Loading...
2021-09-28 City Council - Full Agenda-29791. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Op E D o Agenda Edmonds City Council s71. ,HvREGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 28, 2021, 7:00 PM THIS MEETING IS HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "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 CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ROLL CALL PRESENTATION 1. Economic Development Commission Annual Report (25 min) APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 4, 2021 Edmonds City Council Agenda September 28, 2021 Page 1 2. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2021 3. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2021 4. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2021 5. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 6. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Randall J. Hodges Photography 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. 2021 September Budget Amendment (30 min) 2. Public Hearing for Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) update (30 min) 3. Highway 99 Gateway Signs (45 min) 4. Council vote to return meetings to virtual platform in lieu of in -person meetings (10 min) 9. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS 1. Outside Boards and Committee Reports (0 min) 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda September 28, 2021 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Economic Development Commission Annual Report Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: Economic Development Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History The Economic Development Commission (EDC) was established pursuant to City Council -approved amendments to Chapter 10.75. The nine -member, volunteer board is appointed by the Mayor and City Council. The Commission is charged with advising and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate, to other boards and commissions of the City on strategies, programs or activities intended to generate economic development and consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue. Topics of study may be referred to the Commission by the Mayor or City Council, or independently generated by the commission. The Commission is also charged with providing an annual report to City Council. Staff Recommendation No action required. Response or direction from Council is sought at the meeting or thereafter. Narrative Given the vagaries of COVID-19-related meeting restrictions and other complications over the past 18 months, the EDC did not make a presentation in 2020. The presentation to be made at the 9/28/21 Council meeting is intended to provide an overview of the activities the EDC has been engaged since 2019 and those activities it is considering undertaking over the next 12 to 18 months. The EDC is interested in Council and Mayor input regarding these proposed activities. In addition, they look forward to any ideas or suggestions Council and/or the Mayor may have regarding their proposed activities for the next 12 to 18 months. Packet Pg. 3 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 4, 2021 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 08-04-2021 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 4 7.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES August 4, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Council President Paine. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking if the Council should approve the agenda. Council President Paine advised that was not necessary and ruled point not taken 3. COUNCIL INTERVIEWS 1. COUNCIL INTERVIEWS OF POLICE CHIEF CANDIDATES Before each interview, Council President Paine welcome the candidate and described the interview process (six minute opening statement, Council questions five minutes each, and three minute wrap up). Michelle Bennett Councilmembers interviewed Chief Michelle Bennett (answers in italics): Opening statement: I am Michelle Bennett. I grew up in Eastern Washington, born in Richland and raised in Moses Lake. Came to Western Washington for high school, attended Shoreline High School my freshman year, graduated from Shorecrest High School. I was an exchange student in another country and learned to speak another language my senior year which was a very positive experience. Returned, started college and was hired by the EPD as police cadet internship during college when I was 19 or 20. Hired by the King County Sheriff's Office in 1990 as a patrol officer. Went to the academy, graduated and came to the Shoreline area as my first assignment. Worked a number of assignments starting in Shoreline. I was in the undercover unit, spent time as afield training officer, and spent time as one of the pilot school resource Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 5 7.1.a officers, in 1995 in the Northshore School District. Worked as a master police officer or corporal and then was selected to teach at the statepolice academy, Iwas a tach officer and taught criminalprocedures which is basically constitutional law, what you can and can't do with caselaw in the departments. I was promoted to the rank of sergeant and served in the north area and southeast for several years. I was selected as the street crimes sergeant for a period of time as well as the FTO sergeant for a period of time. I was the storefront sergeant and floor sergeant in Shoreline and then selected as Chief of Police in the City of Maple Valley where I spent ten years. I started a number of community programs, very good experience. Came out of there as an administrative captain, spent time in the civil unit, property unit, records unit, facilities, vehicle fleets, diversity recruiting. Was the LGBTQ liaison for the Sheriff's Office and a host of other duties and assignments including records and data. Selected as the Chief of Police for the City of Sammamish, spent three years there and came out from there to be promoted to the rank of major, sent to work directly with the sheriff, responsible for creating 5-year strategic plan, biennial budget and operations plan for the Sheriff's Office, wrote the Wellness and Resiliency Policy, wrote the Body Cam Policy and was the liaison to the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, a group that oversees law enforcement practices. I retired from the Sheriff's Office January 17, 2021 after almost 31 years. Lasted 61 days and then came to the City of Edmonds to begin work as the Interim Police Chief. I love to play soccer, softball, trail running have four beautiful children and do a lot of gardening. Went to Central Washington University for bachelors and master's degrees. Master's degree in organizational development and behavior, basically workplace psychology degree. Very interesting doing consulting work in different agencies. From there, I started a couple consulting businesses, specifically centered around bullying and teaching school prevention for bullying. Part of that was via a Department of Justice grant for $50, 000 when I worked in Shoreline to develop an anti -bullying curriculum that went nationwide, teaching at conferences and distributing the curriculum to various educational institutions. My doctorate is in education with an emphasis in curriculum and instruction through Seattle University; my dissertation topic was on bullying prevention which eventually led to my consultant work in workplace bullying. When people hit the age of 18, they do not necessarily stop all the behaviors they have done all their lives, it just is called something different. I've spent the last 15 years going into different police agencies, government agencies, schools, higher education and a variety of other places taking about workplace bullying and how to prevent it, Creating Civil Workplaces is the title of the presentation. I have a big passion for fairness and civility and how we treat each other, both internally and externally. That has been my life passion at work, even during my time as an employee of the Sheriff's Office as well as in Edmonds. Councilmember Olson: Thank you for coming to Edmonds in its time of need. Everybody has been following the national discussion about policing reform and appreciating the reason behind it. At the same time, we're a community that does appreciate law and order. Why do you think you're the right person to navigate that balancing act here in Edmonds? Do you mean the legislative initiatives and changes and how we police or? Not specifically but the movement toward a gentler, more interactive, less dealing with the here and now in the moment and being more relationship based and getting to root causes, and trying not to treat everything as a criminal justice issue and at the same time, trying to keep neighborhoods nice and safe and not having break-ins, vandalism and other things that people do not want to go unchecked but at the same time, may not be criminal things. The legislation is part of it, the state is responding to some of those initiatives. Also the City's own philosophies of trying to be a softer, gentler police force and yet still in the end being successful at having law and order in the community. You hit the nail on the head. That has been not only a local movement for many communities but also a state legislative movement now. I think that started at the Criminal Justice Training Commission when Sue Rahr took over there and changed the tagline to guardians instead of warriors which was sort of the previous thought process. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 6 7.1.a Nationally, we started in 2014 with the Ferguson incident which led to the 21 S` Century Task Force on Policing led by then President Obama. So he had six basic pillars of what we can do to enhance policing, building trust and legitimacy was one of the first ones; that comes into accountability. Police oversight is also part of accountability with trust and legitimacy. Technology and social media will be a huge piece of that; the message we are relaying of our work, what we can and can't do, how we can do crime prevention in the community and again connecting with community members. Communitypolicing and crime reduction was a huge part of the 21" Century Task Force, specifically related to how do we get out in the community, how are we relating to community members, the police are the public, the public are the police, are we listening. Last night was National Night Out, crime prevention materials were handed out at various National Night Out locations, talking with community members and kids. Part of that is the community engagement piece which is one of the exciting things in Edmonds. One of my biggest passions in policing is creating community engagement programs and allowing the public to get to know you as a person. I heard a story yesterday from a person at a National Night Out event who said English was not their second language, and when they had an issue, an Edmonds officer called him by name and knew him. He was comforted that someone in the police department knew him, and it completely quelled all his fears. Engaging with the public and building trust is important as are training and education, anti -bias training, crisis reduction/intervention and officer wellness and