-1fd4G- r-" Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 10 of 2R Packet Pg. 168 8.1.a C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None that we are aware of i (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No change to landscaping is proposed (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Because the area is comprised of all private homes and yards, we are unaware what plants may be present in the area (STAFF COMMENTS) c Q. d M N 5. Animals E t a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: Q birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: songbirds, seagulls, crows mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rabbits, rats, raccoons fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 11 of 28 Packet Pg. 169 8.1.a b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None that we know of (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not that we know of (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None that we know of (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 12 of .'o' Packet Pg. 170 8.1.a a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No energy will be required for the amendment (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) P Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 13 of P. Packet Pg. 171 8.1.a (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. l' None that we know of (STAFF (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None that we know of (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None that we know of o" (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: t� Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 14 of 2" Packet Pg. 172 8.1.a b. Noise (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. The amendment will produce no noise (STAFF COMMENTS) I �Q�l>�V�O� TNC( �tvIL4— C o ,i 10 N i� is j E w T r A L, �} �r �r I C o, C A �.-� � c� 0 To Lc! J '� 1 s2 H t /tr i.l J�7�- L c A I E 0 ICI �1 1 rj E. (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS)Ct EA N �Jr_�Ly WILL Ql, t;1tA0Nr-' LT T(N AIb1s1C— fLESTti�cT�� Q U/0 > 151 �-.-T Al OW 0-i 7�—Ca IC,� / N 1fi� G�.S k� Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 15 of 28 Packet Pg. 173 8.1.a 8. Land and Shoreline Use b. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The area in question is all private homes. Properties adjacent to the area in question would be unaffected by the amendment. (STAFF COMMENTS) Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? Currently the land is all homes and yards (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. Currently there are homes and garages on the site (STAFF COMMENTS) P Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 16 of 28 Packet Pg. 174 8.1.a d. e. f. 9. RPM h. i Revised on 9119116 Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (STAFF COMMENTS) What is the current zoning classification of the site? R12 (STAFF COMMENTS) What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family. Resource (STAFF COMMENTS) If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? 0 N/A a m w (STAFF COMMENTS) E s 0 Q Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. No (STAFF COMMENTS)....... (t-vSIyr-i A.\.-tJ' t-a(t 5 I-, ),IU 1 l 1 t Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 17 of 28 Packet Pg. 175 8.1.a 11 j• k. X In. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The same number as are currently there (STAFF COMMENTS) J F TH,15_- 'PrrTr= N sI AL. I�Ad � 1V _W Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: We have reviewed the citv's comprehensive plan and believe that our proposal is consisten with the stated goals of that plan (STAFF COMMENTS) �j } gE q"Pvt2& L 15 10 (!.0A 0 Cowl I2 t.A.Q LkA. A (7 9 6-5 1 G r A Tt 1�A�_� t T a,I Ac fi cn 0� r- C I i� .—t r �?_E �iri-► E � r A n pitad Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) t_" Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 18 of 28 Packet Pg. 176 8.1.a 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposal does not include any new construction V, (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) a i� 0 a m 10. Aesthetics to a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? E t No structures are proposed 0 r r a (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 19 of 28 Packet Pg. 177 8.1.a The amendment would not affect any views (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None '-� (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: iQ .r a Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment. doe Page 20 of ,'< Packet Pg. 178 8.1.a All (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None in the immediate vicinity (STAFF COMMENTS) '✓ ITS 1 S uJ ► 7N „J A- QH Afro R- LLI V , t" I✓( Ec'D b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None i� (STAFF COMMENTS) 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 21 of 28 Packet Pg. 179 8.1.a a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. Some of the homes my be over 45, as far as we know, none are eligible for preservation registers. No existing_ structures will be altered by this proposal (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. C. d. As far as we know, there is no evidence of Indian or historic use, or any artifacts or areas of cultural importance _ (STAFF COMMENTS) Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None (STAFF COMMENTS) t-" Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 22 of?. Packet Pg. 180 8.1.a 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. C. M d. 9"' Ave N„ 10`h Ave N. and Carol Way serve this area, as well as the private road of Glen St. Access to existing_ street systems will be unchanged by this proposal (STAFF COMMENTS) Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? There are no bus stops on the roads that serve the identified area, but there are nearby bus routes, and a fenydock and train station within a mile (STAFF COMMENTS) `;1TmQ9 S)tl5f AT itµ Avg ti+l SRN D (°uN59c_:� AS AD BAitJ 6T d A lo;- ti, How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? None (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No (STAFF COMMENTS) t� Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 23 of 2t Packet Pg. 181 8.1.a C. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. / No (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? None (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None 10 (STAFF COMMENTS) t� Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 24 of 28 Packet Pg. 182 8.1.a 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. V/ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None J (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: The area described is currently served by local utilities for electricity, gas, water, refuse, sewage and telephone (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No additional utility use is proposed t-" Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 25 of 28 Packet Pg. 183 8.1.a (STAFF COMMENTS C0,6t t _:I,o y t6 C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. /Z- Zo —14 Signature of Proponent Date Submitted iQ 0 a d W co c m E s 0 a Revised on 9119116 Environmental checklist comp plan ammendment.doc Page 26 of 28 Packet Pg. 184 8.1.a D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal has no effect on water, air emissions, and produces no waste or noice Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? There is no affect on plants, animals, fish or marine life Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: a V- 0 a d co 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? m The proposal uses no energy or natural resources s 0 .r Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Revised on 9119116 P71- SEPA_Checklistinprogress Page 27 of 28 Packet Pg. 185 8.1.a 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposal does not affect any environmentally sensitife arease .' Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal does not affect shoreline use. It changes the designation of the affected area in a manner consistent with the Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? a _There will be no increased demands on transportation, public services and utilities V- 0 a d / CO Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: :5 Wj (Z Did a L� E. Z. SC. M � r'� a 171 1 r 6 yJ A L T O-A Pt L M cC .r QC.Ctj a 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. / To the best of our knowledge, the proposal does not conflict with anhy laws protecting the environment Revised on 9119116 P71_- SEPA_Checklist in progress Page 28 of 28 Packet Pg. 186 8.1.a Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Grimm - Mangelsdorf Addresses and Parcel Numbers of Affected Properties North /\ W/ Carol Way M 0 1 CD 702 950 00548 ©0000706 0 o v, v a o a D 00548900000705 m n 0 o o 0 n 0 Z 612 00548900000801 r� o o 00 ro o c Om ul) N G1 O d MM vo 923 k O 00548900000805 c c o 0 0 0 o UNKNOWN Glen St 00548900000808 v 530 aoo 511 00548900000809 a o 0 00548900000815 00 �o oMi© 522 q 0 q 0 � 505 00548900000810 0 ❑0548900000814 The area of the proposed rezone is bounded on the west by 9th Ave N., on the north by Carol Way, on the east by loth Ave N. and on the south by properties south of Glen St. between 522 9th Ave N. and 505 loth Ave N. Figure 1 Packet Pg. 187 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Public Hearing AM D 2019-0007 City Council September 22, 2020 Brad Shipley, Associate Planner 'nc. 1 sg„ nni 1---� W I-- � �-' Packet Pg. 188 IL 3\IVil PYll • 0 4 r 4 m + AMD2019mOOO'710 Proposal to change Comprehensive Plan map designati $�b from Single Family - Resource' to 'Single Family - Urban 1' A-my��1 -:j F� .. a•_.T ' nll Q VISTAPL VI CASCADED ta5 uuELN _ _ e ALOHA ST! I._ 1 I _ CAROL WAY 51ERM PL — GLEN ST Rp i' M ML LEY ST e ..- a 4 "DAiEYST -z"M1 x � �'' L :r 3. i� _F� w aa• ,y � yx~ +r � ��' # — � �'37 1� `�' _ .- F �, ��§. Ts SPFAGUE ST SPRAGl1E ST _ r Comprehensive Compatible Zoning Classifications $'b Land Use Element Land Use Map Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use. they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map a s follow s: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density. Classifications Units/Acre Activity Center Corridor Development Designated Park or School Site Mix of uses; refer to specific plan designations-%&itliin activity center Mixed use development corridor; refer to specific plan designations %6d—in corridor Public Facility See appropriate category below; also refer to specific activity center discussion ili plan See appropriate category below; also refer to specific comdor discussion in plan P-zone or appropriate R-zone compatible v4rith neighborhood. --S--in--- ------------gl-fo-------------------------------------------------------------I --eFa--yRe-so-c-Sin dRS-12, RS-20 49 ------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Shigle Family, Urban 3 RS-10 < 4.4 Single Family, Urban 2 1 -8 < 5.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� SingleFamily, ---- 1-----------------------------------------R ----- --------------------------- -- I Multi Family - High Density Multi fancily Multi Fanuly — Medium Density R-1.5, R-2.4 RM-2.4, R-3.0 Packet Pg. 193 Zoning Packet Pg. 194 Critical Areas No a k 1: . Is* ALOHA ST r 6�� - d16 L4. CARD H Hr d1fro,'k' indf Creek PY, Too IT Po M., < T I GLE UEN 5 1 m ■ ------------------ In - Brad, ' DALEY 5T dmivw�m MGM �,-� L gm m wkA4i[JE 51 m Packet Pg. 195 ?P-Vi-p-w Critp-ric s the proposal consistent with the comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? 1 Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the 4 requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development? Review Criteria Proposal is compatible with surrounding a rea Limited pubic interest in the proposal SF -Urban 1 i�. Packet Pg. 197 Revie-------------- w rite ri a Not cletrimenta to public health or safety f,rf, { 11. l !,�f lip%111�f'� �; ....... . . . . . . . . . Y V 7 . ...... /Z .7 177777 7777 SF -Urban A Packet Pg. 198 Review Criteria No shift in balance of land uses. The requested comprehensive plan designation allows the same use as currently exists, single family residential SF -Urban 1 k;, Packet Pg. 199 Review Criteria Glen St. is mostly private and does not meet Engineering standards for access widths. Table of Street Standards Number Minimum Dead of Lots R.O.W.* Pavement Curbs End Zone or Units Width Width Gutters Reqrmts RS-20 10 - 15 40' RS-12 10 - 15 40' RS-8, 10 - 1 S 40' 6 Source: Edmonds Community and Development Code, 18.80.010 -Street Standards. 0 i-------------------- Review Criteria Glen St. existing conditions i�e�1�11� Q Packet Pg. 201 J exAFi An L6-ArIa 4JIs the subject parcel physically suitably . the requested land use designation and t anticipated land use development? 8.1.b Staff Recommendation A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to DENY a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1 "for 21 parcels included in this proposal. B. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1 " for the two parcels, 522 and 530- 9th Ave. N., that can provide access via 9th Ave. N. Packet Pg. 203 Questions7 ? Q Packet Pg. 204 8.1.c PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY — RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY — URBAN 1" FOR 21 PROPERTIES LOCATED BETWEEN 9TH AVE. N, CAROL WAY, 10TH AVE. N AND AN UNOPENED ALLEY BETWEEN GLEN AND DALEY STREETS (FILE NUMBER 4868) Mr. Shipley advised that this amendment was publicly -initiated, and tonight's hearing is the first of two. Following the Planning Board's public hearing, they will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold another public and then final action will occur simultaneously with the entire batch of 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments towards the end of the year. Mr. Shipley explained that the proposed amendment seeks to change the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation for 21 properties (7.2 acres) located between 91 Ave. N (west), Carol Way (north), 10' Ave. N (east) and the unopened alley between Glen and Daley Streets (south). Currently, the properties are designated as "Single Family — Resource" (RS-R) and the applicants are proposing to change the designation to "Single Family — Urban 1" (RS-U1). The property is currently developed with single-family homes and is located about one mile from the downtown core. Mr. Shipley emphasized that the current proposal before the Board is not a rezone request. However, if the amendment is approved, it would allow the owners of the affected properties to apply for a subsequent rezone of their properties form Single -Family (RS-12) to either RS-8 or RS-6. All 21 properties were included in the proposal to create a cohesive block. He explained that the RS-U designation allows RS-12 and RS-20 zoning, and the property is currently zoned RS-12. The applicants want to rezone their property to RS-8, which requires a different Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. He shared maps showing the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation and zoning of the subject parcels and surrounding properties. He pointed out that the current zoning results in a large lot designation next to the City's most dense single- family zone. He explained that the RS-R zone is intended to protect critical areas, but there are very few within the subject parcels. The property is located outside of creek buffers and steep slopes. Mr. Shipley reviewed the four criteria that must be met before a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be approved: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding area, and the allowed land uses would not change. However, the amendment would allow for smaller lot sizes. The proposal would result in only limited benefit to the public interest. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare. However, quite a few public comments have been received voicing concern about the negative impacts the amendment would have to the surrounding area. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land sues within the City? Both of the land use designations allow for single-family development so the types of land uses allowed would not change. 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designated and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? There are access constraints for any property owner seeking to short plat the property in a manner that increases the number of lots requiring access from Glen Street, which is primarily used as a private street serving a number of single-family homes. The City's street standards require a minimum right-of- way width of 40 feet and a paved width of 22 feet for streets that provide access to between 10 and 15 lots. At the widest point, Glen Street has about 22 feet of easement, and the pavement width ranges between 14 and 16 feet. It would be very difficult for the street to be widened, and the City doesn't have a lot of interest in doing so. It would be incumbent upon the property owners to join together to grant back property, create a larger easement, and pave a 22-foot roadway. In addition, there are concerns that fire truck apparatus would be unable to turn around in the area. Engineering would require Glen Street to be punched through and brought up to standard if the entire area were to be redeveloped. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 205 8.1.c An image of Glen Street was provided to illustrate the existing conditions, which is a fairly narrow privately - maintained street. However, there is a potential short -plat option for the applicants' properties. The review team identified two parcels (522 and 530 9' Ave. N), one of which is owned by the applicant, where access could be provided via 91 Ave. N and not be subject to the constraints that limit development along Glen Street. Mr. Shipley summarized that, staff is recommending that the Planning Board recommend denial a change in designation from RS-R to RS-U1 for the 21 parcels included in the proposal and recommend approval of a designation change from RS-R to RS-U1 for the two parcels (522 and 530 91 Ave. N) that can provide access via 9" Ave. N. At the request of Board Member Monroe, Mr. Shipley explained that the applicant is seeking to subdivide an existing lot that is only 17,500 square feet. The current RS-12 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 12,000, so the applicant was unable to achieve the second lot. Board Member Monroe reviewed that the City initially determined it would be more appropriate to consider the land use designation change for the entire block rather than a single lot, but then later decided to recommend denial. He asked why the City encouraged the applicant to go through the process if the smaller lots sizes are unfeasible. Mr. Shipley said he has been working with the applicant for a long time, but he did not initially notice the access issues on Glen Street. Sometimes you have to go through more extensive review to identify the issues. The idea was to maintain a cohesive block. Board Member Monroe summarized that staff s current recommendation is to deny the majority of the request, but approve the designation change for the two parcels that have access via 9'h Ave. N. Board Member Monroe asked what would prevent another owner of property in the northwest corner from requesting a designation change to RS-U1. He asked if applying the change to just the two lots near the existing RS-U1 designation could be considered a form of spot zoning. Mr. Shipley responded that, because the two lots are adjacent to properties zoned RS- U1, he would not consider it spot zoning. Mr. Chave suggested that the Board discuss this issue further with staff following the public portion of the hearing. From staffs point of view, this case is unusual and not clear cut. The two parcels are in proximity to the RS-8 zoning, but they also edge into an area that is zoned RS-10. The decision will come down to judgement. Board Member Monroe said that, as an engineer, he likes straight lines, and staffs recommendation would seem to create a jagged tooth. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that it might be appropriate for staff to address redevelopment proposals by first determining whether there is sufficient capacity on the streets to provide adequate access. Board Member Cheung pointed out that staff is recommending approval of the land use designation change for the two properties in the southwest corner of the block, which seems to be a small area. He asked if this would be setting precedence for other property owners who border denser zones to request the same. Mr. Chave answered not necessarily. He explained that there are other situations in Edmonds where portions of the same block are zoned differently. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that there is a graduated change of zoning in the neighborhood centers. While entire blocks may not have the same zone, the corner of the block closest to the Neighborhood Business zone, for example, might have a different lot size. While he doesn't think that zoning needs to be done in squares, it should be contiguous rather than spot zoning. In this case, the change would simply extend the RS-U1 zoning to the two adjacent lots. Carolyn Mangelsdorf, Edmonds, said she and Robert Grimm are the applicants and they live at 530 — 9`h Ave. N. Robert Grimm, Edmonds, said he fully understands the concerns about Glen Street, but these concerns would be more appropriately addressed as part of future rezone application rather than at the Comprehensive Plan amendment stage. While the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation would allow the rezone, it would not necessarily guarantee approval of a rezone. Ms. Mangelsdorf pointed out there are already four properties within the 21-property area that fall below the required size of 12,000 square feet. Therefore, they are out of compliance with the current RS-R designation. Barbara Chessler, Edmonds, pointed out that, even if the land -use designation is changed for the entire 21-property area, it wouldn't impact property owners on Glen Street. The street isn't big enough and you would need a zoning change for each lot anyway. Mr. Shipley concurred. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 206 Aaron Dean, Edmonds, said he opposes the proposed amendment. There is more than one parcel that would meet the same criteria as 530 — 9' Ave. N. He voiced concern that homeowners could be forced to revise the street over their objections because some parcel holders want to subdivide and redevelop. He pointed out that the lot at 530 — 9' Ave. N actually accesses off of Glen Street even though it has a 9'k' Ave. address. Although subdividing the lot would result in a type of flag lot, the ingress and egress would end up being off of Glen Street. Anne -Marie Laporte, Edmonds, agreed with the comments made previously around spot zoning. She commented that changing the land use for just the two properties seems arbitrary. She said she grew up on Daley Street, moved away, but came back with her family because she liked the walkability and character of the neighborhood. She is very concerned that the City is considering arbitrary changes. When reviewing the proposal, she asked the Board to keep in mind what is best for the community and specifically the neighborhood. She said she is opposed to the change for all of the lots, and not just most of them. Bob Schied, Edmonds, asked how the written comments would contribute to the Board's decision. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board considers both written and oral comments when making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Schied asked about the process for Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Chave said that, typically, the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing, but that is dependent on their discussions after the public portion of the hearing is closed. Mr. Schied said that even though rezoning is an entirely different process, approving the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation as proposed would enable all 21 property owners to apply for a rezone in the future. Mr. Chave agreed that, if the Planning Board recommends and the City Council concurs that the amendment should apply to all 21 lots, any and all of the lots could request a zoning change. Mr. Schied said he has spoken with a number of property owners in the area who are concerned about the propagation of further density throughout the neighborhood if all 21 properties are included in the map change. He asked the Board to consider the broader general perspectives that have been voiced in both oral and written comments. Beyond the density increase, Mr. Schied said he also has traffic safety concerns. Due to high traffic volumes and speed at the crest of the hill, it is difficult to enter 9'h Ave. N from Daley Street. This problem will only get worse if more people park on 9' Ave. N. If the zoning is changed, perhaps some parking restrictions will also be needed to avoid safety issues and concerns. Jerry Capretta, Edmonds, said he lives three houses behind the subject parcels to the east. He asked if the majority of written comments received to date were against the proposed amendment to change the land use designation for 21 properties. Mr. Shipley confirmed that all of the comments indicated opposition. Mr. Capretta said he joins with others to oppose the amendment for the same reasons mentioned by the previous three speakers. He asked the Board to deny the proposed amendment. Theresa Ford, Edmonds, observed that Edmonds offers a wonderful sense of openness, greenspace, gardens, etc. The subject properties are located in a very protected and quiet space, even with 9' Ave. N. She pointed out that 9' Ave. N is a steep hill, and she has had several close calls trying to cross it. Site distance is a problem for cars turning into or out of Glen Street. The streets in the neighborhood are not designed to have a lot of cars coming in and out, and the proposed land use designation change could result in serious problems. More cars parking on 9' Ave. N would make the situation significantly worse. She summarized that she is opposed to the rezone and the negative impact it would have on the character of the neighborhood. She asked that the Board recognize that neighborhoods, such as hers, are treasures that need to be protected. Jericho Manahan, Edmonds, said he, too, is opposed to changing the land use designation for all 21 lots, as it could potentially change the neighborhood environment. He said he was pleased to hear the Planning Board Members raise concerns about spot zoning and setting a precedent for other property owners to request changes, too. He concluded that the proposed amendment would be detrimental to the character of Edmonds, and he asked that the Board recommend denial. Laurena Laporte, Edmonds, said she has lived in her neighborhood for 41 years, and she loves it. It is not overcrowded, and the neighbors all know each other. They also have privacy, greenspace and beauty. She is concerned that this will be lost, and it won't come back. She encouraged the Board to oppose the proposed amendment. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 207 Mark Demaray, Edmonds, said he also lives in the neighborhood where the subject parcels are located and he supports the comments that have been provided thus far. He asked if the proposed amendment would have any other impact other than an increase in density. Mr. Shipley said that density is the primary difference between the two designations (RS-R and RS-U1). The height and lot coverage requirements would be the same, but the setbacks would change. Mr. Demaray asked if the applicant is proposing RS-6 or RS-8 zoning. Mr. Shipley reminded them that the rezone would be a separate process, but either zone would be allowed in the RS-U1 designation. Mr. Chave cautioned that the zoning would not automatically change if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, agreed that approving the amendment for all 21 properties would set a precedent and have a significant impact on the neighborhood. She noted that, while the properties along Daley Street are designated as RS-U1, the properties further north were likely protected because the topography slopes to the northwest. She asked if all of the emails the City received regarding the subject of the hearing were included in the Board's packet. Mr. Shipley said many were received after the packet was prepared, but they are all part of the public record. They will not be read into the record as part of the public hearing, but they were forwarded to the Board Members prior to the meeting. Ms. Dotsch voiced concern that the Zoom meeting format restricts the public's ability to provide and listen to public comments. She asked that, in the future, written public comments should be read into the record if public hearings are conducted via Zoom. Mr. Chave said that would be extremely difficult to do. Oftentimes, they are quite long. All of the public comments are included in the material that goes before the Planning Board and City Council. People who want to participate at the City Council hearing will have an opportunity to review all of the comments made at the Planning Board hearing, both written and oral. Ms. Dotsch suggested that the public comments should be posted in one location. Ms. Dotsch reminded them that the City's Housing Commission is currently reviewing density in Edmonds, and there is a push to increase density in single-family neighborhoods. Those who value the current neighborhoods in Edmonds may want to listen to and participate in that process. Elena Sucio, Edmonds, said she agrees with all of the other public comments and is opposed to the proposed amendment. Charles Laporte, Seattle, said his mother lives in Edmonds, and he knows the area extremely well. He said he is also opposed to the proposed amendment. He echoed Board Member Monroe's concern that approval of the amendment would be considered spot zoning. Even if all 21 properties are included, the City has acknowledged that only the two lots would be candidates for subdividing since they are the only ones that could be accessed from 91h Ave. N. The other lots would have to be accessed via Glen Street, which doesn't have the capacity to accommodate the additional trips. The proposed amendment appears to be a favor for just one property owner, which seems unjust and very arbitrary. The public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board started its deliberation. Board Member Crank said she read all of the written comments that were forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting. She echoed the concerns raised by both the Board Members and the public that it does not seem feasible to approve this application. She emphasized that she appreciates that anyone can apply for a change, even if it ends up being denied. She expressed her belief that the proposed amendment would result in spot zoning and create more issues than problem solve. Her recommendation is to deny the application. Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Shipley to explain how the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Criteria 1). Mr. Shipley said that, in this case, the proposed amendment would not change the uses that are allowed on the site. That being said, there is not a lot of information that would support a finding that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Monroe voiced his opinion that being contiguous to another zone is not enough to warrant a change. More planning and forethought are needed. The City has a good Comprehensive Plan, and he cautioned against arbitrary changes. He is concerned that it could set a precedent for other property owners making similar requests down the road. In the interest of being equitable to everyone, he recommended denial of the proposed amendment. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 208 8.1.c Board Member Cheung pointed out that all of the emails received to date regarding the subject of the hearing would be attached to the record and available to the public, which is no different than an in -person public hearing. They do not read all of the written correspondence during the public hearing. Board Member Cheung clarified that the staff recommendation is to deny the proposed amendment for all 21 properties. Instead, staff is recommending approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map change for just the two parcels (522 and 530 — 9'h Ave. N). Mr. Shipley explained that Criteria 4 requires that the subject parcels be physically suited for the requested land use designation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the change makes sense in a larger context. It is possible for the Board to recommend approval of the change for just those two properties. Board Member Cheung summarized that most of the comments were based on the proposal that all 21 parcels would change to RS-U1, but that is not actually what staff is recommending the Commission consider. He is interested in knowing if there is strong public opposition to just those two parcels being changed. He said he is not sure the public clearly understands the staff s recommendation. He voiced concern about changing the land use designation for just two parcels just because they are adjacent to RS-U1 zoning. This could set a precedent for anyone else in the City to do the same. Again, he said staff is not recommending that all 21 parcels be changed, but just the two at 522 and 530 — 9'h Ave. N. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the applicants approached the Board a few months ago to discuss their hopes for their single-family lot. At that time, staff suggested that the proposal should include a larger area. She understands that Daley Street supports the properties that are designated as RS-U1 to the south of the subject parcels. She also understands staffs desire to consider the entire block as part of the proposal. However, she asked why staff didn't change the proposal once it was determined that Glen Street could not adequately accommodate a greater density. She also asked if staff considered changing the proposal to just include the properties that front on 91 Ave. N, Carol Way, and 10'h Ave. N. Mr. Shipley said that, based on the review criteria, all of the middle properties would need to be excluded, and only a few properties on Carol Way and 101 Ave. N would be potential candidates for the denser zoning. He suggested this would raise concerns about spot zoning. He noted that most of the residents in the area voiced opposition to the amendment, so it didn't make sense to include the other properties. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the only properties that could potentially be redeveloped at the greater density allowed by the RS-U1 designation would be those on 9'h Ave. N, 10`h Ave. N. and Carol Way. However, the City doesn't encourage land use and/or zoning changes that apply to just small areas. Mr. Chave agreed that the City tries to avoid discontinuous areas. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the applicant's properties are adjacent to other properties that are designated RS-U1, and the City no longer has an interest in expanding the amendment to include the additional 19 properties. She said that, oftentimes, adjacency is what starts the pattern of redevelopment. She asked staff to explain how changing the designation for just the two properties would be a reasonable approach. Mr. Shipley said the City reviewed the criteria and discussed options that would allow the applicants to succeed in what they were trying to accomplish. Changing the land use for just a few properties is not how the City typically approaches change, but providing the recommendation has created some good talking points, and it is up to the Board to decide the appropriate recommendation to forward to the City Council. Board Member Rubenkonig emphasized that, if the proposed amendment is approved for just the two properties, any subsequent rezone would require access from 9'h Ave. N. She also clarified that if the change is approved for the two properties, the applicants could submit a subsequent rezone application that would potentially allow the two lots to be subdivided into three lots. There would be one additional single-family home adding traffic to 9'h Ave. N. She asked if a traffic study would be required as part of a subsequent rezone application, and Mr. Shipley answered that a traffic study would not be required if the rezone only included the two properties. The property at 522 — 9'h Ave. N is about 13,000 square feet. Even if it is rezoned to RS-8, it couldn't be subdivided. As per the staffs recommendation, the net potential gain would be one additional lot. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the two lots have access from 91h Ave. N, and Mr. Shipley said the applicant currently accesses the property from Glen Street, but the lot is wide enough to create a flag lot and gain access from 9'h Ave. N along the southern border of the property. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that Glen Street would no longer be used to access the subject parcels. She said she supports the staff s recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to RS- U1 for the two properties located at 522 and 530 — 9'h Ave. N. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 209 Student Representative Bryan said it is important to review the application through the lens of the four review criteria. It only seems logical to deny the application for either the two parcels or all 21. Clearly, the change is not in the public interest and people have voiced a number of safety concerns. Therefore, the application fails to meet Criterion 1 and 2. Board Member Pence said he read and considered all of the written public comments that were submitted prior to the meeting. He also visited the site, driving around the entire block and down Glen Street. With the exception of one parcel under construction on Glen Street, the entire block appears to be developed with very substantial single-family homes. In the event that the amendment is approved for all 21 properties, it wouldn't impact existing development since people would not likely tear down the larger houses to build slightly smaller ones. He said he supports the staff recommendation to deny the request to re -designate all 21 parcels to RS-U1 for all the reasons stated. He also supports the staff recommendation to approve the change for the two parcels at 530 and 522 — 91 Ave. N. for the reasons outlined in the Staff Report. However, as the alternate member of the Planning Board, he would not be eligible to vote on the matter since all of the Board Members were present. Vice Chair Rosen said he leans towards recommending denial of the proposed amendment, for either all 21 parcels or just the 2 parcels discussed. He expressed his belief that the change would compromise the integrity of the City's zoning process, as well as the integrity of the neighborhood. It would also create an undesirable precedent. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS TO THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY -RESOURCE TO SINGLE-FAMILY URBAN 1 FOR THE 21 PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE -FAMILY -RESOURCE TO SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 FOR THE TWO PARCELS (522 AND 530 — 9TH AVE. N) THAT CAN PROVIDE ACCESS VIA 9TH AVE. N. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Cloutier explained that his motion to deny was based on the review criteria. While staff explained how the amendment meets Criteria 2, 3 and 4 to his satisfaction, he is still unclear as to how it meets Criteria 1. He said he does not believe the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or in the public interest, and none of the public comments were in support of the proposal. Board Member Rubenkonig said her interpretation of the term "public interest" is that it is meant to express the interest of all citizens of Edmonds. Property owners in the neighborhood have clearly presented their concerns and requests, but she cautioned against interpreting these comments to be all public interest. Chair Robles said he anticipates more requests of this type in the future, and the action the Board takes may have a basis in a lot of future decision. There are a number of complexities to the issue, including the safety, health and welfare of citizens, as well as the somewhat exotic terrain and public comments. If they were dealing with a flat piece of land, they could set a clear precedent, but that is not the case in this situation. It is important to consider every nuance of the discussion so it can benefit future discussions as the trend continues throughout the City. Board Member Monroe commented that it is up to the applicant to show how the amendment is in the public interest, and this was not done. In this case, the public interest is the surrounding community because it doesn't have a bearing on the rest of the City. The people who care about the proposal do not support it. Chair Robles noted that, in the future, there will be other opportunities for people to capitalize on their land, such as an ADU. These discussions are currently taking place at the Housing Commission level. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 210 8.1.c Board Member Cheung agreed that the amendment is inconsistent with Criteria 1. Changing the Comprehensive Plan for just two properties is for a private interest rather than the public interest. He is also worried about setting a precedent for changes in other areas of the City. THE CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES, ROSEN, CLOUTIER, MONROE, CHEUNG AND CRANK VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Board Member Rubenkonig said she agrees with the explanation provided in the Staff Report to support staff's recommendation. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board's recommendation will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing (date to be determined), and notices will be sent out to all parties of record. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY — MEDIUM DENSITY" FOR TWO VACANT PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA (TAX I.D. 003700800300701 AND 00370800300702) (FILE NUMBER 4869) Mr. Shipley explained that the proposal seeks to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Multi -Family Residential — Medium Density (RM- MD). The immediate area is developed with a mixture of uses, including a post office, local retail shops and services, professional offices, restaurants, multi -family residential and single-family residential. Perrinville Village, a new 42-unit, fee -simple townhome development, is under construction in Lynnwood. The property has been zoned BN for many years, which allows for low -density, strip -mall type development. The height limit is 25 feet, and the setback requirement is 25 feet. The proposed RM-MD designation would allow either RM-2.4 or RM-3 zoning. Mr. Shipley said the Perrin Village property was rezoned from NB to Multi -Family Residential (RM-3) in 1985 and is currently developed with five, 4-unit buildings. In 1987, a 1.2-acre parcel was rezoned from RM-3 to BN to allow the United States Postal Service to expand its facilities. Mr. Shipley reviewed the four criteria that must be met before a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be approved: Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The Comprehensive Plan does not mention a specific vision for the Perrinville area. The neighborhood is generally recognized as one that "includes commercial activities." However, there is one goal policy in the Transportation Element that identifies Perrinville. Goal 5(13)(2)(a)(1) states that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. Both Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave. W are classified as either collector or minor arterial streets, depending on the direction. If the proposal had been for property located on a local street, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? The site was rezoned to BN in 1962. While he understands the desire for more commercial development, the site has been zoned as such for 50 years but hasn't been developed yet. The amendment offers potential to add to the "missing middle" housing type. The applicant's current intent is to develop the site with 6 or 7 townhomes. Any development along this section would require streetscape improvements to improve walkability and provide some type of connection from the site to the street. All of these could be seen as in the public interest and consistent with the health and safety of the City's citizens. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land sues within the City? The proposal would result in a slight shift (about 1 acre) from commercial to residential land uses. However, the shift would not disrupt the balance of land uses within the City. The proposed use is compatible with existing commercial uses, and office and daycare uses are allowed in the RM zone as primary conditional uses. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 211 8.1.d From: Jerry Capretta To: Shipley, Brad Subject: comment on File #AMD2019-0007 Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 3:15:43 PM comment on File #AMD2019-0007 Regarding Grimm/Mangelsdorf proposal to amend comprehensive plan As a property owner three houses east of the Grimm/Mangelsdorf property, and situated in the proposed amendment area, we oppose the passage of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map. Thank you, Jerry and Susie Capretta Jerry Capretta 425 478 2618 938 Glen St. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 0 Packet Pg. 212 8.1.d From: Aaron Dean To: Shipley. Brad Cc: Kelly Cannon Subject: FW: AMD2019-0007 Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 3:33:25 PM Mr. Shipley, I want to let you know that we (Kelly Cannon and 1) that I are opposed to the rezoning and I do intend to participate in the hearing tomorrow. Our address is 941 Glen St. Edmonds. Thank you, Aaron Dean Packet Pg. 213 8.1.d From: T. Ford To: Shipley, Brad Subject: File Number AMD2019-0007 Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:03:03 PM City of Edmonds Planning Board Attn: Brad Shipley I am writing to oppose the proposal amending the Comprehensive Plan Map change referenced in File Number AMD2019-0007 because it would significantly and permanently cause damage to the neighborhood and area in consideration. Edmonds is a meticulously planned city, which is why there are many constraints on redevelopment in this area. Streets and lots are of standard sizes, and consistent layouts. This proposed zoning change and 2 potential backyard houses are inconsistent with Edmonds properties. It would resemble unincorporated Snohomish County. The infrastructure is not built for increased capacity from rezoning. This includes: • Concerns about insufficient storm drainage capacity: o Large storms cause overflows and street flooding on Daley St., and flooding in homes on Daley street o Daley street not yet built for current flooding capacity o New construction would cause increased impervious surfaces, increasing flooding problems • Increased traffic/decreased safety: o Speeding traffic on 9th Avenue makes crossing that street dangerous. My elderly mother uses that crosswalk on a daily basis. o The section of lots in question is especially concerning because the steep grade of the hill on 9th between Carol Way and Daley street causes very limited visibility o Public transportation no longer serves 9th Avenue. • Limited access/noise pollution: o Garbage trucks, delivery trucks, and emergency vehicles will have limited access to the narrow driveways that will result from this rezone. Without sufficient space to turn around, trucks would have to back out, beeping at all hours. o Narrow driveways will have trucks driving right by people's houses and back yards • Neighborhood ambiance: o Edmonds has strict codes for new construction including presenting a street side. It is one reason why Edmonds is known for its beauty. Allowing people to build in confined back yards would not meet this code. Additionally, the new buildings would destroy green spaces, increase impervious surfaces, and affect the neighborhood presence. • Decreased privacy: o Allowing houses to be created out of confined back yards takes away the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. o The city is currently designed to have back yards facing back yards, and a front street side for ambiance and ease of deliveries, garbage service, etc. • Quoted from the Edmonds City website on variance, this change would cause: "loss of property value, scenic view, or use of surrounding properties." Edmonds is a unique place, and houses in the Sprague -Glen Street 900 block area are designed together to provide views while protecting the neighbors' views. For instance, our flat lot at 921 Daley was not built at grade, but sunk 5 ft into the ground to provide views to the neighborhood, specifically, but not limited to 918 Daley, 922 Daley, 928 Daley, and 919 Sprague St. The view line for all of these houses would be blocked and or diminished by the proposed new zoning, and building of 2 backyard homes. Unfortunately, the 5 ft our house was lowered, not only diminished our view, but also causes flooding in the basement during large storms. The last large storm August 29, 2013 caused $30,000 Packet Pg. 214 8.1.d worth of damage and was settled out of court with the City of Edmonds. This proposed rezoning would significantly increase and potentially double the density of this area. In addition to creating traffic problems, decreasing safety, and causing problems with infrastructure, it would permanently diminish the neighborhood, and beauty of this area. Thanks for your time and consideration. Kind regards, Theresa Ford U Virus -free. www.avast.com Packet Pg. 215 8.1.d From: daarberson(atfrontier.com To: Shipley, Brad Cc: Silvia Heldridae Subject: Re: File Number AMD2019-0007 Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 12:10:57 PM Mr. Shipley, Thank you for responding to our questions so quickly. We would like the two sentences below (in red) to become part of the record. We are writing to strongly oppose the amended Comprehensive Plan Map designation (from Single Family -Resource to Single Family -Urban 1) for the 21 properties listed in AMD2019- 0007. We have lived on Glen Street for over 40 years and we feel that amending the designation and the changes to the street that could follow will lower our property values and adversely affect our quality of life. Richard Garberson (property owner/resident) Doris Garberson (property owner/resident) 934 Glen Street Silvia Heldridge (property owner/resident) 923 Glen Street 930 Glen Street Packet Pg. 216 8.1.d Anne -Marie La Porte 619 A Ave Edmonds WA 98020 Mr. Brad Shipley Second Floor City Hall 121 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020 Dear Mr. Shipley, This letter is in response to the solicitation of public comment for AMD2020-0007/0008. I am opposed to the change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family - Urban 1" for every single parcel included in the proposal. I grew up on Daley Street in Edmonds, moved to Seattle as a young adult, and moved back to Edmonds to raise my daughter. I've not regretted this decision. My daughter and her friends are able to be kids —walking and riding their bicycles freely around the streets of the Edmonds bowl .Changing the density of this area would permanently change the character of this neighborhood. While I've lived in Edmonds for more than 40 years, I've never participated in the public hearing process. I'm writing to you now because I'm deeply concerned about changing the family friendly `neighborhood feel'that we currently enjoy in the downtown Edmonds core. Edmonds is an attractive place to visit and reside. Please do not support a decision to change the designation between 9th Ave. N (west), Carol Way (north), 10th Ave N (east), and the unopened alley between Glen St. and Daley St.(south). It would adversely impact the walkable and family friendly character of the current neighborhood. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully, Anne -Marie La Porte Packet Pg. 217 8.1.d 8/25/2020 To Brad Shipley, Associate Planner, I am writing on behalf of myself and my elderly mother to oppose the proposed change in zoning from Single Family -Resource to Single Family -Urban 1 for the properties located between 9th Ave. N., Carol Way, 101h Ave. N., and an unopened, unimproved right of way between Glen and Daley St. Please see file number AMD2019-0007. Our family has always had deep appreciation for this Edmonds neighborhood, in which we have resided for 41 years. The current lot sizes are perfect, as they have fostered our historically friendly, respectful, and quiet neighborhood culture. They have allowed for families to have green space and privacy, while maintaining positive relationships with neighbors. We love walking in this well -planned and uncrowded neighborhood. It is Edmonds at its best, and it is uncommon outside of Edmonds. Up zoning the aforementioned area would unquestionably, severely compromise these rare neighborhood qualities, and so we oppose it. Edmonds was planned and these lots protected for years, because they are a benefit to the community. Changing to Single Family -Urban 1 zoning is inconsistent with decades of earlier neighborhood planning and zoning. A denser neighborhood would not be an improved neighborhood, and, sadly, the neighborhood "feel" would be unalterably changed. We have spoken to our neighbors about this issue, and they are opposed to the zoning changes, as well. I respectfully request to be kept informed on the status of this, as my mother and I are both very concerned about the proposed change to zoning. Thank you for your time and your consideration of our feedback. Laurena La Porte Ilaporte79@hotmail.com 921 Daley St., Edmonds, WA Packet Pg. 218 8.1.d From: William Ouinn To: Shipley. Brad Cc: William Quinn Subject: File Number AMD2019-0007 Date: Friday, August 21, 2020 8:55:21 AM Good Morning Mr. Shipley, I am the property owner at 615 10th Ave N., Edmonds, Wa, 98020. 1 write in response to the notice of rezone of my neighborhood from Single Famiy- Resource to Single Family- Urban 1. 1 am against this rezone. The change to single family -Urban 1 would have a deleterious effect on my property value, I reside at the east end of Glen St. at 10th Ave N. There currently is a walkway on Glen at this location and a fence designates the separation of my property from that of the city walkway on Glen. If the rezone occurs, as I understand it, Glen St. would be extended through this walkway area. If that is the case, I will lose part of my property and the street will be closer to my home. Traffic would increase on the street. The many people from around the area who use the walkway for their daily walks, walking their dog, etc., would lose this quiet convenience. This change would have a very negative and harmful impact on the whole neighborhood by the increase in traffic on the street. The size of the lots in the rezone area are larger than the lots from Daley St. south. This is a feature of the area that attracted many if not all of the home owners. The rezone would threaten this feature by giving a few the right to build more residences on their property which, again, would have a negative effect our home values. It would also threaten the views that we now enjoy. This neighborhood is a unique area of Edmonds that does not need a radical change that would alter the lifestyle that those of us who live here currently enjoy and cherish. I want to ensure that I am a party of record to retain the right to administrative appeal should the decision by the Planning Board and/or the City Council approve this rezone. Thaink you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bill Quinn 615 10th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 425 678-6928 Packet Pg. 219 8.1.d r a Packet Pg. 220 8.1.d From: Bob Scheid To: Shipley, Brad Subject: Fwd: SEPA file# AMD2019-007 Date: Friday, August 21, 2020 11:48:54 AM Hi Brad - thanks so much for promptly calling me to reply to my questions. I would like to express my concerns related to SEPA file# AMD2019-007. First my concerns are related to re -zoning my property and my neighbors into a Single Family Urban 1 categorization. This change can accommodate both 6000 sq/ft and 8000sq/ft lot sizes, which by definition increases density. This is concerning for a number of reasons both near term and long term. While reducing the potential lot size designation may offer those property owners who could subdivide their lot with a financial windfall now or in the future, it eventually can change the character of the neighborhood with more traffic, on street parking and reduced privacy. I bought into this neighborhood because the neighborhood was well established with beautiful yards and space between homes offering places for kids to play in their yard, and ample off street parking. As we know 9th Avenue is a main arterial through Edmonds, which brings with it on -going safety and speeding concerns. As we increase density it can result in more on street parking. Glen St. already has safety concerns with egress/regress. It is quite concerning pulling out if Glen St, turing north of south. As you pull out to turn South, cars driving north come over the crest of the hill with limited visibility, typically way too fast, and often it can be too close for comfort before you can safely get into the south bound lane. Additionally, often there is parking on the south side 9th Ave. north of Glen. This causes a lack of visibility of cars heading south on 9th Ave, and results in similar safety concerns. While my wife and I are relatively new to Edmonds, having moved here 3 years ago. We love to walk and enjoy the quant character, friendly neighbors, and overall feeling of safety we have come to know and appreciate. Unfortunately given its popularity it's driving pressure to increase density in the bowl area. With density comes more traffic, parking and safety concerns as I have expressed. For these reasons I am concerned and oppose a change in the designation from Single Family to any of the Urban designations accommodating existing lot subdivision. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Bob and Sue Scheid 604 9th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bob Scheid <robert.a.scheid2&gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:31 AM Subject: SEPA file# AMD2019-007 To: <brad,shiple cr edmondswa.gov>, Bob Scheid <robert.a.scheid2&gmail.com> HI Brad - I would appreciate some clarification on how to submit a concern relating to this matter. Can I send my comments and concerns directly to you via email? Additionally, the mail notification says Appeals must be submitted in writing, citing concerns and reasons for Packet Pg. 221 8.1.d appeal along with the required fee? Is this "Determination of Nonsignificance already approved, pending document appeal? Do we need to pay a fee to submit to our concerns? If so I need to inform a number of neighbors planning to express concerns via a letter and/or email. FYI - there are a number of elderly citizens in this area, and a couple of them have advised me of their concerns and unfortunately are not technically capable of knowing how to log into a Zoom meeting. At least one said they would attend in person which isn't an option. Please reply by e-mail or feel free to call. Bob Scheid 604 9th Ave N. Edmonds. WA 98020 425-788-8386 Packet Pg. 222 8.1.d From: Joanna "Wu" Sun To: Shipley, Brad Cc: Ben Sun Subject: Notice of Public Hearing: File Number AMD2019-0007 Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 3:17:22 PM Hello Mr. Shipley, We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal as addressed in File #AMD2019-0007, which would change 21 properties, of which we are one, from Single Family -Resource to Single Family -Urban 1. We own and currently reside at 943 Glen St., and do not want to see any potential increase in housing density or amendments to our property or neighboring properties. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Benjamin and Joanna Sun 943 Glen St Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 223 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Public Hearing on Planning Board's recommendation to Approve a Comprehensive Plan map designation change for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi - Family Residential - Medium Density." Staff Lead: Brad Shipley Department: Planning Division Preparer: Brad Shipley Background/History This proposal seeks to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential - Medium Density." The property -owners indicated that they are interested in to developing the site with townhomes, but the current zoning designation of "Neighborhood Business" does not allow multi -family residential as a primary use. If this amendment is approved, the property -owner will be able to apply to rezone their property to either Multi -family Residential-2.4 (RM-2.4) or RM-3. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends City Council tentatively approve the Comprehensive Plan map change from Neighborhood Business to Multi -family Residential- Medium Density. Note: Since Comprehensive Plan amendments can generally be updated only once per year and there are other Comprehensive Plan amendments under consideration for this year, all tentatively approved amendments will be brought back to City Council for final approval at the end of year. Narrative See Staff Report, attached. Attachments: Staff Report Presentation Planning Board Minutes Packet Pg. 224 8.2.a /Ic. 189\j CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: The City of dmonds Planning Board From: / rad Shipley, Associate Date: August 19 2020 I 00IRK1ZIZII:1 Public Hearing: Wednesday August 26, 2020 at 7:00 PM City Council Chambers / Public Safety Complex 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA I. INTRODUCTION A. SUMMARY This proposal seeks to change the comprehensive plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential — Medium Density." The property -owner has indicated that they are interested in to developing the site with townhomes, but the current zoning designation of "Neighborhood Business" does not allow multi -family residential as a primary use. If this amendment is approved, the property -owner will be able to apply to rezone their property to either Multi -Family Residential — 2.4 (RM-2.4) or RM-3. B. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Hans Korve, DMP Inc. 2. Site: Two vacant parcels (00370800300701 and 00370800300702) totaling 1.04 acres (Attachment 3). 3. Request: To change the Comprehensive Plan designation from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi Family — Medium Density" 4. Review Process: Legislative "Type V" actions — final decisions are made by City Council after reviewing Planning Board's recommendation. 5. Maior Issue: Compliance with ECDC 20.00 (changes to the Comprehensive Plan). Packet Pg. 225 8.2.a II. FINDINGS A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), found in Chapter 43.21C RCW, is a state law that requires the City to conduct an environmental impact review of any action that might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The review includes the completion of an environmental checklist by the City. A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued on August 11, 2020 (Attachment 10). The appeals period expires August 26, 2020. If no appeals are filed by this date, the SEPA determination is final. B. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division, Fire District, Public Works Department, and the Building Division. No comments were received from the Fire District, Public Works Department, or the Building Division. Engineering requested a traffic study be provided with any future rezoning of the properties (Attachment 7). C. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, four residents provided public comments (Attachment 9) in response to this application. All four were against the proposal. A summary of their concerns are as follows: • Desire for new commercial development instead of housing; • Fear of losing privacy; • Desire for open space for wildlife; • Concern over increased soil erosion caused by traffic. D. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Section 20.03 of the ECDC, a notice of the public hearing was posted on the City of Edmonds' website, published in the Everett Herald, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. All legal requirements for public notice have been satisfied (Attachment 8). E. SETTING 1. Proposed designation and development of the site. Proposal is to change the comprehensive plan map designation for the subject parcels from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential — Medium Density" This is a non -project action; no development is proposed with this application. If approved, the applicant has indicated they would like to develop the site with townhomes. 2. Current designation and development of the site. Current comprehensive plan designation of site is "Neighborhood Commercial." Property is zoned "Neighborhood Business" (BN). The site is undeveloped. 2 l P a g e Packet Pg. 226 8.2.a 3. Designation and development in the vicinity. Comprehensive plan land use designation in the area include the following: Single Family — Resource, Single Family — Urban 1, Single Family — Urban 3, Open Space, Neighborhood Commercial, and Multi Family — Medium Density. The immediate area is developed with a mixture of uses, including: a post office, local retail shops and services, professional offices, restaurants, multi -family residential, and single family residential. Perrinville Village, a new 42-unit, fee -simple townhome development, is under construction in Lynnwood. 4. Previous proposals in the vicinity. Staff review of city records found two rezone applications from 1� nearby Perrinville properties that were approved in the 1980's. These rezones involved similar land use exchanges as this `5 application —multi -family and neighborhood business. In 1985, a rezone from "Neighborhood Business" (BN) to 4z "Multi -Family Residential" (RM-3) was approved for a 2.2-acre ` e parcel on 76' Ave. W. One year later, Perrin Village was IL developed —which consists of five four -unit multi -family buildings. -` In 1987, a 1.2-acre parcel was rezoned from RM-3 to BN to allow the United States Postal Service to expand their facilities. n Epp F. ZONING COMPLIANCE w f i A zoning change is not required as a condition of the proposal. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year. Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may only be adopted if the following findings are made: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and in the public interest? The comprehensive plan mentions "Perrinville" four times, but does not outline a specific vision for the area. The neighborhood is generally recognized in the comprehensive plan as an area that "includes commercial activities." There is one goal policy in the Transportation Element which identifies Perrinville: Goal S: Create a complete and connected system that offers efficient transportation options Policy 5.11 Explore future funding for a city -based circulator bus that provides local shuttle service between neighborhoods (Firdale Village, Perrinville, Five Corners, Westgate) and downtown. Source: City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, 2017. p. 233 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 227 8.2.a The Land Use Element provides the following goals and policies for residential development: Residential Goal B. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: B.2 Multiple. The City's development policies encourage sustainable high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. B.2.a Location Policies. B.2. a. i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. B.2.b Compatibility Policies. B.2. b. i RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. B.2. b. ii The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. B.2. b. iii The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. B.2.c. General Design Policies. B.2. c. i The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept. B.2.c.ii Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. Source: City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, 2017. p. 67-68 Most of the multi -family residential housing policies above are design -related and addressed during design review. One housing policy touches on locating multi -family uses near collector or arterial streets. Olympic View Dr. and 76t1i Ave. W., are both classified as either collector or minor arterial depending on the direction. North and west directions are classified collector and southern and eastern directions are minor arterial (Attachment 5). Staff finds the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city? 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 228 In 1962, while still under Snohomish County jurisdiction, the subject site was rezoned from an unknown zoning designation to "Neighborhood Business" —the county equivalent to Edmonds' BN zone. Edmonds annexed land that contained the subject site in 1982. The subject site has remained vacant in the 58 years since the property was rezoned by Snohomish County for commercial use. No records were found during staff review that indicate any past expressed interest in developing the site prior to this proposal. Residents have indicated that they would like to see business options expanded in the area. Small businesses located within largely residential communities help encourage healthy activities, such as walking and biking, and provide third places for neighbors to come together. Small businesses often rely on local residents for survival. The spread out nature of single family development works against the interest of small businesses by limiting the pool of potential customers and increases to traffic as customers tend to choose driving once a walk exceeds ten minutes or fails to stimulate their senses. Additionally, the proposal could provide much needed "missing middle" housing options for the community. Subject site's 76th Ave. W. frontage is on left side of image. Pedestrian safety and comfort improvements along 76th Ave. W. could improve Staff finds the proposal to be in the neighborhood walkability. public interest, and an improvement to the health, safety, and welfare of the city. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? There is a small shift (1.04 acres) from commercial to residential land uses; however, the shift does not disrupt the balance of land uses within the city. The proposed use is compatible with existing commercial uses. Office and day-care uses are allowed under RM zoning as primary conditional uses. 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The site has access to utilities in 76t' Ave. W. right-of-way. Edmonds has a service agreement with Lynnwood to receive sewage from nearby Edmonds properties. Recent upgrades to Lynnwood's sewer system has increased its capacity and there are no issues with connecting to their facilities (Lester Rubstello, Lynnwood Deputy Public Works Director, personal communication, August 18, 2020). 5 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 229 Regarding compatibility with adjoining land uses, small-scale, multi -family development provides a transition between single family residential and neighborhood commercial uses. Bulk zoning standards and landscaping requirements provide assurances that a level of privacy can be maintained between different uses. III. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan B. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city C. The proposal would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city. D. The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use. IV. RECOMMENDATION A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family — Medium Density." V. PARTIES OF RECORD Torino, LLC. 1 19707-44' Ave. W., Suite #207A, Lynnwood, WA, 98036 Hans Korve 1 726 Auburn Way N., Auburn, WA, 98002 Andrew Koehn 118219 761 Ave. W., Edmonds, WA, 98026 Solana Gothard 18303 76t' Ave. W., Edmonds, WA, 98026 Willow Gothard 18303 76' Ave. W., Edmonds, WA, 98026 Lark Gothard 118303 76' Ave. W., Edmonds, WA, 98026 City of Edmonds VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Narrative 3. Zoning Map 4. Comprehensive Plan Map 5. Street Classification Map 6. Notice of Complete Application 7. Engineering Memorandum, dated April 6, 2020 8. Public Notice requirements 6 l P a g e Packet Pg. 230 8.2.a 9. Public Comment Letters 10. SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) 11. SEPA Checklist 12. Wetland Verification Letter, Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc., dated February 10, 2020 13. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Ages Engineering, LLC., dated August 27, 2018 7 l P a g e Packet Pg. 231 I 8.2.a I City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICLKL USE ONLY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # "rogow4 y ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE �. �7U Lv [ REC'D BY � - a. ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION �7 ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION 'r REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: ■ PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD i PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION Z2-SXX W2"4,,U,1 , RN :lt 00 3--7-60••- 6D-i— Od %cj j PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) cS c�su..,a ?L, PROPERTY OWNER ( I /� 6 LPHONE # ADDRESS 1 9 r — T' 4-e 4-IJ C]. E-MAIL 11 AMA f C C7 w� FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # SEC. TWP. Z :3- RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROD CT OR P OPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY Ahc DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT -7 [�� — PHONE # ADDRESS C 6 tJ- A,,.. E-MAILt I rlc. S FAX# Z-3 333 ZZU� CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or ei ployees_ By my signature, I certify that the information d exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this appficat' on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner's Authorization I, certify under the penalty of perjtuy tinder the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of ins on and ti endant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER 'DATE61 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Page I of 1 Packet Pg. 2 2 DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North AOurri, WA 980G2 TEL: (253) 333.2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 EMAIL: dmp a@dmp-'Inc.us December 28, 2019 City of Edmonds. Brad Shipley, Associate Planner 121 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020 RE: Omnia Homes —Comprehensive Plan Alteration & Rezone Request Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Multi -Family— Med. Density (MF-MD) Neighborhood Business (BN) to RM-2.4 183XX 76th Ave VV_ Edmonds. Parcel Numbers 003708-003-007-01 and -02. Dear Mr. Shipley: The Applicant is please to submit the attached Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Application for the Omnia Homes Townhouse project. The Applicant proposes to redesignate a 1.05 acres parcel from NC to MF-MD to allow for the construction of a 6-unit, fee -simple, zero -lot -line, townhome neighborhood. The subject property is currently zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). The adjacent parcels to the south are currently commercial uses, consistent with the existing zoning. The subject parcel has a 6' to 8' elevation difference between the street and the flat portion of the site. The site also has a steep slope that dominates the eastern half of the site, A review of the property has determined that commercial development that is 8' above the adjacent roadway will not be visible to potential customers_ The poor marketability of the property for commercial use has contributed to its long term vacant condition. The Applicant proposes to re -designate the property to allow for the construction of 6 fee -simple townhomes. The attached units will provide an opportunity for home ownership at a much more attainable price point. The elevation of the property will provide privacy to the residents and separation from 75"' Ave W. Pedestrian access will come from the west but vehicle access is proposed from the east. The "rear access" design will provide a more pedestrian friendly frontage. As housing prices continue to rise and home ownership become less attainable to a larger segment of the population, it is important for communities to offer alternatives that support long-term residency and community investment. We offer the following responses to the Amendment review criteria: Packet Pg. 233 8.2.a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re -designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: A. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. A key feature of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan is its emphasis on mixed use development, which may included both commercial and residential uses on a combination of lots arranged in proximity to each other. The subject property is located adjacent to two NB uses to the south and across the street from the US Post Office on the west. While the property is not being developed in conjunction with these projects it does meet the definition of mixed use spelled out in the Comprehensive plans Land Use segment. Under the current BN designation, the applicant is allowed to develop single-family residential lots or commercial uses. We have determined that commercial investment is not feasible. Use of the property for single-family development is the most land intensive and costly form of development per unit. It is an inefficient use of land and does not support the goals of the City. Given the limited supply of vacant land within the city, the comprehensive plan seeks to increase housing capacity while maintaining the character of the city. The existing zoning allows low density residential development; the applicant seeks the creation of zero -lot -line, fee simple townhomes that will provide the opportunity for home ownership at a more modest price point. This will be an increase in land capacity while respecting the natural environment and character of the area.. Another important segment of the Lane Use section stipulates that the City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to maximize the economic and environmental benefits of that infrastructure. The applicants proposed amendment will promote a more efficient form of residential infill development in close proximity to both commercial services and public transit. This application is supported by the following aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy Residential B.2.a and .b — promote the location of RM development near Collector streets and seek the preservation of privacy and views of surrounding buildings. The height should be similar to RS zone accept where vegetation or topography can screen one from the other. The proposed alteration from NC to MF and BN to RM is consistent will each of the identified policies. The subject property is uniquely situated approximately 8' above 761h Ave W. This elevation makes the site unsuitable P a c 12 Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Request Omnia Home Packet Pg. 234 8.2.a for commercial use but does provide a visual buffer for the proposed townhouse development. The substantial slope to the east buffers the development from the neighborhoods to the northeast, east and southeast. Only one home to the north is at the same elevation as the proposed development. The proposed townhomes will be similar in character to the surrounding single-family residences and fencing and vegetated buffers to the north and south will provide ample separation between uses. The proposed townhomes are an appropriate transition from the nearby commercial to the adjacent SF residential development. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy Residential B.2.c — encourages good design practices that preserve the natural surroundings. The applicants proposed amendment will avoid massive re -grading of the site that would be required to make it suitable for commercial use and seeks a more harmonious approach to provide attainable housing in proximity to existing commercial services and community transit. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy Commercial A.2 — states that parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which are now or will be identified as unnecessary, or inappropriate for such use by additional analysis, should be reclassified for other uses. This adopted policy is at the heart of the applicant's proposal. The subject parcel is inappropriate for commercial use due to its elevation - 8' above the adjacent street. It is visually separated from potential customers. The property would need to be significantly regarded to make it suitable for commercial use. This effort would make any project economically infeasible and would not be in keeping with other adopted policies to integrate development into the natural landscape. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy Commercial A.4 — specifies that the design and location of all commercial sites should provide for convenient and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers. As previously indicated, the project site is approximately 8' above 76th Ave W. Without significant re- grading of the site, the property does not provide convenient access for a commercial use. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy Commercial B. 3 — supports the creation of mixed -use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community -friendly. The Comprehensive plan recognizes that mixed -use development is horizontal as well as vertical. The subject property is located adjacent to two NB uses to the south and across the street from the US Post Office on the west. While the property is not being developed in conjunction with these projects it does meet the definition of mixed use spelled out in the Comprehensive plans Land Use segment. The proposed townhouses are an economically viable segment of this mixed use area, where additional commercial development is not viable at this location. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy Commercial B.4 — promotes improved connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users in a transit -friendly environment. The proposed alteration would place 6 fee -simple townhomes adjacent to commercial services and a major transit line. The nearest bus stop is approximately 300' south of the property and provides direct access to a park & ride as well as the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. P a , c 13 Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Request Omnia Home Packet Pg. 235 8.2.a ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy Commercial B.9 - encourages the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan is a flexible framework that adapts to changing conditions over time. The purpose of this policy is to reduce barriers that prevent low and moderate income households from living near their work or transit, and to support housing that is affordably priced for all households. Edmonds is striving to be a community of choice because increasing home ownership in turn supports long term residency and neighborhood stability. The Applicant's proposal will help to meet the needs of moderate income families without lowering the quality of the neighborhood. The existing allowed Single-family development would do nothing to support this policy. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Goal Commercial C — describes the purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial designation. BN developments are to be mixed - use and pedestrian -oriented. Commercial spaces are to have street -level entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows. The project site does not meet the goal of this section or its supporting policies. The topographic reality of the site makes it unsuitable for Neighborhood Commercial use. Approval of the alteration will allow the site to become the horizontal component of a mixed use development at the intersection of 76th Ave W, and Olympic View Dr. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Goal Site and Topography A — states that future development in areas of steep slope should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics. The supporting policies seek to reduce cuts and fills, conform to the natural topography, and minimize grading of hillsides. Under the current designation, any economically viable commercial development would be required to lower the site 6 to 8 feet to meet the Commercial goals and policies described above. This creates a conflict between various goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed alteration will bring the various segments of the Comprehensive plan back into alignment with the topographic reality of the site. The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains similar goals and policies to the Land Use chapter that was discussed above. Generally the goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's residence. The City seeks to encourage more infill multifamily development in corridors served by transit: ➢ Comprehensive Plan Goal Housing F — promotes a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities that support the established character of the community. As previously described, the amendment proposal increases the allowed number of units from three single-family lots to six fee -simple, zero - lot -line, townhomes. This new option would increase the housing stock and decrease the cost of home ownership for moderate or fixed income residence. P a g c 14 Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Request Omni@ Home Packet Pg. 236 8.2.a Comprehensive Plan Goal Housing C — seeks to provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers by providing for mixed -use development and housing that is in close proximity to transit. The Perrinville neighborhood is a small Activity Center but it is located at the intersection of 2 significant roadways, along a major bus line, and provides several neighborhood commercial services within walking distance of the project. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes horizontal mixed use as an appropriate option in some situations. The AppUcants proposal will introduce townhouses adjacent to a neighborhood commercial center. iVew residents will be within walking distance of several restaurants, and community services as well as a significant bus line. B. How does the proposal bear a substantial relation to public health, safety and welfare. ~ The proposal will increase the variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. It will place these residences adjacent to existing commercial services and high frequency transit. It will also conform to the natural topography of the site and minimize grading of hillsides. Opening home ownership to a larger segment of the population promotes economic growth and long-term residency. Increased residential density promotes transit use, which decreases traffic and carbon emissions. Development of additional housing within the existing service areas makes better use of existing facilities and reduces sprawl. The existing designation does not provide these benefits. C. How is the proposal_ in the best_ interest of the Cif_u The Applicant's proposed Comprehensive flan amendment and subsequent rezone of the property will bring the site into conformance with the previously described segments of the Comprehensive Plan. The current designation is non compliant with several important portions of the Plan. Approval of the alteration will allow development of a fee -simple townhouse neighborhood that will open up home ownership to a broader population base and support long-term residency. The Applicant's proposal is a market based approach to achieving the Comprehensive Planning Policies described above while respecting the natural environment. If you h ve any questions, please contact me at (253) 333-2200 Since ly, i Hans Korve DMP. Inc. I, ,� r 15 Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Request amnia Homr: Packet Pg. 237 I 8.2.a I DEVELOPER OMNIA HOMES 1123 MAPLE AVE W, SUITE 220 RENTON, WA 98057 PARCEL NO. 003708-003-007-01 & 003708-003-007-02 ACREAGE 45,668 SQFT (1.05 AC) PROPOSED USE MULTI -FAMILY Seavie, Park_ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION EXISTING- NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROPOSED- MULTI FAMILY - MEDIUM DENSITY W A Sy/ �lF 28352 �jssONgSIE L 185TH PL J a �2 j DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 PHONE: 253-333-2200 1 ENGINEERING - SURVEYING D LAND PLANNING incorporated NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROPOSED -MULTI FAMILY -MEDIUM DENSITY OMNIA HOMES 1123 MAPLE AVE W, SUITE 220 RENTON, WA 98057 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT DRAWN BYCJM SCALE NTS DRAWING APPROVED ASP ""DEC. 27, 2019 JOB# Packet Pg. 238 B.\PROJECTS\18-430 EDMONDS SHORT PLAT\DWG\18430EXH.DWG I 8.2.a I 0 CV) 00 r O z 0 5 10 20 30 - — SCALE 1" = 30' v GAP °O olY'�pjc 9 a i I :7L ZONING 1 COMPRENSIVE:SINGLE FAMILY I RESOURCE B TRACT 'A' (TYPE III LS) 1,6711'p' S.F. \ 1,723 S.F. I ) 1,7d S.F. 1,846 S. m ®/ p5 g Q _ ,897 S.F. 1,942 S.F. ACT D LS = TRACT E TYPE III Q o 0 I 9 SIPS'll 57 T27N R4E SS T1 Jti RJE C W � I IEEE I v SMS E 11, M- TSW 0 L l � F7m WI? immm VICINITY MAP N Ts j SITE INFORMATION I SITE ADDRESS: 183XX 76TH AVE. W. EDMONDS, WA 98026 TAX PARCEL NO.: 003708-003-007-01 & 003708-003-007-02 I SITE SIZE: 45,668 SOFT (1.05 AC) I LEGAL DESCRIPTION V ADMIRALTY ACRES BLK 003 D-01 — LT 7 LESS S 7FT ALSO LESS E 168FT THOF I CV fjJ EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE DESIGNATION —NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROPOSED DESIGNATION —MULTI FAMILY — MEDIUM DENSITY EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS —BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) PROPOSED ZONING —RM-2.4 MULTI FAMILY VOJ � I USINESS ;HOOD COMMERCIAL Q I DALEY—MORROW—POBLETE, INC. OMNIA HOMES yP 0B 726 AUBURN WAY N. o %Asti ! 1123 MAPLE AVE W, SUITE 220 4, /1 AUBURN, 2200, TONFAX: 53-3 RENTON, WA 98057 PHONE: 2 BURN -ASHI FAX: 298002 -2206 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / REZONE o aF 28352 �a �; EXHIBIT �^sso0/STFEN��e ENGINEERING - SURVEYING LAND PLANNING°JM - 30 Packet Pg. 239 o O ASP --DEC.- DEC. 27, 2019 �+ City of Edmonds Zoning Map 0 376.17 752.3 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 8.2.a MDun110w Legend 0 ReZones PRD RoW Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 © RSW-12 ❑ RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 ■ RM-2.4 91 RM-1.5 ' RM-EW BD1 N BD2 N BD3 N BD4 BD5 N OR ® WMu ® BP BN ® FVMU BC Notes Packet Pg. 240 1 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map 0 376.17 752.3 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 8.2.a CI MDun110w ke�„Me Legend 0 ReZones PRD RoW Comprehensive Plan . Retail Core . Arts Center Corridor n Downtown Mixed Commercial Notes Downtown Convenience Downtown Mixed Res Downtown Master Plan Shoreline Commercial Planned Residence -Office Single Family Urban1 Single Family Urban2 Single Family Urban3 Single Family - Resource Single Family - MP Multi Family - Medium Den Multi Family - High Densi Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Planned -Neighborhood Mixed Use Commercial Corridor Development Edmonds Way Corridor Medical Packet Pg. 241 1 Functional Classification Principal Arterial Collector Minor Arterial Local Street Note: Dashed lines indicate a recommended change in functional classification. Figure 3-1 Roadway Functional Classification Packet Pg. 242 Ln H 7, 9 8.2.a H CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 j Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION `nC. I, January 27, 2020 Hans Korve 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Subject: COMPLETE APPLICATION, CLARIFICATION REQUESTED —COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT (AMD20190008) Dear Mr. Korve: Thank you for submitting the required documentation and application fees for the above - referenced application; your application is complete according to ECDC 20.02.003. However, while the application is technically complete, additional information or clarification is required. Please address all comments by providing updated documents, as appropriate: Wetland Report. The wetland verification report prepared by Mark Heckert, of Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc., is inconsistent in its language. Please revise the language in the report so explanations regarding field observations, wetland and stream determinations, and findings and conclusions are consistent. F1 Field Observations. This section mentions an area at the NW corner of the site as "identified to have potentially hydric vegetation"; however, the next sentence states "Sample data (attached) shows no indication of hydric soils or hydrology." These sentences seem to be in conflict without further explanation. Additionally, no attachment was provided. F1 Wetland and Stream Determination. The statement, as written, can be interpreted in different ways and appear to be in conflict. Do the sample plots contain hydrophytic vegetation or not? Additionally, no information was provided regarding the stream across the street. Please explain the nature of this stream as it is within the boundaries of study and provide a statement regarding whether the street creates an interrupted buffer per ECDC 23.40.220.C.4. Packet Pg. 243 8.2.a F1 Findings and Conclusions. Again, the statement is in conflict. It states both, "...no area within 300 ft. of the site" met the criteria for wetland and "One area within 300 ft. of the site exhibited all three of the established criteria for designation as a wetland." As the process moves forward, the City may request additional information, if needed. The City will proceed with the associated public notice requirements once hearings are scheduled with Planning Board and City Council. However, please keep in mind that a complete response to this information request must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC 20.02.003.13). If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Brad Shipley Associate Planner Packet Pg. 244 MEMORANDUM Date: April 6, 2020 To: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: AMD2019-0008 — Comp Plan Amendment Torino LLC —183xx 76' Ave W Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. The subject site fronts on 76th Ave W, north of Olympic View Drive. 76th Ave W, at this location, is a collector street and sidewalks exist on both sides of the street. With any future rezone application, a traffic study that analyzes existing transportation conditions compared with potential transportation conditions will be required. The study should include analysis of nearby, effected intersections as well as road network. Please coordinate with Bertrand Hauss, City Transportation Engineer, on specific scope of the analysis. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 245 `1)C. 1 S9v 00 H 7, 9 Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination - File Number AMD2019-0008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Description of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for a property identified below from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi Family — Medium Density. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from Planning Board. Name of Applicant: Hans Korve (applicant for Torino, LLC.) Location: Vacant, unaddressed lot due north of the northeast corner lot at Olympic View Dr. and 76' Ave W. Tax parcel id #00370800300701 and #00370800300702. See attached Vicinity Map. File No.: AMD2019-0008 Date of Notice: August 11, 2020 Comments on Proposal Due: August 26, 2020 (see public hearing information below). Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at http://edmondswa.gov/public-notices- text/development-notices.html under the development notice for application number AMD2019-0008, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. City Contact: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner, (425) 771-0220, brad. shipley(a)edmondswa.gov PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: hgps://zoom.us/i/93282361794 Meeting ID: 932 8236 1794 Dial by your location (253) 215-8782 US (Tacoma) *SEPA NOTICE ON REVERSE SIDE* Packet Pg. 246 8.2.a *NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REVERSE SIDE* STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Lead Agency: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. Date of Issuance: August 11, 2020 SEPA Appeal Deadline: August 26, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. Appeals must be filed in writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 — 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. VICINITY MAP io' City of Edmonds AMD2019-0008 0 , cc Legend LAI PRO 1 J� Rota 1 Comprehemive Plan �D 1 ( � p10 Relaacore ■ 1 19 n ■ Ana C..Cmrimr .. Dos-n�Pvsvn Muetl C rrurrernal fT� � � ■ Damarmcorm&,�a,�e Dm- —M—Ras 7532 n ■ om m« Mffigvan 7605 mm�ammaaa eRarxied REsidenoe-0IRa 784TH PL SW �a�eFamiy aa, 7607 E s a�a Fam y uman2 s yleFamyuoan� 7601 18401 5mgle Famiy-Reswrca 7530 7520 a gaF—y-MP 7533 M Far* -Med°m°g ■ M Family -Hgh Dessi - NeyhhMmJCnmre�vel ■ CwnmuoiyCmrrmtial - rQ C � PIamMNn9hbenml M0.1F�j5- 7517 Mnua�cam,Koa 18502 �a da oe-.�warrra.4 FAn Way CartiCar CO — ---- Y 1: 2,257 �0 n Medlml Notes 0 9404 1885 Feet Applirab..Wamersdthe Comprehensive sma Thiplsauser generated statkomput framan lmemet mappirigskea ndkW plan Mapdesignaaanfmm reterenteony.0ata layers Na[appearon this map mays may not be a a b, Nei9hbortmod Commercial to Muth WGS 1984 Web_Mercator_A—Iiary_Sphere u ren4 or other-rel'ahl,. Family- Medium Demity for pmperty ® City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION outlined in blue. Packet Pg. 247 8.2.a ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. gnature of Applicant or Applicant's Represents ' e Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13 e, day of I�Lv I by JdnQVF, MANS kP-N0 LQ {'/ LU' ' tom. v .. C ., r ...�,.,F-..-.•, f..---.- ..._ ...'.-r. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington HARSH }tAL A} NCUT,\..R'( F'11F3L1(; STATE OF btiA"� "iINGTJN Residing at }C r N e. e�o �) ncTouE:I; 2 2020 0 y d u 0 Q 0 M Co C d E L Q Revised on 9130111 P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List Pa Packet Pg. 248 8.2.a _00434600010604 _00370800200800 _00822600000400 US POSTAL SERVICE US POSTAL SERVICE JAHED MAHMOUD 849 CHERRY AVE 850 CHERRY AVE 18218 76TH AVE W San Bruno, CA 94099 San Bruno, CA 94099 EDMONDS, WA 98026 _00822600000300 _00370800300500 _00370800300501 LARSON, KURT POPE, JAMES & ALISON HICKS, STEPHEN J 18216 76TH AVE W 18209 76TH AVE W 1821176TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 _00370800300503 _00370800300502 _00370800300600 WILSON, RICHARD KOEHN, ANDREW ENEY,SCOTT 18223 76TH AVE W 18219 76TH AVE W 1830176TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 _00370800300601 _00370800300602 _00370800300603 GOTHARD, BRUCE PYGOTT, KIMBERLEY KNIGHTON, DOUGLAS 18303 76TH AVE W 18307 76TH AVE W 18309 76TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 _00477600002902 _00477600003100 _00477600003200 LOPEZ, DON DISBENNETT, KENNETH HIRST GARY FAMILY TRUST 7525 RIDGE WAY 7531 RIDGE WAY 7530 RIDGE WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 _00477600003300 _00370800300703 _00370800300704 FURNESS D CASE, KENNETH CASE, KENNETH 7532 RIDGE WAY 7601 RIDGE WAY 7601 RIDGE WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 _00370800300705 _00434600010502 _00434600010501 CASE, KENNETH TSAO, YUEHCHING KEEFE,BARBARA 7601 RIDGE WAY 7605 RIDGE WAY 7607 RIDGE WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 _00477600004800 _00477600004900 _01116900000200 BUTLER, JULES TOMLIN, AMY JACKY PROPERTIES LLC 7520 184TH PL SW 7530184TH PL SW 7533 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 01116900000100 _00434600010505 Hans Korve- DMP TRISTAR PROP. INVST. LLC PERRINVILLE PARTNERS LLC 726 Auburn Way N 7533 OLYMPIC VIEW DR 1840176TH AVE W Auburn, WA 98002 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 Omnia Homes 1123 Maple Ave W. Suite 220 Renton, WA 98057 Packet Pg. 249 8.2.a FILE NO.: AMD2019-0008 APPLICANT: Hans Korve, DMP-Inc., on behalf of property owner DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE OF APPLICATION On the 11`h day of August, 2020, the attached Notice of Application was posted in compliance with ECDC 20.03.002 at the subject site of the above -referenced application. I, Brad Shipley, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 11`h day of August, 2020, at Edmonds, Washington. Packet Pg. 250 8.2.a FILE NO.: AMD2019-0008 APPLICANT: Hans Korve, DMP-INC, on behalf of property owner DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 11`h day of August, 2020, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property owners within 300-feet of the property that is subject of the application referenced above. The names were provided by the applicant. I, Debbie Rothfus, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 11`" day of August, 2020, at Edmonds, Washington. Packet Pg. 251 8.2.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH905676 AMD2019-0008 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/11/2020 and ending on 08/11/2020 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The arr�ount of the fee or such publication is $119.09. Subscribed and sworn bef me on thi X,s T� day of �d Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416 BRAD SHIPLEY Linda Phigips r "' NON Public Agyq � Of Washington 4 went 6t►ex 08&912021 0 AAAA.r 4 Packet Pg. 252 8.2.a Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination - File Number AM D2019-0008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Description of Pro�osal�: The applicant Is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for a property identified below from Neighborhood Commercial to Muir Family — Medium Density. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision mode by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from Planning Board. Name of Applicant: Hans Korve (applicant for Torino, LLC.) Location: Vacant, unaddressed lot due north of the northeast corner lot at Olympic Vlew Or, and 76th Ave W. Tax parcel id #00370800300701 and #00370800300702. See attached Vicinity Map. File No.: AMD2019-0008 Date of Nolfce: August 11, 2020 Cornme s 0 Proposal Due: August 26 2020 (see public hearing information below). Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate In any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on (he application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, If no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to (lie decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to Initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at http://edmondswa.gov/public-notices-texUdevelopmenl- notices.html under the development notice for application number AMD2019-0008, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all Inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. City Conlacl: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner, (425) 771-0220, brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on Wednesda Au usl 26 2020 al 700 .m. Join the Zoom meeting at! lips:/koom.us/j/9 21 1 d Meeting ID- 932 8236 1794 Dial by your location (253) 215-8782 US (Tacoma) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DE ERM'f I�NATI N OF N N IGNI ICANC LeadA enc�: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed The Plan Map amendment. SEPA Determination' Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmond— s We d a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. Dale of Issuance: August 11, 2020 SEPA Appeal Deadline: August 26. 2020 at 4,00 p.m. Appeals must be filed In writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 — 51h Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. VICINITY MAP Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 08/12/2020 08:12:18 am Page: 2 a Packet Pg. 253 8.2.a Classified Proof 1 CI ty of E'.dOl0nd6 AMOI019.0008 - ob IW_ Published: August 11, 2020. EDH905676 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 08/12/2020 08:12:18 am Page::1 Packet Pg. 254 H From: Willow Gothard To: Shipley, Brad Subject: Opposed to Application Number AMD2019-0008 j Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 11:15:28 AM My name is Willow Gothard. I am a 31 year old, life-long resident of the Perrinville t� neighborhood in Edmonds. I am opposed to the approval of application number AMD2019 0008. Our family home is situated directly adjacent to the corner lot in question at Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave West. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi -Family - Medium Density would severely impact the privacy of our backyard, and that of our neighbors. We deeply value our peace and quiet, and our privacy in this neighborhood, and many of us consider it our "reason for living here." We also have concerns regarding the erosion of the sandy loam soil beneath our residential roads, creating dangerous caverns. Several years ago a neighbor unknowingly stepped straight through the road into one of these. The news got around, and each of us have taken pains to reduce the frequency of heavy trucks and vehicles driving our residential streets. Any additional traffic to this area on a regular basis will only increase the risk of acceleration of this sub -street erosion. Please keep us in mind, and say no to application AMD2019-0008. Thank you for your time, Willow Gothard Packet Pg. 255 8.2.a From: Lark Gothard To: Shipley. Brad Subject: Opposition to Proposed Land Use Date: Sunday, August 16, 2020 2:53:33 PM I am writing this in hopes that my opposition to the "Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map" for the corner lot at Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave. W. will be heard. Our neighbor, Andrew,suggested we send a -mails opposing this plan before the public hearing on August 26th. Our family would be drastically affected should apartment buildings be permitted to be built in that space! We just love our home's privacy and serenity, two things which would disappear with this new construction. We just love living in Edmonds, Perrinville in particular, and truly hate the ramifications with which we must face if this proposed land development should take place! We would very much be in favor of preserving the single family zoning of this area. Perrinville is a UNIQUE SETTING WHERE THE WILDERNESS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES COEXIST! We want to KEEP it this way!!!! Don't force your longtime family residents to flee Edmonds! Initially, when deciding to call Edmonds our "home", we were attracted to the arts, the music, the "vibe" of a small arts town. Hence, we have adapted our lifestyle to reflect these values. We are Artists, Musicians, Authors, Woodworkers. We really just love the perception of an arts community which has nurtured and supported us to create beautiful and inspirational things. I'm afraid that a multi -family development next door may compromise these endeavors. Thank you for listening, Lark Gothard Packet Pg. 256 8.2.a From: Solana Gothard To: Shipley, Brad Subject: Please Oppose Amendment Date: Sunday, August 16, 2020 1:36:51 PM Hello, I'm emailing to let you know that I am opposed to the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map for the corner lot at Olympic View Dr. and 76th Ave. W. If that land was to be developed, it would affect the privacy of quite a few homes in the neighborhood. It's also a place where wildlife passes through frequently, and I hope that can be protected. My neighbor Andrew said that instead of a petition, emails opposing this plan before the public hearing on Aug. 26th could help. Thanks! Solana Gothard Packet Pg. 257 8.2.a From: Andrew Koehn To: Shipley. Brad Subject: AMD2019-0008 question Date: Friday, August 14, 2020 8:34:36 AM Hello Mr Shipley, Our family recently received a letter regarding the AMD2019-0008 proposition to change an area of Perrinville from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi -Family -Medium Density. I was hoping you could help clarify what that new designation means exactly. I'm assuming the intention is to build apartments on that lot. As we have watched the Perrinville shops become more thriving over the last few years, I was excited to see that the lot had been sold hoping it would expand to some additional businesses in the area, especially since I live within sight of the area in question. I would like to voice my opinion against this change as I'm sure some of my neighbors would as well. The letter said we have the right to comment on the application but no guidance as to how to do so. Since I have no experience in these matters, I was hoping you could give me some guidance as to what would be a productive way to weigh in on this hearing. I figured a neighborhood petition would be a good tool, would resident names/signatures be enough information or would they need to provide contact info, etc? Once collected, where/who should I turn a petition in to? Or in these days of social distancing is it better to just have people email their comments in, and if so should theyjust email them to you? Thank you very much for your time and guidance. -Andrew Koehn 425 210 1560 akoehn117CcDi?mail.com Packet Pg. 258 8.2.a of EED41 c/ ,1PF- �S�' 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 y WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Proponent proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation for properties identified below from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi Family -Medium Density. Proponent: Hans Korve, DMP, Inc. (for Torino, LLC) Location of proposal, including street address if any: Property is undeveloped and does ntot have a street address. Tax parcel ID #00370800300701 and #00370800300702. See attached Vicinity Map. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Auqust 26, 2020. Project Planner: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: August 11, 2020 Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than Auqust 26, 2020. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on Auqust 11, 2020, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit(u_ecy.wa.gov). XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available by request. Please email brad. sh ipleyC&-edmondswa. gov to receive a copy. Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: Page 1 of 2 SEPA DNS AMD20190008 8/10/20 SEPA Packet Pg. 259 8.2.a XX Gary Kriedt, Senior Env. Planner King County Transit Division XX Environmental Review Section Attn.: Env. Planning & Real Estate, Department of Ecology MS KSC-TR-0431 P.O. Box 47703 201 South Jackson St. Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Seattle, WA 98104-35856 Email: SEPAunit(a)ecy.wa.gov XX City of Shoreline XX COMCAST Attn.: Permit Services Manager Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 17500 Midvale Avenue North 1525 751h St. SW Ste 200 Shoreline, WA 98133-4905 Everett, WA 98203 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation 20420 68th Avenue West Attn: Ramin Pazooki Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. XX Community Transit PO Box 330310 Attn.: Kate Tourtellot Seattle, WA 98133-9710 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX Washington State Dept. of Commerce 906 Columbia Street SW XX Olympic View Water & Sewer District P.O. Box 48300 8128 2281h St. SW Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Edmonds, WA 98026 XX DNR SEPA Center XX Department of Archaeology & Historic P.O. Box 47015 Preservation Olympia, WA 98504-7015 PO Box 48343 SEPACENTER(cDDNR.WA.GOV Olympia, WA 98504-8343 XX Puget Sound Regional Council XX Puget Sound Energy Attn.: S.R.C. Attn: David Matulich 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1G Seattle, WA 98104-1035 Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david.matulich(o)pse.com XX Snohomish County Planning & Development Services XX M. L. Wicklund 3000 Rockefeller Snohomish Co. PUD Everett, WA 98201 PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Snohomish County Public Works 3000 Rockefeller M/S 607 Everett, WA 98201 XX Hans Korve 726 Auburn Way N XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Auburn, WA 98002 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 Attachments: Vicinity Map SEPA Environmental Checklist PC: File No. AMD20190008 SEPA Notebook Page 2 of? SEPA DNS_AMD20190008 8/10/20.SEPA Packet Pg. 260 #P% 1 OF EDA dA sunCITY OF EDMONDS �ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST St 999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Omnia Homes Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: PROCESSING APPLICATION# RECEIVED BY DATE FEE A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: / Meets the categorically exempt criteria. V Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. 4 A 1►d i 7x �T Sig re e s p o hb<le Office Date B. COMMENTS: C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone D. ZONING DISTRICT: BN to RM- 2.4 Packet Pg. 261 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Name of Project Omnia Homes - Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone 2. Name of Applicant: Hans Korve - DMP Mailing Address:726 Edmonds Way N. Edmonds 98002 Contact Person: Hans Korve Telephone:253-333-2200 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.) 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Planner 4. Name of Legal Owner: Torino, LLC Mailing Address:19707 -44th Ave. W. #207A, Lynnwood, 98036 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). The project site is located at 183XX 76th Ave W.. with Parcel Numbers 003708-003-007- 01 and -02. The project is entirely within the Northeast'/4 of Section 18, Township 27 N, Range 4 E, WM, 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): See EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto Tax identification number: 003708-003-007-01 and -02 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). The subject property is rectangular shaped parcel, totaling 1.05 acre in the BN zone. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Neighborhood Commercial. There are no existing structures on the parcels. The applicant proposes to amend the comprehensive plan designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi -Family — Med. Density. An associated Rezone Application is also attached which proposes to replace the existing Neighborhood Business (BN) designation with a more compatible RM- 2.4 Multi Family. Site coverage consists predominantly of scattered trees and thick underbrush. The property fronts 76th Ave W. From the street frontage, the site rises approximately 6' to 8' before leveling off in the center. The eastern half of the site contains a significant slope, which is proposed to remain unaltered. All necessary utilities and storm water facilities will be constructed to serve the new lot after approval of the proposed alterations. Please refer to the existing condition map and geotechnical report for additional information. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 Packet Pg. 262 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 3 8. Site Area:1.05 acres 9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): The applicant proposes to amend the comprehensive plan designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi -Family — Med. Density. An associated Rezone Application is also attached which proposes to replace the existing Neighborhood Business (BN) designation with a more compatible RM- 2.4 Multi Family. Following approval of the alterations, the Applicant proposes a unit lot subdivision of 6 zero -lot - line townhomes on the west side of the property. In support of the project, the Applicant proposes to construct a joint use driveway and utilities as required to serve this plat. Frontage improvements will be required along 76th Ave W.. The proposed townhomes will take primarily access from the new circular Joint Use Driveway behind the structures. The access is proposed to a one way loop, entering from the south side of the property and existing from the north edge onto 76t" Ave W. 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). Application (Comp Plan)Submittal ......December 2019 Final Action ............................................October 2020 Unit Lot Subdivision..............................November 2020 Engineering Submittal .........................April 2021 Site Grading ..........................................August 2021 Final Plat.................................................November2022 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Rezone and Unit Lot Subdivision. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 Packet Pg. 263 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 4 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. DATE AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS** Edmonds SEPA Threshold Dec, 2019 Edmonds Prlm Plat Nov 2020 State DOE NPDES Edmonds Civil Edmonds Sanitary sewer Edmonds Water Edmonds Final plat 13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following information will be prepared and submitted under separate cover: • Geotech Report • Wetland Report 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals? No Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 4 Packet Pg. 264 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 5 B a 0 C e ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Earth General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site contains a minor slope along west property edge. The center of the site is relatively flat with a significant slope along the eastern half of the site. (Refer to the attached site survey) What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The eastern portion of the property has an approximate slope of 40-60% along the east side of the site. This area of steep slopes is proposed to remain undisturbed. No buffer is required. A 15' BSBL is recommended from the toe of the slope. Please refer to the attached Geotech report for additional information. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to The geologic Map of Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles Washington. James P Minard (1983), the majority of the on -site soil as Advance Outwash (Qva). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) maps the soil in he vicinity of the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (3) soils that from at 15 to 30 percent slopes. Please refer to the attached geotechnical report for additional details. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. No signs of accelerated soil erosion or deep-seated soil movement we observed during the site reconnaissance. No development is proposed on the eastern slope. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No detailed grading information is available at this time. All work will be limited to the area of the proposed development. No work on the eastern portion of the site is proposed. More specific information will be available during the Engineering design phase. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Packet Pg. 265 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 6 Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The Alderwood soils are classified as being moderately resistant to erosion when exposed. Some erosion could occur on -site as a result of construction activities; however, temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures will be employed to reduce erosion impacts. All construction during the wet season will comply with the adopted Surface Water Design provisions concerning site coverage techniques. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? There will be approximately 45% impervious surface. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. During construction, the contractor will follow an approved temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan meeting City of Edmonds standards. Typical measures, which may be employed, include the use of silt fences, straw bales, and temporary storm drainage features. Hydroseeding exposed soils and cleared areas after construction will also reduce the potential for erosion. All construction during the wet season will comply with the City of Edmonds Construction Standards and the most recently adopted version of the Surface Water Design Manual concerning site coverage techniques. Only limited site work is proposed. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction: Emissions and dust particulates generated primarily by construction equipment will be produced during the construction phase of this project. The amount of emissions to the air will be minimal and will occur during the actual construction of the development. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone r .r EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 18-430 Packet Pg. 266 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 7 Long Term Air Quality: Long-term air impacts would be those typically associated with residential land uses. Sources of long-term emissions and odor could include vehicle emissions from increased vehicle use generated by the new residential units and emissions from wood burning fireplaces (if permitted). The additional vehicular emissions in these areas are not anticipated to concentrate and therefore are not anticipated to create a health hazard to the residents or surrounding areas. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NO Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. If particulates become suspended during construction, frequent watering of the site during the construction phase of the project would be used to help control dust and other particulates generated on the site. This will be accomplished in accord with City of Edmonds Construction Standards and the most recently adopted version of the Surface Water Design Manual. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Perrinville Creek is piped through the majority of the US Post Office property on the west side of 76th Ave. W. The proposed rezone and development will have no impact. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No - 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NA Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c� flPPa6x�,�.�rcZ� ibc fir. Fic-� =h 5�6�c✓c 1 �rT�, �6 S F&I r c- I ( 6,J rrC4- 5e p,� A - *'-) AV Lc VJ . a' Packet Pg. 267 City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 8 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed at this time. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. The new townhomes will tie into an on -site storm water facility. Surface water runoff will be handled in accordance with acceptable City of Edmonds Design Standards prior to discharge from the approved storm water system. No groundwater extraction is planned at this time. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from the site will be collected and infiltrated to the greatest extent possible. Overflow will discharge into the existing City system. More information will be available during civil design. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 8.2.a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Packet Pg. 268 City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 9 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Some pollutants normally associated with residential development could enter the surface water; however, the amount would be minimal since the on -site drainage will be designed in conformance with City of Edmonds Standards and the most recently adopted version of the Surface Water Design Manual. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The project will implement BMP's for water resource protection per Edmonds City Code, as applicable. In addition the storm water runoff will be addressed in conformance with City of Edmonds Construction Standards and the most recently adopted version of the Surface Water Design Manual. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _X_Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other X_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, Hemlock, other _X Shrubs _X_G rass Pasture Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other li 8.2.a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 9 Packet Pg. 269 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 10 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The eastern portion of the property associated with the steep slope contains some larger evergreen and alder trees. No development is proposed on the eastern slope. The western portion of the property is covered with typical second growth forest vegetation, consisting of fir, hemlock, and alder trees, and ground cover/brush. The western portion of the site will be cleared for grading and construction. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The proposed townhouse residences will provide new landscaping including lawns, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Native or naturalized vegetation will be utilized, where appropriate. Additional landscaping will be provided in the ROW planting strip. Additional planting along the eastern slope is also possible. 5. Animals a lei Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone iE:1SI1] a- i V EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ire Packet Pg. 270 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 11 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NA d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The proposed townhome residences will provide new landscaping including lawns, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Native or naturalized vegetation will be utilized, where appropriate. Additional landscaping will be provided in the ROW planting strip. The eastern slope area will remain undeveloped. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical energy will be the primary source of power serving the needs of the project and natural gas will be made available for the purpose of heating and other needs associated with residential living. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. m c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The residential buildings tliatwill be constructed as a result of this project will meet or exceed the applicable residential energy conservation/consumption requirements of the City of Edmonds and the Uniform Building Codes. (International) Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 V V/ EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY m Packet Pg. 271 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist - Page 12 AGENCY USE ONLY 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, which could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. It is unlikely, under normal working conditions, that environmental health hazards would be encountered. All project -related c construction will meet or exceed current local, city, state and federal E laws. c a� E 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. a a In the event that environmental health hazards are encountered or occur during construction, all appropriate c precautionary measures will be employed. Any emergency situation would be addressed by the existing resources of '- .y the Fire district = a� (D 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: 0 U State regulations regarding safety and the handling of o hazardous materials will be followed during the construction c process. Equipment refueling areas would be located in , areas where a spill could be quickly contained and where the V _ risk of hazardous materials entering surface water is minimized. On -site management will be equipped with mobile communication equipment at all times to contact a emergency services in the event of an incident. 1 c 0 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your r c project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Normal traffic noise will not impact the proposed ✓ development. N r c a� 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated E with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise a would come from the site. Short-term impacts would result from the use of construction equipment during site development. Construction would occur during permitted construction hours and in compliance with the City of Edmonds noise standards. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 12 Packet Pg. 272 City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 13 8 a L7 C e f 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activity will be limited to permitted construction hours and construction equipment will not be allowed to idle for continuous periods of time, which will help to mitigate the impacts of potential construction noise. Hours of operation will be posted on -site Land and Shoreline Use What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site coverage is consistent with second growth forest vegetation, consisting of fir, hemlock, and alder trees, and ground cover/brush. Properties to the north and east are single-family homes. Neighborhood commercial uses are located to the south and a US Post Office is located on the west side of 76th Ave W. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. There does not appear to have ever been any large scale agricultural production. The site does appear to have been used from grazing of pasture animals. Describe any structures on the site. The site is undeveloped. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NA What is the current zoning classification of the site? Neighborhood Business (BN) What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Neighborhood Commercial If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 0 8.2.a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 13 Packet Pg. 273 City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 14 h 13 Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The eastern slope has been classified as steep. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Assuming 1 new residences at 2.5 persons per house, 15 new residents will be housed. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. After approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, the project will be developed in accordance with applicable land use codes to ensure consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. 6 new middle -income housing unit will be provided. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. NA Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. Adherence to the comprehensive plan and growth management planning goals of the City would ensure that housing development is consistent with those policies stated in the applicable land use plan. Applicant's proposal will improve the housing stock in the City by allowing the property to be developed to its currently allowed zoning density. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 8.2.a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY � �`l! I:c ILN � 1. c.+ ('� ••J a � 0 v 0 y d 0 NpNe . L�� y �t►avE��`"� � ' �a w w c a� E s �a ✓ a 14 Packet Pg. 274 City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 15 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? (7 c It is anticipated that houses built on the site would conform to the City of Edmonds development regulations and be limited to a height of 35 feet. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Development of the site would result in a change to the visual character of the site for the nearest existing residences and roadways to that of a townhome neighborhood. No significant views would be obstructed. The new homes will be elevated approximately 8' above 76th Ave W. The slope between the road and the homes will be vegetates. The pedestrian entrance and front patio will face the roadway. Vehicle access will be from the rear. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The new homes will be elevated approximately 8' above 76th Ave W. The slope between the road and the homes will be vegetates. The pedestrian entrance and front patio will face the roadway. Vehicle access will be from the rear. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare from the completed project is anticipated to be that typically generated by residences, mainly occurring during the evening hours, and associated with vehicle headlights, streetlights and residential unit lighting. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not under normal circumstances. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 ti% V 7 8.2.a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 15 tee �tq��.t»wG Packet Pg. 275 City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 16 c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Installation of street trees along the street frontage will help to alleviate some of the light and glare created by city mandated streetlights, headlights and residential unit lighting from the adjacent properties. The proposal will only install those lights listed in the Edmonds Design standards. All street tree installation will be in accord with Edmonds Development standards. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None.. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The Applicant proposes to pay any applicable park impact fee. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. To the best of our knowledge, there are no landmarks or evidence of any significant historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural resources known to be on or next to the site. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 M J 8.2.a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY HE Packet Pg. 276 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 17 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. If any such historic or cultural evidence is encountered during construction or installation of improvements, work would be halted in the area and a state -approved archaeologist/historian would be engaged to investigate, evaluate and/or move or curate such resources, as appropriate. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed new lots will take access directly from the proposed circular Joint use driveway. Access to the project will be through 76th Ave W. The proposed circular driveway will be one way. Entering from the south and exiting from the north to maintain the closest possible alignment with the Post Office on the west side of 76th Ave W. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Community Transit Route #119 stops at the intersection of 76th Ave W. and Olympic View Dr. This is less than 300' from the proposed project. Residents will have easy access to the Ash Way Park & ride to the north and the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center to the south. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposed project will provide parking in private driveways, garages and an associated parking lot. The exact number is not known d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal will construct frontage improvements alogn 76th Ave W. as required. Access to the units will be from the rear through a private one-way driveway. No additional public ROW is required. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 JZ le" EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 17 Packet Pg. 277 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 18 How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 6 peak hour trip g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Applicant will construct all road improvements to the applicable City of Edmonds Standards and pay all appropriate traffic impact fees. The Client will also provide pedestrian improvements in accordance with the applicable standards. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The completed project would result in a minimal increased need for schools, police and fire protection as well as emergency medical service. School, traffic and recreation impacts fees will be paid to offset proposed impacts. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The project will be constructed with adequate water pressure, properly located fire hydrants and roadways constructed to allow adequate access for emergency service vehicles. Increased property valuation will result in increased taxes generated to support public services. The proponent will pay necessary school, traffic and recreation mitigation fees to offset the potential impacts to the various public systems. No unmitigated impacts will result from the requested incremental increase in project density. 16. Utilities a. Electricity, Natural Gas, Water, Telephone, Sanitary Sewer, Septic System, Refuse Service, Other Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone MEMO] V EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Packet Pg. 278 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 19 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. On -site sewer and water systems will connect to the existing systems in 76th Ave W. No sewer or water extension is required. On site storm water will overflow to the existing City system. Refer to the attached conceptual utility plan for more details. Water System - Sanitary Sewer System - Storm Water — Electricity: Natural Gas: Telephone: Refuse Service: C. SIGNATURE City of Edmonds City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Energy Century Link Republic Services The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: Y! 2,0 o�. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY m Packet Pg. 279 8.2.a City of Edmonds Planning Department EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist — Page 20 AGENCY USE ONLY D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the E proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. E Respond briefly and in general terms. a 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or a aD hazardous substances; or production of noise? 2 The proposed Comp Plan & Rezone would allow for the construction of townhouses rather than Neighborhood a Business. Residential development generally creates fewer ✓ E peak hour trips then commercial development. Storm water 0 U will be addressed by the same applicable code sections. o There will be no likely increase in discharges to water, air or release of toxins x Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: No increase is anticipated. Follow all applicable codes and a ordinances. Construct roads and storm water facilities c according to the applicable standards. •0 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? L The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and 0 0- subsequent rezone from commercial to residential will not have a negative impact on plants animals or fish. The in applicable sensitive area, storm water and road standards are the same. E Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, .2 or marine life are: V Follow the applicable codes and ordinances. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 20 Packet Pg. 280 City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 21 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The impact will be similar to any other residential development. Residential uses generally use less energy doing peak hour days and use more in the evening at off peak hours. This is generally the reverse of commercial uses. All structures will meet the applicable energy codes. Increased urban density supports transit use. New residents will be within walking distance of the adjacent commercial uses. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: All structures will meet the applicable energy codes. Tree preservation will be in accordance to the applicable code section. Construction of roads and storm water facilities will be in accordance with the applicable standards 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and subsequent Rezone will have no additional impact on the environment. The eastern portion of the project will remain undeveloped under either designation. The amount of land developed will be identical under either designation. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The proposed development will provide a 15' BSBL at the toe of the slope as recommended in the attached Geotech report. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed alteration will have likely negative impact. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 8.2.a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY V. V 0 T) i• 0 a m co a� E 0 A ca,"p 5 N L C,cs5 Trµ p616pb5PrL- w6uc-,D C c> o, A-1 CZ ti L 1 or (-L �J ZOrJc2 17 j'�01-4',�En- T �f 21 Packet Pg. 281 City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist — Page 22 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed Comp Plan /Rezone would increase the need for public services by increasing urban density. Increased urban density promotes Transit use. The subject parcel is an infill development and the extension of public services is not required. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Increased urban density promotes Transit use. All structures will meet the applicable energy codes. Traffic impact fees will offset any additional impacts to the public road network. All other identified impacts will be offset by applicable impact fees. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There are no known conflicts Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 :/ 8.2.a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 22 Packet Pg. 282 8.2.a LEGAL DESCRIPTION/TITLE REPORT DOTES PARCEL A: LOT 7, BLOCK 3, ADMIRALTY ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PACE 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE EAST 168 FEET THEREOF, ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 7 FEET THEREOF. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHIINGTON. PARCEL B: THE SOUTH 7 FEET OF LOT 7, BLOCK 3, ADMIRALTY ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE FLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, 'WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE EAST 168 FEET THEREOF. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHIINGTON. LEGAL. DESCRIPTION BASED ON AMENDMENT 1 TO ALTA COMMITMENT BY CHICA.GO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ORDER NO. 500071829 DATED AUGUST 31, 2018 AT 12: 00 A. M. THERE ARE NO EASEMENT OF RECORD PER ALTA COMMITMENT, *./i'��I 9VIM Packet Pg. 283 Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc. ti y February 10, 2020 Mr. Sunny Singh DECEIVED � OMNIA Homes 1123 Maple Ave SW, Suite #220 FEB 13 2020 Renton, WA 98057 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Via email: hsgchomes(aDgmail.com COUNTER tit RE: Critical Areas Designation (CAD) Parcel00370800300701 XXX 76thAve. South,City of Edmonds, Washington Revised addressing City of Edmonds comments of 1/27/2020 Dear Mr. Singh, Following your request Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc. (BCES) has completed an onsite wetland verification of the 1.0-acresite located on 76th Ave. South, inside the Urban Growth Area. Onsite assessment followed the established criteria and methods as defined within the Corps of Engineers (CoE) Wetland Delineation Manual - 2010 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (WMVC) Regional Supplement, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules. Site assessment encompassed the entire site. q 0 G ,U I,.t I+ItW Q n c 51 f 1v i I ro I 1 8.411, 15 1 IN 1 84 111 $1 S l'J ..{ .vnikw.f':i A• Perl111vllle 1u, 11, rl Av.,�"MAII, vin., 4. W11, S, M'Q u. 1811111 51 51V G 18711, 5[ SW I' T 1"111 111 r1V y •` 4I R811, St s1v� Figure 1. Site Vicinity PROJECT SITE I81e1 rl sv; 0 CC r~ m EJ Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, 11SGS, Irtermap, s. INCREMENT R NRCan, Esri Japan-;,ME:Z'.I, Esri China < (Hong Kong),; Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User I fell, Pf Si Community POB 731695 • Puyallup WA 98373 (253) 732-6515 MHeckert@q.com Q Packet Pg. 284 8.2.a King County Wetland Inventory and DNR Water Type map The King County Wetland Inventory mapand City drainage map was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified no wetlands or streams on the project site. Perrinville Creek was identified offsite to the west of the site. tnnll^7.1'F' I IPdth .`�I S':i IPI .II, SI W., I 1 II ' c IE TL I'I 5:'/ ieau, �A F"%: it � I 1 r,'iuure 3. KinR County 61,edonds & Sireams Map — I in. = 500 %i , r� r, r•sr, �, _ PROJECT SITE / I 1 � ty Ia Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap increment P Corp., GEBCO. USGS, FAO, NOS, NRGAN, GeoBase, IGN Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey;,.Esri,Japan, METI, Esri China, (Hong,Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community M8.1 r.l Ssv; 3 Sunny EdmondsCAD REV 1 r Q Packet Pg. 285 8.2.a Field Observations The parcel is vacant. The site is flat and rolling in the west and sharply elevated in the east. The site has been cleared and graded flat in the west portion. Veg in the flat area is Himalayan blackberryand Scottsbroom. Most of the area is bare ground. Plant community is entirely initial regrowth from clearing and is upland. As identified at several sample plots throughout the site the soil was a sand and did not exhibit redoximorphic features. Field indicators of wetland hydrology were also absent. An area in the northwest corner of the site was purported in previous assessment to have potentially hydric vegetation .i.e. equisetum. The area was examined for wetland characteristics. Sample data (attached) shows no indication of hydric soils or hydrology. WETLAND AND STREAM DETERMINATION Wetland condition is determined by sample plots which contain hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the CoE Manual. Based on these methods no wetland was identified on the site, andno wetland was identified on the adjacent sites. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Onsite assessment was completed on September 15,2018following the methods and procedures defined within theCoE Manual, City of Edmonds Regs., and the WDNR Forest Practice Rules. This assessment identified thatNOarea within 300 ft. of the site boundariesexhibited all three of the established criteria for designation as "wetland". One area within 300 ft. of the site boundaries exhibited all three of the established criteria for designation as astream. Perrinville Creek occurs offsite approximately 80 ft. to the west, across 76th Ave. W. The standard buffer for this stream is truncated by the roadbed of 76th Ave. w. and is diminished by the road location. The stream is functionally detached from the project site and will not be impacted by development of this site. Thank you for allowing BCES the opportunity to assist with this project. Should you have any questions or require additional assistance please call me at 253 732-6515. Respectfully Submitted, Mnrrz Hecke�t Mark Heckert s Sunny EdmondsCAD REV 1 Packet Pg. 286 8.2.a I t i I I 1 00370800300600 00370800300601 1 00370800300602 00370800300603 � I i t If ® P2U EQUISTUM 1 i 00370800200800 f i 00370800300703 00370800300701 S P 1U SAND 00370800300704 1 EL � L --- --- I 00370800300702----~--------�-- N i -- _ 00370800300705 W 4�, E i I 0043460 010604 1 00434600010505 004346 0010502 Beaver Creek Environmental Services MHeckert@Q.com 253 732 6515 October 1, 2018 1 inch = 50 feet 0 25 50 100 Feet Omnia Edmonds Site Q Parcel# 00370800300701 Wetland Map Not From Survey Locations by Packet Pg. 287 8.2.a SOIL Sampling Point: SP 1U Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc? Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 4/2 100 sand backfill? 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: appears to be sand fill HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (07) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: does NOT meet wetland criteria US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 288 8.2.a H Ages Engineering, LLC A Geoteehnical and Environmental Services, LLC P.O. Box 935 Puyallup, WA. 98371 (253) 845-7000 www.agesengineering.com PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 7611 Avenue West Residential 183xx 76"' Ave W. Edmonds, Washington Project No. A-1435 Prepared For: Sunny Singh 1123 Maple Ave SW, Suite 220 Renton, WA 98057 August 27, 2018 Packet Pg. 289 8.2.a Ages Engineering, LLC P_0. yallup935 Puyallup, WA. 95371 Main (253) 845-7000 A Geotechnical and Environmental Services LLC wwFv.agesenguieeringxom August 27, 2018 Project No. A-1435 Sunny Singh 1123 Maple Ave SW, Suite 220 Renton, WA. 98057 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report 761h Avenue West Residential 183xx 76"1 Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington PN:00370800300701 Dear Mr. Singh, As requested, we have conducted a preliminary geoteclinical study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and reconunendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain with 0.0 to 1.5 feet of disturbed native soils overlying medium dense to dense, native sand with trace amounts of silt consistent with Advance Outwash. We did not observe any groundwater seepage to the depths explored. In our opinion, the soil and groundwater conditions at the site are suitable for the planned development. The new structures can be supported on typical spread footing foundations bearing on the existing organic -free native soils observed immediately below surface grades, or on structural fill placed above these soils. We reconuneud a 15-foot building setback from the toe of the slope to the planned new structures. With the recommended building setback established, no ` buffer is necessary. Detailed recommendations addressing these issues and other geotecln ical design considerations are presented in the attached report. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Respectfi►lly Submitted, Ages Engineering, LLC pp P. k �QF WAS w g Z7 -ZV4Y 0'� Bernard P. Knoll, 11 Fs F 38917 38917 Principal S/ONAL BPK:bpk Ages Engineering, LLC 253-845-7000 Page I Packet Pg. 290 8.2.a TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................... ............. I 2.0 SCOPE.......................................................................................... I 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS..........................................................................2 3.1 Surface.................................................................................2 3.2 Soils....................................................................................2 3.3 Mapped Soils.........................................................................3 3.4 Groundwater..........................................................................3 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.....................................................................3 4.1 General..................................................................................3 4.2 Landslide..............................................................................3 4.3 Seismic..................................................................................5 4.4 Erosion.................................................................................6 5.0 CONC:LUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....: ................................... 6 5.1 General.................................................................................6 5.2 DeveIopment in Potential Landslide Hazard Areas..........- ..................7 5.3 Site Preparation and Grading.......................................................8 5.4 Excavations...........................................................................9 5.5 Foundations............................................................................10 5.6 Slab -on -Grade Floors................................................................1 1 5.7 Lower level and Building Walls...................................................1 I 5.8 Storin water...........................................................................12 5.9 Permanent Slopes and Embankments............................................12 5.10 Drainage................................................................................13 6.0 ADDITIONA.L SERVICES...................................................................13 7.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................13 Figures Site Vicinity Map................................................................................Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan.....................................................................Figure 2 GeologicMap..................................................................................Figure 3 Appendix Site Exploration..........................................................................Appendix A Ages Engineering, LLC I'age 2 253-845-700o Packet Pg. 291 8.2.a Preliminary Geotechnical Report 76111 Avenue 'west Residential 183xx — 761" Ave. ` . Edmonds, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of a residential development. Detailed building plans were not available at the time of our study. We discussed the planned development with the site owner. Based on these discussions, we understand the site will be divided into three residential lots. Each lot will be developed with a new single-family residence. The new residences will likely be two to three- story wood -framed structures with raised floors constructed over a crawl space. The attached garages will have slab -on -grade floors. The new residences will face 76" Avenue West. A steep slope up to the east exists along the eastern end of the site. Access to the site will be from 761h Avenue West. Storm water collected on the site will discharge to the existing City of Edmonds storm water system located adjacent the site. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the above stated site. If actual site conditions differ, the planned project design features are different than we expect, or if changes are made, we should review them in order to modify or supplement our conclusions and recommendations as necessary. 2.0 SCOPE On August 7, 2018, we excavated three hand -augured test holes to a maximum depth of 7.0 feet below surface grades. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, we developed geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the project. Specifically, this report addresses the following: Q Reviewing the available geologic, hydrogeologic and geotechnical data for the site area, and conducting a geologic reconnaissance of the site area. ® Addressing the appropriate geotechnical regulatory requirements for the planned site development, including a Geologic Hazard evaluation. Q Advancing three hand -augured test holes in the planned new development area to a maximum depth of 7.0 feet below surface grades. Providing geotechmical recommendations for site grading including site preparation, subgrade preparation, fill placement criteria, suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill, temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control measures. o Providing geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of new foundations and floor slabs, including allowable bearing capacity and estimates of settlement. Providing geotechnical recommendations for lower level building or.retaining walls, including backfill and drainage requirements, lateral design loads, and lateral resistance values. Ages Engineering, LLC'Page 1 253-845-7000 Packet Pg. 292 IL 8.2.a Providing an evaluation of the steep slopes on the site. m Providing recommendations for site drainage. It should be noted that our work does not include services related to environmental remediation or design and performance issues related to moisture intrusion through walls. An appropriate design professional or qualified contractor should be contacted to address these issues. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface The subject site is a rectangular -shaped residential parcel located at 183xx 76`1 Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The subject site is currently unoccupied. The site is bordered with existing residential lots to the east, a commercial building to the north and south, and by 7611 Avenue West to the west. The location of the site is shown on the Site Vicinity Map provided in Figure 1. The current site Layout is shown on the Exploration Location Plan provided in Figure 2. A steep slope up to the east exists along the eastern end of the site. The eastern sloping area slopes tap to the east at surface inclinations ranging from 40 to 60 percent. A flat area extends from the toe of the slope to 7611, Avenue West. The western end of the site adjacent 67" Avenue West has a short slope down to the west. Site vegetation consists of blackberry and various low growing bushes along the cent er of the site. Along the western end of the site, and along the edges of the slope area, we observed typical deciduous and evergreen trees. 3.2 Mapped Soils According to Vie Geologic Map of Edmonds East and Part of the Ednionds TVest Quadrangles, Ui'ashington, James P. Minard (1983), the soil in the vicinity of the site is mapped as Advance Outwash (Qva). The Advance Outwash was deposited durnig the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. The Advance outwash was deposited by meltwaters and streams emanating from the advancing glacial ice mass during brief periods of warming. These glacial deposits were consequently overridden by the glacial ice sheet and therefore will typically be found in a dense condition where undisturbed. The near surface soils at the site have been disturbed by natural weathering processes that have occurred since their deposition. No springs or groundwater seepage was observed on the surface of the site at the time of our site visit. A copy of the Geologic Map for the subject site is provided in Figure 3. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) maps the soils in the vicinity of the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (3) soils that form on 15 to 30 percent slopes. According to the NRCS the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam soils at the site are described as being formed as glacial drift or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits. The Alderwood soils are classified as having a "moderate" to "severe" potential for erosion when exposed. Ages Engineering, LLC — 1'a�e 22 c 253-845-700o Packet Pg. 293 8.2.a 3.3 ,Soils The soils we observed at the site generally consist of 0.0 to 1.5 feet of disturbed native soils overlying sand with silt consistent with Advance Outwash. In Test Hole TH-1 and TH-2, located in the flat areas on the site, we encountered 1.0 and 1.5 feet, respectively, of disturbed native soils. Below 1.0 to 1.5 feet in Test Holes TH-1 and TH-2, and in Test Hole TH-3, we encountered native fine- to medium -grained sand with trace amounts of silt consistent with Advance Outwash. The Advance Outwash was medium dense and weathered in the upper portions. The dense unweathered Advance Outwash was encountered at a depth of 7.0 feet below surface grades. Figures A-1 and A-2 present more detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test holes. The approximate test hole locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan provided in Figure 2. 3.4 Groundwater We did not encounter groundwater seepage in any of the test holes excavated on the site, However, we expect a water table exists beneath the site. The groundwater levels and flow rates will fluctuate seasonally and typically reach their highest levels during and shortly following the wet winter months (October through May). 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 General According to Chapter 23.80 in the City of Edmonds Municipal Code geologic hazard areas include "areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area: A. Erosion hazard; B. Landslide hazard; and C. Seismic hazard. [Ord. 4026 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 2, 2004]." 4.2 Landslide According to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code 23.80,020, landslide hazard areas are defined as: "areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Within the city of Edmonds potential landslide hazard areas include: Ages Engineerine, LLC Page 3 253-345-700p Packet Pg. 294 8.2.a 1. Areas of ancient or historic failures in Edmonds which include all areas within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc., and further discussed in the 2007 report by Landau Associates; 2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides) in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas; 3. Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mud -flows, or landslides on maps published by the United States Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources; 4. Any slope of 40 percent or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25- foot horizontal run. Except for rockeries that have been engineered and approved by the engineer as having been built according to the engineered design, all other modified slopes (including slopes where there are breaks in slopes) meeting overall average steepness and height criteria should be considered potential landslide hazard areas); Any slope with all three of the following characteristics: a. Slopes steeper than 15 percent; b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment; and C. Springs or ground water seepage; 6. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; 7. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments; and Any slopes that have been modified by past development activity that still meet the slope criteria." Based on our document research, we found no areas on the site mapped as areas of historic slope failures. The site is not located along a shoreline and therefore is not mapped by the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas. The United States Geological Survey and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources maps have not designated any areas as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides. The site does not have a stream running thr-u it, therefore no rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. We did not observe any areas with topographic expression of runout zones, such as fans and colluvial deposition at the toes of hillsides. The sites' eastern slope area exceeds 15 percent but have no groundwater seepage or springs, and do not have intersecting contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment. The sites' eastern slope area exceeds 40 percent and has a vertical height of over 10 feet for a 25-foot horizontal run. The sites' eastern slope area may have been cut to its current inclination by past grading activities on the site. Abe;; Engineering. LLl'Page 4 253-845-7000 Packet Pg. 295 8.2.a Based on the current inclination of the sites' eastern slope area exceeding 40 percent, the site is classified as a landslide hazard area. However, the site is underlain with medium dense to dense sand with trace aniounts of silt consistent with Advance Outwash that will exhibit a relatively high shear strength and low compressibility, even in a sloping environment. We estimate the friction angle of the native Advance Outwash sands is approximately 36-degrees. And based on our site measurements, the sites' eastern slope area in inclined at an approximate 35-degree angle. Based on these parameters, the slope is currently at the soils fiction angle. A soils friction angle is based on the principle that when a soil is gradually piled, the natural side slopes of the pile will be representative of the soils friction angle. If piles steeper than the friction angle are made, and no other factor are present, the soil will eventually erode until its side slope equp] its friction angle. The natural cohesion of the soil will increase the internal strength of the soil allowing it to stand stable at a much steeper configuration. Based on these factors, we expect the sites' eastern slope is stable from a global perspective. Provided surface water is controlled on the site, and all structures are provided with proper subsurface drainage measures, the potential for a landslide to occur at this site should be considered very low. 4.3 Seismic According to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code 23.80,020, the City of Edmonds defines seismic hazard areas as, "In addition to liquefaction -prone areas described in subsection 2 above, seismic hazard areas are the following: a. Areas of the City subject to ground shaking from seismic hazards that are addressed by the Building Code (SMC Title 22). b. The Seattle Fault zone as delineated in Troost et al., 2005, The geologic map of Seattle, a progress report, U.S. Geological Survey, Open -file report 2005-1252 or as the Director determines is more accurately mapped by the U.S Geological Survey, as set out in a Director's Rule." The site is located north of the Seattle Fault zone. The site is located in an area underlain with medium dense to dense compact glacially consolidated soils. Liquefaction can be described as a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in pore water, pressure. The increase in water pressure is typically induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of loose, tine - grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the relative density and well -graded nature of the soils underlying the site, the risk for liquefaction to occur at the site should be considered negligible. The state of Washington has adopted the International Building Code (IBC). Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, per the (IBC) site class "D" can be used in structural design. This is based on the inferred range of SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts for the upper 100 feet of the site relative to hand excavation progress and probing with a '/z-inch diameter steel probe rod. The presence of glacially consolidated soil conditions were assumed to be representative for the site conditions beyond the depths explored. Ages Engineering. LLC - Page 5 253-845-7000 Packet Pg. 296 8.2.a 4.4 Erosion According to the City of Edmonds' Municipal Code 23.80.020, defines an Erosion Hazard Area as "those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds erosion hazard areas include: 1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes); C. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes); 2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion related to moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat: 3. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and .impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils and springs or ground water seepage; and 4. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope. The site is mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (15 to 25 percent slopes) which has a moderate to severe potential for erosion when exposed. Based on the USDA classification of the site, the sites' eastern slope area is classified as an erosion hazard area. No development is planned in the sloping eastern end of the site. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) .measures must be in place prior to and maintained during construction activity at the site. In our opinion, the potential for erosion is not a limiting factor in site development. Erosion hazards can be mitigated by applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Sformwaler Management Manual fvr YYestern Washington. TESC measures, in accordance with the City of Edmonds, must be in place prior to beginning construction on the site. 5.0 CC)NCLElSIONS AND I1ECCI10'M-ENDATIONS 5.1 General Based on our study, in our opinion, soil and groundwater conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed development. The new strictures can be supported on conventional spread footings Ages iugineerint,.LLC ..._.,__<a.._._,�,........,,......,,....,...�.�....�._�..n._.,.�...��_....-.�..a,...�.......�e..,.�__..........,,...a,� Pngz 253-S45-700o Packet Pg. 297 8.2.a bearing on the existing organic -free native site soils, or on structural fill placed above these existing soils. Floor stabs and pavements should be similarly supported. The native soils encountered at the site contain a high enough percentage of fines (silt and clay - size particles) that will make them difficult to compact as struchiral fill when too wet. Accordingly, the ability to use the soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities will take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free -draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. The following sections provide detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. 5.2 Development in Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas According to ECDC 23.80.070, the City of Edmonds does allow development on sites containing erosion or landslide hazard areas. The general requirement re as follows: 1. Minimum Building Setback. The minimum setback shall be the distance required to ensure the proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, considered to be 120 years, and will not cause an increased risk of landslides taking place on or off the site. A setback shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The size of the setback shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional; 2. Buffer Requirements. A buffer may be established with specific requirements and limitations, including but not limited to, drainage, grading, irrigation, and vegetation. Buffer requirements shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by activities within the buffer area, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional: 3. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area, minimum building setback and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that: a. The alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevel.opment conditions; b. The alteration will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and Ages Eugineering, LLC , � Page 7 253-845-700o Packet Pg. 298 8.2.a c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas; Based on our understanding of the planned development, the sites' eastern slope area will not be developed. The new development will be in the flat areas along the toe of the slope. Accordingly, to protect the site from the erosion and landslide hazard associated with the eastern slope area, we recommend a Building Setback equal to 15.0 feet. With the Building Setback established, no Buffer is necessary. 5.3 Site Preparation and Grading To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials including any existing structures, foundations or abandoned utility lines should be stripped and removed from the new development areas. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in non-structural areas. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired grades. In order- to achieve proper compaction of structural fill, and to provide adequate foundation and floor slab support, the native subgrade must be in a stable condition. Prior to placing structural fill, and to prepare the foundation subgrade, all exposed surfaces should be compacted with heavy vibratory compaction equipment to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. If excessively soft or yielding areas are present., and cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. If the depth to remove the unsuitable soil is excessive, using a geotextile fabric can be considered, such as Mirafi HP270 or an approved equivalent, in conjunction with structural fill. In general, a minimum of 18-inches of clean, granular structural fill over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. A representative of Ages Engineering, LLC should observe the foundation subgrade compaction operations to verify that stable subgrades are achieved for support of structural elements. Our study indicates the native surface soils encountered at the site contain a sufficient enough percentage of fines (silt and clay -size particles) that will make them difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. Accordingly, the ability to use the soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or the on - site soils become too wet to achieve adequate compaction, the owner should be prepared to import a wet -weather structural fill. For wet weather structural fill, we recommend importing a granular soil that mects the following gradation requirements: U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passim 6 inches 100 No. 4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum Based on the % inch fraction Ages Engineering, LLt_' _-....,,.,..Q...�......m.�—,.�..,.._a�__�.,.,�..F..,..-..-......,.......a.�...�_�,�..�.� Page R 253-845-7000 Packet Pg. 299 8.2.a Prior to use, Ages Engineering, LLC should examine and test all materials to be imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in. uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soils' laboratory maximum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this same ASTM standard. In non-structural areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 5.4 Excavations Gerrefrrl, The inclination for a safe and stable excavation slope cut is determined based on two factors, the current Washington State Safety and Health Administration (WSHA) regulations for confined spaces and global stability of the slope cut. Most often, the WSHA regulations are more conservative than the global stability requirements. According to WAC 296-809-099, a confined space is defined as: "A space that is all of the following: (a) Large enough and arranged so an employee could fully enter the space and work. (b) Has limited or restricted entry or exit. Examples of spaces with limited or restricted entry are tanks, vessels, silos, storage bins, hoppers, vaults, excavations, and pits. (e) Not primarily designed for human occupancy." In the context of site excavation and grading, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries considers a confined space as a space in which a worker enters an excavation that is tall enough and/or narrow enough to inundate the worker and cause bodily harm if a cave-in occurs. This does not include excavations that are less than 4.0 feet in depth. WSWA Approved Slopes, All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and lower level building and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, and/or federal requirements. Based on current Washington State Safety and Health Admuustration (WSHA) regulations, the existing near -surface loose to medium dense disturbed soils and the weathered medium dense Advance Outwash soils observed in the upper 7.0 feet below surface grades would be classified as Type C soils. The deeper dense native Advance Outwash soils observed below 7.0 feet would be classified as Type B soils. According to WSHA, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type C soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter from the toe to the crest of the slope and the side slopes .in Type B soils sholdd be laid back at a slope inclination of 1:.1 (Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter from the toe to the crest of the slope. All Ages Engineering. LLC Page 9 253-845-7000 Packet Pg. 300 8.2.a exposed slope faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane during construction to prevent slope raveling and nutting during periods of precipitation. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the excavation slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will be stockpiled along the slope crest. If these safe temporary slope inclinations cannot be achieved due to property line constraints, shoring may be necessary. Non_if MA Approveil ,''lopes, Based on the composition and consistency of the site soils, stable slope cuts to provide adequate global stability can be steeper than WSHA standards in areas that are not considered confined spaces. Excavations into the native site soils that will not result in WSHA regulated confined spaces can be cut to an inclination of 0.5:1. Some raveling of the gravel and cobbles exposed on the slope surface may occur at an inclination of 0.5:1. Due to the potential for raveling to occur, and to prevent erosion, the slope face should be covered with durable plastic sheeting. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants; and should not be construed to imply that Ages Engineering, LLC assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.5 Foundations The new residential foundations may be supported on conventional spread footing .foundations bearing on the competent native organic -free soils or on structural fills placed above these native soils. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as reconmiended in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section of this report. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should bear at a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. We recommend designing new foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With the anticipated loads and this bearing stress applied, building settlements should be less than one-half inch total and one -quarter inch differential. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pef). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundations will be constructed neat against competent soil and backfilled with structural fill, as described in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section of this report. The values recorrunended include a safety factor of I.S. Aces Engineering. LLC Page 10 253-845-7000 Packet Pg. 301 it Foundation Parameter Surninai Description `--Design Value Net Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf Friction Coefficient 0,35 Lateral Resistance 300 pcf VDetails regarding the use of these parameters are provided in the section above. 5.6 Slab -On -Grade Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on subgrades prepared as recommended in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four -inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free -draining, coarse sand or fine gravel that .has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water tluough the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slabs. The drainage material should be placed in one lift and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor transmission. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a layer of clean sand or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing of the concrete slab. It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to pouring the slab, it will not assist in uniform curing of the slab, and may serve as a water supply for moisture transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Additionally, if the sand is too dry, it can effectively drain the fresh concrete, thereby lowering its strength. Therefore, in our opinion, covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided. 5.7 Lower Level and Building Walls The magnitude of earth pressure development on below -grade walls, such as basement or retaining walls, will greatly depend on the quality of the wall backfill and the wall drainage. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Wall backfill below structurally loaded areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximurn dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, drainage must be installed behind the wall. We recommend that wall drainage consist of a minimum 12 inches of clean sand and/or gravel with less than three percent fines placed against the back of the wall. In addition, a drainage collector system consisting of 4-inch perforated PVC pipe should be placed behind the wall to provide an outlet for any accumulated water. The drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations- These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year. The wall Ages Engineering. LLI; Page 11 253-845-700(1 Packet Pg. 302 8.2.a drainage material should be capped at the ground surface with i-foot of relatively impenrteable soil to prevent surface intrusion into the drainage zone. Alternatively, the 12-inch wide drainage layer placed against the back of the wall can be replaced with a Mirafi G104N Drainage Board, or an approved equivalent. If drainage board is used, the 4-inch perforated PVC pipe should be covered with at least 12 inches of clean washed gravel and the drainage board should be hydraulically corulected to drainpipe and surrounding gravel, With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and the wall drainage properly installed, unrestrained walls can be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, then the imposed loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of the wall foundation and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in the "Foundations" section of this report. Lower Level Buildin andRetainin Walt Parameter Summary Description Condition *Design Value Earth Pressure Unrestrained 35 pef Earth Pressure Restrained Additional 100 psf Earth Pressure Surcharge Dependant upon magnitude "Details regarding the use of these parameters are provided in the section above. 5.8 Storm Water The storm water collected in the roof and foundation drains should discharge off of the site to the existing City of Edmonds storm water system adjacent the site. 5.9 Permanent Slopes and Embankments All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination of no greater than 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). Upon completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow in an uncontrolled fashion over the slope face. If it is necessary to direct surface runoff towards the slope, it should be controlled at the top of the slope, piped in a closed conduit .installed on the slope face, and taken to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe. All fill used for slope and embankment construction should meet the structural fill requirements described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. In addition, if new fills will be placed over existing slopes of 20 percent or greater, the structural fill should be keyed and benched into competent slope soils. Ages Luginczrim,. LLC I'a,e 12 253-E45-700o Packet Pg. 303 8.2.a 5.10 Site Drainage Sits face, Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building area. All ground surfaces, pavements, and sidewalks should be sloped away from the structure. We recommend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided, unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. Subsurface, We recommend installing a continuous drain along the lower outside edge of the perimeter building foundation. The foundation drain should be tightlined to an approved point of controlled discharge. The roof drain should not be connected to the footing drains unless a backflow device will be installed, or an adequate gradient will prevent backflow into the footing drains. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to the point of discharge. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year. 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Ages Engineering, LLC should review the final project designs and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. If changes are made in the loads, grades, locations, configura- tions or types of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as necessary. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, This will allow for expedient design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 7.0 LIMITATIONS We prepared this report in accordance vvith generally accepted geoteclinical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made, This report is the copyrighted property of Ages Engineering, LLC and is intended for the exclusive use of Mr. Sunny Singh and his authorized representatives for use in the design, permitting, and constriction portions of this prof ect. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from others and our site explorations, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Ages Engineering, LLC P iuc, 13 253-345-700o Packet Pg. 304 Variations in subsurface conditions are possible. The nature and extent of which may not become evident until the time of construction. if variations appear evident, Ages Engineering, LL-C should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. A contingency for unanticipated subsurface conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated during our exploration, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental remediation and construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Ages Engineering, LLC - Pan 1, 25 3-845-700() Packet Pg. 305 8.2.a ' � E6n�C%NGi EDMONDS QA LYNNWOOD � rvn.rrarau I f =. MOUNTLAKE 1 TERRACE NIX-11TIA E TF RACE Approximate Site Location Ages Engineering, LLC P. 0. Box 935 Puyallup. WA. 98371 Alain (253) 845-7000 www.ageseneineeruig.coni Site Vicinity Map 761 Avenue West Residential 183xx 761 Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington Project No.: A-1435 I August 2018 ( Figure I Q Packet Pg. 306 8.2.a F � ,~ TH-3 ♦ ' TI-1-2 ♦+' TH-I r blr � i 4 ,Aor AN ID IF r 4% KEY: APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST HOLE- V Ages Engineering, LLC P. O. Box 935 Puyallup. NVA. 98371 Main (253) 845-7000 www.agesengineering.com Exploration Location Plan 76t11 Avenue West Residential 183xx 761, Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington Project No.: A-1435 August 2018 Figure 2 w Q Packet Pg. 307 8.2.a V , •r � li i. t I l t O I �' .Approximate Site Location 1-3 Ages Engineering, LL P. o. Box 935 I' ipHup. WA. 98371 kfain (253) 845-7000 �=,•x�a.a �esenginecring.com Q Geologic Map 76` 1 Avenue Nest Residential .183xx 7611 Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington Project No.: A-1435 I August 2018 1 Figure 3 Packet Pg. 308 8.2.a + r ;OIA II �� r :-•w 13 �14� �� i; _ ►lgiF �� . u ! ; 1t Air. •• i4' i � L Approximate Site Location Ages Engineering, LLC P. O. Box 935 Puyallup. WA. 98371 Main (253) S45-7000 www.agesengiueerutg.com ECA Map 76" Avenue Residential 183xx 76t11 Ave. W. Edmonds. Washington Project No.: A-1435 I August 2018 I Figure 4 a Packet Pg. 309 8.2.a APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 76" Avenue 'West Residential Edmonds, Washington On August 7, 2018 we explored subsurface conditions at the site by excavating three hand -augured test holes to a maximum depth of 3.0 feet below surface grades. The approximate test hole locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan provided in Figure 2. A geotechnical engineering representative from our office conducted the field exploration, maintained a log of each test hole and, classified the soils encountered, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A-l. The test hole lobs are presented on Figure A-2. Representative soil samples obtained from the test holes were placed in sealed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test hole logs. Project No. A-1435 Packet Pg. 310 8.2.a UNIFIED SOIL; CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME GRAVEL GW Well -Graded GRAVEL WITH GRAVEL < 5 % FINES GI' Poorly -Graded GRAVEL GRAVEL GW-GM Well -Graded GRAVEL with silt GW-GC Well -Graded GRAVEL with clay WITH BETWEEN GP -GM Poorly -Graded GRAVEL with silt COARSE More than 50% Of Coarse Fraction Retained on 5 AND 15 % FINES GP -GC Poorly -Graded GRAVEL with clay GRAINED No. 4 Sieve GRAVEL GM Silty GRAVEL SOILS WITH> 15 % FINES GC Clayey GRAVEL SAND SW Well -Graded SAND WITH SP Poorly -Graded SAND More than 50% Retained on SAND < 5 % FINES No. 200 Sieve SAND SW-SM Well -Graded SAND with silt SW -SC Well -Graded SAND with clay WITH More than 50% Or Coarse Fraction Passes BETWEEN 5 AND 15 % FINES SP-Slvt Poorly -Graded SAND with silt SP-SC Poorly -Graded SAND with clay No. 4 Sieve SAND SM Silty SAND WITH > 15 % FINES SC Clayey SAND FINE GRAINED Liquid Limit Less than 50 ML Inorganic SILT with low plasticity CL Lean inorganic CLAY with low plasticity g• P � � ` .y OL Organic SILT with low plasticity SOILS SILT AND MH Elastic inorganic SILT with moderate to high plasticity CLAY More than 50% Passes Liquid Limit 50 or more CH Fat inorganic CLAY with moderate to high plasticity OH Organic SILT or CLAY with moderate to high plasticity No. 200 Sieve HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: (1) Soil descriptions are based on visual held and laboratory observations using (lie classification methods described in AST1V1 D-2488. Where laboratory data are available, classifications are in accordance with ASTM D-2487. (2) Solid lines between soil descriptions indicate a change in the interpreted geologic unit. Dashed lines indicate stratigraphic cinangt within the unit (3) Fines are material passing the LT.S. No. 200 Sieve. Al%eE. ��,1I1eeringgq LL ,4' 11. 0. Box 935 Puyallup. WA. 98371 Main (253) 845-7000 www.agesengineeruig.cow r Q Unified Sail Classification System (USCS) 76th Avenue West Residential 183xx 761, Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington Project No.: A-1435 I August 2019 I Figure A-1 Packet Pg. 311 P.O. Box 935 A ; J ' t� Puyallup, WA. 93371 9 A� A g -�11)i ri 1 — `L,__i Office (253) 845-7000 Test Hole TH-1 DATE. AuLmst 7. 2018 LOGGED, BY: BPK LLex: Depth (feet) Soil Description Notes M'% I Other 0 5 DISTURBED NATIVE SOIL: gray sand with silt and gravel, loose. Gray SAND, trace silt, fine- to medium -brained sand, moist, medium dense. (SP-SM) Dense below 7.0 teet. Test Hole terminated al a depth of 7.0 feet below surface grades. No groundwater seepage encountered. DATE: August 7,2018 t-OGGEr)BY! BPK ELFv: Depth Soil Description Notes (feet) I M ". Other 0 5 DISTURBED NATIVE SOIL: gray sand with silt and gravel, loose. Gray SAND, trace silt, fine- to mediutn-grained sand, moist, medium dense. (SP-SM) Dense below 7,0 feet. Test Hole lermt mired at a depth of7.0 feet below surface grades. No groundwater seepage encountered. Test Hole TH-3 DATE: August 7, 2018 LOGGED BY': BPK FLFY: Depth _ Soil Description Notes (feet) M% I Other 0 Gray SAND, trace silt, fine- to medium -grained sand, moist, medium dense to dense. (SP-SM) 5 ies( Hole lenninated at a depth of 4.0 feet below surface grades. No groundwater seepage encountered. Q rii(yure A-2 P,,;,&rA-1345 Packet Pg. 312 8.2.a 0 !q 5 -2 q -eye SHT 3 Go YYYY 7 T2 S.;WNA4f co % STSW �951 0 -------- --- 0 510 20 30 C\1 . ......... m SCALE 1" = 30' 4 -SLATS SITE 5PT 6- 188TH ST SW + it.. ........ . is Cato VICINffY MAP NTS 183XX 76TH AVE. W. EDMONDS, WA 98026 003708-003-007-01 & 003708-003-007-02 45,668 SOFT (1.05 AC) N X 003 D-01 — LT 7 LESS S 7FT ALSO 4 SIVE DESIGNATION —NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON —MULTI FAMILY — HIGH DENSITY .4 . T_ .,IGNATIONS BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) —RM-2.4 MULTI FAMILY - W-POBLETE, INC. IRN WAY N. "NGT FA.N. 251 12 1�-22.6 OMNIA HOMES 1123 MAPLE AVE W. SUITE 220 REWTON, WA 98057 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / REZONE EXHIBIT iINEERING - SURVEYING LAND PLANNING cim 30, ASP r 97 9019 Packet Pg. 313 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Public Hearing AM D2019-0008 City Council September 22, 2020 Brad Shipley, Associate Planner 'nc. 1 sg„ nni 1---� W I-- � �-' Packet Pg. 314 DY'll Proposal to change Comprehensive Plan map designa $.Z.b AMD2019mOOO8. from 'N,eighborhood Commercial to Multi Family - is rie• E • 1847H S T 5 W PrL SW dry+ ilk- 135TH PL 5W TH'ST SW ,. ,. LU LU DO 4 � ,M1 Packet Pg. 316 Comprehensive Plan Map SF -Urban 3 Open Space SF Neighborhood Commercial r MF- - Medium - Density SF-Resource+/!/,r �rIl 8.2.b o C N - ... c m P L Q Packet Pg. 317 Compatible Zoning Classifications Land. Use Map Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Classifications Units/Acre Multi Family - High Density Multi family RM-1.5, RM-2.4 18-30 r-----------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------------------------------��-----� Multi Family — Medium Density RM-2.4 RM-3 D 18 _�------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mixed Use Commercial Conuuercial Mixed Use Commercial or inixture of zones Conununity Conunercial WMU, BC, BN, or equivalent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;Neighborhood Conunercial BN or equivalent based on neighborhood plan L----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- 8.2.b Packet Pg. 318 I&NDSTSW Ni V lk: 184TH PL SW ?2S5TH ST.5W 186TH'ST SW Lu CL Previous Similar Proposals in Area Perrin Village rezone, 1985 • Rezone from "Neighborhood Business" (BN) to "Multi-Fomily Residentia " (RM-3) was approved for a 2.2-acre parcel on 76th Ave. W Post Office rezone, 1987 • Rezone from "Multi -Family Residential" (RM-3) to "Neighborhood Business" (BN) was approved for a 1.2 -acre to allow for expansion of Post Office ? . I 8.2.b 0 -r a Packet Pg. 320 New Development in Area a$ Perrinville CL Townhomes • 42 fee -simple townhomes under development in Lynnwood Packet Pg. 321 ?P-Vi-p-w Critp-ric s the proposal consistent with the comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? 1 Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the 4 requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development? Review Criteria Comprehensive plan does not outline a specific vision for Perri nvi I I e SF -Urban 3 ��. ;:: f Neighborhood' Open Space. Commercial SF -Urban 1 MF- Medium Density lion, 7 - f'l -7-r7-.777r 7 / 7777 SF -Resource i ii i H H i n Review Criteria i H H H H I--------------------- IL --- Residential goals and polices state that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets �i CL 0 184th 5t SW � 185th St SW Functional Classification Principal Arterial Collector Minor Arterial Local Street Note: Dashed lines indicate a recommended change in functional classification. i p MaOleWc7o- d (I�-- Meadowdale Beach Rd 74St+SVI f e� �88tFi St 5 r a I Packet Pg. 324 1 I Review rite ri a • Sub'Ject site was rezoned to 'Neighborhood Business' in 1962 • Land containing subject site annexed in 1982 • After nearly 60 years, the site remains undeveloped V.LC A C7C . i p } t dRL -Y 14 ro r? i-$t# F. W -A -J # .- ,--j •� 1841 h 57 S.)Af--J EDMONDS HEN 0S ADD J c o1v 1 (4692) ADIWIRALTY Co ACRES 6 x rn �< G F 1- . W RR-1 , 00 4! R 5135- 4127f 59 U1 tV B R108-4Y91621 v kUlf4R 29 IB5th PL S W 22 IL R98r118I62 — ca B • C E x SP52-70 iR 165 - 7l 8163 r Q Packet Pg. 325 r r r Review rite ri a • Opportunity to build 'missing middle' housing types Detached Single -Family Houses S=ate-� - ]JJ1aJ�7X t! J ]J ] .73 i �l Hn Al -lam JJ lilil a n l r = - - j�A -- L7QI7_- ¢ 1 fl uR�1Il ■�®� X�T7 a ■ 1 x M f� R 1 lIi AA -_ ill !l1111 1717R 1-� ---_ \ Mid -Rise Multiplex: Triplex:Live- Work ` Courtyard Cottage Townhouse Medium Stacked ` Duplex: Faurplex_ Building Court \ \ Slde-i3y-Side + Stacked �� {puSlClg Stacked Missing Nildd CopYnght�P 203 ❑ FT1C05 Opt icos Design, I Packet Pg. 326 • Review rite ri a Opportunity to provide needed improvements to the existing streetsca pe Q Packet Pg. 327 Review Cr*teria • Total shift of 1.04 acres from commercial to multi -family residential land use General Land Use Parks Commercial Multi-Residentia Open Space Mixed Use Single-Residentic Acres 67 105 229 418 667 4324 a J2 Percent of Tota I °' 1.2(�c0 0 1.8%= 3.9c V 7. 2 % 0 11.5 c L 74.4 %c Packet Pg. 328 i-------------------- Review Criteria • Preliminary plans show six to seven fee -simple townhomes • Recent upgrades to Lynnwood sewer system in area provide enough capacity to handle new development • Potential developer working to avoid the slope Packet Pg. 329 8.2.b Staff Recommendation Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family - Medium Density." Packet Pg. 330 11 T' _ � L y� ILI tiAfk _ j 8.2.b Q Genie Perrin, 19 Packet Pg. 331 8.2.c Board Member Cheung agreed that the amendment is inconsistent with Criteria 1. Changing the Comprehensive Plan for just two properties is for a private interest rather than the public interest. He is also worried about setting a precedent for changes in other areas of the City. THE CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES, ROSEN, CLOUTIER, MONROE, CHEUNG AND CRANK VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Board Member Rubenkonig said she agrees with the explanation provided in the Staff Report to support staff's recommendation. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board's recommendation will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing (date to be determined), and notices will be sent out to all parties of record. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY — MEDIUM DENSITY" FOR TWO VACANT PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA (TAX I.D. 003700800300701 AND 00370800300702) (FILE NUMBER 4869) Mr. Shipley explained that the proposal seeks to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Multi -Family Residential — Medium Density (RM- MD). The immediate area is developed with a mixture of uses, including a post office, local retail shops and services, professional offices, restaurants, multi -family residential and single-family residential. Perrinville Village, a new 42-unit, fee -simple townhome development, is under construction in Lynnwood. The property has been zoned BN for many years, which allows for low -density, strip -mall type development. The height limit is 25 feet, and the setback requirement is 25 feet. The proposed RM-MD designation would allow either RM-2.4 or RM-3 zoning. Mr. Shipley said the Perrin Village property was rezoned from NB to Multi -Family Residential (RM-3) in 1985 and is currently developed with five, 4-unit buildings. In 1987, a 1.2-acre parcel was rezoned from RM-3 to BN to allow the United States Postal Service to expand its facilities. Mr. Shipley reviewed the four criteria that must be met before a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be approved: Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The Comprehensive Plan does not mention a specific vision for the Perrinville area. The neighborhood is generally recognized as one that "includes commercial activities." However, there is one goal policy in the Transportation Element that identifies Perrinville. Goal 5(13)(2)(a)(1) states that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. Both Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave. W are classified as either collector or minor arterial streets, depending on the direction. If the proposal had been for property located on a local street, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? The site was rezoned to BN in 1962. While he understands the desire for more commercial development, the site has been zoned as such for 50 years but hasn't been developed yet. The amendment offers potential to add to the "missing middle" housing type. The applicant's current intent is to develop the site with 6 or 7 townhomes. Any development along this section would require streetscape improvements to improve walkability and provide some type of connection from the site to the street. All of these could be seen as in the public interest and consistent with the health and safety of the City's citizens. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land sues within the City? The proposal would result in a slight shift (about 1 acre) from commercial to residential land uses. However, the shift would not disrupt the balance of land uses within the City. The proposed use is compatible with existing commercial uses, and office and daycare uses are allowed in the RM zone as primary conditional uses. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 332 8.2.c 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designated and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The applicant is trying to protect the slope as much as possible rather than maximizing the land's full development potential. Recent upgrades to the Lynnwood sewer system have increased its capacity and there are no issues with connecting to their facilities. All other utilities are available to accommodate the requested land use, as well. Mr. Shipley recommend that, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and attachments the Staff Report, the Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the change in designation from NC to RM-MD. Board Member Monroe said the application mentions that the property is not a suitable site for a commercial zone because it isn't easily accessible to the ground level. He asked if that is a requirement of the BN zone. Mr. Shipley said it is not a requirement. There is a slope at the street front, so the view might be difficult for commercial development at the top. Again, he reminded the Board that the site has been zoned BN for 50 years, but hasn't been developed. If the zoning was appropriate, it is likely it would have been developed by now. Board Member Monroe asked what zoning the applicant is interested in. Mr. Shipley reminded him that zoning is not part of the current issue, but the applicant has indicated a desire for RM-2.4. However, it is not likely that the site will accommodate that amount of density. Board Member Monroe asked if any other properties in the vicinity are designated as RM-MD, and Mr. Shipley said no. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the surrounding properties are designated either NC or single- family (RS). Board Member Monroe asked if there is a City policy that RM zoning is appropriate when adjacent to commercial zoning. Mr. Shipley said RM is generally viewed as a transition zone between RS and commercial. In this case, the RM would create a transition zone between the commercial and RS zones. Hans Korve, Applicant, said staff summarized the application well. He referred to Comprehensive Plan Policy A.2, which states `parcels of land previously zoned for commercial use that are now identified as unnecessary or inappropriate should be reclassified for other uses. " As staff indicated, the property has been zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) for 50 years, and no one has found it suitable for commercial uses for the reasons stated in the application. Having a commercial business that is 8 feet above the street level isn't attractive, and that's likely why the property has been undeveloped for 50 years. Mr. Korve shared a preliminary site plan, noting that only about half of the property would be developed due to the slope in the back. The proposal is to construct fee -simple townhomes, where individual units would be separated from 761 Avenue by the 8-foot elevation change. Individuals in the homes will look over the traffic on 761 Avenue. The units will be separated from the BN development to the south and north, as well as the backyard of the one single-family residence, via a landscaping buffer. He noted that a property owner in the area voiced concern about the loss of privacy, but it is important to note that only one unit would be next to the backyard to the north. The impact would be the same as one two-story house, and the landscape buffers would adequately address this concern. Mr. Korve said the site plan honors the natural topography of the site, which is consistent with one of the Comprehensive Plan goals. If the property were developed for a commercial use, a lot of grading and a large retaining wall would be needed. This would be quite costly. He expressed his belief that the proposed land use designation change represents the best use of the property. While many people talk about retaining the character of the single-family neighborhoods, the Comprehensive Plan talks about the need for affordable housing for a variety of people in the community. Multi -family development on the subject property would provide "missing middle" units that would be owner -occupied, and the Comprehensive Plan goals support the proposal. Andrew Koehn, Edmonds, said the applicant's proposal answered many of he and his wife's concerns. They were worried about height and ownership and parking on 761 Avenue, which gets fully parked out when the mail service is in operation. In his experience, apartment overflow can have a significant impact, too. He said he is pleased with the type of development the applicant is proposing, and they support the proposed amendment. Alexey Ancheyev, Urban Design Group, said his company specializes in the architectural part of the development, and he agreed that the proposed development would serve as a good transition between the single-family and commercial zones. He asked to share some alternative ideas for the proposed development. However, Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that the Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 333 8.2.c focus of the hearing is on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which doesn't involve the future site design. Mr. Ancheyev said the change will make the site design even better. Rather than two access points, the updated plan would have just one, and the seven units would be located towards the back of the lot with the backyards facing the slope. The project would be separated from 76t' Avenue by landscaping. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Board Member Monroe asked why RS-R zoning wasn't considered for the subject parcels. He recognized that the property hasn't been developed under its current zoning over the past 50 years, but he was concerned about skipping right to RM-MD. He appreciates the need to create housing to serving the "missing middle," but he also understands that the City can meet its population requirements with infill. Mr. Shipley answered that single-family residential development wouldn't require the applicant to go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. They could achieve the same density doing single- family, but the applicant is seeking a different construction type that results in lower construction costs per unit. The City has more options for single-family homes, which occupy about 75% of the City's total land area. The proposal would provide a different housing type that is not readily available in the City. It would also improve the streetscape, increase walkability and result in more people to support the local businesses. Board Member Monroe asked how the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods would benefit from the proposed change. Board Member Crank pointed out that the proposed change would result in a more diverse community, and not just more housing. Mr. Shipley said there are a number of reasons why someone might choose to live in a townhome versus a single- family home. Chair Robles added that providing a variety of housing options is important so that people can live in the communities they serve, and the price point of townhome development would better meet that objective. Board Member Monroe cautioned that it is important to apply the rules consistently throughout the City. If the Board recommends approval of the proposal, they would be sending the message that other areas that are adjacent to commercial zones could also be changed to RM-MD. He suggested that the property owners in Perrinville may get a little shell shocked when the multi -family project in Lynnwood is finished, particularly since there is no proposal to improve 76' Avenue. Board Member Crank said she is excited to see that the "missing middle" is finally being addressed. There have been community discussions about this need for a number of years. The last two density projects in Edmonds, at Westgate and off of 239t' Street, have been rentals. It is good to see ownership housing being proposed in Edmonds as opposed to rental. Projects of this type help to add to the diversity of the community. Edmonds will continue to grow, and this type of medium - density project makes sense. Perrinville might be a good model for creating an urban village where people can shop where they live because there are already retail businesses in the area. She said she supports the proposed amendment as presented. Board Member Cheung agreed with Board Member Crank. He supports the proposed change, which would encourage a developer to add more housing in the area, and it likely makes more economic sense to develop townhomes as opposed to single-family homes. He said he believes that townhome development would fit with the character of the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Cloutier referred to Board Member Monroe's question about why the applicant is proposing RM-MD as opposed to NC. He pointed out that all of the City's other neighborhood commercial districts have a transition from commercial, to multi -family, to single family for exactly the reasons stated by Board Member Crank and discussed on multiple occasions by the Board. People want to live close to where they can shop, and multi -family residential development provides enough density to support a transit center. Typically, it is not desirable to locate single-family homes next to commercial businesses, and multi -family creates a better transition. Board Member Rubenkonig thanked the applicant for the fine presentation included in the Staff Report. A lot of the information the Board Members were seeking was already provided by the applicant. He was also very careful to address the concerns expressed by the public. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, if Edmonds were prairie land, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps would have fewer conflicts. But there are a lot of topographical changes throughout the City. Hearing about the 6 to 8-foot change in elevation helped her look at the site differently. It makes a difference in terms of how you approach a commercial area. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 334 8.2.c She acknowledged that the current proposal is only related to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but it is possible that the applicant will have to stabilize the slope on the east side of the property. If so, that would be a good thing for Perrinville. This area was formerly a gravel pit and is subject to landslides, and stabilizing the steep slopes is always in the best interest. She recognized that is not a reason to support the proposed Comprehensive Plan change, but the Staff Report lays out a number of reasons for why she supports the staff recommendation to change the designation to RM-MD. Board Member Monroe acknowledged that the application presented by the applicant was impressive. However, there is no guarantee that is the project that will ultimately get built. The Board should not base its recommendation on the site plan that was presented. He said he would vote against the proposal. Mr. Shipley responded that, if the applicant wanted to develop the site under the current BN zoning, they could build single-family homes based on the RS-6 standards. The fact that they are going through this extra effort speaks volumes to the thought they have put into the project. Board Member Monroe agreed that the project makes sense, but he is worried about the next project that comes along. What if the Board doesn't like it and arbitrarily recommends denial? The City should do its best to match the zoning to the surrounding area. VICE CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO MULTI- FAMILY — MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE TWO VACANT PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA (TAX I.D. 003700800300701 AND 00370800300702). BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES, ROSEN, CRANK, RUBENKONIG, CHEUNG AND CLOUTIER VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBER MONROE VOTING IN OPPOSITION. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave reviewed that the September 91 agenda will include a report on development activity in the City, a public hearing on the updated Flood Hazard Ordinance and a discussion on Development Code work pertaining to the Tree Code. The September 231d agenda will include a presentation and discussion on climate goals planning and more discussion on electric vehicle charging infrastructure. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles thanked the Board Members and the public for participating in the meeting. He liked the contrast between the two public hearing issues, which provided a lot of thought and forward looking on the part of the Board. The decisions are not made lightly and require the Board to look at changes that might come up in the future based on decisions that are made now. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the public hearings didn't start with the script that is typically read by the Chair to explain the rules and procedures. She was concerned that, often enough at the beginning of a hearing, there is a question asking if any Board Member feels he/she should recuse themselves from the meeting. Prior to the meeting she reviewed the list of those that were noticed within 300 feet of both proposals. She knew five of them, but none of them contacted her to discuss her point of view. She didn't feel it was necessary to disclose that information. She cautioned that it is important for the Board to review issues in a very non -prejudicial manner, only looking at the information presented in the Staff Report. She commented that the Board Members aren't technically allowed to visit sites, either. The Board Members can only consider the information that is available for everyone else to look at. Mr. Chave said that is true for quasi-judicial hearings. For example, if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved and the applicants decide to proceed with rezone applications, the quasi-judicial rules would apply. The Chair would provide a brief introduction explaining the rules and procedures for the hearing, and people would be invited to disclose any communications they had had that might disqualify them from participating in the process. However, there is a lot more flexibility with Comprehensive Plan amendments, which are legislative actions. For legislative actions, the Board can visit site, and they aren't required to disclose communications they might have had regarding the subject of the hearing. Board Members can step aside if they don't feel they can make an objective decision, but it is not required. Board Member Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 335 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Ordinance amending the Fireworks Code Staff Lead: Mayor Mike Nelson Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History Most of the relevant fireworks code, chapter 5.27 ECC, has not been updated since the 1990s. This year, during the Fourth of July celebration, it became apparent that the City may need to strengthen the incentives to comply with the code. At the July 28th City Council meeting an updated fireworks ordinance was introduced and discussed. Assistant Fire Chief Kevin Zweber, fire marshal for South County Fire (SCF), spoke in support of the proposed code amendment. He stated that the use of personal fireworks has consequences that are both predictable and preventable. He described firework impacts to communities including the following: Fireworks put people, property and the environment at risk every 4th of July and can result in numerous things including property loss with the potential of serious economic impacts. Since 2005 SCF has had more than $3.5 million in property loss related to fireworks. This past 4th of July, SCF responded to a fireworks incident where a citizen lost a portion of their hand while trying to throw a mortar. Deaths related to fireworks occurred in both Marysville and Mt. Vernon this year. The danger, stress and anxiety to pets and wildlife are widespread, including an increase in lost dogs and cats in the days before, during, and after fireworks use. As the City's Fire Department, SCF is committed to community risk reduction. This means identifying risks within the community and developing effective strategies to mitigate risks. The City's fireworks ban is one of those risk reduction strategies, but bans have shown to be only partially effective in reducing property loss and injuries and it is clear fireworks bans have not been completely effective in changing behaviors. SCF supports the proposed code amendment and is committed to working together on code enforcement, public information and community outreach to educate the communities they serve about the risk of fireworks, fireworks bans, and attending professional community fireworks displays as a better alternative to using personal fireworks. See attached Edmonds Fireworks Memo with comments from SCF Chief Thad Hovis. Staff Recommendation Deliberation and possible action. Packet Pg. 336 9.1 Narrative The City's fireworks code has not been updated in many years. At the July 28t" Council meeting, Council discussed various steps to take when people violate the ordinance. The proposed fireworks code has been since updated. The most significant change in this ordinance is updating the penalties for violating the City's fireworks code. A first offense will result in a $250 non -traffic infraction. A second offense within 5 years will increase the penalty to a misdemeanor as allowed by state law. Various state codes are being adopted by reference for the purpose of allowing for the possibility of enforcement of those codes in the Edmonds Municipal Court. Various definitions are updated to conform to state law. The fee for a public display permit is increased from $30 to $500. The $500 is an estimate of the funds needed to cover all legitimate costs for all display permits, licenses, and authorizations from application to and through processing, issuance, and inspection. The state limits the City's authority to set this fee no higher than its actual costs, but in no case higher than $5,000. Attachments: 2020-08-13 fireworks ordinance Edmonds Fireworks Memo Packet Pg. 337 9.1.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH VIOLATING AND OTHERWISE UPDATING THE CITY'S FIREWORKS CODE. WHEREAS, the state fireworks law is set forth in chapter 70.77 RCW; and WHEREAS, the City's fireworks regulations are codified in chapter 5.27 ECC; and WHEREAS, the penalty for violating the City's fireworks regulation has not been updated since 1995; and WHEREAS, recent experience during the Fourth of July holiday of 2020 suggests that the City may need to create stronger incentives to comply with the City's fireworks code; and WHEREAS, other aspects of the City's fireworks regulations need to be updated; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 5.27.010 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Definitions," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike - The definitions of Chapter 70.77 RCW as now stated or hereafter amended shall govern the construction of this chapter, when applicable. RCW 70.77.120 through and including RCW 70.77.2412-3-0 as now stated or hereafter amended are adopted by this reference and a copy or the same shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk for public use and inspection. In addition, the following term(s) are defined: A. "Dangerous fireworks" means any firework not defined as a "common firework" under the provisions of RCW 70.77.136. B. The "local fire official" for the purposes of chapter 70.77 RCW shall be the City's fire marshal. Packet Pg. 338 9.1.a Section 2. Section 5.27.020 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Sale, possession, use and discharge of fireworks unlawful," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike dffe g ): A. It is unlawful for any person to sell, possess, use, transfer, discharge, ignite or explode any fireworks within the city; provided that this prohibition shall not apply to the following activities, when authorized by a state license and city permit: and 1.A-. Duly authorized public displays, as provided in RCW 70.77.260; 2.B-. Duly authorized use by religious organizations or private organizations or persons for religious or other specific purposes on an approved date and in an approved location, as provided in RCW 70.77.311(2). B. RCW 70.77.485, entitled "Unlawful possession of fireworks —Penalties," RCW 70.77.540, entitled "Penalty," RCW 70.77.515, entitled "Unlawful sales or transfers of consumer fireworks —Penalty," RCW 70.77.488, entitled "Unlawful discharge or use of fireworks —Penalty," RCW 70.77.517, entitled "Unlawful transportation of fireworks —Penalty," RCW 70.77.520, entitled "Unlawful to permit fire nuisance where fireworks kept —Penalty," and RCW 70.77.510 entitled "Unlawful sales or transfers of display fireworks —Penalty," collectively, as now stated or hereafter amended, are adopted by this reference and a copy or the same shall be kept on file in the office of the citv clerk for public use and inspection. Section 3. Section 5.27.060 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Permit fees," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in st-rike- The fee for a "public display permit" for public display of fireworks shall be $30.00 $500.00 payable in advance. In addition, in the event that the location specified in Packet Pg. 339 9.1.a the permit has unusual parameters, limitations or risks requiring inspection over and above that anticipated in the establishment of this fee (that is in excess of one hour), a charge for inspection shall be paid by the applicant equal to the actual cost of providing the inspection. See ECDC 19.75.065. Section 4. Section 5.27.180 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Enforcement," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thfet+gh): The police chief, fire marshal ehie€, or their designees, are }s authorized to enforce all provisions of this chapter and, in addition to criminal sanctions or civil remedies, he may revoke any permit issued pursuant to this chapter upon any failure or refusal of the permittee to comply with the orders and directives of the police chief, fire marshal, chief or their designees;i and/or to eemp!y 2) with any provisions of this chapter or the requirements of the community development code relating to temporary structures. Section 5. Section 5.27.210 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Penalty and violations," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection B of this section, violations of this chapter shall be punished as a non -traffic infraction, punishable by a fine of two -hundred fifty dollars. All public safety and education assessments (PSEA,) required by state law shall be added to the base fine described herein. Remission of PSEA money shall be as set forth in state law and cannot be suspended or waived. The municipal court shall have discretion to assess additional penalties for failure to pay or respond to notices of infraction issued under this section as otherwise allowed by law. B. Any person violating or failing to comply with the provisions of this chapter which does not also constitute a violation of state law for the second time within five years, and any subsequent violations within five years, shall be guilty of a eivil in f . et misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Packet Pg. 340 9.1.a $1,000 and/or jail not to exceed 90 das; a fine of $50.n�rthe first offense, $100 00 f the seeend offense, $150.00 for- the third offense and $200.00 for- eaeh offense with three . Any violation of this chapter which also constitutes a violation of state law shall be punishable under state law penalties. In addition, any fireworks that are involved in the violation may be confiscated. Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 341 9.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH VIOLATING AND OTHERWISE UPDATING THE CITY' S FIREWORKS CODE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2020. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 5 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 342 DATE: July 31, 2020 TO: City of Edmonds Mayor and Council FROM: Thad Hovis, Interim Fire Chief SUBJECT: Fireworks Memo Mayor and Council, Thank you for giving South County Fire the opportunity at your last meeting to present information on incidents surrounding the use of personal fireworks. I realize that due to the length of that meeting a few agenda items were postponed and that fireworks would be discussed at your next meeting, so I wanted to take this opportunity to share my thoughts. Fireworks have a long history in our local communities. My personal history includes riding my bike on the 4t" of July from my house off of Main Street to buy fireworks at the stand at the Tradewell Grocery store parking lot at 5 Corners. In 1995, when I started in the fire service here as a volunteer at the Edmonds Fire Department, banning fireworks was a newer concept, but also a necessary decision made to address the effects that fireworks were clearly having on life, property and the environment within the city. Over the years the neighboring cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Brier, as well as the Town of Woodway have also banned fireworks for the same reasons. With each ban the fire department has seen reduced personal fireworks use; and in -turn reduced injuries and property loss. Beginning next year, based on a Snohomish County Council Advisory vote in 2019, a ban on the discharge of fireworks will also be in effect within our agency's unincorporated service area. Despite these bans and concerted efforts to continually educate the public about the dangers of fireworks, there are still many individuals who choose to personally discharge fireworks. That was very evident again early this month, not just on the 4th of July, but for days before and after. Specifically, on July 4, 2020 our incident volume was over 60% greater than our typical daily average. From South County Fire's perspective, any ordinance update that widens the ability to enforce, and increase the consequences when the ban is violated, should have a positive impact to continue to reduce the unlawful discharge of fireworks in future years and we sincerely appreciate the Council's willingness to reexamine this public safety topic. 12425 Meridian Ave S Page 1 of 1 Everett, WA 98208 425.551.1200 Packet Pg. 343 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Edmonds Cares Fund Amendment Related to Increased CARES Act Funding Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History Council -approved Ordinance 4189 established the Edmonds Cares Fund with three programs: Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants with $300,000 (supplemented by $150,000 from other City funds); Small Business Support Grants with $700,000; and City Expenditures with $265,100 - for a total of $1,265,100, which constituted the Edmonds allocation from the Federal CARES Act. All three programs are under way, expenses being incurred, and invoices in process to the State Department of Commerce for reimbursement of corresponding CARES Act funds. Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants. With substantially upgraded public outreach, and the recently Council -approved ability to offer more than one grant to a qualifying household, we anticipate that the CARES funding for this program will be expended. Small Business Support Grants. Of 145 valid applications received, we have offered grants to 90 businesses for a total of $697,500. City Expenditures. Current estimates for city expenditures to date and through November 30th, related to COVID-19 response, are approximately $440,000. Up to $211,650 of that total may be FEMA-eligible, leaving approximately $228,350 to be covered by CARES Act funds. As such, it is estimated that the $265,100 initially allocated to City Expenditures should be sufficient to cover remaining non-FEMA- eligible, yet CARES Act -eligible City expenses. In early September the City was informed that a second round of CARES Act funds will be allocated to Edmonds from the State Department of Commerce, in the amount of $632,550. In addition, the expenditure deadline was moved back to 11/30/20 (from the initial 10/31/20 deadline). Staff Recommendation Provide direction and place as Action Item on 10/6/20 City Council Agenda for approval. Narrative In order to plan for utilization of the additional $632,550 CARES Act funds, the Administration proposes the following Edmonds Cares Act Fund program changes: 1. Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants. Increase this fund by $100,000. 2. Small Business Support Grants. Increase this fund by $400,000, allowing up to 50 additional businesses to be offered grants of up to $8,000 (to be chosen from the existing applicant list who have not yet been awarded grants). Edmonds Food Bank. Provide an additional $35,000 to the Food Bank to provide for three programs: $20,000 for holiday season food support; $7,500 to help fund an automated ordering Packet Pg. 344 9.2 system for delivery service to Seniors, ADA clients, Veterans and other COVID-impacted community members; and $7,500 to add shelving to the delivery van to expedite packing and disbursement of online orders. 4. LEAPS scholarships. Provide scholarships to qualifying, lower -income and disadvantaged households for participation in the LEAPS program, funded by up to $97,550. In addition, the Administration proposes that the City Council allow the Administration 10% flexibility in the funding of each of the Edmonds Cares Act programs during the remainder of the life of the Fund and its programs. This will allow for nimbler response to changing conditions and demands. Upon direction of Council, a draft of proposed amendments to Ordinance 4189 ("Edmonds Cares Fund") will be brought to Council for review and approval. Packet Pg. 345 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History A new Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became effective June 19, 2020. The City of Edmonds was required to revise and adopt compliant regulations prior to this date. Failure to adopt the FIS and FIRM through revision of local regulations would have resulted in immediate suspension from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA has stated it did not have the authority to postpone the effective dates of the maps in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. These dates are set by legislation and federal regulation that require a community to adopt the new FIS and accompanying FIRM within six (6) months of the issuance of the Letter of Final Determination. FEMA encouraged communities to find whatever flexibility is available in their process to ensure that the FIS and FIRM are adopted on time to avoid the difficulties of suspension. Early this year, restrictions to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) prevented the City of Edmonds from following the normal process for code updates. In order to remain in the NFIP, the City adopted Interim Ordinance No. 4188 which contained a flood damage prevention ordinance that satisfied FEMA's requirements for the City of Edmonds to remain in the NFIP. Now that some restrictions to OPMA have been lifted, the updated flood damage prevention ordinance (including some revisions) is being reviewed for adoption as a permanent ordinance. The Planning Board reviewed the updated Flood Damage Prevention regulations at their August 12, 2020 meeting and held a public hearing on the draft regulations on September 9, 2020. The Planning Board forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Flood Damage Prevention Chapter 19.07 ECDC as provided in Exhibit 1 and the updated reference to the new floodplain maps in ECDC 23.70.010 as provided in Exhibit 2. Staff Recommendation Hold a public hearing on the updated Flood Damage Prevention regulations on October 6, 2020. Narrative Introduction Development within the City of Edmonds floodplains are regulated by the City's critical area regulations (Chapter 23.70 ECDC - Frequently Flooded Areas) and building code regulations in Title 19. Chapter 23.70 ECDC primarily points to and relies upon the building code for the substantive floodplain development regulations. New FEMA floodplain maps became effective on June 19, 2020, and for the Packet Pg. 346 9.3 City of Edmonds to remain a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program the City must update its floodplain regulations. In order to comply with this requirement, staff is proposing to establish a new Flood Damage Prevention Chapter 19.07 ECDC located within the building code (Exhibit 1). ECDC 23.70.010 is being updated only to reference the new floodplain maps (Exhibit 2). National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Background The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a voluntary Federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces floodplain management regulations to reduce future flood risks to new construction and substantially improved structures in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. The community's floodplain management regulations must meet or exceed criteria established in accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60.3, Criteria for land Management and Use. SFHAs are delineated on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1% annual chance (100-year) flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. Flood Insurance Rate Mac) Update The City of Edmonds has limited areas within the 100-year flood plains. The flood plain areas are primarily around the Edmonds Marsh, Lake Ballinger, and the mouth of Shell Creek as well as some minor areas along the north Edmonds shoreline. The old FIRM maps (Exhibit 3) were adopted in 1999. Over the last several years, FEMA has been studying Snohomish County flood prone areas to update the FIRM maps. The updated FIRM maps for Edmonds jurisdiction are included as Exhibit 4. The largest change in the Edmonds flood plain is in the waterfront area and the State Route 104/Dayton Street area. Under the old FIRM maps, the flood plain was largely confined to the Edmonds Marsh and along the shoreline. With the updated draft FIRM maps, the flood plain would expand to cover much of the water front area including Harbor Square and portions of the Salish Crossing site. On the updated FIRM maps, the extent of the flood plain along Shell Creek would shrink to just the mouth of Shell Creek. There would be no change in the flood plain in the City of Edmonds' jurisdiction around Lake Ballinger. Chapter 19.07 ECDC - Flood Damage Prevention The new Chapter 19.07 ECDC consolidates the City's floodplain building code regulations in a single chapter, where currently they are spread over three separate chapters with the building code. In addition to consolidating existing building code, Chapter 19.07 ECDC includes new sections from the state model floodplain ordinance (Exhibit S). The draft Chapter 19.07 ECDC provided in Exhibit 1 is a redline/strikeout version of the chapter that was adopted under Interim Ordinance No. 4188. The primary differences from the interim ordinance are the inclusion of: 1. New definitions; 2. A variance section; and 3. An administrative section (taken from the model ordinance). Public Comment Notice of the Planning Board public hearing was provided to all property owners within the floodplain as shown on the updated FIRM map. Two written comments were submitted to the City which are included in Exhibits 11 and 12. Attachments: Exhibit 1: DRAFT Chapter 19.07 ECDC Flood Damage Prevention Packet Pg. 347 9.3 Exhibit 2: DRAFT ECDC 23.70.010 Exhibit 3: Old FIRM Maps Exhibit 4: New FIRM Maps Exhibit 5: Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Exhibit 6: Interim Ordinance No. 4188 Exhibit 7: May 27, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 8: June 2, 2020 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 9: August 12, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 10: September 9, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 11: Boyd Public Comment Exhibit 12: Ferguson Public Comment Packet Pg. 348 9.3.a Chapter 19.07 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION 19.07.000 Purpose 19.07.010 Applicability 19.07.020 Definitions 19.07.025 Administration 19.07.030 International Building Code section amendments 19.07.040 International Residential Code section amendments 19.07.050 Habitat Assessment 19.07.060 Review of Building Permits 19.07.065 Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas 19.07.070 Anchoring 19.07.080 Subdivision Proposals and Development 19.07.090 Manufactured Homes 19.07.095 General Requirements for Other Development 19.07.100 All Other Building Standards apply 19.07.110 Variance 19.07.000 Purpose It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; reduce the annual cost of flood insurance; and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: A. Protect human life and health; B. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; C. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; D. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; E. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone, and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in flood hazard areas; F. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood hazard areas so as to minimize blight areas caused by flooding; G. Notify potential buyers that the property is in a Special Flood Hazard Area; H. Notify those who occupy flood hazard areas that they assume responsibility for their actions; and I. Participate in and maintain eligibility for flood insurance and disaster relief. 19.07.010 Applicability A. Lands to which the chapter applies. This chapter shall apply to all special flood hazard areas within the boundaries of the City of Edmonds. Planning Board Recommendation Page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 349 9.3.a B. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5t" Avenue North. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G103.3 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section G 103.3. 19.07.020 Definitions The following definitions apply to this chapter. A. Alteration of Watercourse: Any action that will change the location of the channel occupied by water within the banks of any portion of a riverine waterbody. B. Area of special flood hazard: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as zone A, AO, AH, Al-30, AE, A99, AR (V, VO, V1-30, VE). "Special flood hazard area" is synonymous in meaning with the phrase "area of special flood hazard". C. Base flood: The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the "100-year flood"). D. Base Flood Elevation (BFE): the elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood. E. Basement: Any area of the building having its floor sub -grade (below ground level) on all sides. F. Coastal High Hazard Area: An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as zone V1-30, VE or V. F-.-G.Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood hazard. Fr.H. Elevation Certificate: An administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that can be used to provide elevation information, to determine the proper insurance premium rate, and to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F). H-.I. Flood or Flooding: 1. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: a. The overflow of inland or tidal waters. b. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. c. Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in paragraph (1)(b) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the Planning Board Recommendation Page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 350 9.3.a surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current. The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as defined in paragraph (1)(a) of this definition. M. Flood elevation study: An examination, evaluation and determination of flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation and determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood -related erosion hazards. Also known as a Flood Insurance Study (FIS). �X. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). ILL. Floodplain or flood -prone area: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. See "Flood or flooding." L-.M. Floodplain administrator: The cernmu44-y-building official is designated by title to administer and enforce the floodplain management regulations. AWN. Floodplain management regulations: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance) and other application of police power. The term describes such state or local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction. N-.O. Flood proofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. Flood proofed structures are those that have the structural integrity and design to be impervious to floodwater below the Base Flood Elevation. P. Functionally dependent use: A use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building and ship repair facilities, and does not include long term storage or related manufacturing facilities. aQ. Habitat Assessment: A written document that describes a project, identifies and analyzes the project's impacts to habitat for species discussed in the "Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region," and provides an Effects Determination. RR. Highest adjacent grade: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. 4S. Historic structure: Any structure that is: Planning Board Recommendation Page 3 of 12 Packet Pg. 351 9.3.a 1. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; 2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; 3. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or 4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: a. By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or b. Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs. T. Lowest Floor: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non -elevation design requirements of this ordinance (i.e. provided there are adequate flood ventilation openings). U. Manufactured Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." R-.V.Mean Sea Level: For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the vertical datum to which Base Flood Elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. -S-. W. New construction: For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance Rate Map or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, "new construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. X. Start of construction: Includes substantial improvement and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days from the date of the permit. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. Planning Board Recommendation Page 4 of 12 Packet Pg. 352 9.3.a Y. Structure: For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. Z. Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the structure before the damage occurred. AA. Substantial improvement: Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure." BB. Variance: A grant of relief by a community from the terms of a floodplain management regulation. ACC. Water surface elevation: The height, in relation to the vertical datum utilized in the applicable flood insurance studv of floods of various maenitudes and freauencies in the floodDlains of coastal or riverine areas. 19.07.025 Administration A. Establishment of a Development Permit 1. Development Permit Required. A development permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 19.07.010. The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in the "Definitions," and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in the "Definitions." 2. Application for Development Permit. Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the floodplain administrator and may include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required: a. Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures recorded on a current elevation certificate with Section B comoleted by the floodplain administrator. b. Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed; c. Where a structure is to be floodproofed, certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in Section 5.2-2; d. Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development; e. Where a structure is or000sed in a V. V1-30. or VE zone. a V-zone desien certificate: and f. Any other such information that may be reasonably required by the floodplain administrator in order to review the application. B. Designation of the floodplain administrator. Planning Board Recommendation Page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 353 9.3.a The building official is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and enforce this ordinance by granting or denying development permits in accordance with its provisions. The floodplain administrator may deleeate authoritv to implement these provisions. C. Duties and Responsibilities of the floodplain administrator shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Permit Review. Review all development permits to determine that: a. The permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied; b. All other required state and federal permits have been obtained; c. The site is reasonably safe from flooding; d. Notify FEMA when annexations occur in the Special Flood Hazard Area. 2. Use of Other Base Flood Data in A and V Zones. When base flood elevation data has not been provided (in A or V zones) in accordance with Section 19.07.010, the floodplain administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation data available from a federal, state, or other source, in order to administer this chapter. 3. Information to be Obtained and Maintained. a. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or required as in Section 19.07.025.C.2, obtain and maintain a record of the actual (as -built) elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement. b. Obtain and maintain documentation of the elevation of the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member in V or VE zones. c. For all new or substantially improved floodproofed nonresidential structures where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or as required in Section iamrn5c?. d. Obtain and maintain a record of the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed. e. Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in Section 19.07.025.A. f. Records of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance. Improvement and damaee calculations. h. Maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this chapter. 4. Alteration of Watercourse. Whenever a watercourse is to altered or relocated: a. Notify adjacent communities and the Department of Ecology prior to such alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administrator through appropriate notification means, b. Assure that the flood carrying capacity of the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained. Planning Board Recommendation Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 354 9.3.a 19.07.030 International Building Code section amendments The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows: A. Section 110.3.3, Lowest floor elevation, is amended to read: In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certification required in Section 1612.5 shall be submitted to the building official. Prior to final inspection approval, the building official shall require an elevation certificate based on finished construction prepared and sealed by a State licensed land surveyor. B. Section 1612.1.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads: Any residential or commercial structure located in a flood hazard area, that is destroyed, damaged or demolished in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with all provisions of this chapter and other local, state and federal regulations. MIN "11- MINIM C. Section 1612.4.1, Lowest Floor Elevation, is added and reads: For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. 19.07.040 International Residential Code section amendments The following sections of the IRC are hereby amended as follows: A. Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, is amended with the following criteria Flood Hazard(g) = NFIP adoption June 19, 2020. FIRM maps June 19, 2019 B. R322.1, General, is hereby amended as follows: Buildings and structures constructed in whole or in part in flood hazard areas (including A or V Zones) as established in Table R301.2(1) shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions contained in this section. residential or commercial structure located in a flood hazard area. that is destroved. dama or demolished in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with all provisions of this cha and other local. state and federal regulations. Planning Board Recommendation Page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 355 9.3.a MOM 19.07.050 Habitat Assessment A development permit application shall include a habitat assessment unless the project is, in its entirety, one of the following activities: A. Normal maintenance, repairs, or remodeling of structures, such as re -roofing and replacing siding, provided such work is not a substantial improvement or a repair of substantial damage. To comply, such work must be less than 50% of the value of the structure(s). B. Expansion or reconstruction of an existing structure that is no greater than 10% beyond its existing footprint.struir-Au're's dimensions C. Activities with the sole purpose of creating, restoring, or enhancing natural functions associated with floodplains, streams, lakes, estuaries, marine areas, habitat, and riparian areas that meet federal and state standards, provided the activities do not include structures, grading, fill, or impervious surfaces. D. Development of open space and recreational facilities, such as parks, trails, and hunting grounds, that do not include structures, fill, impervious surfaces, or removal of more than 5% of the native vegetation on that portion of the property in the floodplain. E. Repair to onsite septic systems, provided ground disturbance is the minimal necessary and best management practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater runoff and soil erosion are used. F. Projects that have already received concurrence under another permit or other consultation with the Services, either through Section 7, Section 4d, or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that addresses the entirety of the project in the floodplain (such as an Army Corps 404 permit or non -conversion Forest Practice activities including any interrelated and interdependent activities.). G. Repair of an existing, functional bulkhead in the same location and footprint with the same materials when the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is still outside of the face of the bulkhead (i.e. if the work qualifies for a Corps exemption from Section 404 coverage). 19.07.060 Review of Building Permits Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from another authoritative source (Section 4.3-219.07.025.C.2), applications for floodplain development shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Planning Board Recommendation Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 356 9.3.a 19.07.065 Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) A. If a protect will alter the BFE or boundaries of the SFHA, then the protect proponent shall provide the community with engineering documentation and analysis regarding the proposed change. If the change to the BFE or boundaries of the SFHA would normally require a Letter of Map Change, then the protect proponent shall initiate, and receive approval of, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to approval of the development permit. The protect shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved CLOMR. B. If a CLOMR application is made, then the protect proponent shall also supply the full CLOMR documentation package to the floodplain administrator to be attached to the floodplain development permit, including all required property owner notifications. 19.07.070 Anchoring A. All new construction and substantial improvements, including those related to manufactured homes, shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads including the effects of buoyancy. All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. For more detailed information, refer to guidebook, FEMA-85, "Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas." 19.07.080 Subdivision Proposals and Development All subdivisions, as well as new development shall: A. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; Have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; C. Have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage. D. Where subdivision proposals and other proposed developments contain greater than 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is the lesser) base flood elevation data shall be included as part of the application 19.07.090 Manufactured Homes A. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within zones V1-30, V, and VE on the community's FIRM on sites: 1. Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, 2. In a new manufactured home park or subdivision, 3. In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or Planning Board Recommendation Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 357 9.3.a 4. In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood; shall meet the standards of ASCE 24-14, Chapter 4 requirements for residential buildings. 