safety. Those all correlate as the six pillars to address how we relate to the community. Council President Paine: How would you integrate the new laws in Washington State into the policies and procedures for the Edmonds Police Department? If you could provide specifics, that would be helpful. In integration we have developed general orders that provide the guidance we need on the ground for officers initially. We've been working with our attorneys, Lighthouse Law, particularly Sharon who has been working closely with our staff. Each sergeant was assigned one of the bills that impact policing and they created groups to address every word within the legislation and then worked with the attorneys to build policies around that which led to the general orders that were sent out. My directed community message went out yesterday and I'm working with the video unit to put together five short, hopefully watchable videos that describe how the legislative initiatives might impact policing for them or the community. Going out into the public is another big piece. Most of the questions at yesterday's National Night Out were about the legislative changes and how that will impact citizens in their everyday life, what can and can't the police do. The big message in leading this department is we're not going to stop patrol, going out on community patrols. We're not going to sit in the station and wait for a 911 call and then go out. We will be out and present as a community force and community engagement, building relationships with people, being service oriented which is why everyone got into the job in the first place. It might just be different ways that things in policing have to be done, probably cause versus reasonable suspicion, removing less than lethal munitions because of the SO caliber rule, but those can be replaced with ones that don't break that law but are still a less than lethal force. Training and education is a huge piece of in-service training; what do each of these legislative initiatives mean for the department? Not just the definition, but what does it mean in action, scenario based training. Breaking it down into what we can and can't do and when. I've also been meeting with legislators to discuss some of the unintended consequences of some of the legislation and what can be done to fix it or make it better. I hope to continue to be a big part of that push with the legislative body to address some of the unintended consequences that may not have been foreseen. All those things together are pieces of how we are integrating the new legislation into this community. That messaging on social media, the message that we're out and about, the visibility of being out and about, I would never want anyone in the Edmonds community to feel like we're de policing or we're not going to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 7 be out or we're not going to contact people. I think that's a woe -is -me attitude or sour grapes and I don't agree with it. There are some agencies locally that have told their staff to sit in the station until they get a 911 call and not go out otherwise. I completely disagree with that; we are community stewards, that's our role. We might do things a little different, create more time, distance and space, do more investigative work prior to establishingprobable cause, but we will maintain community safety, maintain police response and have the training and policy in place. We have the two main, 1054 and 1310, we have those policies in place and drafted and the in-service training is already written in our training unit. Ifeel good about what we've done; it's not me, it's all the work of the sergeants that have taken each one of these on and done research. I reached out to other chiefs in the community to borrow, appropriate and utilize their policies to see what they have done with their legal advisers. My staff has done an amazing jobputting that together on time and we're ready to go. Councilmember Distelhorst: Police leaders must sometimes made decisions that are unpopular with the public, with employees and staff or even with themselves. Please describe a specific time when you had to make such a difficult decision, the response you encountered either from the public, staff or yourself and how you handled that response. Probably one of the most difficult things has been the new legislation, there will always be conflict because 50% of the people love it and 50% of the people hate it whether internally or externally. One of the really difficult issues borne out of the 1054 and 1310 house bills was the less than lethal 50 caliber, we call them sage launchers, it basically launches beanbag rounds, which has been effective in incapacitating people instead of using deadly force. There was recently a domestic violence where the person had a gun. We negotiated for a very long time. He wouldn't drop the gun. Several orders were issued. He was in conflict with his wife and son, it was a dangerous situation and we had the North South Metro SWAT Team trying to talk to him and create distance, dialogue and crisis intervention. Eventually as he was getting more ramped up, we were able to use that less than lethal which incapacitated him to the point where he dropped the gun and we were able to handcuff him without incident. That's how you always want things to go, the community is safe, the public is safe, the family is safe, he's safe because no one wants to be involved in the use of deadly force, and we were able to solve that and take him to jail. House Bill 1054 and 1310, specifically 1054, outlaws legally the use of less than lethal launchers because they are over 50 caliber which is what the law specifically states. It is not a popular decision, telling all your officers you have to remove your less than lethal from your vehicles based on law. Half the people were happy about it because they felt very uncomfortable having those and the other half were upset because this is a tool we need. The public also expects the police to have less than lethal, no one wants a use of force encounter involving deadly force and wherever possible avoid that. I did a lot of research, spoke with Washington State Police Chief and Sheriffs executive Board Steve Strand and Jim McMann who are the leaders in Washington State, kept getting different opinions, it wasn't really legislators' intent to remove those but they're not willing yet to make a statement or change the legislation. We talked to the attorney general's office but they haven't made any statements either even though they said they might. Then WA COPS and FOP, the two local union organizations in the state issued very strong statements that absolutely less than lethal shouldn't be in the vehicles, that it's civil liability, etc. The state academy issued a statement saying we don't think we'd decertify someone if they used less than lethal. But when it comes down to the law, if there's ambiguity, you always follows the letter of the law. By keeping less than lethal in vehicles, which is now illegal, I'm putting officers in a state where they have a less than lethal available and HB 1310 says you'll use all means up until lethal force, so if they use less than lethal they're using 1310, but if they use the less than lethal, they're violating 1054 which mandates immediate decertification as well as the potential for criminal charges and civil liability. It's like the impossible situation to be in; if you leave them in vehicles, they are darned either way; if you take then out, you've taken away a tool. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 8 7.1.a It was very difficult and there were a lot of conversations within the department and with the Mayor, and I probably spent two or three sleepless nights because there are ethic things and morals that come with that. Bottomline we were told by Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace that if they see less than lethal in our vehicles, they will report our officers to the state for decertification. Obviously the right decision is to remove them; however, in removing them, it is necessary to find less than lethal that does not violate state law. We've been able to locate, although they're on backorder, a number ofdifferent less than lethal options that might not be quite as effective but are still effective. We're letting our staff know this is what we have, we're still going to protect you and the community, we just have to do it a little differently. Councilmember L. Johnson: Given your research, insight and expertise, what challenges and/or opportunities both internal and external facing have you identified that are specific though not necessarily exclusive to Edmonds? It's been a learning experience for me coming from an outside agency and a different county. I've been able to look at it with afresh lens which can be beneficial. It's a huge learning curve but it's also a way to look at things in a different way and if I hear one more time, that's the way we've always done things, I may explode. It's become a running joke because the next time I'm handed a stack ofpaper to sign, I ask why isn't this online? Some of the things with my research, insight and expertise and reading publications and living it in a different agency, one of the biggest things is we have no complaint tracking system in the City of Edmonds. So if you file a complaint, we take it on the phone and potentially nothing is done. Bestpractices for law enforcement is to have a complaint tracking system which for most agencies is called IAPro or Blue Team, a way of tracking complaints. We take all complaints, you don't poo poo any of them. We take then, we track them, not only does the system take complaints and give accurate descriptions of those complaints and investigative steps, it also tracks use of force incidents specifically down to where on the body force was used. It has an early warning intervention system for officers if they have too many pursuits and uses of force in a row. It also ties performance evaluations, which are all done by hand now, into this system which also take accommodations, supervisor action logs, etc. It's all online and it's all by person which is huge. I can't tell you how many piece of paper I sign each day and it's like uploaded into the computer and put in a file. The problem with doing it that way is you can't draw data out of that system. We need to be able to do data analytics so we need that system. The first overarching theme is systems; we need a complaint tracking system, use of force tracking system, pursuit tracking system, performance evaluation tracking system, and a training system. Apparently the 2019 firearms records were lost for a time because they were all in a box; we can't do that, they need to be electronic or cloud -based. Developing systems is probably the biggest insight since I've arrived here. Number two is community engagement programs, we don't have any. We need a community academy, a volunteer program, an Explorer program, having the community engagement officer on board, doing outreach and tying social media into that. I could go on for hours. Community engagement is important. Third is related to how we communicate. Internally communication is improving; I've met with each officer individually which has been a huge piece of that communication, sending out regular communication. The organization goes from sergeant to assistant chief which is very bizarre so there's no mid -level management which helps with transparency and accountability. I would look at, using the least amount of money possible, how to restructure how we do things to have more transparency and accountability within our staff which will enhance communication. Those are the three big, huge things, if Fm still here, that will be budget decision packages, to help enhance what the police department does and being accountable and apparent both internally and externally. Councilmember Buckshnis: Thank you for your resume, it was very nicely done. As you know, my background is finance. The Edmonds Police Department has a $12 million budget. Over the past ten years if not longer, there has consistently been $400,000 in overtime. With the national talk of defunding or potentially defunding portions of the police department, what is your opinion about the Crisis Assistance Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 9 7.1.a Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS) model which has been well received in many cities, what is your opinion about using such a private -public partnership and do you think it could have an impact on our budget? Good question and something a lot of agencies have been working towards. When I was in Sammamish we were working with the legislators there, I think it was Kathy Lambert who had $40, 000 to embed social workers within the department in Sammamish or that was something we were working toward before I was promoted. I think the model is good, popular or not, my belief has always been law enforcement should work in a team environment. The purpose of law enforcement is protecting and serving person and property. So if we're able to work in a team where we respond to a crisis event, law enforcement needs to render it safe first. There was an incident where a social worker was sent first and unfortunately thatperson was stabbed over 40 times because of the mental instability of the person they were addressing. We can't negate the safety piece of law enforcement rendering a volatile situation safe first. Once that safety has been ensured, whatever that looks like, whatever the issue is, whether it's crisis or mental health, addiction, unhoused or other social service need, it is really important to bring in the folks with social service experience to solve the problem. It doesn't help to pick up an unhoused person and drive them to the next county or city and drop them off. It doesn't help to arrest someone with addiction problems or mental health issues when we're not getting to the underlying cause because we'll just arrest them again and again, not really serving what we need to serve. There was community court processes that Edmonds had for a while, but I understand it went away. I studied the Redmond model when I was in Sammamish; they have court where if someone chooses diversion, they go into the lobby and all the social services are in the lobby and they can partake in those services to get the help they needed. That is a brilliant model to get to the bottom of the iceberg, what is the actual problem? Working in teams and having a private public partnership in that way as long as it's safe is brilliant. I know the City is trying to hire a social worker. There were apparently problems from the last time that person was here, but it's an amazing idea and how we need to do policing in the future. Let's stop this didactic method of arrest, jail, rehabilitate. The systems is kind of broken and it's exciting to think about now with public support and a lot of legislative support looking at alternatives to how we've done business. The goal isn't to arrest someone and take them to jail, the goal is to solve your problem and make you as healthy a person as you can be. We're here to assist. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: Thank you Chief Bennett for applying for the job. Policing is stressful, changing and has a high occurrence of burnout in the field. How do you support adding resiliency to your team knowing that stressed out officers don't always make the best decisions? You're absolutely right. Not only having that stressed out, mentally stressedperson not making the best decisions internally, they don't make the best decisions externally, so it's a huge issue that was really coming to a head prior to the George Floyd incident where there was actually national legislation looking at helping with wellness and resiliency. I don't think those things have disappeared, they are just more on the back burner. During my time with the Sheriff's Office, I was asked to develop a wellness and resiliency policy for the Sheriff's Office which has about 1, 000 members. I wrote a job description and a policy with 11 subcategories for how we can provide wellness and resiliency for officers. That position was called the WARD (Wellness And Resiliency Deputy). When the position was funded, there is a therapy dog that accompanies her to sites throughout the county. Peer support is a huge piece; there is a very robust peer support program in Edmonds. There are so many other things that could be done, I could list the 11 different methodologies, but I will cover the highlights. Issaquah Police Chief Scott Behrbaum has a financial counselor, nutritionist, and PTSD person come in once a week, open and available to police staff. Another important thing is physical health; two friends my age dropped from massive heart attacks who had no idea and I wouldn't have thought they were at risk. There is a program where a cardiologist comes into the station and anonymously tests for blockages. I Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 10 would love to see Edmonds take the lead in allowing officers on -duty to get an annual physical. It's covered by insurance and would have to be anonymous so there are no union issues. That would help with identifying health issues and doing preventative maintenance instead of reactive maintenance. Mentally, I'm working with the mental health counselor for this area both in Snohomish and Counties about PTSD and in -the -moment resiliency; while someone is in the middle of call, how to calm themselves down, steps to take after the call. I was president of the King County Chiefs Association, the current president of the FBI National Academy Association and on the WASPC Legislative Committee; those organizations agreed to work together and signed an MOU to develop a statewide available wellness and resiliency policy. One of the first pieces of that is an app that has wellness and resiliency folks that officers can contact for mental health issues, sleep disorders, nutrition, etc. It is very important to address this; I had a sergeant I worked with for 20 years who took his own life two years ago which no one saw coming. It haunts them all every day, what can we do to prevent that before it happens? Councilmember K. Johnson: What experience have you had or what ideas do you have for collaboration with local healthcare for facilities and emergency departments or interventions to address the opioid crisis? First my experience, while I was in Sammamish, we had two fentanyl overdoses of teen boys, both 16, both athletes. The reason I believe there were fatal results in both was they had taken a Percocetpill laced with fentanyl and immediately gone to bed. In both instances, they were found dead by family members in the morning from an opioid overdose. That made statewide news so the Sheriff and I worked with the Street Crimes Unit to address who was dealing, they were able to find the person who provided those which is the enforcement piece. Part of it was media; I worked with the school district to put on a town hall meeting held at Central Washington University campus in Sammamish open to all members of the public. A similar thing happened in Maple Valley when I was the chief, a drug crisis in the high school and they did a town hall meeting there as well. The town hall included a doctor to talk about the effects, people to describe drug kits, parent education, a program called Hidden in Plain Sight where parents are invited to unlock the bedroom of a teenager so they can spot what drug use and paraphernalia look like, there are about SO items and most people have no idea. The school resource officers and the drug unit also talked. The second piece is working with non- profits; while in Sammamish I started a healthy communities coalition where approximately 50 nonprofits, many of whom were doing the same thing but weren't talking to each other, were invited to the police department which included the fire department, faith based organizations, school district, etc. and voted on the top four issues facing the city, one of which was drugs and alcohol among youth. They began putting together a number of programs to address it with drug dependency counselors, school counselors, educational programs, specialists making presentations on drugs and the impacts they can have. There were also youth panelists who talked about their stresses. It is interesting how law enforcement or adults tell kids what needs to be done to fix a problem; but really the kids need to tell us this is what we're experiencing and how you can help. For adults, the community court idea of actually getting to the addictive problem, getting to the core of the problem versus taking someone to jail, having a diversion program. Snohomish County has a heroin or opioid diversion program where instead of going to jail, you choose a treatment option. Last time I talked to the Sheriff, it had a 75% success rate. We need alternative methods to how we've always done things to address this horrible crisis which has taken so many lives. In King County, all officers have Narcan kits so part of how this is addressed by using hospitals and treatment centers is to make sure Narcan kits area issued to people struggling with addiction which will at least help with fatalities. Wrap Up: I would like to take any follow-up questions. Councilmember Buckshnis: How would CAHOOTS impact the budget? There is already money in the budget for the social worker and Human Services Program. I don't think there will be a huge impact to the budget because it's already been slated. It's really Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 11 just staff time helping to coordinate that and working with a lot of nonprofits so it could be pretty budget neutral. I've enjoyed my time in Edmonds, I love the community. When I came here I had really no thought of applying for the permanent job and after I was here for a little while, I thought this place was amazing. The officers are great, the community is fantastic and there's so much potential in this agency to really move forward in a very positive way with community engagement and doing things a little bit differently which sometimes is scary for folks but as they get into it, they can see how impactful and effective we can be. It's kind of like having the perfect sand and we just have to structure it in a way that's beneficial with input from all to make sure we're the best police department we can be and that's exciting for me. Dante