19.07.095 General Requirements for Other Development All development, including manmade changes to improved or unimproved real estate for which specific provisions are not specified in this ordinance or the state building codes with adopted amendments and any (community name} amendments, shall: A. Be located and constructed to minimize flood damage; B. Be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement resulting from hydrostatic load including the effects of buoyancy, during conditions of the design flood; C. Be constructed of flood damage -resistant materials, and D. Have mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems above the design flood elevation or meet the requirements of ASCE 24, except that minimum electric service required to address life safety and electric code requirements is permitted below the design flood elevation provided it conforms to the provisions of the electrical part of building code for wet locations. 19.07.100 All Other Building Standards Apply All new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of the adopted IBC, IRC, Appendix (IBC) G, and ASCE 24. 19.07.110 Variance A. General The variance criteria set forth in this section of the ordinance are based on the general principle of zoning law that variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. A variance may be granted by the City's floodplain administrator for a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual that complying with the requirements of this ordinance would create an exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique characteristic must pertain to the land itself. not to the structure. its inhabitants. or the Drooertv owners. It is the duty of the City of Edmonds to help protect its citizens from flooding. This need is so compelling and the implications of the cost of insuring a structure built below the Base Flood Elevation are so serious that variances from the flood elevation or from other requirements in the flood ordinance are quite rare. The long-term goal of preventing and reducing flood loss and damage can only be met if variances are strictly limited. Therefore, the variance guidelines provided in this ordinance are more detailed and contain multiple provisions that must be met before a variance can be properly granted. The criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which alternatives other than a variance are more appropriate. B. Requirements for Variances 1. Variances shall only be issued: Planning Board Recommendation Page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 358 9.3.a a. Upon a determination that the Erantine of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances; b. For the repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic structures upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure; c. Upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief; d. Upon a showing of good and sufficient cause; e. Upon a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardshi to the applicant; f. Upon a showing that the use cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. This includes only facilities defined in ECDC 19.07.020 of this chanter in the definition of "Functionally Deaendent Use." 2. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the BFE, provided the provisions of this chapter have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. C. Variance Criteria In considering variance applications, the floodplain administrator shall consider all technical evaluations. all relevant factors, all standards specified in other sections of this ordinance. and: 1. The danger that materials maybe swept onto other lands to the injury of others; 2. The dancer to life and property due to floodine or erosion dama 3. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; 4. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; 5. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; 6. The availabilitv of alternative locations for the proposed use. which are not subiect to floodii or erosion dam 7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; 8. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area; 9. The safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; 10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site: and. Planning Board Recommendation Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 359 9.3.a 11. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, water system, and streets and bridges. D. Additional Requirements for the Issuance of a Variance 1. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice over the signature of a community official that: a. The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the BFE will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance coverage, and b. Such construction below the BFE increases risks to life and prone 2. The floodplain administrator shall maintain a record of all variance actions, includiniz justification for their issuance. 3. The floodplain administrator shall condition the variance as needed to ensure that the requirements and criteria of this chapter are met. 4. Variances as interpreted in the NFIP are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from flood elevations should be quite rare. E. Appeals Appeals of a variance from the provisions of this chapter shall be appealable in accordance with Chapter 19.80 ECDC. Planning Board Recommendation Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 360 9.3.b Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 1/1 Chapter 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Chapter 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas. A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include: 1. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), and any revisions thereto, are hereby pted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5th Avenue North. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G 103.3 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section G103.3. -7�Efl1T:f!I:EZTl:lS7f!!/T!lI........ i I' _ p1p !. 2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above. B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city's critical areas inventory are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners, and the public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. As flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, newer and more restrictive information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to designate and identify areas known to be prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to the provisions and protections of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4175, passed February 25, 2020. Packet Pg. 361 01 E 9 K 9 M 122026' 15' ° 0'' A75230 A70A8'AF" 122026' 15" Im JOINS PANEL 1000 122022'30" A7052'30" A70A8'A5" 122022'30" 9.3.c LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATEL BY 100—YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. i ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); base flood elevations determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by Federal flood protection system under construction ; no base flood elevations determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-year floodplain. ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS rr—.l Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Area Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. F000dplain Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone D Boundary\•T Boundary Dividing Special Flood s ^'^'• = Hazard Zones, and Boundary w Dividing Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line; " ^^J13^•^'"`^"^^" Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. ----- -� Cross Section Line Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. RM7 X Elevation Reference Mark 0 M2 River Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on North 97007'30", 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) Projection. NOTES This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program; ' fy ) g, particularly from it does not necessarilyidentify all areas subject to flooding, local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. The community map repository should be consulted for more detailed data on BFE's, and for any information on floodway delineations, prior to use of this map for property purchase or v construction purposes. j Areas of Special Flood Hazard (100-year flood) include Zones A, AE, Al- A30, AH, AO, A99, V, VE and V1-V30. O Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control structures. O Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and C interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on y hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal N Emergency Management Agency. i a Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Refer tea'! to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 120 inch. Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and include E the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significantly from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurricane .a evacuation planning. O pi Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The, user LL should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporate limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map. U) CL This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resource System Units and /or Otherwise Protected Areas established under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591). For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, see IL Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report. -a For adjoining map panels and base map source see separately printed Map Index, M MAP REPOSITORY Refer to Repository Listing on Map Index ' XW EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: }; NOVEMBER 8,1999 4) t EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISIONS) TO THIS PANEL: t� M' Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE shown .r Q on this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to structures in zones where elevations or depths have been established. To determine if flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638--6620. 4 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE t 0111110 -illsw PANEL 1285 Of 1575 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTE CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUR EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1285 E SNOHOMISH COUNTY. UNINCORPORATED AREAS 535634 1285 E MAP NUMB[ 53061C1285 EFFECTIVE OAT NOVEMBER 8,19, JOINS PANEL 1300 JOINS PANEL 1292 Federal Emergency MPacket Pg. 362 El N I A A M 9.3.c E Is 19 I R ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS REFERENCE ELEVATION MARK (FEET NGVD) DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION RM1195 21-256 A U.S. Geological Survey standard tablet stamped 28 H 1941 19, located from Edmonds 2.9 miles southwest along Burlington Northern Railroad, 0.1 mile north of Richmond Beach on track side of north concrete supporting first bent West of Burlington Northern Survey Station 873+5.4, on overhead bridge number 14.5. Reset in 1958. 122024'22" 0 1 11 -1 1 48 45 0 M C, Z Z 0 4TO46'52" f22024'22" JOINS PANEL 1285 122022'30" 0 -11 -18 .4t) 03 U.1 Z 9 U) O 47046'52" 122022'30" LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATE BY 100—YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE All Flood depths of I to 3 feet (usually arei of ponding); base flood elevatior determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually she( flow on sloping terrain): average clepti determined. For areas of alluvial fan floodinj velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100—year flood b Federal flood protection system und( construction ; no base flood elevatior determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with. velocity hazard (wav action); no base flood elevations determiner ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wav action); base flood elevations determine( FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of 500—year flood; areas of 100—yes flood with average depths of less tha 1 foot or with drainage areas less tha 1 square mile; and areas protected b levees from 100—year flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500—yea floodplain. ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards ar undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Are Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. Floodplain Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone D Boundary Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones, and Boundary Dividing Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line; -513- Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. Cross Section Line Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone. See Map Index for Elevation Datum RM7 X Elevation Reference Mark 0 M2 River Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on Nort 97007'30". 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27 Projection. NOTES This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly fron, local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. The community map repository should be consulted for more detailed data on BFE's, and for any information or floodway delineations, prior to use of this map for property purchase or 0 construction purposes. Areas of Special Flood Hazard (100—year flood) include Zones A, Al A1-- A30,AH,A0,A99,V,VE and VI—V30. T 0 Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control structures. a 0 Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and "'r, interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on 41 hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. IL Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to Show to scale. Refe to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 120 inch. M E Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and il the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significant) from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurricanE evacuation planning. 0 0 Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The user E—L should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporate — limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map. (4) CL This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal Barrie Resource System Units and /or Otherwise Protected Areas establisher under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591). For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, see E—L Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report. a 0 For adjoining map panels and base map source see separately prime( Map Index. MAP REPOSITORY B Refer to Repository Listing on Map Index EFFECTIVE DATE OF X W COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP- 8,1999 tNOVEMBER 4) E EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL: Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE shown on this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to structures in zones where elevations or depths have been established. To determine if flood insurance Is available. contact an insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638-6620. I& APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 500 0 500 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGR l FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MA 1 -1 IN NJ I IMEMMIAMMILAX1194, PANEL 1292 OF 1575 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTI CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUI EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1292 WOODWAY, TOWN OF 530308 1292 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, UNINCORPORATED AREAS 535534 1292 MAP NUMB 53061C1292 EFFECTIVE ON NOVEMBER 8, 19 JOINS PANEL 1294 Federal Emergency � Packet Pg. 363 0 11 N ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS REFERENCE ELEVATION MARK (FEET NGVD) DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION RM175 385.560 Standard U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey brass disk stamped C-458 1973, located on north side of 1 9 6 t h Street approximately 135 feet east of fire hydrant # 3 9 5 9 at the n a r t h e a s t corner of 196th Street Southwest and Highway 99, 1.4 feet north of back of sidewalk and 3 feet west of back of curb on the west side of entrance to Jiffy Lube. Monument is buried under landscaping bark slightly lower in elevation than the top back of sidewalk. 122022'30" 47052'30" cc w Z 0- in Z 0 47048'45" JOINS PANEL 1015 Pv ST SW' SEA LAWN CYPRUS PLACE PLACE VOHOMISI ;ITY OF E LUNDS GULCH ROAD tiZ m' 3 cn BERTOLA ROAD Z) Z 3 LU BRAEMAR DRIVE FREDERICH F BURLINGTON CITY OF EDMONDS NORTHERN 530163 F• ZONE X SNOHOMISH COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS, 535534 w z p Lu u,a: T-0�1148TH wz Lu LU STREET `L SOUTHWEST Q _ V� w Z Z > w ¢ 186TH 3 00 _ STREET SW cc 187TH ii F. ii STREET SOUTHWEST = w = w I w 0D 188TH STREET SOUTHWEST w � F U, w � w Lu 18 w Q 190TH ST SW O F!<� 00 O w �Q 192ND STREET � Lu ¢ w z a { m I Z - JG�� O524 5z4 Q 196TH STREET SOUTHWEST O 9/LF ZONE A � MAPLEWOOD 82ND w � ZONE X z LANE PLACE uJ W ... _ o Ij g w CL g tr O Z ~ H F _ o ..n 52A > —Z Z� a_ --- w 7TH > w 2 Lfl AVE Q N z LiJ� 3:Q r ALOHA w ¢ 24 z w ¢ "5 SPRAGUE ST > 0 w a CAROL cc 8TH = o F — AVE AVE OD N BELL N STREET o N MAIN STREET U w h 19 �S w ii Q N IL > w ¢ w DAYTON Cy STREET w LU w 0. _ w rPP� M cc °C °D b N MAPLE STREET co 122022,30" JOINS PANEL 1315 ST N WA SNOHOMISH COUNTY BURLINGTON UNINCORPORATED AREAS NORTHERN 1 5355341 f `FISHER ROPD ZONE X T28N T27N G 122018'45" —T-1 4 7052' 30" SOUTHWEST 164TH STREET LU 4 5 w w � z > wf¢ Q I SNOHOMISH COUNTY MFq o CITY OF LYNNWOOD co �O w LU o Z w T" i a z w I ¢ 0 0 168TH z STREET ~ 0,9 CITY OF LYNNWOOD CITY OF EDMONDS 170TH PL O� � 68TH ty AVENUE WEST r� EX 176TH STREET SOUNDVIEW w WAY CITY J OFI a l EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY SNOHOMISH r UNINCORPORATED AREAS COUNTY 535534 Z®NE X 1 181ST ST 181ST PL Q 182ND STREET 182ND ST 4OJ 183RD 183RD ST 183RD PL � v (1 185TH ST �+ 1C1 w Z w 185TH PL LF = Q 186TH ST 788TH PLACE PENNY LANE C 189TH PLACE 189TH = r w > 190TH `L PLACE 1907H STREET I— N 191ST 191ST ST A E 192ND 192ND PLACE PLACE a PLACE 193RD STREET � Z > w Q 196TH STREET 19�Ty �-, CITY OF LYNNWOOD 530167 200TH ZONE X H ' LU V i 202ND w W = 99 ¢ m 204TH 2Q STREET y<F WAY K -� WAY STREET w Z Z Q STREET STREET �U = a 47048'45" 122018'45" 9.3.c LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100-YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); base flood elevations determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by Federal flood protection , system under construction ; no base flood elevations determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood. r---`�--} OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-year floodplain. ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Areas Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. Floodplain Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone D Boundary " Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones, and Boundary Dividing Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line; -513 Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. ------ --� Cross Section Line Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. RM7 X Elevation Reference Mark • M2 River Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on North 97007'30". 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) Projection. NOTES This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program; it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. The community map repository should be consulted for more detailed data on BFE's, and for any information on floodway delineations, prior to use of this map for property purchase or d V construction purposes. _ M Areas of Special Flood Hazard 1100-year flood) include Zones A, AE, Al S A30, AH, AO, A99, V, VE and V1-V30. Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by 0 flood control structures. _ O Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on y hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal > Emergency Management Agency. L Ill Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Refer 4) to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 120 inch. O E Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and include M the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significantly from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurricane evacuation planning. ,a O O Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The user v should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporate limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map. y CL This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal Barrier O Resource System Units and /or Otherwise Protected Areas established under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591). For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, see ly Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report. 0 For adjoining map panels and base map source see separately printed Map Index. MAP REPOSITORY Refer to Repository Listing on Map Index t EFFECTIVE DATE OF k W COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: NOVEMBER 8,1999 = d t EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL: to Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE shown Q on this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to structures in zones where elevations or depths have been established. To determine if flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638-6620. Ius>J-txuJ APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 �ffl NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRA FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREA PANEL 1305 OF 1575 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTE[ CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFF EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1305 E LYNNWOOD. CITY OF 530167 1305 E SNOHOMISH COUNTY. UNINCORPORATED AREAS 535534 1305 E MAP NUMBE 53061C1305 EFFECTIVE DATI NOVEMBER 8,199 Federal Emergency M Packet Pg. 364 A B D E F 9.3.c M■ rA M F17 A■ ,A ■ 122022'30" 47048'45" r--- N N_ J w Z a V) Z 0 N W W - c0 v BELL STREET '4 x D CL M 24 = MAIN STREET m MAIN `Shell DAYTON STREET _ < m � co MAPLE = i STREET �y he ALDER = STREET D m c D WALNUT m m STREET G N CEDAR r^—STREET SOW O1N SPRUCE ST _ SOUTH � o c HEMLOCK ST = m LAUREL ST Z C m en PINE STREET PINE FIR ST r-- JOINS PANEL 1305 STREET 19 o r 208TH x zw C 3 m x w w ZONE X 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST Q cc 82ND e CITY OF EDMONDS y 0) 530163 x C In :E STREET m 216TH STREET SW m C 1 218TH I STREET ---� ZONE X 25 ' --`-- ZONE X 30 224TH STREET SW TOWN OF WOODWAY 530308 I c I 228TH STREET - 7x- 28TH STREET x e z C m D ® 230TH STREET SW m Z m �o 234TH STREET WEST Lu x Q� < 31 m 36 236TH STREET WEST = In SNOHOMISH COUNTY x < 71 UNINCORPORATED AREAS Z ZONE X D m 535534 238TH STREET SW m CITY OF EDMONDS 530163 w 240TH S SW E n < O o? 9 242ND i STREET = SW { Co � m T27N SNONOMISH COUNTY KING COUNTY 47045'00" ' 122°22'30" 122°i8'45" —p 47048'45" STREET WEST 20 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 530167 rn x D 0)m U) _®NE X 211TH m � D m m m ZONE A 213TH O� PL 215TH ST Z N ZONE A 216TH ST Sw Hall Creek P 0 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 530170 220TH STREET SOUTHWEST ® 222ND STREET SOUTHWEST C 6 29 m \ k rn 224TH ST SW i SNOHOMISH COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS z 535534 26TH PL SW 227TH ST ZONE X \` 228TH STREET SW ZONE A ?S rH 230TH a a 2 r m ST S� NQ p29ry C 230TH ST SW L 23p m r � N ST SW 232ND ST SW ks F,i 23 h aF�W, W cD i? _ SNOHOMISH COU KING COUNTY 32 0 J w Z a V) Z O / \ T27N --' 47045'00" 122°18'45" a^ SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATE w, BY 100-YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually are of pending); base flood elevatioi determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually she flow on sloping terrain); average dept! determined. For areas of alluvial fan floodin velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood I Federal flood protection system and construction ; no base flood elevatioi determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wa, action); no base flood elevations determine ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wa, action); base flood elevations determine . = = FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-ye. flood with average depths of less the 1 foot or with drainage areas less the 1 square mile; and areas protected t levees from 100-year flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-ye floodplain. ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards a undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS j -- Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Are Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Specia Flood Hazard Areas. Floodplain Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone D Boundary 5; • ; ;, ;. t,., Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones, and Boundary „'MONg Dividin Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line 513 Elevation in Feet. See Map Inde> for Elevation Datum. — — --- Cross Section Line Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone See Map Index for Elevation Datum RM7 X Elevation Reference Mark ® M2 River Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on Nor 97007'30". 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27 Projection. NOTES This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly fron local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outsidE Special Flood Hazard Areas. The community map repository should bE consulted for more detailed data on BFE's, and for any information or floodway delineations, prior to use of this map for property purchase of C1 construction purposes. cal Areas of Special Flood Hazard (100-year flood) include Zones A, AE, At- 'a A30, AH, AO, A99, V, VE and Vt-V30. Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by 0 flood control structures. O Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections anc interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based or d hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal > ! Emergency Management Agency. i (L Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Refe to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 120 inch. �p M Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and includ the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significant) p from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurrican, -a evacuation planning. O 0 Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The use LL should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporatE — limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map U) This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal BarriE R � Resource System Unts and /or Otherwise Protected Areas establishe under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591). For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, sef LL Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report. 'a For adjoining map panels and base map source see separately printer Map Index, MAP REPOSITORY +' Refer to Repository Listing on Map Index EFFECTIVE DATE OF LUX COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: NOVEMBER 8,1999 d E EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISIONS) TO THIS PANEL: v Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE showr .r Q on this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to structures it zones where elevations or depths have been established. To determine if flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638-6620. & APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGR an FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MA SNOHOMISH COI.TNTI WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED ARE. PANEL 1315 OF 1575 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINT COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SU EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 13T5 LYNNWOOD, CITY OF 530167 1315 MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, CITY OF 530170 1315 INOOD'WAY, TOWN OF 530308 1315 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, UNINCORPORATED AREAS 535534 1315 Federal Emergency Packet Pg. 365 1250000 FT 1220 26' 15" 1255000 FT 1260000 FT I 9.3.d I 47° 320000 F 315000 FT 310000 FT 305000 FT 47' 48' 45" 122' FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT HTTPS://MSC. FEMA.G0V Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A..V. A99 With BFE or Depth zone AE, AG, AH, VE, AR SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD h I� 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of I% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone x Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee See Notes.. : INOSCREENI Areas Determined to he Outside the OTHER 0.2% Annual Chance Fioodplain zone x AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D ----------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Accredited or Provisionally Accredited GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall STRUCTURES mmmmmmtt m Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall E 16.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17 "5 Water Surface Elevation (BFE) - - - - Coastal Transect -- - Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline �43c�,:omE s Doom 1220 22' 30" 44 E 54500omE 54600omE NOTES TO USERS For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Efate Map (FIRM), available products associated with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, andlor digital versions of this map. Many of these products can he ordered or obtained directly from the website. Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed above. For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office. This information was derived from digital orthaphotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter pixel resolution from photography dated 2009. SCALE ll Map ProjecDon: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet; Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 1 inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Meters 0 255 510 1,020 PANEL LOCATOR 1015 IK10I.7 E 0 C/3 M0 0 0 U. CU .IN a� '2' 30" 470 52' 30" 5302000mN 5301000"N 53OQ000r N s299000r,N 5298000MN 197000mN AH RD )6000mN 1llAR111y 45" NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS r� q 7 a�rA�1F� PANEL 1285 OF 151 5 N FEMA Pane] Contains: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1285 F SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1285 F VERSION NUMBER 2.3.2.1 Hydrographic Feature 513- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) OTHER Limit of Study FEATURES Jurisdiction Boundary 1292 1315 * PANEL NOT PRINTED MAP NUMBER 5306IC1285F MAP REVISED JUNE 19, 2020 Packet Pg. 366 1255000 FT 122' 24' 22" 1260000 FT I 9.3.d I 470 4 300000 295000 FT 290000 FT 470 46' 52" 122 FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT HTTPS://MSC. FEMA.G0V Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A..V. A99 With BFE or Depth zone AF, AG, AH, VE, AR SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD h I� 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of I% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone x Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee See Notes.. : INOSCREENI Areas Determined to he Outside the OTHER 0.2% Annual Chance Fioodplain zone x AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D ----------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Accredited or Provisionally Accredited GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall STRUCTURES mmmmmmtt m Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall E 16.2 Crass Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17 5 Water Surface Elevation (BFE) - - - - Coastal Transect -- - Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline .545cocmF 546000mE 1229 22' 30" NOTES TO USERS For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Efate Map (FIRM), available products associated with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, andlor digital versions of this map. Many of these products can he ordered or obtained directly from the website. Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed above. For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office. This information was derived from digital orthaphotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter pixel resolution from photography dated 2009. SCALE i N Map ProjecDon: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet; Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 I inch = 500 feet 1:6,000 0 500 0 125 PANEL LOCATOR 1,000 2,000 Feet Meters 250 500 1305 1315 0 W � rx M0 0 0 U. CU IN a� 47° 48' 45" 5295000mN 5294000mN 293000mN 52" NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS ry q a�rA�1F� PANEL 1292 OF 1575� FEMA Pane] Contains: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1292 F SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1292 F WOODWAY. TOWN OF 530308 1292 F VERSION NUMBER 2.3.2.1 Hydrographic Feature 513- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) OTHER Limit of Study FEATURES Jurisdiction Boundary 1294 * PANEL NOT PRINTED MAP NUMBER 53061C1292F MAP REVISED JUNE 19, 2020 Packet Pg. 367 1265000 FT 1220 22' 30" 1270000 FT 1275000 FT I 9.3.d I 47' fcY��I�I�I�I� 315000 FT 4511IH11111llfl 305000 FT 470 48' 45" 122° 5 �OOm 47 548000rnE 549noomE 550000mE 551 000mE 1220 18' 45" FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT HTTPS://MSC. FEMA.G0V Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A..V. A99 With BFE or Depth zone AE, AG, AH, VE, AR SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD h I� 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of I% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone x Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee See Notes.. : INOSCREENI Areas Determined to he Outside the OTHER 0.2% Annual Chance Fioodplain zone x AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D ----------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Accredited or Provisionally Accredited GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall STRUCTURES mmmmmmtt m Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall E 18.2 Crass Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17 "5 Water Surface Elevation (BFE) - - - - Coastal Transect -- - Coastal Transect Baseline - Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature 513- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) OTHER Limit of Study FEATURES Jurisdiction Boundary NOTES TO USERS For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Efate Map (FIRM), available products associated with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, andlor digital versions of this map. Many of these products can he ordered or obtained directly from the website. Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed above. For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office. This information was derived from digital orthaphotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter pixel resolution from photography dated 2009. SCALE ll Map ProjecDon: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet; Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 1 inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Meters 0 255 510 1,020 PANEL LOCATOR MR111 IiK31to] 1309 1320 1317 E 0 W � r`x 1� �p 0 0 U. cu Its a� 45" 7° 52' 30" 530260QmN 510 1000mN 5300000mN !9yoaomN j$oOomN 70n0mN ;a0H'N 6"A a� c �a c E L O O i L IL CU E 0 0 0 Cn a 3 m z x w r c m E 0 w r Q NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 1305 OF 15 f 5 N FEMA Pane] Contains: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1305 F LYNNWOOD, CITY OF 530167 1305 F SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1305 F VERSION NUMBER 2.3.2.1 MAP NUMBER 53001C1305F MAP REVISED JUNE 19, 2020 Packet Pg. 368 * PANEL NOT PRINTED I 9.3.d I 1220 22' 30" 1265000 FT SKYDLIINE 1270000 FT 1275nnf) FT 30 295( Town of Woodwa 530308 2900C 285000 280000 F 470 4f 12 5 OQQm 47 5 OOOm 48 E 54900vmE 5500 0 QmE 5510oomE 122' 18' 45" FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT HTTPS://MSC. FEMA.G0V Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A..V. A99 With BFE or Depth zone AE, AG, AH, VE, AR SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD h I� 0.2%Q Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1%Q annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone x Future Conditions 1%Q Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee See Notes.. : INOSCREENI Areas Determined to he Outside the OTHER 0.2%Q Annual Chance Fioodplain zone x AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D ----------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Accredited or Provisionally Accredited GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall STRUCTURES mmmmmmtt m Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall E 16.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17 "5 Water Surface Elevation (BFE) - - - - Coastal Transect -- - Coastal Transect Baseline - Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature 513- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) NOTES TO USERS For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Efate Map (FIRM), available products associated with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, andlor digital versions of this map. Many of these products can he ordered or obtained directly from the website. Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed above. For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office. This information was derived from digital orthaphotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter pixel resolution from photography dated 2009. SCALE ll Map ProjecDon: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet; Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 1 inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000 O 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Meters 0 255 510 1,020 PANEL LOCATOR 1310 1309 1320 1317 iIE iRl 45" '° 48' 45" 60TH AVE W 5295Q0omN 12TH LSW 5294000mN H w ,293000mN 92000mN 3ATEWAY BLV❑ �1000mN )000mN �00mN rom r Q E NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 0 AND INCORPORATED AREAS �W �1 ■L q a�rAF� 1PANEL 1315 OF 1575 N 44 ram+ ��Hn 56�%)ar FEMA CQ rho = Panel Contains: `ti 'li'•3 5�4..h• . COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1315 F LYNNWOOD, CITY OF 530167 1315 F MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, 530170 1315 F 0 CITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1315 F WOODWAY, TOWN OF 530308 1315 F ILL. CCU IN a� VERSION NUMBER 2.3.2.1 OTHER Limit of Study FEATURES Jurisdiction Boundary * PANEL NOT PRINTED MAP NUMBER 53061C1315F MAP REVISED JUNE 19, 2020 Packet Pg. 369 9.3.e NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE WASHINGTON MODEL (REVISED 12/0912019) Close to 300 towns, cities, counties, and tribes within the State of Washington participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a condition of participation in the NFIP, communities are required to adopt and enforce a flood hazard reduction ordinance that meets the minimum requirements of the NFIP; however, there are occasionally additional requirements identified by state law that are more restrictive. In these cases, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will require that communities meet those standards as well. This model identifies the basic requirements and cross references them to appropriate Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Revised Code of Washington (RCW), or Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requirements. It also encourages community officials to consider the direct insurance implications of certain building standards that, if adopted, can reduce (or increase) annual flood insurance premiums for local citizens. This ordinance, as developed by FEMA and the Washington Department of Ecology, supersedes previous versions and includes all the minimum standards required as a condition of participation in the NFIP. It will be used by FEMA and state staff as the basis for providing technical assistance and compliance reviews during the Community Assistance Contact (CAC) and Community Assistance Visit (CAV) process to ensure federal and state law are met. The model identifies the basic minimum federal and state regulation requirements that must be contained in local flood regulations, as well as suggestions for stronger measures, but notes these measures are recommended, not required. Additionally, it outlines several specific floodplain development practices and regulations that can reduce insurance premium. Adopting this model flood hazard reduction ordinance verbatim can ensure compliance with FEMA; however, it should be emphasized that its adoption is not a mandatory requirement per NFIP regulation. Some sections of this document are included for clarity and are not required by federal or state law. For instance, as indicated In SECTION 1 : STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES, it Is not mandatory to adopt this entire section, but by doing so, it will make your community's ordinance more legally enforceable. Certain commentary is highlighted in the model ordinance. The highlighted commentary does not need to be included in the local ordinances. Please note: Section 1612.4 of the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and Section 1612.2 of the 2018 International Building Code incorporate the design and construction standards of ASCE 24 published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 24- 14 tables 1-1, 2-1, 4-1, and 6-1 contain specific building elevation requirements which 1 Packet Pg. 370 9.3.e exceed minimum NFIP standards. Please Note: RCW 86.16.190 requires that: Local governments that have adopted floodplain management regulations pursuant to this chapter shall include provisions that allow for the establishment of livestock flood sanctuary areas at a convenient location within a farming unit that contains domestic livestock. Local governments may limit the size and configuration of the livestock flood sanctuary areas, but such limitation shall provide adequate space for the expected number of livestock on the farming unit and shall be at an adequate elevation to protect livestock. Modification to floodplain management regulations required pursuant to this section shall be within the minimum federal requirements necessary to maintain coverage under the national flood insurance program. While state law requires that local governments make provision for critter pads, it is extremely important to note that RCW 86.16.190 does not relax NFIP standards, including the no rise standard in floodways, in any way. This document may also serve as a foundation upon which communities can craft their own additional measures. The ordinance can be modified to accommodate local standards, provided they are not less restrictive than the minimum standards identified in this model. Areas on the model that exceed those minimum standards are clearly marked. The model ordinance is in a modular format. Appendix A: Ordinance Standards for Communities with Shallow Flooding Identified as AO zones on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These standards are mandatory in communities that have mapped AO zones. Appendix B: Ordinance Standards for Communities with Coastal Flooding Identified as V zones on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These standards are mandatory in communities that have mapped V or VE zones. NOTE: A community may wish to use a numbering system that differs from this model ordinance. In such cases, special care should be taken to correctly identify internal code citations within the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. 2 Packet Pg. 371 9.3.e Section 1.0 - Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact, Purpose, and Objectives (Not mandatory to adopt section 1.0) 1.1 Statutory Authorization The Legislature of the State of Washington has delegated the responsibility to local communities to adopt floodplain management regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the {Decision Making Body} of (Community Name), does ordain as follows: 1.2 Findings of Fact The flood hazard areas of {Community Name} are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These flood losses may be caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards that increase flood heights and velocities, and when inadequately anchored, damage uses in other areas. Uses that are inadequately floodproofed, elevated, or otherwise protected from flood damage also contribute to the flood loss. 1.3 Statement of Purpose It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; reduce the annual cost of flood insurance; and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: 1) Protect human life and health; 2) Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; 3) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; 4) Minimize prolonged business interruptions; 5) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone, and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in flood hazard areas; 6) Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development Packet Pg. 372 9.3.e of flood hazard areas so as to minimize blight areas caused by flooding; 7) Notify potential buyers that the property is in a Special Flood Hazard Area; 8) Notify those who occupy flood hazard areas that they assume responsibility for their actions; and 9) Participate in and maintain eligibility for flood insurance and disaster relief. 1.4 Methods of Reducing Flood Losses In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes methods and provisions for 1) Restricting or prohibiting development that is dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; 2) Requiring that development vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; 3) Controlling the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters; 4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development, which may increase flood damage; and 5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers that unnaturally divert floodwaters or may increase flood hazards in other areas. Section 2.0 — Definitions (44 CFR 59.1, not mandatory to adopt all definitions as shown. However, definitions needed for implementation of NFIP standards in a specific community can be required in the community's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.) Terms with 1 asterisk trigger a specific minimum requirement and must be adopted. Unless specifically defined below, terms or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance the most reasonable application. *Alteration of watercourse: Any action that will change the location of the channel occupied by water within the banks of any portion of a riverine waterbody. Appeal: A request for a review of the interpretation of any provision of this ordinance or a request for a variance. E Packet Pg. 373 9.3.e *Area of shallow flooding: A designated zone AO, AH, AR/AO or AR/AH (or VO) on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) with a one percent or greater annual chance of flooding to an average depth of one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable, and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. Also referred to as the sheet flow area. *Area of special flood hazard: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as zone A, AO, AH, A11-30, AE, A99, AR (V, VO, V1-30, VE). "Special flood hazard area" is synonymous in meaning with the phrase "area of special flood hazard". ASCE 24: The most recently published version of ASCE 24, Flood Resistant Design and Construction, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. *Base flood: The flood having a 1 % chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the "100-year flood"). *Base Flood Elevation (BFE): The elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood. *Basement: Any area of the building having its floor sub -grade (below ground level) on all sides. Building: See "Structure." Building Code: The currently effective versions of the International Building Code and the International Residential Code adopted by the State of Washington Building Code Council. Breakaway wall: A wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces, without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. Coastal High Hazard Area: An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as zone V1-30, VE or V. Critical Facility: A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include (but are not limited to) schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, N Packet Pg. 374 9.3.e fire and emergency response installations, and installations which produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. *Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood hazard. Elevation Certificate: An administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that can be used to provide elevation information, to determine the proper insurance premium rate, and to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F). Elevated Building: For insurance purposes, a non -basement building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns. Essential Facility: This term has the same meaning as "Essential Facility" defined in ASCE 24. Table 1-1 in ASCE 24-14 further identifies building occupancies that are essential facilities. Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision: A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by the community. Expansion to an Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision: The preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). Farmhouse: A single-family dwelling located on a farm site where resulting agricultural products are not produced for the primary consumption or use by the occupants and the farm owner. *Flood or Flooding: 1) A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: a) The overflow of inland or tidal waters. 6 Packet Pg. 375 9.3.e b) The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. c) Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in paragraph (1)(b) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current. 2) The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as defined in paragraph (1)(a) of this definition. *Flood elevation study: An examination, evaluation and determination of flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation and determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood -related erosion hazards. Also known as a Flood Insurance Study (FIS). *Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). *Floodplain or flood -prone area: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. See "Flood or flooding." *Floodplain administrator: The community official designated by title to administer and enforce the floodplain management regulations. Floodplain management regulations: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance) and other application of police power. The term describes such state or local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction. *Flood proofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. Flood proofed structures are those that have the structural integrity and design to be impervious to floodwater below the Base Flood Elevation. 7 Packet Pg. 376 9.3.e *Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Also referred to as "Regulatory Floodway." *Functionally dependent use: A use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building and ship repair facilities, and does not include long-term storage or related manufacturing facilities. *Highest adjacent grade: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. *Historic structure: Any structure that is: 1) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; 2) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; 3) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or 4) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: a) By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or b) Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs *Lowest Floor: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non -elevation design requirements of this ordinance (i.e. provided there are adequate flood ventilation openings). M. Packet Pg. 377 9.3.e Manufactured Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision: A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. *Mean Sea Level: For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the vertical datum to which Base Flood Elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. New construction: For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance Rate Map or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, "new construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. One -hundred -year flood or 100-year flood: See "Base flood." New Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision: A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of adopted floodplain management regulations adopted by the community. Reasonably Safe from Flooding: Development that is designed and built to be safe from flooding based on consideration of current flood elevation studies, historical data, high water marks and other reliable date known to the community. In unnumbered A zones where flood elevation information is not available and cannot be obtained by practicable means, reasonably safe from flooding means that the lowest floor is at least two feet above the Highest Adjacent Grade. *Recreational Vehicle: A vehicle, 1) Built on a single chassis; 2) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; 3) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and 9 Packet Pg. 378 9.3.e 4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. *Start of construction: Includes substantial improvement and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days from the date of the permit. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. *Structure: For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. *Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. *Substantial improvement: Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: 1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct previously identified existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications that have been identified by the local code enforcement official and that are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or 2) Any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure." *Variance: A grant of relief by a community from the terms of a floodplain management regulation. 10 Packet Pg. 379 9.3.e Water surface elevation: The height, in relation to the vertical datum utilized in the applicable flood insurance study of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas. Water Dependent: A structure for commerce or industry that cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Section 3.0 — General Provisions 3.1 Lands to Which This Ordinance Applies (44 CFR 59.22(a)) This ordinance shall apply to all special flood hazard areas within the boundaries of (Community Name). 3.2 Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for (exact title of study)" dated (date), and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) dated (date), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at (community address). The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section 4.3-2 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section 4.3-2. Note: In some communities, the phrase "and any revisions thereto" is not considered legally binding and should not be adopted. 3.3 Compliance All development within special flood hazard areas is subject to the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. 3.4 Penalties For Noncompliance No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. Violations of the provisions of this ordinance by failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions), shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this 11 Packet Pg. 380 9.3.e ordinance or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than or imprisoned for not more than _ days, or both, for each violation, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. 3.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions This ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. 3.6 Interpretation (Not mandatory) In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be: 1) Considered as minimum requirements; 2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and, 3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. 3.7 Warning And Disclaimer of Liability (Not mandatory) The degree of flood protection required by this ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man- made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of {Community Name}, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 3.8 Severability This ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. Should any Section of this ordinance be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any portion thereof other than the Section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid. 12 Packet Pg. 381 9.3.e Section 4.0 — Administration 4.1 Establishment of Development Permit 4.1-1 Development Permit Required (44 CFR 60.3(b)(1)) A development permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2. The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in the "Definitions," and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in the "Definitions." 4.1-2 Application for Development Permit Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the Floodplain Administrator and may include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required: 1) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures recorded on a current elevation certificate with Section B completed by the Floodplain Administrator. 2) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed; 3) Where a structure is to be floodproofed, certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in Section 5.2-2; 4) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development; 5) Where a structure is proposed in a V, V1-30, or VE zone, a V-zone design certificate; 6) Where development is proposed in a floodway, an engineering analysis indication no rise of the Base Flood Elevation, and 7) Any other such information that may be reasonably required by the Floodplain Administrator in order to review the application. 13 Packet Pg. 382 9.3.e Note: The format of section 4.1-2 is not mandatory but the elevation information in subsection 1 and the information in subsections 2 through 7 is mandatory. Elevation Certificates are not mandatory outside of Community Rating System communities but highly recommended. 4.2 Designation of the Floodplain Administrator (44 CFR 59.22(b)(1)) The {job title of the appropriate administrative official) is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and enforce this ordinance by granting or denying development permits in accordance with its provisions. The Floodplain Administrator may delegate authority to implement these provisions. 4.3 Duties & Responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator Duties of the (Floodplain Administrator) shall include, but not be limited to: 4.3-1 Permit Review Review all development permits to determine that: 1) The permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied; 2) All other required state and federal permits have been obtained; 3) The site is reasonably safe from flooding; 4) The proposed development is not located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure the encroachment provisions of Section 5.4-1 are met; 5) Notify FEMA when annexations occur in the Special Flood Hazard Area 4.3-2 Use of Other Base Flood Data (In A and V Zones) (44 CFR 60.3(b)(4)) When base flood elevation data has not been provided (in A or V zones) in accordance with Section 3.2, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state, or other source, in order to administer Sections 5.2, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, and 5.4 FLOODWAYS. 4.3-3 Information to be Obtained and Maintained (The following language is required and should be adopted verbatim per 44 CFR) 14 Packet Pg. 383 9.3.e 1) Where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or required as in Section 4.3-2, obtain and maintain a record of the actual (as -built) elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(i) and (iii)) 2) Obtain and maintain documentation of the elevation of the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member in V or VE zones. (44 CFR 60.3(e)(2)(i) and (ii)) 3) For all new or substantially improved floodproofed nonresidential structures where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or as required in Section 4.3-2: a) Obtain and maintain a record of the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(ii)) b) Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in Section 4.1-2(3) (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(iii)) 4) Certification required by Section 5.4.1 {or the numbering system used by the community} (floodway encroachments). (44 CFR 60.3(d)(3)) 5) Records of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance. (44 CFR 60.6(a)(6)) 6) Improvement and damage calculations. 7) Maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this ordinance. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(iii)) 4.3-4 Alteration of Watercourse Whenever a watercourse is to be altered or relocated: 1) Notify adjacent communities and the Department of Ecology prior to such alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administrator through appropriate notification means, (44CFR 60.3(b)(6) 2) Assure that the flood carrying capacity of the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(7) 15 Packet Pg. 384 9.3.e 4.3-5 Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries (This section is not required, but if the Local Administrators are performing this task on a regular basis, it should be adopted.) Make interpretations where needed, as to exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazards (e.g. where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation. Such appeals shall be granted consistent with the standards of Section 60.6 of the Rules and Regulations of the NFIP (44 CFR 59-76). 4.3-6 Review of Building Permits (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)) Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from another authoritative source (Section 4.3-2), applications for floodplain development shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. (Failure to elevate habitable buildings at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates.) 4.3-7 Changes to Special Flood Hazard Area 1) If a project will alter the BFE or boundaries of the SFHA, then the project proponent shall provide the community with engineering documentation and analysis regarding the proposed change. If the change to the BFE or boundaries of the SFHA would normally require a Letter of Map Change, then the project proponent shall initiate, and receive approval of, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to approval of the development permit. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved CLOMR. 2) If a CLOMR application is made, then the project proponent shall also supply the full CLOMR documentation package to the Floodplain Administrator to be attached to the floodplain development permit, including all required property owner notifications. 