Orlandi Councilmembers interviewed Major Dante Orlandi (answers in italics): Opening statement: I'd like to thank all of you for this opportunity. I know you have busy schedules and a lot on your plates so I appreciate the time you're taking to do this process and inviting me here to be part of the process. I worked for 34 years with the Pennsylvania State Police. The only reason that I'm not there now is I had to retire. We have mandatory retirement so I had no choice but to retire. In fact the commissioner who is a friend of mine, we actually looked into it a little further and we both knew legislatively there was nothing else we could do but retire. I have a passion for law enforcement; I love being part of the community, part of improving the world and making it a better place. As a little boy, the only thing I ever wanted to do was be a police officer. In fact in 1978 when I was 18 years old, I wrote letters across the country seeing ifl couldget a job in law enforcement. I even did some stuff in Washington, but of course no one would hire an 18 year old. So I waited until I turned 21 and started applying to the Pennsylvania State Police. I was hired in the 80s, 34-35 years ago and like most people that become troopers, I started in patrol. I worked patrol, crime, and undercover operations, I supervised patrol, undercover and criminal investigations, everything from organized crime to multiple homicides, officer involved shootings, have been involved in a lot of things throughout my career. Then I worked my way up and I became a captain and I was the director of drug law enforcement. For those unfamiliar with Pennsylvania State Police, it is the ninth largestpolice department in the country. There's 6,351 total complement with an operating budget of about $1.1 billion. I was the director of drug law enforcement therefor two years, involved in all types of drug investigations for the entire state. Then I was moved to become a troop commander where I was responsible for a complement of about 265 personnel at 5 stations within 4 counties and an operating budget of about $4.3 million. Reading is about 50-60 miles from Philadelphia. I was then promoted to captain where I was one of three area commanders responsible basically for the whole state. The state was broken down into three parts, east, west and central and I was the area commander for about 1500 people and 8 stations which equates to about 36 different police stations and responsible for everything from building a new station to human resources to resource allocations to risk management, everything associated with a police organization. I had a lot of experience with diverse groups ofpeople. When I first got on the job, I was stationed at Avondale which was located outside Philadelphia and there was a dividing area where people like the Duponts were from, where Jackie Onassis would fly in for horse shows and right next to it was the migrant mushroom camps. One day I went to the artist Andrew Wyatt's house and the next day I'm dealing with people who can't speak English or who are impoverished. The gamut of experience reaches far. The Pennsylvania State Police isn't like a lot of other state police organizations where they are highway patrol; we were full service department that does everythingfrom thefts to organized crime, from a mounted detail to various crisis intervention units, etc. You name it, that's what I was responsible for. And then Igot Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 12 7.1.a to the point in my career, everybody works for the day they get to retire. I never wanted to do that; I never had any desire at all to retire. Due to mandatory retirement, I had no choice. Once I retired, I lined up a few things, but then COVID hit and things didn't work out. It kills me not to be apart of something greater than myself which is the reason I came into law enforcement to begin with. It's something I don't look at as a job, it's a passion, a calling, part of who I am and something I just love. Councilmember Buckshnis: I thoroughly enjoyed your resume and thank you for your service. My background is finance and I have a two part question. The Edmonds Police Department has a $12 million budget, of which about $400,000 has consistently been for overtime for at least a decade. With the national talk about defunding or potentially defunding portions of the police department, some cities have utilized the Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS) model where police join in a public -private partnership with an NGO and work the streets together. What is your opinion about this model and do you think implementing it would have a significant budget impact or no budget impact? It's difficult to say because I don't have a full grasp of how that would work. For the most part having an NGO working with police, it depends on their role. You do not want to put people in harm's way and often things happen very quickly making it difficult to determine when that person should be there. I don't know how it is in Washington, but in Pennsylvania, there are certain things that can and can't be done with civilian personnel. For instance, going to a call where a father is having a dispute with their child, that is a private thing and who gets to go becomes a question I can't answer for how that works in Washington. I would have to know more specifics about what they would be involved in to make a good call. My kneejerk reaction would be it doesn't sound like something that would be appropriate for a partnership. Partnerships are great and I don't want to confuse things because I'm not 100% sure how it would play out. If we had a mental health crisis person working with a law enforcement person, that might be a good thing for the right circumstances. Issues would include when they are available, are they necessarily available at 3 a.m. when that call is received, and other things that would need to be worked out. Those partnerships could be good in the appropriate application. Overtime has always been an issue with law enforcement and I've dealt with it 27 years as a supervisor, 17 years as a commander; a commander is basically like a chief of police. Overtime has always been an issue; the responsibility of management and a leader is to be judicious about overtime. It's not my money or their money, it's taxpayers' money and we need to utilize that money so it best affects the people we work for and serve. I don't know if those partnerships would reduce the amount and could actually have an inverse effect by requiring officers to wait for the NGO person to arrive. I think it's worth exploring but it would be wrong for me to express an opinion when I do not have all the facts and exact details. But anytime we can work together to solve a problem is a good thing. Councilmember Buckshnis: I understand the differences between west coast and east coast; I have friends in Pennsylvania. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: Understanding that policing is stressful, changing and has a high occurrence of burnout in the field, how do you support and add resiliency to your team knowing that stressed out officers don't always make the best decisions? One of the things I always did as a supervisor as a leader is to look out for my folks and make sure they're happy, productive and content. You want to keep people on an even keel, but there are great times when you get married or promoted, and there are those bad times when you have a sick child or issues. It is up to us to make sure we're looking out for them. For example, I had a polygraph operator who came into my office in tears because every time there was a homicide, a crucial investigation without a lot of physical evidence, the burden was on him because everyone was looking at the polygrapher to get that confession so it's crushing for them. I had a big burly guy, Marine type in a forensic services unit in my office crying because he was tired of going to see dead kids, dead bodies. The forensic services unit goes to autopsies, fires, crashes, etc. and it is stressful and difficult. What's going on now with law enforcement and some communities not supporting Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 13 7.1.a law enforcement makes it really difficult for them. They are our heroes who are out while we're sleeping comfortable in our houses at night, they are out dealing with things we don't even want to hear about. We have to look out for them. It's a stressful job and it's even more stressful with what's going on now. Whatever an officer is going through, whether personal, financial, marital, substance abuse, etc. we need to look out for them. We have peer contact; any time a supervisor sees someone whose behavior changes such as reports turned in late, it does not require a formal counseling session but just going out for coffee and talking about things which is usually where more information is shared about something going on in thatperson's life. Officers deal with people's problems all day long; who do they go to when they have problems? Unfortunately it tends to be this hero, macho thing where they don't want to tell anyone they're upset about something or that it disturbed them that a homeless person has no place to go and that there are no social services available. We have to look out for them and the best way is as a commander making sure your supervisors are aware, educated and trained to look beyond just the normal, everyday things that officers are involved in. It's about caring for them, it's like they are my children, like having 1500 people that I'm responsible for. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Major Orlandi for his service and the length of his service. Councilmember L. Johnson: Given your research, insight and/or expertise, what challenges or opportunities, both internal and external facing, have you identified or suspect that are specific to Edmonds but not necessarily exclusive to Edmonds? That's a tough one because anytime you say I'm going to come in and I'm going to bring change and do A, B and C, it's almost insulting to the people that are there and that they aren't doing a good job and there are issues. The only comments I can make are as an outsider. Certainly I could read news articles, two commanders need to be hired and the department is down about eight, but that is second, thirdhand information and I would be careful in saying I want to identify issues when I don't really have the facts. I don't think that's fair to the community, the officers or the department without having all the factual information. Edmonds will not be any different than many of the departments around the country. You're facing hiring practices, you want to hire a diverse group of people, the same is true around the country. It's hard to attract people to the police department at this point. When I was hired, there were thousands signing up for the testing; there was no advertising for the next test because so many people were applying. Now it's a different story. There's things that can be done to increase hiring. Training is always an issue; the better trained officers are, the better they can protect themselves which means less lawsuits. When they are better trained, more than likely they will not be involved in as many lawsuits which means there's not $10 million out the door, that $10 million that can be budgeted for community, parks, recreation and other things and not wasted because an officer did something they shouldn't have done and could have been easily rectified by training and education. There are many things, whether budgetary issues, using resource multipliers to combine resources to effectively get the job done. These are all things that are broad base around the country and I'm sure Edmonds is similar and having their issues as well. Councilmember Distelhorst: Having family connections to Reading, I have fond memories of Jimmy Cramer's Peanut Bar. Police leaders must sometimes make decisions which are unpopular with the public, with employees or even with themselves. Please describe a specific time when you had to make such a difficult decision, the response you encountered and how you dealt with it. The one thing that I can recall was dealing with informants. When I was doing undercover work years ago, there was a need to document informants. So there were all these salty old undercover troopers that didn't want to document their informants. There were many reasons for documenting informants, whether it was because an informant was killed, playing both sides of the fence, troopers saying they were paying informants when they were actually pocketing the money, male and female encounters, who was liable if something happened to an informant, etc. There was an unpopular decision made to require us to document informants. We required Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 14 them to take a photograph of the informant, fingerprint them, provide a state identification number and other bio information. That did not go over well with that community of police officers. Back then, you would go out and do a drug deal, give the informant maybe $50 for their time and service. We required two people be present to do that which alleviated a lot of false accusations and ultimately when it was explained to the officers, it worked out well. Another example would be body recorders for in - car cameras and actually activating the mics. Some in the community liked that and others didn't because if someone was stopped and had an innocent encounter yet were recorded, does that become part of the Freedom of Information Act? You may have been acting a little unprofessional in that; the community and law enforcement had mixed opinions on that. It was overwhelmingly supported but those changes were made, mostly with opposition within the department, not as much from outside. The first time scenes from a crime scene or officer involved shooting were captured or an officer was accused of something such as bribery that didn't occur, members realized how valuable the tool was in their safety and integrity and there was buy -in. The key to all those things is communication. If your boss tells you to do something and you think that doesn't sound good, when the reasons are explained and you provide your input, it makes it more palatable because you're part of the decision making process. Plus when you understand why you're doing certain things, it make sense because sometimes you don't have the whole picture, but someone in a position of leadership like the Mayor or City Council has a bigger perspective and understands it and buy -in comes from understanding. It all comes down to communication. Councilmember K. Johnson: What experience have you had or what ideas do you have for collaboration with local healthcare for facilities and emergency departments or interventions to address the opioid crisis? I have a lot of experience unfortunately; I worked undercover for two years in Philadelphia. I supervised a drug unit for four years and was the director for the state of Pennsylvania for drugs. One of the things Iget down on myself about is I became a trooper because I wanted to win that war on drugs, I wanted to make the world a better place, but we've utterly failed with drugs. I can't blame anyone person, I can't blame law enforcement for the devastation that occurs due to drug addiction. I remember working with an informant one time, a hardened criminal, who was going to make a couple kilo buy and he said I did various drugs and didn't think it was a big deal and then I injected heroin and I knew from that day on that it was over. I live in a nice development, four houses down the kid that my daughter grew up with overdosed on heroin; it's a terrible thing. To think about the pain that mother goes through every Christmas because her son's not there. It's horrible. What can we do? Enforcement's a big thing; if you were to ask me 20 years ago what percentage of your budget goes toward law enforcement versus interdiction work versus rehabilitation versus discouraging it, I would have said give it all to law enforcement because we're gonna solve this problem. That comes from a 25 year old without enough experience. It is multifaceted, if we had the answer, we wouldn't have the problem. It's complex; we need to partner with as many people as we can, healthcare providers and schools. One of the programs I started was, I got tired of just having presentation by community service people going into schools, telling a 4rh grader not to do heroin isn't effective, they probably don't have a clue about how to get heroin. We should be going into colleges where access is more likely. We tried to do that in high schools, but educators are under a lot of mandates as well so they can't take time out of their curriculum to spend an hour on drug information. Same thing on the healthcare side, nobody wants to put people with a social problem in the criminal justice system when there are better places for them like the healthcare system. We still need to do law enforcement, that's what we do, we're not healthcare workers or social services, but connecting law enforcement with those other entities at least gives a fighting chance, an opportunity to partner with healthcare. One of the things is having a connection with local emergency rooms, not just in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 15 7.1.a the local community, but in neighboring counties to see what they are seeing which provides intelligence for officers and task forces. There are a lot of connections that can be made, probation/parole, to make it a team effort, the best that we can. I think there is a lot we can do, but unfortunately sometimes budget and priorities are competing interests. One of the biggest problems in society, and I'm biased due to my background in drug work, is opioids and the devastation they cause. Councilmember Olson: We've all been following the national conversation about policing reform and appreciating the reasons behind it and at the same time we're a community that appreciates law and order. Why do you think you're the right person to navigate this balancing act in Edmonds? From my background, I'm kind of a law and order person. After 34 years, that what I grew up on the job with. Police reform, some of it is silliness, they do not understand what they're talking about, but some of it is important and legitimate and things we need to look at. Just like the community activist or whoever it might be that's always bringing something up, a lot of times there is substance behind their complaint. We need to look at those complaints and what those reforms are. If a reform says we want a database on officer assaults or use offorce incidents, that might be a good thing to do in police reform. It is still about law and order, but it's still about what's best for the community that law enforcement serves. I have 34 years of experience; I've done patrol work, I've done undercover work, I've done community outreach, I don't like talking about myself but I have a lot of experience and in reading 21 s` Century Policing, one of the questions is whether this is just another template. There are 156 points in it that fall within 6 pillars; that is a good foundation to build on and dovetailing my 34 years of experience with 21' Century Policing gives me the ability to understand things that are practical and others that are not, and be able to pursue not just the hot topics, but topics of substance and can truly make law enforcement better. Law enforcement does an outstanding job; I have so many stories. As a troop commander I want our members getting out and being part of the public as best they can; I had a trooper who didn't tell anyone, went to the store, bought a bunch of roses and on Mother's Day he goes to a nursing home and passed them out. That's what law enforcement is and that's what I want to be a part of. If there are good police reform points, let's look at them, talk about them and if they are appropriate, it is not one size fits all. Something that works in Philadelphia might not work in Pittsburg even though they are similar cities. Things that work in Lancaster may not work in Edmonds. Across the board there are a lot of good things that could be done, but not paint everything with a broad brush that all police officers are bad. From my personal experience, the overwhelming majority of officers, I would lay down my life for them in a minute, that's how much I feel for the folks I have worked with through the years. If reform is needed and things that need to be done better, almost all of us want to do a better job so we can better serve the communities and society in general. Council President Paine: How will you integrate the new laws of Washington state into the policies and procedures for the Edmonds Police Department? And if you can, be specific or draw on past experience. I'm not as familiar with Washington. I know there's some laws they were talking about related to police pursuits or military type equipment. Just like the earlier question regarding how to get buy -in when there and unpopular policy, it is the same thing. I may totally disagree about military equipment, I've been involved in instances where those big, fortified armored vehicles saved troopers' lives. That is not military equipment, but police equipment that saves police officers' and citizens' lives. If the policy makers say you can't use that, I have no choice. There are plenty of things I may not agree with or like but are now law so we have to deal with that. If there are other ways around things and still get the job done, that's great. Mace is considered military equipment or controversial. When I came on the job, I had a revolver with a six round speed loader and a pair of handcuffs; there was no mace, no tasers, nothing. When I was in a confrontation, it was either a fight or it went right to lethal force. What do you do when someone comes toward you with a knife when you only have a pistol in your hands? I was in that position and for the grace Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 16 7.1.a of God I wasn't killed and we were able to not harm that person. Looking back, that might not have been the smartest thing, I might not have two daughters now because of that. Those tools are useful and helpful to police officers. If the new law is we can't use those, we have to determine why that law was enacted and how can we still get the job done in compliance with the law and also