16 Packet Pg. 385 9.3.e Section 5.0 — Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction 5.1 General Standards (Section 5.0 is required) In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required: 5.1-1 Anchoring (44 CFR 60.3(a) and (b)) 1) All new construction and substantial improvements, including those related to manufactured homes, shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads including the effects of buoyancy. (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)(i)) 2) All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(8)). For more detailed information, refer to guidebook, FEMA-85, "Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas." 5.1-2 Construction Materials and Methods (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)(ii-iv)) 1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. 2) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. 3) Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 5.1-3 Storage of Materials and Equipment 1) The storage or processing of materials that could be injurious to human, animal, or plant life if released due to damage from flooding is prohibited in special flood hazard areas (recommended). 2) Storage of other material or equipment may be allowed if not subject to damage by floods and if firmly anchored to prevent flotation, or if readily removable from the area within the time available after flood warning. 17 Packet Pg. 386 9.3.e 5.1-4 Utilities (44 CFR 60.3(a)(5) and (6) 1) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; 2) Water wells shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway (WAC 173-160-171); 3) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters; 4) Onsite waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 5.1-5 Subdivision Proposals and Development (44 CFR 60.3(a)(4) and (b)(3)) All subdivisions, as well as new development shall: 1) Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; 2) Have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; 3) Have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage 4) Where subdivision proposals and other proposed developments contain greater than 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is the lesser) base flood elevation data shall be included as part of the application. 5.2 Specific Standards (44 CFR 60.3(c)(1)) In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in Section 3.2, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD, or Section 4.3-2, USE OF OTHER BASE FLOOD DATA. The following provisions are required: 5.2-1 Residential Construction (44 CFR 60.3(c)(2)(5)) 1) In AE and Al-30 zones or other A zoned areas where the BFE has been determined or can be reasonably obtained, new construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest 18 Packet Pg. 387 9.3.e floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the BFE. Mechanical equipment and utilities shall be waterproof or elevated least one foot above the BFE. 2) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure in an AO zone shall meet the requirements in Appendix A. 3) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure in an Unnumbered A zone for which a BFE is not available and cannot be reasonably obtained shall be reasonably safe from flooding, but in all cases the lowest floor shall be at least two feet above the Highest Adjacent Grade. 4) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure in a V, V1-30, or VE zone shall meet the requirements in Appendix B. 5) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a) Have a minimum of two openings with a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. b) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. c) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwater. d) A garage attached to a residential structure, constructed with the garage floor slab below the BFE, must be designed to allow for the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. Alternatively, a registered engineer or architect may design and certify engineered openings. 5.2-2 Nonresidential Construction (44 CFR 60.3(c)(3) and (4)) New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall meet the requirements of subsection 1 or 2, below. 19 Packet Pg. 388 9.3.e 1) New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall meet all of the following requirements: a) In AE and Al-30 zones or other A zoned areas where the BFE has been determined or can be reasonably obtained: New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the BFE, or elevated as required by ASCE 24, whichever is greater. Mechanical equipment and utilities shall be waterproofed or elevated least one foot above the BFE, or as required by ASCE 24, whichever is greater. b) If located in an AO zone, the structure shall meet the requirements in Appendix A. c) If located in an Unnumbered A zone for which a BFE is not available and cannot be reasonably obtained, the structure shall be reasonably safe from flooding, but in all cases the lowest floor shall be at least two feet above the Highest Adjacent Grade. d) If located in a V, V1-30, or VE zone, the structure shall meet the requirements in Appendix B. e) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: i) Have a minimum of two openings with a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwater. iv) A garage attached to a residential structure, constructed with the garage floor slab below the BFE, must be designed to allow for the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. 20 Packet Pg. 389 9.3.e Alternatively, a registered engineer or architect may design and certify engineered openings. 2) If the requirements of subsection 1 are not met, then new construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall meet all of the following requirements: a) Be dry floodproofed so that below one foot or more above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water or dry floodproofed to the elevation required by ASCE 24, whichever is greater; b) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; c) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the official as set forth in Section 4.3-3(2); d) Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in 5.2-1(5); Note: Applicants who are floodproofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the floodproofed level (e.g. a building floodproofed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below). Floodproofing the building an additional foot will reduce insurance premiums significantly. 5.2-3 Manufactured Homes (44 CFR 60.3(c)(6)(12)) 1) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. (If the above phrase is applied to all manufactured homes in the floodplain, then the remaining verbiage is not necessary to adopt.) This applies to manufactured homes: 21 Packet Pg. 390 9.3.e a) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, b) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision, c) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or d) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on a site which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood; and 2) Manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision that are not subject to the above manufactured home provisions be elevated so that either: a) The lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation, or b) The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. 5.2-4 Recreational Vehicles (44 CFR 60.3(c)(14)) 1) Recreational vehicles placed on sites are required to either: 2) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, or 3) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on wheels or jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or Meet the requirements of 5.2-3 above. 5.2-5 Enclosed Area Below the Lowest Floor If buildings or manufactured homes are constructed or substantially improved with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor, the areas shall be used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. 22 Packet Pg. 391 9.3.e 5.2-6 Appurtenant Structures (Detached Garages & Small Storage Structures) For A Zones (A, AE, Al -30, AH, AO): 1) Appurtenant structures used solely for parking of vehicles or limited storage may be constructed such that the floor is below the BFE, provided the structure is designed and constructed in accordance with the following requirements: a) Use of the appurtenant structure must be limited to parking of vehicles or limited storage; b) The portions of the appurtenant structure located below the BFE must be built using flood resistant materials; c) The appurtenant structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral movement; d) Any machinery or equipment servicing the appurtenant structure must be elevated or floodproofed to or above the BFE; e) The appurtenant structure must comply with floodway encroachment provisions in Section 5.4-1; f) The appurtenant structure must be designed to allow for the automatic entry and exit of flood waters in accordance with Section 5.2-1(5). g) The structure shall have low damage potential, h) If the structure is converted to another use, it must be brought into full compliance with the standards governing such use, and i) The structure shall not be used for human habitation. 2) Detached garages, storage structures, and other appurtenant structures not meeting the above standards must be constructed in accordance with all applicable standards in Section 5.2-1. 3) Upon completion of the structure, certification that the requirements of this section have been satisfied shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator for verification. 23 Packet Pg. 392 9.3.e 5.3 AE and Al-30 Zones with Base Flood Elevations but No Floodways (44 CFR 60.3(c)(10)) In areas with BFEs (but a regulatory floodway has not been designated), no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within zones Al-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. 5.4 Floodways (Note the more restrictive language for floodway development per RCW 86.16) Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2 are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters that can carry debris, and increase erosion potential, the following provisions apply: 5.4-1 No Rise Standard Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development, unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. (44 CFR 60.3(d)(3)) 5.4-2 Residential Construction in Floodways Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure that do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications that have been identified by the local code enforcement official and that are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent. 1) Replacement of Farmhouses in Floodway 24 Packet Pg. 393 9.3.e Repairs, reconstruction, replacement, or improvements to existing farmhouse structures located in designated floodways and that are located on lands designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance under RCW 36.70A.170 may be permitted subject to the following: a) The new farmhouse is a replacement for an existing farmhouse on the same farm site; b) There is no potential building site for a replacement farmhouse on the same farm outside the designated floodway; c) Repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a farmhouse shall not increase the total square footage of encroachment of the existing farmhouse; d) A replacement farmhouse shall not exceed the total square footage of encroachment of the farmhouse it is replacing; e) A farmhouse being replaced shall be removed, in its entirety, including foundation, from the floodway within ninety days after occupancy of a new farmhouse; f) For substantial improvements and replacement farmhouses, the elevation of the lowest floor of the improvement and farmhouse respectively, including basement, is a minimum of one foot higher than the BFE; g) New and replacement water supply systems are designed to eliminate or minimize infiltration of flood waters into the system; h) New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems are designed and located to eliminate or minimize infiltration of flood water into the system and discharge from the system into the flood waters; and i) All other utilities and connections to public utilities are designed, constructed, and located to eliminate or minimize flood damage. 2) Substantially Damaged Residences in Floodway a) For all substantially damaged residential structures, other than farmhouses, located in a designated floodway, the Floodplain Administrator may make a written request that the Department of Ecology assess the risk of harm to life and property posed by the specific conditions of the floodway. Based on analysis of depth, velocity, flood -related erosion, channel migration, debris load potential, and flood warning capability, the Department of Ecology may exercise best professional judgment in recommending to the local permitting authority repair, replacement, or relocation of a substantially damaged structure consistent with WAC 173-158-076. The property owner shall be responsible for submitting to the local government and the Department of Ecology any information 25 Packet Pg. 394 9.3.e necessary to complete the assessment. Without a favorable recommendation from the department for the repair or replacement of a substantially damaged residential structure located in the regulatory floodway, no repair or replacement is allowed per WAC 173-158- 070(1). b) Before the repair, replacement, or reconstruction is started, all requirements of the NFIP, the state requirements adopted pursuant to 86.16 RCW, and all applicable local regulations must be satisfied. In addition, the following conditions must be met: i) There is no potential safe building location for the replacement residential structure on the same property outside the regulatory floodway. ii) A replacement residential structure is a residential structure built as a substitute for a legally existing residential structure of equivalent use and size. iii) Repairs, reconstruction, or replacement of a residential structure shall not increase the total square footage of floodway encroachment. iv) The elevation of the lowest floor of the substantially damaged or replacement residential structure is a minimum of one foot higher than the BFE. v) New and replacement water supply systems are designed to eliminate or minimize infiltration of flood water into the system. vi) New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems are designed and located to eliminate or minimize infiltration of flood water into the system and discharge from the system into the flood waters. vii) All other utilities and connections to public utilities are designed, constructed, and located to eliminate or minimize flood damage. 5.4-3 All Other Building Standards Apply in the Floodway If Section 5.4-1 is satisfied or construction is allowed pursuant to section 5.4-2, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 5.0, Provisions For Flood Hazard Reduction. 5.5 General Requirements for Other Development (Optional Provision) 26 Packet Pg. 395 9.3.e All development, including manmade changes to improved or unimproved real estate for which specific provisions are not specified in this ordinance or the state building codes with adopted amendments and any {community name} amendments, shall: 1) Be located and constructed to minimize flood damage; 2) Meet the encroachment limitations of this ordinance if located in a regulatory floodway; 3) Be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement resulting from hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy, during conditions of the design flood; 4) Be constructed of flood damage -resistant materials; 5) Meet the flood opening requirements of Section 5.2-1(5), and 6) Have mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems above the design flood elevation or meet the requirements of ASCE 24, except that minimum electric service required to address life safety and electric code requirements is permitted below the design flood elevation provided it conforms to the provisions of the electrical part of building code for wet locations. 5.6 Critical Facility (Optional Provision) Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the SFHA (100-year floodplain). Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above BFE or to the height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and from the critical facility should also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the BFE shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. 5.7 Livestock Sanctuaries Elevated areas for the for the purpose of creating a flood sanctuary for livestock are allowed on farm units where livestock is allowed. Livestock flood sanctuaries shall be sized appropriately for the expected number of livestock and be elevated sufficiently to protect livestock. Proposals for livestock flood sanctuaries shall meet all procedural and substantive requirements of this chapter. 27 Packet Pg. 396 9.3.e Note: To be "elevated sufficiently to protect livestock" typically means to be elevated at least one foot above the BFE. Section 6.0 - Variances The variance criteria set forth in this section of the ordinance are based on the general principle of zoning law that variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. A variance may be granted for a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual that complying with the requirements of this ordinance would create an exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its inhabitants, or the property owners. It is the duty of the {governing body} to help protect its citizens from flooding. This need is so compelling and the implications of the cost of insuring a structure built below the Base Flood Elevation are so serious that variances from the flood elevation or from other requirements in the flood ordinance are quite rare. The long-term goal of preventing and reducing flood loss and damage can only be met if variances are strictly limited. Therefore, the variance guidelines provided in this ordinance are more detailed and contain multiple provisions that must be met before a variance can be properly granted. The criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which alternatives other than a variance are more appropriate. 6.1 Requirements for Variances 1) Variances shall only be issued: a) Upon a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances; b) For the repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic structures upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure; KIM Packet Pg. 397 9.3.e c) Upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief; d) Upon a showing of good and sufficient cause; e) Upon a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; f) Upon a showing that the use cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. This includes only facilities defined in Section 2.0 {or the numbering system used by the community} of this ordinance in the definition of "Functionally Dependent Use." 2) Variances shall not be issued within any floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. 3) Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the BFE, provided the procedures of Sections 4.0 and 5.0 {or the numbering system used by the community} of this ordinance have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. 6.2 Variance Criteria In considering variance applications, the {Governing Body} shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, all standards specified in other sections of this ordinance, and: 1) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; 2) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; 3) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; 4) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; 5) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; 29 Packet Pg. 398 9.3.e 6) The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use, which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; 7) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; 8) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area; 9) The safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; 10) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site; and, 11) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, water system, and streets and bridges. 6.1 Additional Requirements for the Issuance of a Variance 1) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice over the signature of a community official that: a) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the BFE will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage, and b) Such construction below the BFE increases risks to life and property. 2) The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance. 3) The Floodplain Administrator shall condition the variance as needed to ensure that the requirements and criteria of this chapter are met. 4) Variances as interpreted in the NFIP are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from flood elevations should be quite rare. 30 Packet Pg. 399 9.3.e APPENDIX A STANDARDS FOR SHALLOW FLOODING AREAS (AO ZONES) (44 CFR 60.3(c)7, 8 and 11) Shallow flooding areas appear on FIRMs as AO zones with depth designations. The base flood depths in these zones range from 1 to 3 feet above ground where a clearly defined channel does not exist, or where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is usually characterized as sheet flow. In addition to other provisions in this code, the following additional provisions also apply in AO zones: New construction and substantial improvements of residential structures and manufactured homes within AO zones shall have the lowest floor (including basement and mechanical equipment) elevated above the highest adjacent grade to the structure, one foot or more above* the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade to the structure if no depth number is specified). 2. New construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures within AO zones shall either: a) Have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade of the building site, one foot or more above* the depth number specified on the FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified); or b) Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be completely flood proofed to or above that level so that any space below that level is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. If this method is used, compliance shall be certified by a registered professional engineer, or architect as in section 5.2-2(3). 3. Require adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures. 4. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within AO zones on the community's FIRM either: a) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, or 31 Packet Pg. 400 9.3.e b) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions; or c) Meet the requirements of subsections (1) and (3) above and the anchoring requirements for manufactured homes (Section 5.1-1(2)). 32 Packet Pg. 401 9.3.e APPENDIX B STANDARDS FOR COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS (V ZONES) 44 CFR 60.3(e)(2 — 8) Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2 are Coastal High Hazard Areas, designated as zones V1-30, VE, and/or V. These areas have special flood hazards associated with high velocity waters from surges and, therefore, in addition to meeting all provisions in this ordinance, the following provisions shall also apply: All new construction and substantial improvements in zones V1-30 and VE (V if base flood elevation data is available) on the community's FIRM shall be elevated on pilings and columns so that: a) Elevation: i) Residential Buildings The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated one foot or more above the base flood level. ii) Nonresidential buildings The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated one foot or more above the base flood level or meets the elevation requirements of ASCE 24, whichever is higher; and b) The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Wind and water loading values shall each have a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (100-year mean recurrence interval). A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop or review the structural design, specifications and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction to be used are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(ii). 2. Obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the bottom of the lowest structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings and columns) of all new 33 Packet Pg. 402 9.3.e and substantially improved structures in zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community's FIRM and whether or not such structures contain a basement. The (Floodplain Administrator) shall maintain a record of all such information. 3. All new construction within zones V1-30, VE, and Von the community's FIRM shall be located landward of the reach of mean high tide. 4. Provide that all new construction and substantial improvements within zones V1- 30, VE, and V on the community's FIRM have the space below the lowest floor either free of obstruction or constructed with non -supporting breakaway walls, open wood lattice -work, or insect screening intended to collapse under wind and water loads without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. For the purposes of this section, a breakaway wall shall have a design safe loading resistance of not less than 10 and no more than 20 pounds per square foot. Use of breakaway walls which exceed a design safe loading resistance of 20 pounds per square foot (either by design or when so required by local or state codes) may be permitted only if a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that the design proposed meets the following conditions: a) Breakaway wall collapse shall result from water load less than that which would occur during the base flood; and b) The elevated portion of the building and supporting foundation system shall not be subject to collapse, displacement, or other structural damage due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components (structural and non-structural). Maximum wind and water loading values to be used in this determination shall each have a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (100-year mean recurrence interval). If breakaway walls are utilized, such enclosed space shall be useable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. Such space shall not be used for human habitation. 5. Prohibit the use of fill for structural support of buildings within zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community's FIRM. 6. Prohibit man-made alteration of sand dunes within zones V1-30, VE, and Von the community's FIRM which would increase potential flood damage. 7. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within zones V1- 30, V, and VE on the community's FIRM on sites: 34 Packet Pg. 403 9.3.e a) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, b) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision, c) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or d) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood; shall meet the standards of paragraphs (1) through (6) of this section and manufactured homes placed or substantially improved on other sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within zones V1-30, V, and VE on the FIRM shall meet the requirements of Section 5.2-3. 8. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within V or VE zones on the community's FIRM shall either: a) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, or b) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or c) Meet the requirements of subsections (1) and (3) above and the anchoring requirements for manufactured homes (Section 5.1-1(2)). 35 Packet Pg. 404 9.3.e 36 m c c L 0 r_ 0 i L IL w a� c� E c� 0 0 0 a� c c �a L 0 r_ 0 L a) E 0 0 C0 G Y K W r E a Packet Pg. 405 9.3.f ORDINANCE NO.4188 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT MEASURES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds received a March 16, 2020 letter from the Director of FEMA's Floodplain Management Division; and WHEREAS, the letter described certain steps that were required by the City to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and WHEREAS, a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) have LL been completed for the City of Edmonds; and o T WHEREAS, the FIS and FIRM will become effective on June 19, 2020; and -71 6 WHEREAS, by the June 19, 2020 effective date, the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office is required to approve the legally enforceable floodplain management measures that the City of Edmonds adopts in accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.3(e); and WHEREAS, the adoption of compliant floodplain management measures will provide protection for the City of Edmonds and will ensure its participation in the NFIP; and WHEREAS, the NFIP State Coordinating Office for Washington State has verified that Washington cities may include language in their floodplain management measures that automatically adopt the most recently available flood elevation data provided by FEMA; and WHEREAS, the above referenced March 16, 2020 letter was FEMA's official notification to the City of Edmonds that it has until June 19, 2020 to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP requirements and request approval of those regulations from the FEMA Regional Office; 1 Packet Pg. 406 9.3.f WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds' adopted floodplain management measures will be reviewed upon receipt and the FEMA Regional Office will notify the City when the measures are approved; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds' compliance with these mandatory program requirements will enable the City to avoid suspension from the NFIP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first holding a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the COVID-19 crisis has prevented the City from using its normal public participation process leading up to the adoption of these regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 19.07 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled co co "Flood Damage Prevention," is hereby added to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which Nr is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. Section 23.70.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thr-ough). Section 3. Section 19.05.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Section amendments," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment C hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfo g ). 2 Packet Pg. 407 9.3.f Section 4. Section 19.00.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "International Building Code section amendments," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4il£e thfough). Section 5. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after which point it shall have no further effect. Section 6. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote to E plus one of the whole membership of the council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum o (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, the City of $ Edmonds could be suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Therefore, this CO CO interim regulation must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that the City continues to participate in the NFIP. Z Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 6, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. 3 Packet Pg. 408 9.3.f Section 9. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts the above "whereas" clauses as findings of fact in support of the adoption of this interim ordinance. APPROVED: Jt-jam.- MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CLE K, SCOTT ASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA74 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 29, 2020 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 2, 2020 PUBLISHED: June 5, 2020 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2020 ORDINANCE NO. 4188 M 00 00 Packet Pg. 409 9.3.f SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4188 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 2nd day of June, 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4188. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT MEASURES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE THE CITY' S PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 2nd day of June, 2020. CI CLERK, SCOT SEY 5 Packet Pg. 410 Attachment A 9.3.f Chapter 19.07 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION 19.07.000 Purpose 19.07.010 Applicability 19.07.020 Definitions 19.07.030 International Building Code section amendments 19.07.040 International Residential Code section amendments 19.07.050 Habitat Assessment 19.07.060 Review of Building Permits 19.07.070 Anchoring 19.07.080 Subdivision Proposals and Development 19.07.090 Manufactured Homes 19.07.100 All Other Building Standards apply 19.07.000 Purpose It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; reduce the annual cost of flood insurance; and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: A. Protect human life and health; B. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; C. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; D. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; E. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone, and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in flood hazard areas; F. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood hazard areas so as to minimize blight areas caused by flooding; G. Notify potential buyers that the property is in a Special Flood Hazard Area; H. Notify those who occupy flood hazard areas that they assume responsibility for their actions; and I. Participate in and maintain eligibility for flood insurance and disaster relief. 19.07.010 Applicability A. Lands to which the chapter applies. This chapter shall apply to all special flood hazard areas within the boundaries of the City of Edmonds. B. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and any Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 411 9.3.f Attachment A revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5ch Avenue North. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G103.3 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section G 103.3. 19.07.020 Definitions The following definitions apply to this chapter... A. Alteration of Watercourse: Any action that will change the location of the channel occupied by water within the banks of any portion of a riverine waterbody. ;a L B. Area of special flood hazard: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a 1 percent or Oa greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as zone A, AO, AH, Al-30, AE, A99, AR (V, VO, V1-30, VE). "Special flood hazard area" is synonymous in meaning with the phrase "area of special flood hazard". ;v a C. Base flood: The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also a referred to as the "100-year flood"). E D. M Base Flood Elevation (BFE): the elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood. o E. Coastal High Hazard Area: An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave o T_ action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as zone V1-30, VE or V. v F. 6 Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not Z limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood hazard. L O G. Elevation Certificate: An administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that can E be used to provide elevation information, to determine the proper insurance premium rate, and to ate`, support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOM R-F). H. Flood or Flooding: z A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: a. The overflow of inland or tidal waters. b. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. c. Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in paragraph (1)(b) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current. The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 412 9.3.f Attachment A accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as defined in paragraph (1)(a) of this definition. I. Flood elevation study: An examination, evaluation and determination of flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation and determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood -related erosion hazards. Also known as a Flood Insurance Study (FIS). J. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). K. Floodplain or flood -prone area: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. See "Flood or flooding." L. Floodplain administrator: The community official designated by title to administer and enforce the floodplain management regulations. M. Floodplain management regulations: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance) and other application of police power. The term describes such state or local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction. N. Flood proofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments 000 to structures which reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to real estate or improved real v property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. Flood proofed structures are Z those that have the structural integrity and design to be impervious to floodwater below the Base Flood Elevation. O. Habitat Assessment: A written document that describes a project, identifies and analyzes the project's impacts to habitat for species discussed in the "Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region," and provides an Effects Determination. Highest adjacent grade: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. Q. Historic structure: Any structure that is: 1. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; 2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; 3. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 413 9.3.f Attachment A 4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: a. By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or b. Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs. Mean Sea Level: For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the vertical datum to which Base Flood Elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. New construction: For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance Rate Map or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, "new construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. T. Structure: For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. 19.07.030 International Building Code section amendments The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows: A. Section 110.3.3, Lowest floor elevation, is amended to read: In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to 00 further vertical construction, the elevation certification required in Section 1612.5 shall be v submitted to the building official. Prior to final inspection approval, the building official shall require o z an elevation certificate based on finished construction prepared and sealed by a State licensed land 0 surveyor. B. Section 1612.1.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads: Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded from the 50 percent calculation. C. Section 1612.4.1, Lowest Floor Elevation, is added and reads: For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. 19.07.040 International Residential Code section amendments The following sections of the IRC are hereby amended as follows: Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 414 9.3.f Attachment A A. Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, is amended with the following criteria: Flood Hazard(g) = NFIP adoption June 19, 2020. FIRM maps June 19, 2019 B. R322.1, General, is hereby amended as follows: Buildings and structures constructed in whole or in part in flood hazard areas (including A or V Zones) as established in Table R301.2(1) shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions contained in this section. Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded from the 50 percent calculation. 19.07.050 Habitat Assessment A development permit application shall include a habitat assessment unless the project is, in its entirety, one of the following activities: A. Normal maintenance, repairs, or remodeling of structures, such as re -roofing and replacing siding, 00 provided such work is not a substantial improvement or a repair of substantial damage. To comply, 00 v such work must be less than 50% of the value of the structure(s). o Expansion or reconstruction of an existing structure that is no greater than 10% beyond its existing footprint. If the structure is in the floodway, there shall be no change in the structure's dimensions perpendicular to flow. All other federal and state requirements and restrictions relating to floodway development still apply. C. Activities with the sole purpose of creating, restoring, or enhancing natural functions associated with floodplains, streams, lakes, estuaries, marine areas, habitat, and riparian areas that meet federal and state standards, provided the activities do not include structures, grading, fill, or impervious surfaces. D. Development of open space and recreational facilities, such as parks, trails, and hunting grounds, that do not include structures, fill, impervious surfaces, or removal of more than 5% of the native vegetation on that portion of the property in the floodplain. E. Repair to onsite septic systems, provided ground disturbance is the minimal necessary and best management practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater runoff and soil erosion are used. Projects that have already received concurrence under another permit or other consultation with the Services, either through Section 7, Section 4d, or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that addresses the entirety of the project in the floodplain (such as an Army Corps 404 permit or non -conversion Forest Practice activities including any interrelated and interdependent activities.). G. Repair of an existing, functional bulkhead in the same location and footprint with the same materials when the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is still outside of the face of the bulkhead (i.e. if the work qualifies for a Corps exemption from Section 404 coverage). Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 415 9.3.f Attachment A 19.07.060 Review of Building Permits Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from another authoritative source (Section 4.3-2), applications for floodplain development shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. 19.07.070 Anchoring A. All new construction and substantial improvements, including those related to manufactured homes, shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads including the effects of buoyancy. All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. For more detailed information, refer to guidebook, FEMA-85, "Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas." 19.07.080 Subdivision Proposals and Development All subdivisions, as well as new development shall: A. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; 00 B. Have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and 00 v constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; o C. Have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage. Z D. Where subdivision proposals and other proposed developments contain greater than 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is the lesser) base flood elevation data shall be included as part of the application. 19.07.090 Manufactured Homes A. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. B. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within zones V1-30, V, and VE on the community's FIRM on sites: a. Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, b. In a new manufactured home park or subdivision, c. In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or d. In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood; shall meet the standards of ASCE 24-14, Chapter 4 requirements for residential buildings. Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 416 Attachment A 9.3.f 19.07.100 All Other Building Standards Apply All new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of the adopted IBC, IRC, Appendix (IBC) G, and ASCE 24. Page 7 of 7 00 00 v Packet Pg. 417 9.3.f Attachment B Chapter 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas. A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include: 1. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study(FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), and any revisions thereto, are hereby pted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5th Avenue North. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G103.3 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section G103.3. •�f• �.El: r!'!!42Fr/!�:!!!f�Titi T: !ls!T_T.�E'ftSP.�:�:f!LL'Zrl.'!!!f!!r3!lIT.SRFr!'�'i.. _ i 7 INOW ! I' • • •• • 2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above. B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city's critical areas inventory are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners, and the public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. As flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, newer and more restrictive information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to designate and identify areas known to be prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to the provisions and protections of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Packet Pg. 418 Attachment C 9.3.f 19.05.020 Section amendments. The following sections of the IRC are hereby amended as follows: A. Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, is amended with the following criteria: 1. Ground Snow Load = 25 psf non -reducible 2. Wind Speed(d) = 85 mph 3. Topographical effects(k) = No 4. Seismic Design Category(f) = D1 5. Weathering(a) = moderate 6. Frost Line Depth(b) = 18 inches 7. Termite(c) = slight to moderate 8. Winter Design Temp(e) = 27 degrees F 10. Ice Shield Underlayment(h) = not required 11. Air Freezing Index(i) = 0-1000 12. Mean Annual Tempo) = 50 degrees F B. R313.1, Automatic fire sprinkler system, is added and reads: 1. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in new buildings containing five (5) or more attached dwelling units. Refer to ECDC 19.25.035. 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in new one -family and two- family dwellings and townhouses exceeding 3,000 square feet of fire area. 3. The design and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with NFPA 13D. _C. R322. 1 General, is hereby amended asfollows: � y i [Ord. 4029 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3926 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 3819 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3796 § 2, 2010]. 00 w Packet Pg. 419 9.3.f Attachment D 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments. The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows: A. Section 104.3, Notices and Orders, is amended to read: The building official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with this code. The building official is also authorized to use Chapter 20.110 ECDC for code compliance in addition to the remedies provided for in this code. B. Section 105.1.1, Annual Permit, is deleted. C. Section 105.1.1, Demolition Permits, is added and shall read: Before the partial or complete demolition of any building or structure (interior or exterior), a demolition permit shall be obtained from the building official. The permit fee is established pursuant to Chapter 19.70 ECDC. The applicant shall also post with the city, prior to permit issuance, a performance bond, or frozen fund, conforming to Chapter 17.10 ECDC herein, in an amount to be determined by the building official to satisfy all city requirements no later than 180 days after the issuance of the permit. The demolition performance bond or frozen fund shall not be released until the building official determines the following requirements have been completed: 1. Cap Abandoned Sanitary Sewers. Septic tanks shall be pumped, collapsed and removed and/or filled with earth, sand, concrete, CDF or hard slurry. 2. Knock Down of Concrete Foundation Walls, Porches, Chimneys and Similar Structures. o Concrete, bricks, cobbles and boulders shall be broken to less than 12-inch diameter. Debris LL left on site shall conform to IBC Section 1804.2 for clean fill. 00 w T 3. Construction debris, vegetation, and garbage attributable to the demolition shall be removed from the site and from unopened street right-of-way within 30 days of written notice. Z No debris of any kind may be placed or maintained on street right-of-way (including alleys) without a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 18.60 or 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 4. Repair of any damage to, and restoration of, any public property to substantially original conditions, i.e., alley, street, sidewalk, landscaping, water, sewer, storm and other utilities, rockeries, retaining walls, etc, in accordance with this code and the City's engineering requirements. 5. Grading of Site Back to Original Topography Grades. Basements shall be filled and compacted to 90 percent as verified by a special inspector. "Structural fill" is defined as any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils need to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill shall be clean and free draining, placed above unyielding native site soils and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent modified proctor, per ASTM D1557. 6. Temporary erosion control shall be installed and maintained per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. D. Section 105.1.2, Annual permit records, is deleted. E. Section 105.2, Work exempt from permit, is replaced as follows: Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with bulk zoning code standards per ECDC Title 16 and storm water management provisions per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Permits shall not be required for the following unless required by the Packet Pg. 420 9.3.f Attachment D provisions of ECDC Title 23 or limited or prohibited by the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC: 1. Building (general): (a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (including the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 120 square feet, with a maximum eave of thirty (30) inches. (b) Fences not over six (6) feet high; provided a permit is not required by Chapter 17.30 ECDC. (c) Movable cases, counters and partitions not over five (5) feet nine (9) inches high. (d) Retaining walls 4 feet (1,219 mm) in height or less measured vertically from the finished grade at the exposed toe of the retaining wall to the highest point in the wall, unless: I. Supporting a surcharge; or II. Impounding Class I, II, III -A liquids; or III. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC. (e) Rockeries. Construction of rockeries is limited as specified elsewhere in this code. (f) Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed two (2) to one (1). (g) Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade, and not over any 0000 basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route, provided a permit is not required by Chapter 18.60 ECDC. Z (h) Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops and similar finish work. c� (i) Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. L 0) Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes. O E L (k) Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to an occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons. Hot tubs — and spas less than 5,000 gallons, completely supported by the ground. to (1) Grading less than fifty (50) cubic yards (placed, removed or moved within any 365-day period) unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC. w (m) Repair of appliances which do not alter original approval, certification, listing or code. E (n) Replacement or adding new insulation with no drywall removal or placement. 0 (o) Replacement or repair of existing gutters or downspouts. Q (p) The following types of signs are exempt from permit requirements except that dimensional size and placement standards shall comply with Chapter 20.60 ECDC: I. Replacing the panel on a previously permitted existing wall cabinet or pole sign, II. Repainting an existing previously permitted wood sign, III. Painted or vinyl lettering on storefront windows, Packet Pg. 421 9.3.f Attachment D IV. Governmental signs, campaign signs, official public notices, and signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law, V. Temporary signs announcing the sale or rent of property and other tem-porary signs as described in ECDC 20.60.080, VI. Signs erected by the transportation authorities, and temporary seasonal and holiday displays. 2. Mechanical: (a) Portable heating, ventilation, cooling, cooking or clothes drying appliances. (b) Replacement of any part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe. (c) Portable fuel cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed piping system and are not interconnected to a power grid. (d) Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by this code. (e) Portable evaporative cooler. (f) Self-contained refrigeration systems containing ten (10) pounds or less of refrigerant or that are actuated by motor of one (1) horsepower or less. 3. Plumbing: 00 00 (a) The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided that the replacement of defective material shall be done with new material and a permit obtained and Z inspection made. m (b) Reinstallation or replacement of approved prefabricated plumbing fixtures that do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves or pipes. 4. Residential permit exemptions: In addition the following exemptions apply for single family dwellings: (a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (including the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 200 square feet, with a maximum eave of twelve (12) inches and maximum height of fifteen (15) feet. Vehicle storage structures, such as garages and carports, are not exempted. (b) Window awnings supported by an exterior wall and do not project more than fifty-four (54) inches from the exterior wall and do not require additional support. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply to such awnings. (c) Sport courts less than 2,000 square feet. (d) Dock repair of individual decking members. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply. (e) Replacement or repair of existing exterior siding. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply- (f) Replacement or repair of existing windows or doors provided; no alteration of structural members is required, the replacement would not require installation of safety glazing, the Packet Pg. 422 9.3.f Attachment D installation does not involve required egress windows. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply- (g) Minor like -for -like drywall repairs not involving fire -rated assemblies. (h) Replacement or repair of individual decking, joists, stair treads, or intermediate rails. ECDC Title 23 provisions do not apply. (i) Uncovered platforms, decks, patios, not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not more than thirty (30) inches above grade at any point and do not serve the exit door required by IRC Section R311.4. 0) Canopies, as defined in ECDC 17.70.035, accessory to a single family dwelling, with a floor area measured to the exterior wall or post not to exceed 200 square feet, for covered storage, carport or similar use. (k) Reroof overlays. Overlays are not permitted over slate, clay or cement tiles, or where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roofing. F. Section 105.3.2, Time limitation of permit application, is amended to read: 1. Applications, for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application, shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. 2. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days prior to such expiration date. 00 3. No application shall be extended more than once for a total application life of 360 days °O T except as allowed within this section. In order to renew action on an expired application, the applicant shall submit a new application, revised plans based on any applicable code or Z ordinance change, and pay new plan review fees. 4) c 4. The Building Official may extend the life of an application if any of the following conditions exist: =a L O (a) Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act is in progress; or E L (b) Any other City review is in progress; provided, the applicant has submitted a complete response to City requests or the Building Official determines that unique or unusual circumstances exist that warrant additional time for such response and the Building Official determines that the review is proceeding in a timely manner toward final City decision; or z k (c) Litigation against the City or applicant is in progress, the outcome of which may affect the w validity or the provisions of any permit issued pursuant to such application. m G. Section 105.3.3, Fully complete application, is added and reads: s In accordance with the provisions of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, an applicant's rights shall vest when a fully complete building permit application is filed. A fully complete building permit application is an application executed by the owners of the property for which the application is submitted or the duly authorized agent(s) for such owners, containing each and every document required under the terms of these ordinances and the IBC and is substantially complete in all respects. It is anticipated that minor changes or revisions may be required and are frequently made in the course of any building application review process, and such minor revisions or changes shall not keep an application from being deemed complete if a good faith attempt has been made to submit a substantially complete application containing all required components. Where required, the application and supporting Packet Pg. 423 9.3.f Attachment D documents shall be stamped and/or certified by the appropriate engineering, surveying or other professional consultants. A fully complete building permit application shall be accompanied by all required intake fees, including but not limited to plan review fees required under the provisions of this chapter and code. H. Section 105.3.4, Concurrent review, is added and reads: An applicant may submit an application for building permit approval and request plan review services concurrently with, or at any time following, the submittal of a complete application for any necessary or required discretionary permit approval or discretionary hearing; provided, that any building permit application submitted concurrently with an application for discretionary permit or approvals shall not be considered complete unless the applicant submits a signed statement, on a form approved by the director, which acknowledges that the building permit application is subject to any conditions or requirements imposed pursuant to the review and approval of any necessary or required discretionary permit or approvals. The applicant shall solely bear the risk of building permit submittal with discretionary permit approval. If, after discretionary approval, the building permit plans are modified or amended to comply with conditions or restrictions required by any discretionary permit or approval, the applicant shall be solely responsible for any and all costs which result therefrom, including but not limited to additional full plan review fees; provided further, that any applicant - initiated changes made after the original plan review is complete shall also require payment of full plan review fees. 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 LL issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2). 00 w 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 o 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; Plumbing permits; Gas piping permits; Deck and dock permits; Fence permits; Re -roof permits; Retaining wall permits; Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits; Packet Pg. 424 Attachment D 9.3.f 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. m U 4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period M 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 O 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. d 5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three a` (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit a 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 E 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 20.06.030 the o time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision. ° a_ 6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that 00 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 o significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of Z a new permit. v c c� J. Repealed by Ord. 3926. 5 L K. Section 107.3.3, Phased approval, is amended to read: 0 E 1. The building official may issue partial permits for phased construction as part of a a; development before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure have been approved provided architectural design board approval has been granted and a fully io complete permit application for the entire building or structure has been submitted for review. z 2. Phased approval means permits for grading, shoring, and foundation may be issued j separately, provided concurrent approval is granted by the planning manager, city engineer and fire marshal, when applicable. No phased approval permit shall be issued unless approved civil plans detailing the construction of all site improvements including, but not limited to: E curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved streets, water lines, sewer lines, and storm drainage have been signed as approved by the city engineer. Q 3. With such phased approval, a performance bond shall be posted with the city pursuant to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, to cover the estimated cost of construction to city standards for the improvements. to fiH4hervertieal constmetion, the elevation eertification required in Section 1612.5 shall be submitted to the btfildifig offieial. Pr-ier to Anal inspeetion appr-oval, the building offieial shall Packet Pg. 425 9.3.f Attachment D ML. Section 113, Board of Appeals, is deleted and replaced by Chapter 19.80 ECDC. NM. Section 501.2, Address Identification, is amended to read: Approved numbers or addresses shall be installed by the property owner for new and existing buildings in such a position as to be clearly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property. Letters or numbers on the building shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height and stroke a minimum of .75 inch of a contrasting color to the building base color. Where public or private access is provided and the building address cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other approved sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. This means of premises identification does not preclude approved identification also affixed to structure. AN. Section 903.2 is amended to read: Where Required. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.13. gO. Section 903.2.13 is added. Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be provided as required by ECDC 19.25.035A. QP. Section 903.3.7 is amended to read: Fire department connections shall be installed in accordance with Section 912 and ECDC 00 19.25.035B. °O T RQ. Section 907.2 is amended to read: Where required — new buildings and structures. An approved fire alarm system installed in accordance with this code and NFPA 72 shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Sections 907.2.1 through 907.2.24 and provide occupant notification in accordance with Section 907.5, unless other requirements are provided by another section of this code. 8R. Section 907.2.24 is added. Fire alarm and detection system shall be provided as required by ECDC 19.25.035C. T. Seet on 1612. i i Residential Stmetures is added and ,ends: i . �eTsr:r_�s!stes _ .!tr!err_�:ennss�e!�:r_rers!tisr_� !. Packet Pg. 426 Attachment D VS. Section 3108.1.1, Radio, television and cellular communication related equipment and devices, is added and reads: A permit shall be required for the installation or relocation of commercial radio, television or cellular tower support structures including monopoles, whip antennas, panel antennas, parabolic antennas and related accessory equipment, and accessory equipment shelters (regardless of size) including roof mounted equipment shelters. WT. Section 3109.2, Applicability and maintenance, is added and reads: 1. Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas of all occupancies shall comply with the requirements of this section and other applicable sections of this code. 2. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a swimming pool, hot tub or spa in a clean and sanitary condition and all equipment shall be maintained in a satisfactory operating condition when the swimming pool, hot tub or spa is in use. A swimming pool, hot tub or spa that is neglected, not secured from public entry and/or not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition or its equipment in accord with manufacturers recommendations shall be determined to be a hazard to health and safety and shall be properly mitigated to the satisfaction of the building official. XU. Section 3109.3, Location and Setbacks, is added and reads: Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas shall meet requirements of the zoning code of the city of CO Edmonds. 1. Minimum setbacks are measured from property lines to the inside face of the pool, hot tub or spa as required by the zoning code for accessory structures. 2. All other accessory buildings and equipment shall meet the normally required setbacks for accessory structures in the zone in which they are located. YV. Section 3109.4, Tests and cross -connection devices, is added and reads: 1. All swimming pool, hot tub and spa piping shall be inspected and approved before being covered or concealed. 2. Washington State Department of Health approved cross connection devices are required to be provided on potable water systems when used to fill any swimming pool, hot tub or spa. ZW. Section 3109.5, Wastewater disposal, is added and reads: A means of disposal of the total contents of the swimming pool, hot tub or spa (including partial or periodic emptying) shall be reviewed and approved by the public works director. 1. No direct connection shall be made between any swimming pool, hot tub or spa to any storm drain, city sewer main, drainage system, seepage pit, underground leaching pit, or sub- soil drain. 2. A sanitary tee (outside cleanout installed on the main building side sewer line) shall be provided for draining of treated water into the city sanitary sewer system. AAX. Section 3109.9, Inspection requirements, is added and reads: Packet Pg. 427 9.3.f Attachment D The appropriate city inspector shall be notified for the following applicable inspections: 1. Footing, wall, pre -form, pre-gunite, erosion control, underground plumbing, sanitary extension and cleanout, mechanical pool equipment, gas piping, mechanical enclosure location, cross connection and final inspection. 2. An initial cross connection control installation inspection is required by the city cross connection control specialist prior to final installation approval. 3. All backflow assemblies shall be tested by state certified backflow assembly testers upon initial installation and then annually thereafter. Copies of all test reports shall be submitted to the city water division for review and approval. c M BBY. Appendix E, Accessibility Requirements, is amended by deleting Sections E107, E108, E110 and E111. E �a L O GQ Appendix G, Flood Resistai4 Constritetien, is amended by addition of a new ' Section G301.1(4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other > d ai pro posed developments which con4ain at least 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever- is le L (L a) DDZ. Appendix H, Signs, is amended as follows: E 1. Section H101.2, Signs exempt from permits, is replaced by subsection (E)(1)(p) of this section. p 2. Section H101.2.1, Prohibited signs, is added and reads as follows: °o a. It is unlawful for any person to advertise or display any visually communicated message, by 00 letter or pictorially, of any kind on any seating bench, or in direct connection with any bench. 00 T b. All signs not expressly permitted by Chapter 20.60 ECDC. c. Signs which the city engineer determines to be a hazard to vehicle or pedestrian traffic because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or pose a hazard to a pedestrian walkway or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage. Such signs shall be immediately removed at the request of the city engineer. d. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way and that have been improperly posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate removal and confiscation per ECDC 20.60.090. 3. Sections H104, Identification, H106.1.1, Internally illuminated signs, H107, Combustible materials, H108, Animated devices, H109.1, Height restrictions, and H110, Roof signs, are deleted. [Ord. 4154 § 9 (Art. D), 2019; Ord. 4111 § 2 (Exh. 2), 2018; Ord. 4029 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 4026 § 2 (Att. B), 2016; Ord. 3926 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 3845 § 6, 2011; Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. Packet Pg. 428 9.3.g FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE — NEW EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 19-07 Mr. Lien advised that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) become effective June 19t''. The FIRMS establish the floodplains within the City. They are often referred to as a 100-year floodplain, which means there is a 1% change that a flood event will happen in any given year. He explained that the City is required to update its flood regulations by June 19' in order to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Currently, the City's flood regulations are located in three places: Critical Areas Ordinance (ECDC 23.70 — Frequently Flooded Areas), Building Code (ECDC 19) and Shoreline Master Program (ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction). Mr. Lien explained that the NFIP is a voluntary Federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance against losses from flooding. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal Government. Local communities adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations to reduce flood risks, which must be approved by FEMA. Once the regulations are in place, the Federal Government makes flood insurance available to properties within the local jurisdictions. Mr. Lien advised that floodplains are regulated based on the FIRMS, and the City's current FIRMS were adopted in 1999. For the past several years, there has been an intensive modeling program to update the FIRMS throughout the entire United States. For Snohomish County, the process began in 2011 with a Coastal Risk Map Project. Draft FIRMS were presented to the County Council in 2016, but adoption was delayed when the maps were combined with the Levee Analysis and Mapping Project. He explained that there are a large number of levees that are not certified by FEMA. With this mapping project, the uncertified levees and lands behind them were considered within the floodway. While the levee project doesn't impact Edmonds, it had a massive impact in some areas. Mr. Lien said the City of Edmonds has been using the draft FIRMS since 2017, as they were adopted as the best available information. When new development occurs along the waterfront, it is important to make sure it is done in compliance with the flood regulations that were coming. The FIRMS were issued in February 2018, with an appeal period ending May 2018. The City of Edmonds did not file any appeals, and FEMA sent a Letter of Final Determination to the City on December 19, 2019. The City has six months (June 19, 2020) to get its new flood regulations adopted. Despite the pandemic, FEMA has indicated it would not delay implementation and local jurisdictions must have their flood regulations adopted by June 19' in order to remain in the NFIP. Mr. Lien shared maps comparing the 1999 FIRMS to the 2020 FIRMS and explained each one as follows: Downtown Waterfront. The 1999 FIRM was limited primarily to the Edmonds Marsh with no Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The 2020 FIRM expands the floodplain to encompass all of the waterfront, Harbor Square and some of Salish Crossing and identifies a 12-foot BFE. Downtown Shell Creek. The 1999 FIRM extended south to Caspers Street with no BFE. The new 2020 FIRM limits the floodplain to the mouth of Shell Creek and identifies a 12-foot BFE. Lake Ballinger. The new 2020 FIRM does not make any changes to this area, and it does not establish a BFE. However, based on historical data, the City has established a BFE of 286.14 feet. Again, Mr. Lien said the current flood management regulations are spread throughout three different sections of the code: Critical Areas Ordinance (ECDC 23.70), Building Code (ECDC 19), and Shoreline Master Program (ECDC 24.40.030). For example, ECDC 24.40.030 prohibits development in areas where structures (i.e. seawalls) are required to prevent flooding. Staff has been working with FEMA and the Washington State NFIP Coordinator in drafting the regulations. With the exception of one minor change based on an email from the Washington State NFIP Coordinator, staff believes the draft regulations will meet FEMA standards. He reviewed the draft amendments as follows: • ECDC 23.70 — This chapter of the Critical Areas Ordinance would be updated to reference the new FEMA FIRMS. The current language adopts the old 1999 maps, and the initial thought was to simply change the qualifier at the end of the maps from E to F. However, FEMA wanted the language to match the language from the model ordinance that will be added in ECDC 19.07. As drafted, the City shouldn't have to update the section again. As the FIRMS are updated in the future, they will be automatically adopted. Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 429 9.3.g ECDC 19.07 — This new chapter of the Building Code would consolidate all of the flood damage prevention provisions into a single chapter and incorporate the elements of FEMAs Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance that are applicable to Edmonds. Typically, the Planning Board doesn't review updates to the Building Code. The Building Code was supposed to be updated by July 2020, but the pandemic caused it to be postponed until November. The initial plan was to bring the Building Code Update and Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance together, but when FEMA decided not to extend the deadline, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance needed to be moved forward now. The Building Official is the City's Floodplain Manager, and that is why the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was consolidated into the Building Code. ECDC 24.40.030. No changes have been proposed for the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Lien explained that, given the restrictions related to the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), the City is moving forward with an interim ordinance that will be considered by the City Council on June 21. Once the Planning Board can start having regular meetings with full public participation, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance will be brought back for the full public process. Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the proposed amendments. She has worked with floodplain information since her first planning position. There has been no change to the premise upon which the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is based upon, and the Board is not being asked to evaluate that premise. Chair Robles asked if areas could be added to the map at a later time if flooding were to occur. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City's only designated floodplains are along the waterfront and around Lake Ballinger. While urban flooding occasionally occurs in other areas during major storms, these areas would not be considered floodplains. At this time, the City doesn't plan to add other properties to the FIRMS. Chair Robles asked if owners of property in the floodplain would be required to have flood insurance when taking out a mortgage. Mr. Lien answered that properties that are mapped as floodplains would be required to have flood insurance. If the City isn't complaint with the NFIP, property owners within the floodplains cannot get flood insurance, and that is why the proposed amendments are important. Chair Robles said he has seen situations where a person with a house sitting on top of a hill in the middle of a floodplain is required to get flood insurance when it is completely obvious that the property will never be flooded. He pointed out that the maps are generated by computers and not validated by humans. He asked if this type of situation could potentially occur in Edmonds. Mr. Lien said he isn't aware of any situations like this. He agreed that the maps are based largely on a model, and there may be areas that are inappropriately mapped as a floodplain. There is a process by which a property owner can challenge a designation and request a map change from FEMA. Chair Robles asked if Mr. Lien is confident that the proposed amendments would not impose any adverse conditions upon Edmonds citizens. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. On the other hand, he said there could be an adverse condition if the City doesn't adopt the flood regulations and property owners are no longer able to participate in the NFIP. Board Member Cheung asked if insurance is optional for properties located in a floodplain, and Board Member Monroe pointed out that flood insurance would be required by the mortgage broker. Board Member Cheung commented that one potential adverse impact is if the FIRMS are overly broad, a property owner might be required to get insurance even if there is no potential for the property to flood. On the other hand, Board Member Monroe said property owners within the floodplains have the benefit of access to flood insurance. Again, Mr. Lien said there is a way for a property owner to challenge a FIRM. He pointed out that the residential properties in Edmonds that are within the floodplains are primarily around Lake Ballinger, and the FIRM for Lake Ballinger was not changed with the update. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that, for the past 30 years, the floodplain has been based on the spillage of water across the land, and the Army Corps of Engineers was instrumental in identifying floodplains based on historic records of where flooding had occurred. However, the newer literature seems to focus more on lands within floodplains being capable of containing the water. She asked if staff has noticed this change, as well. Mr. Lien said this is a philosophical discussion. The definition of a floodplain is still based on where the water spills over the land. However, a floodplain's capacity to handle water can be significantly impacted by impervious surface. If there is too much impervious surface, the land cannot absorb Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 430 9.3.g the water and it ends up flowing downstream and causing flooding. While frequently flooded areas are not a major issue for the City of Edmonds, they are of significant concern in some areas of the country. Again, he said this is a philosophical discussion that doesn't impact the proposed amendments before the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, rather than dealing with spillage across the land, at some point in the future they will pay more attention to how the land can handle the water. Mr. Lien advised that there was one addition to the proposed amendment, which was not included in the draft that is currently before the Board for consideration. The Washington State NFIP Coordinator was adamant that the City's regulations include additional language related to B Flood Zones, which are coastal zones that take wave action into consideration. The language has to do with manufactured homes and how they are strapped down. While there are no areas in the City that allow manufactured homes near the B Flood Zones, the language is required in order to be compliant with the NFIP. Chair Robles asked how this additional language would apply to recreational vehicles and tiny homes. Are there other types of homes that might fit into the category of manufactured homes? Mr. Lien said there are building codes in place that deal with regular stick -built houses. The way manufactured homes are structured and anchored is the important part. There is zero change of a manufactured home being constructed anywhere near the floodplains. The only residential properties within the B Flood Zones are along the north shoreline west of the railroad tracks (RS-W), and there will never be any development within these tidelands. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT ON THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE NEW ECDC 19.07 AND THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT ADDRESSED AT THE MAY 27TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. CHAIR ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles suggested the Board discuss where they left off before the pandemic and how they want to handle their agenda items moving forward. He said he would work with the Development Services Director to review the Board's extended agenda and identify items the Board can move forward now using the virtual format that is necessary to be compliant with the pandemic restrictions associated with the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). He said he is interested in learning more about how the Board can help address issues related to the pandemic, and he believes the Planning Board should at least be updated on the City's plans for opening parks and future programs that are within its bailiwick. Vice Chair Rosen referred to the Board's extended agenda, which includes at least 25 items. City staff might also have other items to add to the list that may have more sense of urgency. He suggested that staff could review the Board's extended agenda and report at the Board's next meeting about which items can be addressed now and which ones have to wait. Board Member Monroe concurred. It would be helpful to know what the City needs over the next several months and what the Board can to do help. Board Member Cheung asked if the Board is allowed to hold public hearings virtually. Mr. Chave explained that, currently, the City is operating under the Governor's order and the accompanying OPMA restrictions. The Board has very little it can do at this point in time. Until the Governor's order changes, the Board cannot hold meetings except on very select subjects such as the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Regular business, such as code amendments, is completely off limits for the time being. Staff can review the extended agenda to see if there are any issues the Board can move forward with right now, but the answer will likely be none. They are essentially in a holding pattern, waiting until the Governor's order changes. Mr. Chave explained that, at this time, the Board cannot hold public meetings that people can actually attend and participate in. With virtual meetings, it is extremely challenging for the public to participate and follow what is going on. Until some of the restrictions are lifted, the Board will be extremely limited in what it can do. The City Council is operating in the same way. Their agendas are limited to issues related to the pandemic and other routine matters such as payroll. The City Council is not taking up any new initiatives because the public is hamstrung in its ability to participate. This will change when the Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 431 9.3.h Councilmember Olson requested Item 5.1, Approval of Council meeting Minutes of May 26, 2020, be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPTS OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM CARL STOUT, GABRIEL MARCU AND CAROLE JOY 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2020 (Previously Consent Agenda Item 5.1) Councilmember Olson requested the following corrections: • Packet page 9, third paragraph, first line, remove "Council" after "Council President Fraley- Monillas" • Same page and paragraph, second line, change "the Council" to "that Council" COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2020 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (SUBMITTED TO PUBLICCOMMENTAEDMONDSWA.GOV) See Attached. 7. ACTION ITEMS 1. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE Development Services Director Shane Hope advised the proposed interim ordinance provides flood damage protection in the building code. It does not change the critical area ordinance or shoreline regulations, but ensures the community can continue to be part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The interim ordinance needs to be adopted by June 19, 2020, with further public involvement in the future. Staff has reviewed the interim ordinance with state and federal agencies. Environmental Programs Manager Kernen Lien advised that Building Officer Leif Bjorback is the Floodplain Manager for the City. Mr. Lien reviewed: • Floodplains/Frequently Flooded Areas o New Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) become effective June 19th o FIRMs establish the floodplain ■ 100-year ■ 1 % chance in any given year o City of Edmonds Flood Related Regulations ■ Chapter 23.70 ECDC — Frequently Flooded Areas ■ ECDC Title 19 — Building Code ■ SMP ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction o City must update its flood regulations by June 19th to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 432 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) o NFIP is a voluntary Federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. o Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal Government. ■ Local community adopts and enforces floodplain management regulations to reduce flood risks ■ Floodplain management regulations must be approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ■ Federal Government makes flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) o Current FIRM maps adopted 1999 o Snohomish County Risk Mapping and Assessment Project ■ Coastal Risk Map project began in 2011 ■ Draft FIRM maps presented to Council December 2016 ■ Delays due to being combined with levee analysis and mapping project ■ City using draft FIRM maps for regulatory purposes since July 2017 ■ Maps issued in February 2018 with appeal period ending in May 2018 ■ Letter of Final Determination December 19, 2019 o New FIRM maps effective June 19, 2020 FIRMs of flood area downtown o 1999 FIRM ■ No Base Flood Elevation ■ Mostly limited to Edmonds Marsh o 2020 FIRM ■ 12 feet Base Flood Elevation ■ Encompasses all of waterfront, Harbor Square and some of Salish Crossing FIRMs near the mouth of Shell Creek o 1999 FIRM ■ No Base Flood Elevation ■ Extends south to Caspers o 2020 FIRM ■ 12 feet Base Flood Elevation ■ Floodplain reduced to the mouth of Shell Creek FIRMs of Lake Ballinger o 1999 FIRM ■ No Base Flood Elevation o 2020 FIRM ■ Still no established Base Flood Elevation by FEMA ■ City established Base Flood Elevation at 286.14 feet based on historical data Existing Flood Related Regulations o Current flood management regulations ■ Chapter 23.70 ECDC — Frequently Flooded Areas ■ ECDC Title 19 Building Code - ECDC 19.00.025 International Building Code - ECDC 19.05.020 International Residential Code ■ SMP ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 433 9.3.h o Staff has been in contact with FEMA and Washington State NFIP Coordinator in drafting compliant regulations Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance o Primarily a Building Code Amendment ■ Establishes construction standards for development within floodplains ■ Standards intended to prevent damage to structures should a flood occur o Does Not Change Allowable Land Uses, Zoning, Critical Areas or Other Development Regulations ■ Any development within floodplains must still comply with existing zoning and development regulations ■ No policy changes related to floodplain development o New Chapter 19.07 ECDC ■ Consolidates existing building code regulations in a single chapter ■ Incorporates elements of the Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance that are applicable to the City of Edmonds o Chapter 23.70 ECDC ■ Update ECDC 23.70.010 to reference the updated FEMA FIRM maps ■ No changes to the SMP 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas A. Frequently Flood Areas. Frequently Flooded areas shall include: 1. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying_ Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5th Avenue North. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G103.3 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section G103.3. S i .1111 • . . • • 11 _ 1 • WIN I' JBI 2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 434 9.3.h Proposed Interim Ordinance o Interim Ordinance ■ Proposed interim ordinance to meet the June 19th deadline ■ FEMA has indicated they cannot delay the effective date of the new FIRM maps ■ The effective dates are set by legislation and federal regulations that require a community to adopt the new Flood Insurance Study and accompanying FIRM within six months of the issuance of the Letter of Final Determination ■ Per the latest letter from FEMA, if the City does not act by June 19th FEMA will act to suspend the City from the NFIP o Planning Board reviewed on May 27th and recommended approval Next Steps o Once OPMA restrictions are lifted, run permanent ordinance through full public process including public hearings Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 19.07.010 and asked where the flood damage prevention model ordinance came from. Mr. Lien answered it was provided to the City and FEMA by David Radabaugh, Washington State National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator. Mr. Lien advised he had provided the model ordinance to the full Council. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 19.07.030 and the comment "from 19.00.025" and if this information would remain in the Internal Building Code as well. Mr. Lien explained it is being removing from 19.00.025 and will be included in 19.07.030. The purpose was to include everything in 19.07 instead of spread through the building code. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 6 of the ordinance, Emergency Declaration that requires passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered that was true of any emergency ordinance; emergency ordinances always require adoption by a super majority. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was an emergency ordinance or an interim ordinance or both. Mr. Taraday answered the proposal was to consider it both as an emergency ordinance and an interim ordinance. With regard to returning this to Council after the OPMA restrictions are lifted, Councilmember Olson asked the methodology to ensure that occurs. Ms. Hope answered among other things, it will be scheduled on the Council's extended agenda for later this year. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADOPT THE INTERIM FLOOD PREVENTION ORDINANCE NO. 4188 AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT 6. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her concern about development and trees, noting the City has yet to adopt a tree ordinance. She did not want developers to get vested and clear cut trees, not to say there were any trees in these areas. Councilmember Paine asked why the variance language in the model ordinance was not included. When a public hearing is held on this ordinance, she would like to have the variance language included in the ordinance. Mr. Lien answered that is a policy discussion for the Council, whether to allow variances to the flood damage protection regulations and what those would look like. Currently within floodplains, structures are required to be built 2 feet above base flood elevation which is stricter that required by FEMA. He clarified it was not a variance to a land use, but a variance to construction standards that help prevent flood damage. Councilmember Paine recommended the Council consider the variance language in the model ordinance that was not included in the proposed interim ordinance. Mr. Lien said not everything in the model ordinance was included in the interim ordinance because not all of it applied to Edmonds. For Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 435 9.3.h example, the model ordinance includes regulations regarding floodways; there are no floodways within Edmonds. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the governor's modification to the Open Public Meetings Act restrictions provided an opportunity for Council to discuss this. This is a study item; staff is seeking guidance from Council regarding next steps. He introduced Pamela Randolph, Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager; Lorin Inman, Manager of Business Development Engineering, Ameresco, and Project Manager on this project; and Dave Parry, PhD, Senior Technology Fellow, Jacobs Engineering Group, hired by the City as an independent third parry reviewer of all the documentation and analysis that has been produced to date in reviewing possible options to replace the incinerator. He noted Dr. Parry's resume is very impressive; this area of wastewater treatment energy consumption usage, particularly the solids portion, managing biosolids, energy advantages, etc. is within his area of expertise and he has been doing this for 40 years. Mr. Williams reviewed: • Presentation Goals o Conduct a brief overview of the various energy programs the WWTP has participated in since 2012. o Provide a brief overview of the ESCO process o Discuss Phase 6 — including the Carbon Recovery process, Resolution 1389 impacts, O&M expenses, and the ESPC contracting methods o Discuss various available approaches to biosolids management and why pyrolysis and gasification seems to be the most promising o Share an evaluation of two different pyrolysis and gasification - projects A and B o Share staff recommendation and independent engineering review o Answer questions Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) o An ESPC is a contract between an energy services company (ESCO) and the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services (DES), under which the ESCO guarantees a not -to exceed cost, system performance, and energy savings to the client (Edmonds). o Under this program: ■ Major project risks are shifted from client to the ESCO ■ ESCO provides single -source of accountability and enhances customer control of equipment & sub -contractor selection ■ DES manages contract and provides oversight ■ Reduces future energy costs and uses the savings to pay for infrastructure improvements implemented today Energy Incentives, Grants and Performance 0 2010 Plant staff began working with SNO PUD and entered into an Energy Challenge — since then we have received approximately $304,000 in PUD revenue to complete energy efficiency projects. We anticipate the Carbon Recovery project incentive is estimated to be $20,000 o The project will receive a $250,000 grant from the Department of Commerce o We anticipate another round of Department of Commerce funding this year. The project should rank very high Graphic of Pathway to Sustainability at WWTP o Phase 3 — High Efficiency Blower ■ Project saves $33,909/year and 345 tons CO2 equivalent to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 436 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE — NEW CHAPTER 19.07 ECDC Mr. Lien reviewed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), which became effective June 19', and the City was required to update its flood regulations prior to that date. However, pandemic -related restrictions to the Open Public Meetings Act prevented the City from following the normal process for code updates. The City Council adopted an interim ordinance that allowed the City to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Now that some of the restrictions have been lifted, the updated Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) is being reviewed for adoption as a permanent ordinance. Mr. Lien explained that the NFIP is a voluntary federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against loss from flooding. Participation in the NFIP is an agreement between local communities and the federal government. Local communities adopt and enforce the floodplain management regulations, which must be approved by FEMA. FEMA then makes flood insurance available to properties within the community. He displayed the old FIRMS (Attachment 3) that were adopted in 1999 and the new FIRMS (Attachment 4). He advised that, under the old FIRMS, the floodplain was largely confined to the Edmonds Marsh and along the shoreline. The updated FIRMS expand the floodplain to cover much of the waterfront area, including Harbor Square and portions of the Salish Crossing site. On the updated FIRMS, the extent of the floodplain along Shell Creek was reduced to include just the mouth of the creek. There were no changes to the floodplain around Lake Ballinger. Mr. Lien reviewed that, prior to the interim ordinance, the City's flood regulations were sprinkled throughout the code (Building Code, Critical Area Code and Shoreline Master Program), and the interim ordinance consolidated the regulations into a new chapter in the Building Code (ECDC 19.07). With the exception of modifications to ECDC 19.00.025 (International Building Code) and ECDC 19.05.020 (International Residential Code), most of the other changes came from the Flood Damage Prevent Model Ordinance (FDPMO) that was put together by FEMA. There was one minor change to the Critical Area Code for frequently flooded areas (ECDC 23.70) to reference the most recently updated FIRMS. Mr. Lien recalled that when the interim ordinance and code changes were presented to the City Council, they had some questions about the FDPMO, particularly why more of it wasn't included in ECDC 19.07. He explained that the model ordinance he used to prepare the interim ordinance was a draft version. Since that time, he requested and received an updated version of the model ordinance, and he and the Building Official reviewed it to identify the provisions that are applicable to the City of Edmonds and should be included in ECDC 19.07. Many of the provisions in the model ordinance are not applicable to the City. He referred to the updated code language provided in the Staff Report as Attachment 5, which is a red line/strike out version of the draft ordinance. He reviewed the changes as follows: • ECDC 19.07.020 — Definitions. New definitions were added for basement, functionally dependent use, lowest floor, manufactured home, start of construction, substantial damage, substantial improvement, variance and water surface elevation. ECDC 19.07.025 — Administration. Language was added to identify the Building Official as the Floodplain Administrator. It also lays out the application requirements and the duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator. ECDC 19.07.030 — International Building Code (IBC) and ECDC 19.07.040 International Residential Code (IRC). These two sections were included in the interim ordinance, but some changes have been made. These sections have to do with reconstruction after damage or demolition has occurred. The sections in the interim ordinance dealt with damage within the floodway, but there are no floodways in Edmonds. As proposed, ECDC 19.07.030(B) would read, `Any residential or commercial structure located in a flood hazard area, that is destroyed, damaged or demolished in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with all provisions of this chapter and other local, state and federal regulations. " This same language is proposed to be added to ECDC 19.07.040(B). He explained that the proposed language mirrors the City's nonconforming code, except it places the threshold at 50 percent and the nonconforming code places the threshold at 75 percent. Staff feels that a 50 percent threshold is appropriate due to the safety issues associated with development within the flood zone. There is language in the model ordinance that identifies 50 percent, as well. Planning Board Minutes August 12, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 437 • ECDC 19.07.065 — Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas. In the model ordinance, this language was included in the administrative section. However, these regulations are not under the Floodplain Administrator's purview, so they were given a separate section in the City's version of the ordinance. • ECDC 19.07.110 — Variance. The City Council requested that language be added related to variances. • General Requirement for Other Development. This language is included in the model ordinance, but was not included in the draft ordinance (Attachment 5). The language will be added prior to the public hearing and is intended to be a catch-all for other development. Mr. Lien advised that the interim ordinance was adopted in June and expires in November. A public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Board on September 2nd. Following the Planning Board's recommendation, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council on September 221, followed by a public hearing on October 6r''. The goal is to adopt the permanent ordinance before the interim ordinance expires. Board Member Monroe noted that the document is inconsistent as to whether or not "Floodplain Administrator" is capitalized. He asked if the language is consistent with the model ordinance that was provided by FEMA and consistent with flood damage prevention ordinances from other jurisdictions throughout the country. Mr. Lien said he doesn't know if it is consistent with jurisdictions throughout the country, but it is consistent with the model ordinance that was adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). The model ordinance may be different in other areas of the country. Board Member Monroe asked if the language has been vetted so that property owners in the City are not placed at a competitive disadvantage per other communities in the area. Mr. Lien said he does not believe that will be an issue. Vice Chair Rosen asked if the 50 percent threshold used in ECDC 19.07.030 and 19.07.040 came from the model ordinance or if it is unique to the City of Edmonds. Mr. Bjorback responded that it is not unique to Edmonds. There is parallel language in the IRC that establishes a similar requirement for buildings that are torn down for damage more than 50 percent of their replacement costs. The number can be backed up by other sections, as well. Staff attempted to be consistent with the model ordinance that was prepared by FEMA, as well as the model building codes. Chair Robles asked who would be responsible for adjudicating whether or not the 50 percent threshold has been reached. Mr. Bjorback said this would be the responsibility of the Floodplain Administrator (Building Official). Chair Robles asked if there is a process for a property owner to appeal the Floodplain Administrator's decision. Mr. Bjorback said he is not a professional estimator for construction costs, and he depends on the contractor for the project to come up with a cost breakdown. The replacement costs of the various elements of the structure that have been damaged or removed are compared to the pre -damaged value of the structure. He agreed, however, that there is some subjectivity when determining if the contractor's numbers are reasonable. If the number is less than 50 percent, the applicant can proceed with the opportunities the code affords, if the number is 50 percent or more, the applicant will have to reconstruct the house to meet the current standards. Chair Robles noted that many situations will be easily determined, but others will be more difficult. Again, he asked if there would be a process for appeal. Mr. Bjorback said there is an appeal process. He referred to ECDC 19.07.010(E) and said appeals of the Building Official's determination would be forwarded to the Hearing Examiner process. Board Member Cheung asked how the proposed ordinance would impact property values. Neither Mr. Lien or Mr. Bjorback could answer this question. However, Mr. Lien said that owners of property within the new floodplains have been contacted by FEMA. Whether or not a property is located within a floodplain is not the City's decision to make. This is called out by FEMA. Board Member Cheung asked if property values are likely to go down as a result of the ordinance, and Mr. Bjorback responded that is desirable to have flood insurance. If your community is participating in the insurance program, that would only be a positive to property value. Chair Robles commented that the more valuable condition is being located outside of the floodplain, and he assumes that a property value would decrease if a property is determined to be within the floodplain. For properties within the floodplain, the only option for insurance is via the federal government. Chair Robles asked if the expanded borders in the new maps are intended to address climate change or if they attempt to mitigate other events, as well. Mr. Lien responded that a study of the coastal areas was done, and the new maps are more precise than the old maps. The Coastal Flood Hazard Project started in 2011, and all of the coastlines in Snohomish County were surveyed. The new maps considered wind data where the old maps did not. The old maps used water level gauge data Planning Board Minutes August 12, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 438 9.3.i and the updated maps used a different model. The old approach had a one-dimensional wave model and the new approach used a two-dimensional wave model. The old maps used the USDS contour lines, and the new maps used lidar data. The calculations for the new maps were more complex, as well. The idea was to update the maps based on new information and technology. Climate change was not specifically addressed, but the City considered climate change when modifying the base height requirements. Chair Robles asked if there as a net gain, net loss or simply a shifting of the borders of the floodplain areas. Mr. Lien said the floodplain was expanded in the downtown waterfront area. However, the floodplain along Shell Creek was decreased to include just the mouth of the creek. The floodplain boundaries at Lake Ballinger were not changed. Chair Robles asked if people who will no longer need to have insurance have been notified, and Mr. Lien said the City has not notified these property owners. Mr. Lien referred to the 50 percent threshold and said the City's definition for "substantial damage" is slightly different that the definition in the model ordinance. The City uses the replacement cost for the structure where the model ordinance uses the market value of the structure. The proposed language lines up with the existing nonconforming code and is consistent with the City's current practice. In addition, the model ordinance includes an exception to the 50 percent threshold and the draft ordinance does not. The definition for "substantial change" in the model ordinance includes an exemption for "Any project for improvement of a structure to correct previously identified existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications that have been identified by the local code enforcement official and that are the minimum necessary to assure safe living condition. " He explained that, as per the model ordinance, if an entire building within the floodplain is condemned, the minimum necessary to bring it up to standard would be to reconstruct the building. The 50 percent rule would not apply and the building could be reconstructed without meeting the current flood damage protection regulations. Staff felt that, given safety issues within the floodplains, it would be appropriate to more restrictive. Mr. Lief added that a representative from the Department of Ecology (DOE) raised this same question, and staff pointed out that there may be a loophole in the model ordinance language that could lead to unintended results. Based on that explanation, the DOE indicated support for the City's proposed language. Chair Robles voiced concern that, as currently presented, the public might not be sufficiently informed about this change and its potential impact to them. He asked how this provision could be amplified to generate the discussion needed to make a good decision. Mr. Lien said the red line draft would be available to the public as part of the public hearing packet, and he would highlight this section at the public hearing, as well as when the draft ordinance is presented to the City Council. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.000, which outlines the purpose of the ordinance. When she read the scenarios addressed in Items B through E, she thought of a future time. She suggested the word "future" should be added to the four sentences after the word "minimize." Mr. Lien explained that the regulations will only apply to new development that happens in the future. Any new development within the floodplains will be subject to the regulations. He cautioned that "future" is a relative term. The regulations apply not just to future development, but development that is happening at the time. Adding "future" would be an unfortunate choice, because its meaning is vague. Board Member Rubenkonig said she was struggling to make Items B through E more specific, as she felt they were rather nebulous. However, she understands staffs point of view and would accept the recommendation. Mr. Bjorback said the City's ordinance can vary somewhat from the model ordinance, particularly for provisions that do not apply to the City's situation. However, the language in this section is consistent with what FEMA has proposed for local jurisdictions to adopt. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the modified and additional definitions proposed in ECDC 19.07.020 were prepared by the staff or if they came from the City Council. Mr. Lien said the definitions are new additions since the interim ordinance was adopted. With the exception of Item AA (Substantial Improvement), the definitions came directly from the model ordinance. He explained that, as new sections from the model ordinance were added into the code, definitions were added for the new terms. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.030 and 19.07.040 and suggested that, when referencing the IBC and IRC, the ordinance should include citation to which version of the two codes is applicable and provide information about how an individual could procure copies of the two documents. Mr. Bjorback explained that ECDC 19.07 will be strategically placed next to the adopted sections of the IBC and IRC. Title 19 gets updated for Building Code adoptions on a frequent basis, including references to the appropriate versions of the IBC and IRC. Currently, both the City and the State have Planning Board Minutes August 12, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 439 adopted the 2015 IBC, and it is anticipated that the 2018 version will be adopted by both the City and the State by February 2021. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is concerned that the code is clear and understandable to the people who use it, but she would yield to staffs recommendation that the current language is sufficient. Mr. Bjorback said that the two codes can be accessed via the Building Division's webpage. Board Member Rubenkonig questioned if adding the links to the code would be helpful. Mr. Bjorback said staff will assist applicants, as it takes someone with knowledge of codes to navigate through the relevant sections. Next, Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.065, which relates to Special Flood Hazard Areas. She suggested that the abbreviation (SFHA) should be added to the heading in parenthesis. Mr. Lien agreed to make that change. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.110(D)(1) and questioned the meaning of the phrase "written notice over the signature of a community official. " She asked if this is a legal phrase that is used in such circumstances wherein the Building Official signs over the written notice to make it official. Mr. Bjorback said neither he nor Mr. Lien are familiar with the term. If they get to the point of invoking this code section, they would consult with the City Attorney. At a glance, it looks like it takes a written document with a wet signature. Lastly, Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.110(D)(1)(a) and said she would prefer the word "could" rather than "will." She also suggested that the dollar figures should be removed. She suggested the language should read, "The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the BFE could result in increased premium rates. " Mr. Lien said the language came straight from FEMA's model ordinance, and FEMA is responsible for insuring properties within the floodplains. Building in the floodplain below the Base Flood Elevation (BSE) puts properties at a higher risk for damage, and it will result in increased premiums. Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports language informing that premium will be higher, but there is no need to include dollar figures. Premiums change frequently. Mr. Lien said he would consult with the representative from the DOE regarding this proposed change. Vice Chair Rosen pointed out that the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is on the Board's extended agenda for a public hearing on September 9r''. He commented that public engagement and transparency is high on everyone's priority list, and traditional notification might not be adequate, particularly for people in effective areas. He asked about staff s plan for public notice and if there are plans to do a higher outreach for property owners within the floodplain areas. Mr. Lien said it is possible to do a postcard notice to all of properties in the flood zones. Vice Chair Rosen agreed that would be appropriate. The City can't do wrong by over inviting public comment. Board Member Pence asked how many property owners would need to be notified. Mr. Lien said that the Port owns most of the waterfront area, and he has already forwarded information to the Port's Executive Director. The mailings would go primarily to the properties around Lake Ballinger, more in the dozens rather than the 100s. Board Member Pence said he shares the concern about the best way to notify people about issues like this. A postcard might be sufficient if it had a link to the project page that provides a layman's description of what the proposed ordinance involves. The more useful information the City can get to the public before the hearing, the better. This will lead to a more intelligent discussion at the public hearing. Mr. Lien suggested the notice could provide a link to the City's agenda website, which provides access to the agenda before the public hearing. The postcard could provide a brief explanation of the proposal, and the agenda would provide links to the model ordinance, flood maps, the draft ordinance, etc. His contact information would also be included on the notice, and people could call him for more information. As a land use consultant, Board Member Rubenkonig asked about the Planning Department's perspective on sending notice to others in the development field. Is it common for the Planning Department to reach out to those who regularly propose projects within the City to apprise them of proposed changes? Mr. Lien said the City doesn't always reach out to those in the development field when doing code updates. Other jurisdictions in Snohomish County have had to update their Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances, as well, and they have also struggled with accomplishing the task in light of the restrictions associated with the Open Public Meetings Act. There are very limited floodplains in the City (Lake Ballinger and the waterfront), but Snohomish County has much bigger task and their update will affect significantly more property owners. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the updated ordinance would be presented on the City's website once it is formally adopted by the City Council, and Mr. Lien answered that it would be codified in the City's code. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would come up on the City's website as a newsflash so people could take notice. Mr. Bjorback suggested it could Planning Board Minutes August 12, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 440 be listed in the "What's New" section under the Development Services Department's webpage. Mr. Lien said it could also be announced in the Mayor's newsletter. Chair Robles asked if the City Council would also hold a public hearing on the draft ordinance before formal adoption, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. It is currently listed on their extended agenda for October 6t1i. Chair Robles observed that if interested parties participate in the Planning Board's public hearing, they can hash out their issues so they are better prepared for the City Council hearing. DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPMENT CODE WORK, INCLUDING ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE, TREE CODE AND OTHER POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS Mr. Chave advised that there are few code issues coming before the Board in the next few months. Mr. Lien is working on the Tree Code Update, which is scheduled for a presentation to the Board in September. Staff is also working on the Climate Goals Project. In addition, staff has started to work on site development related to EV charging. The City is a member of a regional code collaboration group where research was presented on EV charging issues (Attachment 1). Staff is seeking feedback from the Board in advance of drawing up proposed code amendments. The City's code already has some provisions for EV charging in the General Commercial (CG) Zone along Highway 99. In addition, the City follows the 2018 Washington State Building Code, which also has some requirements for multifamily developments. Mr. Chave said the research (Attachment 1) explains that it is a lot less expensive to provide the infrastructure upfront when a development is happening as opposed to retrofitting after the fact. It adds some incremental cost to housing, but given that EV charging use is increasing, there appears to be a future demand. If the City is attempting to maximize the things it does to reduce emissions and improve response to climate change, EV charging fits within that range of actions. The research provides a lot of helpful information, and some is particular to the region. It outlines the types of installations that are being done and the approaches to pursue. He invited the Board Members to share their thoughts relative to the research. Board Member Cheung asked if staff has information about the usage of the current EV charging ports. Mr. Chave said he doesn't, but he could try to gather that information and present it at a later time. Board Member Cheung commented that having this information could help the City make a stronger case to support future code requirements. Mr. Chave said they have been used less in recent months because of the pandemic. But anecdotally, there are a few charging spots in the City's public parking lot, and they are frequently used. Board Member Crank asked what the prioritization would be around providing EV infrastructure in business areas. There are some in the downtown bowl around the retail area, but she hasn't seen them in other retail areas outside of the downtown. She asked if there would be an approach that would make sure the spaces are also available in other commercial areas in the City. Mr. Chave said a lot of the focus has been on residential charging infrastructure since people need places to charge them, especially overnight when they are home. It also makes sense to have charging infrastructure in commercial zones, but the public side is more challenging. Some businesses have installed the infrastructure on their properties, and it might make sense to have a threshold requirement for larger commercial areas. Board Member Crank said EV infrastructure could be considered as an element of economic development. The City has been advertising in a variety of magazines and news outlets, inviting people to visit Edmonds. If the goal is to bring people to the City to shop and spend money, they need to provide opportunities for EV charging. She cautioned against focusing solely on the downtown commercial areas. Board Member Monroe asked how much input the Planning Board would have when it comes to EV requirements. It seems this would fall under the purview of the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that amendments to the Development Code fall under the purview of the Planning Board, and the Planning Board is charged with making a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Monroe said he is in favor of being as aggressive as possible. Future -proofing makes a lot of sense, and he suggested that perhaps EV infrastructure should be required for 25% of all new development (both commercial and residential). Sound Transit will be giving the City money to address parking, and it is important that this includes a sufficient Planning Board Minutes August 12, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 441 PUBLIC HEARING ON FLOOD ON FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE — NEW CHAPTER 19.07 IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report, noting that his presentation would be brief given that the proposed ordinance was presented previously to the Board, and no one from the public had joined the meeting. He reviewed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), which became effective June 19', and the City was required to update its flood regulations prior to that date to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). However, pandemic -related restrictions to the Open Public Meetings Act prevented the City from following the normal process for code updates. The City Council adopted an interim ordinance that allowed the City to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Now that some of the restrictions have been lifted, the updated Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) is being reviewed for adoption as a permanent ordinance. Mr. Lien explained that the NFIP is a voluntary federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against loss from flooding. Participation in the NFIP is an agreement between local communities and the federal government. Local communities adopt and enforce the floodplain management regulations, which must be approved by FEMA. FEMA then makes flood insurance available to properties within the community. Mr. Lien compared the old FIRMS (Attachment 3) that were adopted in 1999 with the new FIRMS (Attachment 4). He explained that, under the old FIRMS, the floodplain was largely confined to the Edmonds Marsh and along the shoreline. The updated FIRMS expand the floodplain to cover much of the waterfront area, including Harbor Square and portions of the Salish Crossing site. On the updated FIRMS, the extent of the floodplain along Shell Creek was reduced to include just the mouth of the creek. There were no changes to the floodplain in the City's jurisdiction around Lake Ballinger. There is no base flood elevation (BFE) in the 1999 maps, and no BFE was added to the 2020 maps. However, both Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace have established a BFE elevation at 286.14 feet based on historical data for Lake Ballinger. Mr. Lien reviewed that, prior to the interim ordinance, the City's flood regulations were sprinkled throughout the code (Building Code, Critical Area Code and Shoreline Master Program), and the interim ordinance consolidated the regulations into a new chapter in the Building Code (ECDC 19.07). With the exception of modifications to ECDC 19.00.025 (International Building Code) and ECDC 19.05.020 (International Residential Code), most of the other changes came from the Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance (FDPMO) that was put together by FEMA. There was one minor change to the Critical Area Code for frequently flooded areas (ECDC 23.70) to reference the most recently updated FIRMS. Mr. Lien recalled that when the interim ordinance (Attachment 6) was presented to the City Council, they had some questions about why it did not include more of the language in the FDPMO (Attachment 5). Since that time, he and the Building Official have reviewed the FDPMO to identify the provisions that are applicable to the City of Edmonds and should be included in ECDC 19.07. Many of the provisions in the model ordinance are not applicable to the City. He referred to the updated code language provided in the Staff Report as Attachment 1 and reviewed the changes as follows: • ECDC 19.07.020 — Definitions. New definitions were added for basement, functionally dependent use, lowest floor, manufactured home, start of construction, substantial damage, substantial improvement, variance and water surface elevation. • ECDC 19.07.025 — Administration. Language was added to identify the Building Official as the Floodplain Administrator. It also lays out the application requirements and the duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator. • ECDC 19.07.030 — International Building Code (IBC) and ECDC 19.07.040 International Residential Code (IRC). This section has to do with reconstruction after damage or demolition has occurred. • ECDC 19.07.065 — Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas. In the model ordinance, this language was included in the administrative section. However, these regulations are not under the Floodplain Administrator's purview, so they were given a separate section in the City's version of the ordinance. Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 442 9.3.j • ECDC 19.07.095 — General Requirements for Other Development. This section was added since the Board's last review of the ordinance. • ECDC 19.07.110 — Variance. The City Council requested that language be added related to variances. Mr. Lien recalled that, at their last meeting, the Planning Board wanted to ensure that affected properties were notified of the proposed changes. He reported that notice of the proposed hearing and a description of the updated FIRMS and proposed ordinance were provided, and two written comments were received. One was included in the Planning Board packet and the other was emailed to the Board Members earlier in the week. Mr. Lien reviewed the following changes that were recommended by the Board at their last meeting: • ECDC 19.07.020 — Definitions. A definition was added for "Area of Special Flood Hazard." ECDC 19.07.110(D)(1)(a) — Additional Requirements for Issuance of a Variance. As recommended by the Board, the specific dollar value for the rate insurance increase was deleted. Staff consulted with the State's Floodplain Manager, who indicated the change would be acceptable. Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the two written comments from Mr. Boye and Ms. Ferguson, he spoke to another property owner who was satisfied following his explanation of the changes. All of the comments that were received were from property owners around Lake Ballinger. One suggested that the floodplain designation around Lake Ballinger should be removed altogether, and another suggested that it should be changed. Mr. Lien explained that the City is not responsible for establishing the FIRMS; they are established by the Federal Government. The City of Edmonds, in conjunction with the City of Mountlake Terrace, has established a 286.14-foot BFE for properties around Lake Ballinger. The BFE is based on historic flooding at the site and the North American Vertical Data Datum (NAVD) 88. Mr. Boye's letter referenced some BFE elevations that were adjudicated for Lake Ballinger in the 1940s and again in 1983. However, the elevations in the adjudications were based on NAVD 29 elevations, and the NAVD 88 elevations are 3.65 feet higher. Mr. Boye's referred to a golf course project near the outlet of Lake Ballinger, where a culvert was removed and a bridge installed. The current BFE for Lake Ballinger was last updated in 2014 and the project occurred after that. He concluded that, while the City cannot change the mapping of the floodplain, it could potentially revisit the data used for establishing the BFE at some point in the future. Mr. Lien said Ms. Ferguson's letter referenced the proposed provision that requires properties that are damaged to 50% or greater must to be reconstructed or repaired to current floodplain standards. Ms. Ferguson noted that the proposed definition for "historic properties" requires that a property must be on a state, local or federal register in order to be exempt from the requirement. He suggested that historic properties that are not on these registers should also be exempt from the requirement. Mr. Lien explained that the language in the FDPO is similar to the City's nonconforming ordinance, which requires that properties must be on a local, state of federal register to be granted an exemption. However, the City's nonconforming code states that properties that are on a historic survey that comply with the state regulations may also be exempt. While none of the City's historic surveys have included properties on Lake Ballinger, the Board could recommend that the definition for "historic properties" be changed to include properties on a historic survey. Mr. Lien said Ms. Ferguson also asked what would be included when calculating "substantial damage." Would it include fire, flooding, wind, etc.? Mr. Lien answered that full compliance with the code would be required for all repairs and renovations that equate to more than 50% of a property's value. Mr. Lien advised that the interim ordinance was adopted in June and expires in November. Following the Planning Board's recommendation, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council on September 22nd, followed by a public hearing on October 6t''. The goal is to adopt the permanent ordinance before the interim ordinance expires. He recommended the Board forward a recommendation of approval of the ordinance to the City Council as presented in the Staff Report. Chair Robles recalled that, at a previous meeting, there were questions about the process for appealing the 50% damage rule. Mr. Lien clarified that the Floodplain Administrator (Building Official) would make the determination, which would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner. He reviewed that the Floodplain Administrator would analyze the cost analysis Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 443 9.3.j prepared by the project consultant. If there is disagreement, the applicant could appeal the Floodplain Administrator's decision to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is a land -use attorney the City contracts with. Chair Robles asked if the process is outlined in the proposed ordinance, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Chair Robles commented that it is important that people are informed upfront so they can adjust their proposals, as needed. Mr. Lien said staff warns applicants upfront. Chair Robles referred to Ms. Ferguson's letter regarding historic property on Lake Ballinger and noted that the FIRMS map hasn't changed for that area. Mr. Lien said Ms. Ferguson was talking about the extent of the map, which is meaningless without a BFE. The updated FIRMS established a BFE for the downtown waterfront area, and the City has established a BFE for Lake Ballinger. The FIRMS are used similar to the City's other Critical Area Maps. If a property shows it has a critical area, the City takes a closer look when development permit applications come in. Properties that have floodplains will have to indicate elevation as part of a development permit application. Ms. Ferguson's house is located above the 290-foot contour line on the GIS maps, which is above the current BFE for Lake Ballinger. Chair Robles recalled that at the Board's May 12t1i meeting he commented that the maps are developed by algorithms, and he has seen situations where a person with a house sitting on top of a hill in the middle of a floodplain is required to get flood insurance when it is completely obvious that the property will never be flooded. He pointed out that the maps are generated by computers and not validated by humans. He asked if this type of situation could potentially occur in Edmonds, and Mr. Lien said he isn't aware of any situations like this. Mr. Lien said the floodplain at Lake Ballinger extends onto the residential properties that slope up from the lake. A flood certificate showing the elevation of construction is required when development is proposed on these properties. If the flood certificate confirms that the development would be above the BFE of 286.14 feet, the property would be considered outside of the floodplain. He emphasized that the updated FIRMS do not change the process. Board Member Cheung asked if Mountlake Terrace has adopted a similar floodplain ordinance for Lake Ballinger. Mr. Lien said he doesn't know about Mountlake Terrace, but other jurisdictions in Snohomish County have done so. Jurisdictions are required by FEMA to have consistent floodplain regulations in order to remain in the NFIP. Board Member Cheung asked if flood insurance is optional for properties located within the floodplain. Mr. Lien said he doesn't know the details, but he would assume a lending agency would require flood insurance for properties within an identified floodplain. It might be optional for properties that do not have a mortgage. Chair Robles asked if the proposed ordinance would impact a property owner's ability to refinance a home any more than the prior regulation. Mr. Lien answered that the proposed ordinance simply outlines development standards to ensure that development within a floodplain is constructed in a way that minimizes damage to the structure if it were to flood. It does not change the insurance requirements or where the floodplains are located. The FIRMs were established by the federal government. Vice Chair Rosen asked how the ordinance would be applied to properties that are on a local, state or federal historic register. Mr. Lien answered that these properties would be exempt from the substantial damage rule. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that, although the Ferguson property appears to be higher than the contour line for the BFE, rebuilding the home may require a variance. She commented that the variance section is an area of the ordinance that hasn't been discussed by the Board in detail. Mr. Lien clarified that a variance is not required to build or rebuild in the floodplain, but certain building codes would apply. For example, a structure would have to be built 1 to 2 feet above the BFE. The variance process would be utilized if a property owner doesn't want to build to the standards. A variance could affect the flood insurance rate because the property owner would not be minimizing damage to the property. Board Member Rubenkonig said it would be helpful for the Building Official to speak to the variance process. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has the ability to certify Ms. Ferguson's historic property so she can qualify as a "historic building." Mr. Lien responded that Ms. Ferguson could apply for her property to be placed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Because this issue did not come up at the last meeting, Board Member Rubenkonig said she is unprepared to consider the ramifications of the ordinance on Ms. Ferguson's property. She is concerned that there may be much that hasn't been addressed concerning Lake Ballinger and the history of the area. She recognized that placing the Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 444 9.3.j property on the City's historic register is a different process, but she is feeling a big unsettled about how to move from the current discussion to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Mr. Lien's earlier statement that the City could adopt a different BFE for Lake Ballinger. She asked how and when that would happen and if it needed to be included in the current discussion. Mr. Lien responded that the BFE for properties around Lake Ballinger was adopted via policy by the Floodplain Administrator (Building Official) in coordination with Mountlake Terrace. The current level was established based on historical data and references a flood event that occurred in 1997. Mountlake Terrace could reconsider that BFE given the more recent project on the golf course where a culvert and bridge were removed. He talked with the City's Stormwater Engineer, who confirmed that flooding still occurs on some properties around the lake. He concluded that it would take some serious modeling to establish a new BFE, and the City would have to work with Mountlake Terrace, as the jurisdiction designated to regulate the levels at Lake Ballinger per a 1983 agreement. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that altering the BFE is a policy change that could be made at a future time, and the City of Mountlake Terrace is already pursuing that option. Mr. Lien clarified that he didn't say that Mountlake Terrace was pursuing the change. Rather, if the City of Edmonds chose to do so, it would have to be done in conjunction with Mountlake Terrace. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has a reason to pursue a change to the BFE around Lake Ballinger. Does that need to be decided now, or is it a policy decision of the future? Mr. Lien said it does not have to be decided now, and it is a policy decision of the future. The ordinance currently before the Board does not talk about what the BFE is. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Mr. Lien's clarification helps her set aside the concerns raised by Mr. Boye and Ms. Ferguson. However, she still may ask the Board to table its recommendation so their concerns can be discussed with the Building Official. Mr. Lien cautioned against tabling their recommendation given the timeline set out by FEMA for adoption of the ordinance. Again, he pointed out that BFE is not part of the proposed ordinance. The ordinance simply outlines the standards for development within the floodplain. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would still like the Building Official to address the situation in which the Ferguson property might find itself in the future. Chair Robles opened the public portion of the hearing, but there was no one who indicated a desire to participate. Vice Chair Rosen noted that the Board received two written comments from the public, which the Board should consider when making their recommendation to the City Council. It was noted that 180 notices of the hearing were sent out to affected property owners, and the City Council would conduct another public hearing before final adoption of the ordinance. Chair Robles closed the public portion of the hearing. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE NEW FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION CHAPTER 19.07 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) AS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND AN UPDATED REFERENCE TO THE NEW FLOODPLAIN MAPS IN ECDC 23.70.010 AS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 2. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Cheung said his understanding is that if the ordinance is adopted as recommended by staff, the issue related to BFE at Lake Ballinger could be addressed at a later date. Mr. Lien emphasized that the BFE is not established by the proposed ordinance. Board Member Cheung summarized that the ordinance is intended to make the City's floodplain regulations consistent with what the federal government has laid out. Mr. Lien clarified that the Planning Board is not being asked to make a recommendation on the FIRMS. They are being asked to make a recommendation on the ordinance that outlines the standards that apply to development within the floodplain, as identified on the FIRMS. While the FIRMS establish a BFE for the floodplains along the Puget Sound shoreline, a City policy decision established the BFE for the floodplains around Lake Ballinger. At this time, the Board is not being asked to make a recommendation on the FIRMS or on the BFE for properties around Lake Ballinger. Mr. Chave explained that establishing the BFE for Lake Ballinger requires an interjurisdictional process between Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. It involves a lot of time, money and studies. It is not a trivial process and must be done very carefully. The last time it was done, it took quite some time to reach a result. It is not something that can be quickly resolved. Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 445 9.3.j Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. Ferguson questioned the FIRM, itself, which the Board cannot address. Ms. Ferguson also went into detail about how the 50% substantial damage rule might impact her property should a major flood event occur. Her understanding of the current code is that Ms. Ferguson could address the situation via the nonconforming rules or pre-emptively having her property added to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr. Lien explained that if the property is certified as a historic structure, the 50% substantial damage rule would not apply. He noted that certain criteria would have to be met in order for a property to be on the register, and not all old houses are historic. Board Member Rubenkonig said a financial investment would also be required for Ms. Ferguson to pursue such a process. Mr. Lien said the application for placing a property on the City's register is free, and there are benefits associated with the designation. He explained that the register is a voluntary program, and properties that are nominated for the register must meet certain criteria. If a property on the register does a major renovation, there is potential for tax breaks. However, before any work can be done, properties on the register must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the work does not impact the historic aspects of the structure. Mr. Chave emphasized that the criteria for inclusion on the register is fairly strict, and age is not a sole determinant. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Ms. Ferguson raised a good point, but it has less to do with the proposed ordinance. She agreed that the City hasn't assessed the historicity of Lake Ballinger, and she is concerned that this needs to be attended to. She recognized that is a conversation for another time, but Ms. Ferguson presented some well -stated concerns. She asked if the Board Members feel that Ms. Ferguson has enough options and is in a position to handle any future event. Chair Robles expressed his belief that all of the bases were covered regarding this concern. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TREE REGULATIONS CODE PROCESS UPDATE Mr. Lien recalled that the Board previously reviewed proposed tree code amendments, but they were tabled until the City adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). He advised that the City adopted the UFMP in July of 2019, which included goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City. At that time, the City Council authorized staff to hire a part-time code writer to assist with rewriting the Tree Code. This effort was stalled due to a number of factors, including the pandemic. Mr. Lien referred to the table provided in Attachment 1, which outlines the broad topics and possible concepts that will be explored while reviewing and updating the City's tree -related regulations. He explained that regulations that impact tree retention are scattered throughout the code, and the items in the table are listed in priority. He reviewed the items as follows: Tree Retention. One of the primary concerns the City has heard over the years is when properties are subdivided and/or developed, all of the trees are cut down to accommodate development. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45.050 requires that trees be retained to the maximum extent feasible, but "feasible" is often difficult to determine. The Critical Area Regulations is the only section of the code that has a tree retention requirement. Properties within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones that have steep slopes, streams or wetlands associated with them are required to maintain or establish a 30% native vegetation. The City could explore regulations that require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed beyond an established threshold, developers could be required to pay into a Tree Fund. Low -Impact Development. Low -Impact Development (LID) in the City's code is primarily related to stormwater management. However, LID principles may be applied much broader. Other ideas to consider include flexible setbacks, flexible lot sizes, clustering of houses, reduced road width requirements, etc. For example, you could allow clustered development or a reduced setback to potentially preserve trees on a site. He shared an example of a property in Edmonds that was subdivided and explained how the access and utility easements, as well as the building footprints, impacted the number of trees that had to be removed from the site to accommodate development. He explained how LID principles could have been used to allow a greater number of trees to be retained. Staff will be asking the Board to consider what flexibilities could be provided in the code to potentially result in more trees being retained when a property is developed. Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 446 9.3.k From: ROBERT BOYE To: Lien, Kernen Subject: flood damage prevention ordinance Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 5:03:51 PM Hello Kermen, My name is Bob Boye, resident of a home riparian to Lake Ballinger. I would like to submit my comments to the Planning Board regarding a flood damage prevention ordinance, My written comments will be through e-mail. The exhibits will be delivered to you by 'snail mail'. Geographic background of Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger, Halls Lake, and other low land lakes, were formed by the weight of fourteen -hundred feet of glacier ice as it ground its way to the sixteen -hundred foot level of the Cascade Mountains. Historical development of Lake Ballinger. When Judge Ballinger platted the thirty-one lots, including nine lots on the Nile Temple property, the entire Lake Ballinger (Lake McAleer) watershed extending northward to present day Lynnwood was completely covered by dense Douglas Fir, Cedar, and Hemlock trees. Flooding was non-existent. The platting included a wier at the headwaters of the outflow creek (McAleer Creek). This wier was designed to maintain a higher level of water in the lake during the harvesting of Cedar trees by a lumber mill. The seasonal elevation of the lake was established by court order in 1941. The wier was maintained by a property owner at the southeast corner of the lake by simply adding or subtracting three two - by -twelve boards. When the Nile Temple constructed its access road, McAleer Creek was diverted into a circular culvert and under court order was to allow thirty cubic feet of water to pass through it each second. At that time the Lake Ballinger Watershed was still a wooded wilderness with only the Interurban and highway 99 impacting its ability to absorb rain. During the fifties and sixties the Lake Ballinger Watershed was impacted by roadways, commercial development, residential structures, schools, and public facilities. Rainwater carrying pollutants flooded into Lake Ballinger causing the State of Washington to declare it the most degraded lake in the State. The residents riparian to the lake suffered increasing flooding year after year. The culvert under the access road to Nile Temple was not able to handle the increase rising of the lake and when the level of the lake rose above the culvert the Packet Pg. 447 9.3.k roadway itself became the final barrier. Flooding reached a critical point in the winter of 1996 and 97 when seven inches of rain fell in a three day period following eighteen inches of snow on the ground. The lake rose six feet'above its adjudicated level flooding a half dozen homes at the southwest corner of the lake. The attached picture shows the water level of the Yarnell home. They were able to float a canoe in the front room. In 1997 the homeowners riparian to Lake Ballinger (The Lake Ballinger Community Club) took the City of Mountlake Terrace to court over its desire to change the levels of the lake adjudicated back in the thirties. Exhibit #1 describes its outcome. It did nothing to address the flooding. It was obvious to everyone that the Nile Temple roadbed and the culvert was the real problem. Residents began work with the City of Mountlake Terrace to address that issue. The City of Mountlake Terrace Engineering Department headed by Mike Shaw drew up a schematic (Exhibit #2) that accurately displayed the past and present flooding caused by the Nile's roadway. The upperhand corner of Exhibit #2 accurately shows the new adjudicated levels Center left shows the level of the lake flooding the Yarnel and Fahey homes. That brick pyramid -like structure accurately shows the levels of the lake at various stages of flooding... especially the flooding of 1997. The situation of the roadway and culvert did not change until five years ago when The City of Mountlake Terrace completely removed the roadway and culvert replacing it with a bridge. The attached picture shows that roadway and the resulting enlargement of the creek bed Since that day flooding of the lake has almost disappeared. The lake rises one foot for each inch of rain. We've had hard periods of rain during those five years but the most the lake has risen is under two feet. The Yarnell, Fahey, and several others in that low corner of the lake have not even been close to being impacted. The rest of homes bordering the lake sit on a rise ten to twenty feet above the lake. Given my testimony I would like to recommend to the Planning Board that it remove Lake Ballinger from any flood damage prevention designation. Thank you, Robert G. Boye 24325 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, Wa 98026 bobboye@comcast.net P.S. Kernen, I'll put copies of the two exhibits in the mail tomorrow. Packet Pg. 448 fF_7 x Io 4- : I 14-- Jud ,,-settle ge; S djs p ute wer Ia�Ce .Ievel 'OT V 'SL SG ,By S 'F D ween Edmonds residents who live on -'T � 9 to 'Speak at themeeting, tol&coun- EDMAD_ —A t, last Lake Ballinger and the 'City of 9 dispute s pTerrace, cilmeimbers that his city wanted to City: Council meeting bet- Mountlake -Ter - race, ended up in a see. the lake 'elevation dropped to, last-minute tompr9inise dqrin9 a. 277.3Ieet.-:"W9enever.the lake rises Snohmish County Superior Court above 277.8 feet; 'said Rautenberg, proceeding last Friday. "the seventh 'fairway of the(Ball- The dispute arose .over .a single ingpi) golf course is 'flooded .with foot of water.Ahe uppermost foot of water." The golf course belongs to water on Lake Ballinger. the City of Mountlake Terrace. Edmonds lakefront resident Bob -'The, matter became an' issue as Boye told the Edmonds City Council Aesigni'engineers prepared to, imple- last week that most of his neighbors ment the second,phase ofa*project to wanted the summer lake- elevation rejuvenate bake Ballinger. The'pro-, at 27&5 feet, thelevel decided upon jeci "*Utilizes �tw'6 p'ipes_one,to tarry;, in a . -1942 Superior Court rul- oxygen- . and nutrient -rich *a ' ter ing."Many of. Vs have developed our -from Hills.Cre'ek,the-lake's major property and. built docks 4n ac- water supply,, to the, lake bottom; coidance 'with ..that 4(-year old ral- the otherpipe tot , arrylpho.sphorous., ing,"Boyet6.ld:counciltiienibe'rs.', rich 'bottom water, which fuels lake- c.hoking algal blooms, out of the lake MOUNTLAKE TERRACE city and. into the. major outlet stream, engineer Carl :Rautenberg, also in- McAleer 'Creek-� vited-bithe Edmonds City"Counefl-" 'The 'Department of Ecology, which will provide major fundii�fig-' .designated Mountlake Terrace. "as the lead agency. $0 Mountlake.'Ter-,..:-'; race engineer Rautenberg intended to adapt theIntake and discharge. structures to a lake -level of his own city's liking-277.1 feet. But. when the Departni . ent of Ecology set a court date to request -minor changes on another part of the '1942 coo rulin&'.angry Edmonds residents -threatened to argue their own case befo ii the same judge.. ' Last Friday, morning, on-advidebf. Superior Court Judge Dennis Britt, both parties reluctantly agreed to The Court then officially he—ar-dtha compromise --a summer elevatidn',of between -277.5 :and 2718 feet; -and recorded it. Judge,Brittis expedted to sign.ihe official court d* * 7�eb..18. . court Packet Pg. 449 FE)c h , ;t *I::-- a -� Court donor 27 ® 277.8 277.6 277.8 27&8 277°8 Fairy 1981 'agroed told lem®is (of Luke Ballenger, re§yIn t on the good falth of Mountlake Terrace to oegulata accordingly. Apol l - June 15 Jane 15 - Sept. 95 Sept 85 - Oct. 31 Oct 31- Aprl/ b raMeIIr Water from Halls Greer entrance pipe pushes oxygen -rich waiter to bottom of Lake Ballenger Syphon pipe pU198 algae,-nola water from bottom of Lake -3allenger to McAleer Creek Halls Creek Bermed to prmdde head for entrance pipe � �� ftrofbam filled tires anchored to botbm McAleer Greek Weir d as syphon control value 0 0 0 as UL a C 4) ° E E Road �Dam" over lO&AWr Cr Freeway Embankment 000 2831 - ----- --- ----- -- - ------ -- -- - -- ----------------- -- --- -- ------------ ° a ° Flood Leval, 3 Jan. 1997 a Q � Debda clogged outflow o 278.5° --- - - -- -- ---- - - --- -- -- -- a c m dia 277S dIa o / o -------------C�llll�-- ----- - — --- 27'6°5° --- - -- -- - — ------ --s--' Cil� ° a aim® �a Level ---_----------------- _ K a W ° a fl Weir, installed 1992 E t 400' — IOT o weir to road Reoc curl g Berm - removed In 1982 Q 1700' Packet Pg. 450 . . . . . . . ..... 70WAft- 'i 4A ti ol 14 I Mal Ir I w 4e, flat ry 1p i lIK '16 A,4 Al AO 'i',, �, Ah %41k al via .� f.V Q �77 • id WJL Fa AL. oft r-dUKUL r-Y. 452 9.3.1 From: Susan Ferguson To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Draft 19.07 ECDC Date: Monday, September 7, 2020 4:01:59 PM Dear Mr. Lien: I am writing as a homeowner who lives in a 113 year -old house on Lake Ballinger. Our house was originally the office and commissary for the Great Western Lumber Company located on the west side of the lake in Edmonds. Our home sits the highest on all of Lake Ballinger, probably 30-35 feet vertically above the lake. Although water has come into the lower yard, it has never come anywhere close to the structure, per local residents. And, how could it? The lake has never risen that high. I am concerned about several things: 1. 1 believe that the flood zone map incorrectly includes structures that are located high above the elevation of any historic 100-year flood event. Without considering elevation, the flood map is overly inclusive. This affects not only our home but also several others. 2. The proposed law may have the unintended consequence of preventing historic homes from being rebuilt after partial damage. As I understand it, if a home experiences, "substantial damage" in some part of the house, a historic home would be required to bring the entire structure to modern building code standards. Insurance companies will refuse to cover the cost of improving the undamaged part of the structure, and the buildings will be lost to history. The proposed law should contain a provision that helps the owners of Lake Ballinger historic homes be able to repair substantial damage without having to bring the whole house into compliance with modern code. 3. A home should not have to be on a local or state historic register to be exempt from the proposed ordinance. The Lake Ballinger neighborhood in Edmonds has a fascinating history. As noted, our home was built prior to 1907 as part of the Great Western Lumber Company Shingle Mill on the lake. Judge Richard A. Ballinger began developing the lots in 1914, and convinced many Seattle friends to join him in building homes here. Many of those homes survive today. Although the original historic Ballinger house on the western lake shore was torn down a few years back to build two large new homes, this charming and historic neighborhood still retains historic homes that remind us of our shared past. It is imperative that the city not adopt a law that threatens their viability into the future. 4. Does the definition of "substantial damage" include damage caused by any source, whether flood, fire, earthquake, etc.? Would the planning board/city be willing to narrow the applicability of the law to only substantial damage to structures caused by flooding? Please make my concerns part of the record for the Planning Board meeting on September 9, 2020. Packet Pg. 453 9.3.1 Thank you, Susan Ferguson r a Packet Pg. 454 10.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/22/2020 Council Committee Reports Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History To streamline virtual Council meetings, Council Committee Reports will be added to the end of the Council meeting packets as reports become available. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council is asked to review the attached committee reports. Attachments: CM Buckshnis Report Packet Pg. 455 10.1.a PUGETSOUND ,I PARTNERSHIP Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) Leadership Council Meeting Summary August 7, 2020 Zoom Virtual Meeting Leadership Council Members Present: • Jay Manning • Stephanie Solien • Deborah Jensen • Russel Hepfer • Dennis McLerran • Toby Murray It is intended that this summary be used along with notebook materials provided for the meeting. A recording of this meeting is retained by the Partnership as part of the formal record. COUNCIL BUSINESS • Chair Jay Manning opened the meeting by highlighting recent positive news from Hood Canal, where sockeye salmon returned to the Skokomish River for the first time since the Cushman Dam was built. Summer chum runs have also been up in recent years, which gives us hope for optimism in our region -wide salmon recovery efforts. MEETING SUMMARY Chair Jay Manning asked for modifications to the June 10, 2020 meeting summary. Hearing none: o Deborah Jensen MOTIONED to approve the June 10, 2020 meeting summary. Dennis McLerran SECONDED and the Leadership Council APPROVED the June 10, 2020 meeting summary as presented. AGENCY REPORT • The Partnership has directed staff to telework, and for all meetings to be remote, until at least Phase 3 of the Safe Start plan. Since we have large numbers of staff living in Thurston, Pierce, and King counties, all three of those counties will need to attain Phase 3 status before we consider returning to work in our main Tacoma office. • We recently completed the recruitment and hiring process for a new Special Assistant to the Boards, which was the position formerly held by Debb Hagen. We and you all rely substantially on this position to maintain the Boards Program as a well-oiled machine. Anna Petersen's first day with the agency is Monday, August 10. • Please spread the word on two other open positions with the Partnership, for a Planning Manager and an Adaptive Systems Manager. • We're also very pleased to report some good news coming out of Washington, D.C.: o The House recently passed the Puget SOS bill, which includes the authorization of up to $50 million per year for five years for Puget Sound recovery efforts; the creation of a Puget Sound Office at EPA; and making the Federal Task Force permanent. o The House's Appropriations Committee just released its draft spending bill for Interior - Environment for the upcoming federal fiscal year, and it funds the Puget Sound Geographic Program at $38 million. This is a full $10 million above the 2019 appropriation. Packet Pg. 456 10.1.a Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council Meeting Summary for August 7, 2020 Page 2 • Thanks to everyone who mobilized for virtual Puget Sound Days on the Hill over the past couple of months, which was credited with contributing to these excellent outcomes. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT • Seattle Port Commissioner and Ecosystem Coordination Board member Fred Felleman noted that one of the many impacts of COVID-19 is that critical monitoring data is not being collected this year, which leaves open the possibility of gaps in long-term data sets. Particularly during a season where herring spawning has been prolific, this is an unfortunate situation to be in. 2021-2023 PSAR LARGE CAPITAL PROJECTS RANKED LIST Briefing Memo, Presentation Presenter: Carrie Byron, PSP Highlights: • Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) Fund Program Manager Carrie Byron presented a ranked list of PSAR Large Capital Projects proposed for State Capital Budget funding in the 2021- 2023 biennium. • Out of an initial 12 pre -proposals, a technical review team invited full applications for eight projects. The review team then evaluated and scored proposals for all eight projects, which make up the ranked list presented to the Leadership Council and which total approximately $41 million. • The Salmon Recovery Council and its Executive Committee reviewed and accepted the ranked list resulting from the technical review team's evaluation process. • Andrea Mojzak and Janne Kaje — project sponsors for the #1 ranked Fall City Floodplain Restoration project — provided a brief presentation on anticipated salmon and ecosystem benefits of their proposed project, including the creation of additional off -channel habitat and the reduction of flood risk to surrounding communities. Discussion: • Leadership Council members asked to what extent PSAR Large Capital Projects rely on funding sources beyond PSAR, and how the availability of those additional funding sources can affect project implementation. King County project sponsors noted that although the availability of matching and supplemental funding sources is often uncertain, project implementation can be phased in such a way that progress can continue to be made even if that progress is slower than anticipated. • Members thanked all project sponsors and Lead Entity coordinators for their work on these projects, and noted that we should all be turning our attention to Olympia now to make sure they get funded. Particularly important this year will be to describe the economic benefits of implementing these projects, including the benefits of acquisition projects. Decision: • Toby Murray MOTIONED to support Option 1, which approves the ranked list resulting from the scoring process. Dennis McLerran SECONDED, and the Leadership Council unanimously APPROVED the motion to support Option 1. ECOSYSTEM COORDINATION BOARD APPOINTMENTS Briefing Memo Presenter: Jillian Reitz, PSP Highlights: • Jillian overviewed the decision requested from the Council, which is to consider two reappointments and one new appointment to the Ecosystem Coordination Board. Packet Pg. 457 10.1.a Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council Meeting Summary for August 7, 2020 Page 3 Four-year terms for Bill Dewey, (representing in -state small business interests) Fred Felleman, (representing Washington Port Districts) and Scott Brewer (representing the Hood Canal Action Area) expired on June 30, 2020. In addition, the Environmental Interests (Position 2) seat was recently vacated. The following ECB members have been nominated to fill these positions: o Bill Dewey —Small Business Interests ■ Alternate — Bill Taylor o Fred Felleman — Washington Port Districts o Ellen Southard — Environmental Interests (Position 2) ■ Alternate — Karlee Deatherage • The Hood Canal Coordinating Council will meet on August 19 to formally nominate an applicant for the Hood Canal Action Area position. Discussion: • Leadership Council members offered thanks to returning ECB members for their excellent work representing the interests of their caucuses, and advising the Leadership Council on policy matters pertaining to Puget Sound recovery. Decision: • Toby Murray MOTIONED to support Option 2, which is to approve the proposed slate of ECB appointments and reappointments. Dennis McLerran SECONDED, and the Leadership Council unanimously APPROVED the motion to support Option 2. 2021 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES Presentation Presenter: Jay Manning, Chair and Ahren Stroming, PSP Highlights: • Ahren noted that the state revenue forecast has been seriously adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with projections indicating an $8.9 billion shortfall over the next biennium. • A special legislative session to deal with state budget implications is unlikely, but may be called in November. State agencies are achieving some Operating Budget savings through furloughs, suspension of salary increases for higher -earning employees, and other measures, but have also been asked to submit 15 percent reduction proposals from their State General Fund maintenance levels for the 2021-2023 biennium. • Despite the dire outlook, and the likely need to play defense to minimize budget cuts, there's some cause for optimism with the Capital Budget. Additionally, interest in budget requests that provide economic stimulus will likely be high. • Meanwhile, the Partnership has been assessing potential budget and policy priorities of board members through a recent legislative priorities survey that was distributed to all Management Conference boards, PSEMP, Lead Entities, and Local Integrating Organization coordinators. • The Leadership Council will consider these survey results — along with other sources of information — as it works to develop and adopt legislative priorities for the 2021 session this fall. Discussion: Leadership Council members affirmed that the focus of the upcoming State legislative session is likely to be on the budget, with overall direction largely determined by a potential federal stimulus package. If funding becomes available, we know that we have projects that need to get done, and we need to be able to articulate the economic benefits of those projects. Packet Pg. 458 10.1.a Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council Meeting Summary for August 7, 2020 Page 4 Members also noted the importance of holding the line on Puget Sound budget priorities, to ensure that we don't lose the ground we've gained in recent years. If this year's legislative session is mostly or entirely virtual, it may provide an opportunity for more interested parties to be involved. Members also pointed out that in the happy instance of more federal funding becoming available, State matching funds will also need to increase. There may also be opportunities to advance Puget Sound recovery priorities through potential legislation related to climate change adaptation and mitigation. WRAP UP AND ADJOURN Deborah Jensen adjourned the Leadership Council meeting at 10:45 A.M. Jay Manning, Chair Date Packet Pg. 459 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 1o.1.a Zoom Video Conference I I July 16, 2020 2:00 — 4:15p.m. Members Present # Name Affiliation 1) Councilmember (CM) John Stokes, Chair City of Bellevue 2) CM Mark Phillips, Vice -Chair City of Lake Forest Park 3) CM Bruce Dodds City of Clyde Hill 4) CM Diane Buckshnis City of Edmonds 5) CM Victoria Hunt City of Issaquah 6) CM Melanie O'Cain City of Redmond 7) CM Neal Black City of Kirkland 8) CM Lisa Anderl City of Mercer Island 9) CM Ryan Mclrvin City of Renton 10) CM Alex Pedersen City of Seattle 11) CM Keith Scully City of Shoreline 12) CM Susan Boundy-Sanders City of Woodinville 13) CM Ted Frantz Town of Hunts Point 14) CM Carl Scandella Town of Yarrow Point 15) John Sherman The Boeing Company 16) Corinne Young Cedar River Council 17) Alex Selvey Forterra 18) Kirstin Haugen King Conservation District (KCD) 19) Noel Gilborough Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group (MSFEG) 20) Eric Adman SnoKing Watershed Council 21) Cleo Neculae Washington State Department of Ecology 22) Stewart Reinbold Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 23) Joe Miles Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 24) Terry Lavender Water Tenders / Trout Unlimited Alternates Present 25) CM Jeanne Zornes City of Bothell 26) CM Lorri Bodi City of Lake Forest Park 27) CM Pam Stuart City of Sammamish 28) Josh Thompson Snohomish County 29) Brandy Reed King Conservation District 30) Jeanette Dorner Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group 31) David Bain SnoKing Watershed Council 32) Other Attendees 33) Beth Mountsier City of Bellevue 34) Allen Quynn City of Issaquah 35) Richard Sawyer City of Kenmore 36) Mike Mactutis City of Kent 37) Rachel Konrady City of Kirkland 38) Kim Jones City of Newcastle 39) Peter Holte City of Redmond 40) Tom Hardy City of Redmond 41) Kristina Lowthian City of Renton 42) Toby Coenen City of Sammamish 43) Michelle Koehler City of Seattle 44) Jim Vanden Brook Citizen 45) John Velimesis Citizen 46) Tracy Banaszynski Citizen 0 a a� a� a� r E E 0 c� U c 0 0 U r- 0 a m .E N Y m U c m E z U 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 460 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 1o.1.a Zoom Video Conference I I July 16, 2020 2:00 — 4:15p.m. 47) Larry Reymann Environmental Science Center 48) Eli Tome Forterra 49) Robin Kelly Friends of the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (FISH) 50) Denise Di Santo King County 51) Janne Kaje King County 52) Judy Blanco King County 53) Michael Murphy King County 54) Lucas Hall Long Live the Kings 55) Garrett Holbrook King County 56) Alexandra Doty Puget Sound Partnership 57) Elizabeth Butler Washington Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO) 58) Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz WRIA 8 59) Lauren Urgenson WRIA 8 60) Jason Wilkinson WRIA 8 61) Carla Nelson WRIA 8 62) 1) Call to Order / Introductions Council Member (CM) John Stokes (Chair) called the meeting to order at 2:03 pm and welcomed John Sherman from The Boeing Company to the Council as a new stakeholder member. Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz (Jason MK), WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager, announced that Larry Franks of FISH has suffered the loss of his son. Jason MK asked that SRC members send notes to WRIA 8 staff, who will send an card/gift to Larry and his family with the Council's condolences. 11) Public Comment— None. III) Consent Agenda - SRC Meeting Minutes from May 20, 2020 were discussed. Action: The Council unanimously approved the May 20, 2020 meeting minutes. IV) Updates & Announcements Jason MK highlighted the following updates: Puget Sound Regional Update — The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (PS SRC) discussed development and adopting policies necessary for Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) for the 2021-2023 biennium grant round processes. The Funding Subcommittee will continue to assess how well the county -based Conversation Futures Tax (CFT) programs integrate salmon recovery priorities. Jason MK is on the Funding Subcommittee representing WRIA 8 and will continue to keep the SRC apprised of developments on this program. The South -Central Action Area Caucus Local Integrating Organization (LIO) met to review the LIO's two- year work plan, bylaws, and membership. They discussed two large collaboration initiatives: o King County's Clean Water Healthy Habitat (CWHH) initiative, which guides outcome -driven investments in clean water, habitat protection and restoration. o The Shore -Friendly King County program, a collaboration between MSFEG, KCD, King County, WRIA 9, and WRIA 8. The initiative provides outreach and technical assistance to private marine shoreline landowners interested in removing shoreline armoring. Snohomish County Council (SCC) approves WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement (ILA) amendment enabling County's return as a cost -share partner — On June 24, SCC approved and the County has signed a WRIA 8 ILA amendment for the County to return as an ILA cost -share partner in 2020. WRIA 8 staff are working to secure signatures from the other 27 local government ILA cost -share partners. Convening conversations to examine WRIA 8 salmon recovery with an equity and social justice lens — In support of local and global conversations surrounding systemic racism, the WRIA 8 Management Committee discussed how the SRC can convene a series of conversations or a work group of interested Packet Pg. 461 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 1o.1.a Zoom Video Conference I I July 16, 2020 2:00 — 4:15p.m. Council members to use an equity and social justice lens to examine its salmon recovery and watershed health work. Members interested in participating were asked to let Jason MK know. WRIA 8 Technical Committee (TC) comments on proposed emergency flood -related scour repairs at Ballard Locks — The WRIA 8 TC submitted comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Corps) on proposed urgent interim scour repairs to the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks' (Locks) stilling basin apron, spillway ogee, and fish ladder. These are to occur during a proposed late - September to October 15 window. Repairs would overlap with migration of returning coho and, potentially, late -migratory Chinook. In the Notice of Preparation, the TC requested the Corps consider the following: o Extend adult Locks count data beyond typical end date (October 1) until October 15 to include the entire in -water repair window; o Monitor to assess delays in migration resulting from repair work and potential increased risk of predation by pinnipeds; o Conduct more frequent large lockages (i.e., false lockages) at times when ladder is inaccessible; o The Corps consider improvements to fish ladder as part of planning and implementation of ongoing Locks facility repairs and improvements; and o Design a system to monitor flows and gate openings to promptly identify and address issues with attraction flow and fish passage barriers. • King County Flood Control District (FCD) 2020 Cooperative Watershed Management (CWM) grant recommendations — The FCD Board of Supervisors unanimously approved over $33M to support 13 habitat restoration projects, four monitoring and assessment efforts, and five education and outreach programs. Salmon SEEson program — WRIA 8 staff seek feedback on partners' plans for salmon viewing sites, outreach programs, and ideas to communicate key salmon recovery messages to the community, despite a possibility of more limited viewing sites and program events due to COVID-19. WRIA 8 E-News — The June edition of the WRIA 8 E-News included topics surrounding climate change and restoration. The next edition will be released Friday, August 21. V) 2021 WRIA 8 Budget and Work Plan — Management Committee Recommendation Jason MK presented the Management Committee's recommendation to adopt the 2021 Budget with no cost -share increase for 2021 and the accompanying WRIA 8 staff Work Plan. While not approving a cost share increase reduces the resources available to the Council's ability to fund emerging priorities, anticipated base revenues appear to cover anticipated expenditures without this increase. Recognizing the challenging economic climate and budget conditions facing many local government partners, the Council expressed support for the no cost increase approach for 2021. Jason MK noted the updated Work Plan reflects CM Victoria Hunt's request to add integrating best available science related to salmon habitat needs into jurisdictions planning and regulatory updates as part of the team's technical services. Discussion: There were no comments or questions. Action: The Council unanimously approved the 2021 Budget and Work Plan. VI) WRIA 8 Project Subcommittee 2020 SRFB & PSAR Funding Report Jason Wilkinson, WRIA 8 Projects and Funding Coordinator, presented the WRIA 8 Project Subcommittee Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) grant recommendations. He discussed the WRIA 8 Project Subcommittee's SRFB/PSAR grant proposal and review process . Of the $2.6 million available, $1.8 million is recommended for restoration construction, $525,525 for restoration design and $300,000 for property acquisition. Grant funding is recommended for the following four projects: • Issaquah Creek Restoration at Lake Sammamish State Park, to enhance habitat and stream channel by placing wood and restoring vegetation ($1,840,561); Packet Pg. 462 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 1o.1.a Zoom Video Conference I I July 16, 2020 2:00 — 4:15p.m. • East Side Wayne Sammamish/Waynita Restoration Design, formerly a golf course, now publicly owned habitat and moving into restoration design phase, ( $183,400); • Lower Rutledge -Johnson Levee Removal, to remove lower levee, install wood and enhance side channel, ( $342,125); and • Rutledge-Johnson/Rhode Reach Acquisition, advancing habitat downstream and restoration,($300,000). The Lower Issaquah Creek Stream and Riparian Restoration project was not selected for funding, but will receive Cooperative Watershed Management grant funding to advance design work. The Edmonds' Marsh Estuary Restoration Design project was also not selected for funding this round due to issues related to property ownership and design scope that need additional time to resolve. Discussion: Chair Stokes said the two projects not requested for funding are good projects, but need additional design work to be poised for additional future grant funding investment. The SRC unanimously approved the 2020 SRFB/PSAR grant funding recommendations to allocate $2.6Mfor habitat restoration, acquisition and design projects in WRIA 8. VII) 2021 State and Federal Legislative Priorities Jason MK presented the draft state and federal 2021 legislative priorities for SRC review and approval. Approval of state priorities in July enables WRIA 8 to communicate them to the Governor's office in August during development of the Governor's biennium budget. The three primary components of the state priorities include capital budget programs, operating budget and policy legislation. Federal priorities focus on support for funding the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, critical Ballard Locks facility repairs, Puget Sound recovery programs and legislation. Discussion: CM Carl Scandella commented that with the COVID-19 pandemic affecting school openings, are there opportunities to integrate outdoor -based WRIA 8 education programs and salmon science as part of remote learning for school kids? Jason MK welcomed the suggestion and noted WRIA 8 would explore opportunities to work with community organization partners on this. Larry Reymann added that the Environmental Science Center (ESC) is very active in south King County with education about salmon habitat. they lead field trips to the Locks on a regular basis. Larry asked if COVID-19 has closed down salmon viewing at the Locks, and if not having access is increasing predation and diminishing the return runs. Lauren Urgenson, WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator, said the Locks are currently closed to the public. She also noted that the degraded and outdated facilities at the Locks appear to be exacerbating marine mammal (pinniped) predation, which is why it is important to support Corps efforts at the Locks. Chair Stokes noted that WRIA 8 is supporting important work at the Locks and Ship Canal. CM Susan Boundy-Sanders asked if we should mention support for Orca recovery in the priorities. Jason MK said Orca recovery is important to reference, to make clear the connection between recovering Chinook salmon as the primary prey of the endangered Southern Resident Orca. He said the Orca-Chinook connection will be included in the letters sent to the Governor and legislators to share WRIA 8 legislative priorities. CM Pam Stuart and CM Boundy-Sanders asked if there was any prioritization to the capital budget priorities? Jason MK said the highest priorities will be listed first and marked as highest priority. He said a Fact Sheet of the priorities would also be produced to accompany the letters. Chair Stokes added that these priorities represent money and people on the ground, that they support the economy and habitat restoration. He reiterated the need for the letter to highlight the benefits to the economy and local communities in addition to salmon recovery efforts. Packet Pg. 463 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 1o.1.a Zoom Video Conference I I July 16, 2020 2:00 — 4:15p.m. • It was asked if there are opportunities to support the priorities with specific local legislators. Jason MK said he would work with SRC members to set up meetings and project site tours with legislators to create an interactive exchange about specific projects and WRIA 8's priorities. • Vice -Chair Phillips proposed including a general policy priority to support addressing the effects of climate change on salmon and habitat. The SRC unanimously approved the 2021 State and Federal Legislative Priorities as proposed, with the inclusion of a climate change policy priority, and authorizing WRIA 8 staff to pen a letter communicating the priorities to the Governor, legislature, and members of Congress. Vill) King County Conservation Futures Tax (CFT)/Parks Levy (PL) Citizens Advisory Committee 2020 funding recommendations Terry Lavender, Chair of King County CFT/PL Citizens Advisory Committee, provided a comprehensive review of 2020 CFT/PL funding recommendations focusing on those related to WRIA 8 priorities. CFT/PL funding serves as important local match funding for state and federal salmon recovery funding, and often supports WRIA 8 projects. Discussion: There were no questions nor comments. IX) Success Story: Community Action Training School (CATS) project protects Kenmore wetland Tracy Banaszynski, City of Kenmore citizen, presented her experience with the CATS program. Her community project focused on advocating for protecting a Category 2 wetland in Saint Edward State Sport Park. City of Kenmore was to begin Phase I of a 3.5-acre sport park within 10 feet of the wetland and impact 90% of the wetland buffer. Tracy generated community support to protect the wetland, spoke at city council meetings, gathered signatures, raised awareness, and ended with a peaceful protest the night of the city council's vote. On February 3, 2020, the city council's 4-3 vote NOT to move forward with the project was the culmination of her efforts. X) Next Meeting: Chair Stokes noted the next SRC meeting is September 17, 2:00 — 4:15 pm, via Zoom. Meeting Adjourned at 4:20 pm. Packet Pg. 464 10.1.a Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum City of Mountlake Terrace Special Meeting Minutes February 4, 2020 Members Jurisdiction, Rearesentatives Mayor Jeff Johnson (City of Lake Forest Park) Councilmember and Vice Chair, Mark Phillips (City of Lake Forest Park), Public Works Director, Eric LaFrance (City of Mountlake Terrace) Councilmember Diane Buckshnis (City of Edmonds.) Staff PrP-.Pnt Patrick Johnson (Edmonds Stormwater Technician), Laura Reed (Mountlake Terrace Stormwater Program Manager), Donnelle Dayao (Lake Forest Park Project Manager), Tim Nye (Mountlake Terrace Public Works Supervisor), Phillip Hill (Lake Forest Park City Administrator), Ken Courtmanch (Parks & Facilities Supervisor, Mountlake Terrace) Derek Fada (Lynnwood Stormwater Technician), John Featherstone (Surface Water Utility Manager, City of Shoreline). Others Present Jake Johnston (Johnston Group), Neil Jeremiah (Resident MLT) Gail Meyerson, Ed Boehmer, Susan Meredith, Ken Peirce, Jona Rose Feinberg, and Julie Rose (Lake Residents). Welcome and Introductions Vice Chair Mark Philips called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m. at the City of Mountlake Terrace Council Chambers. The Forum approved of minutes from the October 15, 2019 meeting. Members of the Forum placed Election/Appointment of Chair on hold until full council attendance. II. History and Future of the Forum Laura Reed (City of Mountlake Terrace Stormwater Manager), presented a slide show and gave a brief history of the Lake Ballinger Forum. This is a good time for the Forum to revisit its' mission and goals, and to think about the future of the Forum. The Forum's interlocal agreement is due to be renewed at the end of 2020. (link to presentation uploaded to city website here.) Donnelle Dayao (Lake Forest Park, Project Manager) Narrative - Significant million dollar projects, including a cluster of culvert repairs through the Town Center, as well as across SR 522, was known as the Lyon Creek Flood Mitigation Project, and was completed in 2016. Where McAleer Creek and Lyons Creek converged and overflowed into each other was the point where flooding started and flooded the entire area of the Town Center. This project was designed to alleviate that flooding and to create a separation as well as a capacity for Lyon Creek to discharge out into Lake Washington Mayor Jeff Johnson (Lake Forest Park) commented: Basically Lyon Creek would come down and flood over to McAleer, and that would flood out the whole intersection and close down half of 11Page Packet Pg. 465 10.1.a SR 522. Numerous houses were affected. The cost of the project was 5.6 to 6.5 million (approximately.) A lot of the funding came from the federal work the Jake Johnston organized. Expressed that he would like to see the forum expand to the entire watershed. Mark Philips (Lake Forest Park) commented: This forum has defined its work as focused on McAleer Creek and certainly that effort including both McAleer Creek and Lyon Creek which was to prevent them from flowing together which ultimately improved the culvert flow. It was helpful for Lake Forest Park to be a member of the Forum. Anytime a city is in partnership with other cities, it is helpful in seeking funding. Laura Reed (Mountlake Terrace Stormwater Manager) commented: For Mountlake Terrace's part there were two undersized culverts in the Nile which were replaced by bridges. There was also an undersized culvert that used to cause significant flooding, close to the Senior Center on Hall Creek. That culvert also was replaced by a bridge, the project was completed in 2011. Since 2017 - 2019 the focus has been on water quality Issues including controlling invasive weeds. III. Lake Ballinger Water Levels Patrick Johnson, (Edmonds Stormwater Technician) reported on current water levels in Lake Ballinger. Briefly comparing 2018 levels to 2019 levels, he remarked that while rainfall totals have been above average over the last couple months, the lake is currently 2 inches below the lake level from last year. The winter lake level has stayed consistent for at least the past two years due to improvements through the golf course and by keeping the McAleer Creek outfall clear. Tim Nye and his Mountlake Terrace crew maintain the outfall of the lake. He also noted that the highest lake level elevation of the year was on Dec. 21St 2019 (280.62ft.), where the lake rose over 33 inches above and beyond the maximum level at the McAleer Weir. Excessive and sustained rains were the primary cause. As lake levels rise, the water is exiting the lake efficiently. Mr. Johnson concluded with a reminder that as continued rains occur, and if potential flooding situations arise for lake residents, the City of Edmonds Public Works Department can be contacted to provide sand and sandbags at their facility (7110 210t" ST SW, 425-771-0235.) IV. Lakeshore Resident Property Tax Laura Reed, (MILT Stormwater Program Manager) link to presentation V. 2020 Ballinger Forum CIP - moved to the next meeting VI. Lake Ballinger Invasive Weed Control Update - Steering Committee Julie Rose (Lake Resident) reported that the lake was treated with herbicides last summer very effectively, and a decision should be made to determine if the lake should be treated again following a spring plant survey. Steering committee will finalize the adaptive management approach for summer of 2020 after the aquatic plant survey in May/June 2020 to assess regrowth after herbicide treatment. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 466 10.1.a VII. Lake Ballinger and Johnston Group Contract The Forum decided to put the Johnston Group contract on "pause" from approximately March through December of 2020. Councilmember Diane Buckshnis (City of Edmonds), made the motion to put the Johnson Group Contract with Lake Ballinger on hold. The motion was approved by Forum. VIII. Announcements a. Notification of algae blooms b. Ken Pierce (long time lake resident and active Forum participant) will be moving IX. Public Comment Ken Pierce (Lake Resident) o Reopen discussion of salmon coming through the lake o There should be a look at a modern weir o Flood insurance expensive, the Army Corps of Engineering should be brought back to redo the flood zone since it has been mitigated by the culverts. All other residential concerns were directly addressed by Forum Council members and/or representatives. X. Next Meeting Date Established Thp npwt .. .,+ n iS ho.J 4.J F.,r nnr l 21s4 2020 City .,f Gd.,,.,n.Js Qr ,rI.e++ Q.,.,,Y, ,+Bonn CANCELLED DUE TO COVID19 CONCERNS Adjournment 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 467