still protect our officers and protect our communities. The hat, the gun, the badge, the patch on the sleeve are all great symbols of the police department but it is what in our hearts that counts. We work for the public so if society says we no longer want police pursuits, I've been involved in my share of those and I can tell you Josh Miller who was shot and killed but saved a child in the car, that pursuit was well worth it, not because the trooper died but because the kid lived. I have opinions on it but if the law says you cannot do a pursuit, we'll have to work in a different way, whether it's radioing ahead although that might not be the right thing, but there might be things we can do to still get some kind of result while being compliant with the new policies we're confronted with. Sometimes it's hard but I'm not going to back away because it's hard; if that's the law, we'll work with it and find a way to still get the job done one way or another in compliance with the wishes of the community at large through the laws they enact. Wrap-up: Thank you for allowing me to come here and be part of this process. You have to make the right pick, whoever that is. If it's not me, great; you have to be comfortable with who you have because this is an important position. Being a City Councilmember or Mayor are greatpositions, prestigious but you have a responsibility to the community. You wouldn't be in the position if you didn't take it seriously because you spent a lot of your time doing it. This is an important decision and I certainly would love to be that pick, but I understand I might not be and I wish you well in whoever you pick. I hope whoever it is works out for you and I wish you well. Thanks again for inviting me here. This seems like a great place to live. Ever since I was a little kid, I wanted to move out west. It's beautiful around here, there's a nice community, and it's nice to have a small town atmosphere but yet there are the amenities of a city. I hope you know how lucky you have it; this is a great place, a beautiful place and it seems like there are a lot of good people. I was walking down the street in a suit on my way to meet with the Mayor and someone struck up a conversation with me. It seems like a friendly place that I want to be part of. I thank you again. Lawrence Hunter Councilmembers interviewed Captain Lawrence Hunter (answers in italics): Opening statement: My name is Lawrence Hunter. I am a lifelong resident of the City of Waterbury, Connecticut. I jointed the police department when I was 22 years old. I was therefor 24 years and retired at the rank of captain. During that time I was a defensive tactics instructor, I taught implicit bias, I taught civil complaints, and a number of other things. I rose through the ranks via civil service testing to become a sergeant, lieutenant, and ultimately a captain. I was a midnight shift commander for a number of years as well as the internal affairs commander. Through that time I coached our police activities league, I believe in being an active member of the community and kept my children involved in that. I coached basketball, baseball, and a host of other sports. When I was a lieutenant, I decided to complete my education, got three degrees in six years, completing my associates, bachelors and masters in three years while coaching, raising a family and being married. People often ask me how I did it and I can say, I really don't know. I was working third shift at the time so I was tired all the time. I retired in 2019 and spent the vast majority of my career in law enforcement and love it. I started a podcast called Captain Hunter's Podcast. I wrote a book called Police Reform which demonstrates my dedication and my love for what I've done and accomplished in my life. I started a consulting agency where I help officers who want to take promotional tests, walk them through the process. I currently teach at University of Bridgeport and will be teaching at Post University in the fall. Both classes Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 17 are online so I can go somewhere else and still be an active member of the universities. I was an active member of my department. Councilmember L. Johnson: Welcome Captain Hunter and thank you for being here today. Given your research, insight and/or expertise, what challenges or opportunities, both internal and external facing have you identified or do you suspect that are specific to Edmonds through not necessarily exclusive to Edmonds? I think one of the biggest things that I did some research on is the homeless population problem that's going on in Seattle and I understand is now growing in Edmonds. That was a problem in my home city and is a problem across the country. Almost every intersection where I come from there are now people standing with homeless signs saying they will work for food and along those lines. That is a serious, major challenge that much of law enforcement is being confronted with. The idea of scaling back on the use of force and developing alternative methods to arrest so that is a major challenge we need to understand how to tackle and tackle it compassionately with other organizations and stakeholders and understand people may be down on their luck at the moment but that does not mean they are bad people or negative. It will be a challenge to convince people, those who are better off socioeconomically, to develop different ways and different mindsets about that. The police unfortunately can be a very conservative organization that has believed in the past about arresting their way out of different problems and circumstances and that's not going to work going forward. Councilmember Buckshnis: Thank you for your resume and your explanation of all the fun things about going to school, raising kids and having a job. I have a background in finance. The police department has a $12 million budget of which $400,000 has been overtime for the past decade. With the national talk of defending and potential defending of police departments, some cities have gone on to a Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS) model which utilizes NGOs or nonprofits to assist police officers in their job. What is your opinion about using such a model and do you think it would have an impact on the budget? So I'm totally in favor of the CAHOOTS model. I didn't mention this, I was one of the first officers that was part of our crisis intervention team, training to help persons in crisis. I think CAHOOTS is a viable model. I recently interviewed one of the members of the CAHOOTS in Washington on my podcast although she may be living in Phoenix now. We had a great talk about their model. It is my understanding that with that model, the funding still comes from the protective services public services or emergency budget. I'm not sure how that would impact it on the front end. In the short run, we could scale back on officers' need for services so officers can focus on other things such as criminal aspects, protective services, other things along those lines. Maybe on the back end, that would be the best way to impact the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis: I was using the Eugene, Oregon model because I'm from Oregon. We had a huge article about it in Eugene. You were the only one who knew the actual acronym. Councilmember Distelhorst: Thank you for your application and for being with us this afternoon. Police leaders must sometimes make decisions which are unpopular with the public, with employees or even with yourself. Can you please describe a specific time when you had to make such a difficult decision and what the results were? An unpopular decision in the public's eye, your staff or something that you personally struggled with during your service and leadership in law enforcement and how you approached that and what was the outcome. I will take it from the staff perspective. As a commander of the midnight shift, there were many times when I had to confront officers, talk to officers, correct officers but the job has to be done. Our philosophy for our department was we do what the citizens ask us to do. Therefore, a lot of times, particularly in recent years because times have been changing so much, the way law enforcement has traditionally gone and we try to go in a different direction, less arrests, less tickets, less negative interaction with the public and trying to arrest our way out of problems, a lot of officers don't understand that and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 18 think the old way, the traditional way was the best way. Here we are years later with protests and riots in the street and public perception of law enforcement is at an all-time low. My decisions were always based on what's best for the public; getting officers to go along with that was a true problem. So I explained the changes, I explaining why we were going along these lines, whatever that was, and that was always the bests method of going forward. It's not going to be popular, you're going be hated, you're going to be disliked and people are going to want to talk to you in your officer privately and they don't understand certain things. Case in point is the implicit bias training which I instructed; a lot of officers didn't understand why we had to teach implicit bias. They would come to me and say I'm not a racist. Well that's great, I'm glad you're not, but there's still some items we need to discuss and talk about. Many people when they think about implicit bias training, they think about race, but implicit bias training isn't necessarily about race. People have a natural preference for pretty females. So if you're a police officer and you pull over a pretty female, you may be less inclined to give her a ticket versus an ugly male, you might give them a ticket or someone who's short. So I try to address that from all angles and try to get officers to understand and see that the big picture regarding why we're doing what we're doing. It's not because people are necessarily racist in that particular example, I'm trying to convey that there's a bigger picture and you have to get officers to see the bigger picture and try to convince them to buy into what the organization is doing as a whole. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: Thank you for applying for the job. Policing is a stressful, changing and has a high occurrence of burnout in the field. How do you support and add resiliency to your team knowing that a stressed out officer doesn't always make the best decisions? I think it's important for officers to take vacation, to develop hobbies outside of work, to engage and interact with people who are not police officers. Often police officers' only friends and contacts are other police officers. I've been at softball games and the first thing they do is talk about the call they had last night. That has to stop. It is very important for officers to develop hobbies outside of law enforcement, have friends outside of law enforcement, take vacation time. A lot of times when suicides are committed by police officers, they go through their personnel file and realize in many instances these officers have not taken a vacation in years. It is important for administration and officials to encourage family life, encourage life outside of law enforcement. I was always questioned about my habits about not being more involved in what was going on, why I never joined SWAT or was on the K9 team. It is not that I don't enjoy the big guns and big toys, but I enjoyed more time with my family. That was why I coached my police activity league and coached my kids through that. I made sure my daughter was in softball and Ipersonally brought her to that. That's why I stayed on the midnight shift so long was because I believed that family life was extremely important. I would encourage officers to take this line of thinking, to get out the box of being a cop all the time and be themselves and enjoy their kids, their wife, their dog. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked him for applying for the job, commenting we all enjoy our time off. Council President Paine: How would you integrate the new laws of Washington State into policies and procedures for Edmonds Police Department. If you can, use specifics either drawing from your past or what your practice incudes. So again, I think it is a matter of buy -in. I was just reviewing some of the laws and changes related to military weapons which I understand a little bit of that. I think it's good to get an understanding so I would talk to inhouse counsel for the police department, have a great understanding regarding the intention of the laws, even call some representatives in, talk to otherpolice departments, see the best way we're going to go about integrating these laws. From there, change policies and procedures and really try to make sure everyone has a great understanding and are able to buy into the law and changes. These laws are not popular, they are not popular in Connecticut and I understand they are not popular in Washington. I have a friend in Minnesota, I know they are not popular there as well. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 19 7.1.a Again, as Imentioned earlier, this is about the public and aboutpublic safety. We have to ensure all citizens are able to walk the streets, be pulled over by police officers and not have police officers overreact because they're scared or they thought they saw a weapon that was really a wallet or something along those lines. That's the method I would use; I would speak to other stakeholders, get an understanding myself, ensure my department has an understanding, talk to legal counsel and develop the best way of going forward and implement those plans as best we can with the police department. I'm sure I can convince them that every tool we already have we can be successful in enforcing the laws and keeping the public safe without the unnecessary aspects that people think will be coming down the line. Councilmember K. Johnson: What experience have you had or what ideas do you have for collaboration with local healthcare for facilities and emergency departments or interventions to address the opioid crisis? My interest would be in collaborating with those that know more about that than Ido. Whatever the police department can do, we can certainly keep numbers, have officers trained in Narcan, the chemical used to help those who have overdosed regain consciousness. As far as combating the opioid crisis, that is a public health and doctors' situation. We would do whatever we can to support this to ensure people are referred for help and not always arresting people, but it is something for the medical field. As far as the criminal end, certainly we would investigate any situation that comes along, make the proper arrests, do the proper investigations that lead to arrest and all types of referrals and things along those lines. Essentially, it is a medical problem. Councilmember Olson: Thank you for being with us today. I really admire your energy and work ethic. My question has probably been answered in one way or other throughout, but we are to ask the same questions of everybody so feel free to repeat yourself. Everyone has been following the national conversation on policing reform and appreciating the reasons behind it. At the same time we are a community that appreciates law and order. Why do you think you are the right person to navigate this balancing act for Edmonds? I think my career, my life has demonstrated that. I understand what I means to be a kid from the other side of the tracks. I grew up very poor without a father. My mother raised my brother and me so I understand that aspect of the public schools, graduation and the rest of the story. As far as the public conversation, I understand what it is. I was stopped by the police growing up, a few times I saw some interactions that I did not think were very positive. It didn't turn me off; I decided to become part of the solution instead of talking about it. I think that's really important. I'm the right person because I understand both sides of the coin. I talk about this on mypodcast, the tagline is Bridging the Divide between the Police and the Community. I understand the police aspect, why they do what they do, how they think and I also understand the community aspect, not onlyfrom my own life experiences butfrom coaching all these different kids, hearing how they talk about the police and everything along those lines. It's my goal, my drive, my desire to bring these two entities together. Unfortunately, the police have been seen as inactive in many cases, the occupying force, the enemy of the people. The truth of the matter is the police are there to protect us. Sometimes citizens step out of line and it's the police officer's job to correct them and bring them to justice when and if that happens. The conversation is not easy and is constantly evolving. I think we're at a good point and for the City of Edmonds, I know what to do, I understand it. My city is a larger small city, we call it a very large town because it still has that hometown feel to it. From my short time here in Edmonds, I'm experiencing that as well. Wrap-up: Thank you for the opportunity. I'm truly honored that you considered me thus far in this process and I really appreciate it. My entire adult life has been given to law enforcement, policing. I love it, I enjoy it. I forgot to mention I'm kind of a glutton for punishment; I'm going for my PhD in leadership. I really just want to be the best candidate and the best person for the job and I believe that I am. I believe my life experience, my education, my drive, my passion, my goals are a good fit with this community. In reading Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 20 through the vision and mission statement for the police department, it talks about we are committed to reducing crime and enhancing public safety and security, dedicated to earning and maintaining the respect and confidence entrusted to us. Manypeople really have a trustfor thepolice department; unfortunately, that trust has been broken through circumstances and situations and unfortunately that trust is broken not because of the personal interactions they have seen, but what we've seen across the country in viral videos. I think we need to put out more viral videos of police officers acting in the right way and the right manner and I believe I'm the one to be able to spearhead that and say here's how our officers act, here's how we should behave, here's how we do behave. 3. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 21 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2021 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: 09-17-2021 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 22 7.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES September 17, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Councilmember Susan Paine, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Council President Pro Tern ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Phil Williams, Public Works Director At 3:00 p.m., the Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Council President Paine. The Council utilized the Zoom online meeting platform to conduct this meeting. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council then convened in Executive Session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(i). ADJOURN At 3:30 p.m., the executive session concluded and the meeting was adjourned. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 17, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 23 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2021 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: 09-20-2021 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 24 7.3.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES September 20, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Susan Paine, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Council President Pro Tern ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Councilmember Mike Nelson, Mayor 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Jessica Neill Hoyson, Human Resources Director At 5:30 p.m., the Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Council President Paine. The Council utilized the Zoom meeting platform to conduct this meeting. It was noted that Councilmember Fraley Monillas would be absent from the meeting. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council then convened in Executive Session to evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment, per RCW 42.30.110(1)(g). The Session was estimated to last approximately two hours. 3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION At approximately 7:30 p.m., the Council reconvened in open session. 4. ACTION ITEM: REQUEST TO CONSIDER TWO CANDIDATES FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR Councilmember Buckshnis requested information about the number of applications for the position of Development Services Director and the process used to narrow it down to two finalists. Jessica Neill Hoyson, Human Resources Director, explained the process, noting that the position was posted for three weeks. A total of 18 applications were received prior to the deadline for first review. Of those applications, 5 met the minimum qualifications for the position. Those who passed the minimum qualifications were then asked to submit written response to a supplemental question, 4 candidates completed this step of the process. After review of the written responses, 3 candidates were advanced for interview. Candidates were interviewed by a panel consisting of the HR Director, Parks & Recreation Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 20, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 25 7.3.a Director, Public Works Director and former Development Services Director Shane Hope. The three candidates were then interviewed by the Mayor who then advanced all three for Council interview. Prior to scheduling Council interviews, one candidate withdrew their application for the position. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained that Edmonds City Code 2.10 (D) provides for City Council interviews of two or three finalists for appointive positions. The City Council must approve having only two finalists to interview in cases such as the current one - in which recruitment efforts have yielded only two finalists. The City Council must interview the candidates and provide input to the Mayor. The Mayor will take into account the input from the Council, the interview panelists, and his own interviews before making his final appointment selection. The Mayor's appointment selection is then subject to City Council confirmation. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TWO CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, FOR THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT AND POTENTIAL COUNCIL CONFIRMATION. MOTION CARRIED 5-1, WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, L. JOHNSON, AND OLSON VOTING YES, AN COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. ADJOURN At 7:45 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 20, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 26 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2021 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: 09-21-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 27 7.4.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES September 21, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Zack Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Ryan Hague, Capital Project Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst 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 Council President Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement 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. PRESENTATION SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT UPDATE Katie Curtis, Director of Prevention Services Division, Snohomish Health District, reviewed: Community Data and Trends o Strategic Goal: Reduce the rate of communicable diseases and other notifiable conditions ■ Countywide trends for 2021 vs 2020 - Chlamydia - Gonorrhea H Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 28 7.4.a - Hepatitis B & C J - HIV (new cases) H - Pertussis - Syphilis T - Tuberculosis H ■ Received funding from Washington State Department of Health to add two disease investigators to STD program to investigate the increase in syphilis cases. o Strategic Goal: Prevent or reduce chronic diseases and injuries ■ Countywide trends for 2021 vs 2020 - Drug Overdoses T - Youth Suicides o Drug Overdose Deaths ■ Graph of Snohomish County 2006-2021 - all drugs, heroin, Rx Opioids, Synthetic opioids, all opioids ■ Average all drug overdose deaths by year - 2006 78 - 2007 82 - 2008 100 - 2009 103 - 2010 83 - 2011 145 - 2012 111 - 2013 94 - 2014 99 - 2015 96 - 2016 90 - 2017 100 - 2018 124 - 2019 136 - 2020 182* - 2021 81* *2020 and 2021 data is preliminary as of 8/30/21 o Youth Suicide in Snohomish County ■ Zero Suicide Discussion, November 2020 ■ EMS Dispatch for Suicidal, Suicidal Ideation, OD related to an attempt, and/or intentional Self -Harm for ages 10-17 in Snohomish County from 2017 through October 15, 2020 - 2017 - 301 - 2018 - 362 - 2019 - 319 - 2020- 197 (ending 10/15/20) o Strategic Goal: Provide high quality environmental health services ■ Edmonds Trends for 2021 (through August 15, 2021) - 238 Annual Food Permits - 191 Food Inspections - 18 Food Complaints - 48 Water Recreation Inspections o Land Use Activity in Snohomish County Activity 2021 12020 Building clearances for building permit 1058 1010 New well site applications 148 126 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 29 7.4.a Soo 450 400 0 350 o � 200 u 150 100 50 New septic applications 999 805 As-builts/final inspections 516 400 o Strategic Goal: Improve material, child and family health outcomes ■ Outreach & Education - 2021 YTD - 612 Child Care Consultations - 1,341 STARS Courses Completed (*thru June 30, 2021) • Catch-up on childhood vaccines ACES/Resilience webinars • ABCs of Safe Sleep o Strategic Goal: Provide legally required vital records ■ Countywide Trends for 2021 s. 2020 - 2020 2021 YTD* Birth Certificates 1 14,170 7,138 Deaths Certificates 128,477 14,590 *thru June 30, 2021 ✓ Move to VitalChek ✓ New kiosks coming soon ✓ Washington became closed record state as of Jan 1, 2021 o Strategic Goal: Address ongoing, critical public health issues ■ Current Trends Snohomish County COVID-19 Case Rates per IGO, 000for2-week Rolling Periods 412 66B 3 431 A a26 — 253 95 283 1% 180 193 195 _ 158 rt �2 lye 129 241M 3 130 139 96 105 5�74 114 10]]8 5B8 ]949 9 94 2 e 19 ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry n n eV n n n ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry n n n n n n n ry ry ry n n @@rrrrr@@ @@ @@ @@@ @raar �°e fee cue cce fee e ce � ��°aa �� o es4-- q�cc ne ce fee �e ee ������ee� mmmmmmmmmsssss SSNaaa SS �oSS o o Z oo�o�ee�� m iNo.'".�19 a.:r .a.Nk9 ^.�.�0��19E3No.�1900� 0 0 0 0 0 'o 'o 'o 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o s s s s� '"'" o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'o 'o 'o 'o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ Cases and Vaccines by Zip Code - Map of Snohomish County COVID-19 Case rates by zip code July 18-31, 2021 - Map of Snohomish County Vaccinations as of July 25, 2021 o COVID-19 Looking Ahead ■ Focused on preserving hospital capacity ■ Preparing for possibility of booster doses ■ Concerned about cases as temperatures drop and people move indoors o Strategic Goal: Build a more sustainable organization ■ Current Budget Outlook 2021 Adopted Budget 2021 Amended Budget Change Revenue $15,982,387 $32,867,186 16,884,799 Expenditures $15,982,387 $25,080,315 $7,786,871 $0 $7,786,871 $7,786,781 *It is expected that this surplus will be reserved for COVID-19 activities extending into 2022 and 2023 ■ Still in flux - COVID funding - FPHS funding Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 30 7.4.a - Other funding streams o Use of Per Capital Contributions ■ Narcan for law enforcement and first responders ■ Special data and reports ■ Healthy communities programming and policy support o Sound Foundation for Public Health ■ Foundation board in place ■ Working on strategic plan & fundraising plan ■ Official non-profit corporation in WA ■ Anticipate 5016 status in 2022 ■ Purpose: To provide support for priorities identified in community health assessments, community health improvement plans, and/or emerging public health issues in Snohomish County. Ways to Get Involved o Share Items in Media Toolkit (www.snohd.org/vaxupsnoco) ■ Let's Knock out COVID ■ Safe, effective and free ■ COVID Vaccines and "shedding" ■ COVID Vaccine doesn't alter DNA o Participate in #VaxUpSnoCo/#Vacuna Video For more information: o Shawn Frederick, MBA ■ Administrative Officer ■ 425.339.8687 ■ SFrederick@snohd.org o Katie Curtis ■ Prevention Services Director ■ 425.339.8711 ■ KCurtis@snohd.org Councilmember K. Johnson relayed Mayor Nelson recently formed a homelessness task force; she wondered if the Health District tracks any information about homelessness and if there is any correlating data on COVID or drug overdoses for homeless individuals. Ms. Curtis answered they rely on the Point in Time Survey. She offered to follow up with the District's epidemiologist regarding data related to homelessness COVID and overdoses. Councilmember K. Johnson said she is not on the task force but several Councilmembers are and she was certain they would appreciate that data. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Katie Curtis, a rockstar at the Snohomish Health District, for the great job she does presenting public health information. She looked forward to the strategic plan and fundraising plan for the foundation, a volunteer group working on ways to provide funding for public health. She hoped Edmonds would go back to having a fund for things like overdoses prevention, explaining that fund was reduced in recent years to fund other projects and COVID brought a screeching halt to the work being done on overdose prevention. She was interested in ways to teach seniors, children and others how to manage prescription drugs in their homes. She thanked Ms. Curtis for the overview of the current budget, commenting as the chair of the budget committee, she was not aware of the reserve, but agreed it would be used for COVID in the coming years. She noted the District hired 150 mostly temporary staff to track COVID, a level of staffing that was needed to deal with COVID. Council President Paine commented Ms. Curtis' presentation was very interesting and noted there have been a lot of changes in public health over the last 1% years and things continue to change. She asked about the funding need that the foundation will address for the health district. Ms. Curtis answered since Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 31 7.4.a the foundation is a non-profit and hopefully will become a 501(c)(3), it will be able to apply for grants that the District is not eligible for as a governmental organization, grants that will help some of the projects the District and community would like to work on. Council President Paine wished the District good luck, and asked that they keep the City posted as the District is a huge part of community. She thanked Ms. Curtis for all the District's work. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in the Sound Foundation for Public Health, and asked if it was only for Snohomish County or would it be similar to Puget Sound Partnership that involved other groups. Ms. Curtis answered it was only for Snohomish County. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the foundation would be seeking philanthropic dollars for programs. Ms. Curtis answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to approach large donors or had a mission statement not been developed yet. Ms. Curtis expected that the foundation would look at all avenues of funding that may be available. Councilmember Buckshnis looked forward to their business plan and mission statement, noting Puget Sound Partnership is also looking into forming a foundation to obtain philanthropic dollars from the private sector. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. He reminded there is a public hearing on the Stormwater Management Plan on the agenda; this agenda item is for comments not related to the public hearing. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented in 10 days Governor Inslee is imposing a ban on plastic bags, straws, and coffee stirrers in Washington State. This will require cutting more trees for paper bags, and straws and wood stirrers among other things. Ironically this Council has voted in a tree ordinance to save trees in Washington State, a state that is the second largest timer exporter in the United States. Everyone who lives or works in Edmonds had reaped the benefits of property division, tree removal and building without facing a 100% tree tax. The tree ordinance requires Edmonds land owners and soon homeowners to pay for an arborist assessment and pay a fee equal to the worth of their trees from $3,300 to $12,000 for each tree prior to removal. There is no equity or equality in the Edmonds tree code. Trees belong to the owners of the property they are growing on, not the City. This ordinance allows the City to possess all Edmonds trees of 24" DBH and property owners are required to buy them back from the City, purchasing them twice before they're allowed to trim or remove their trees. This is an obvious unconstitutional taking of private property which was advised against by the Washington State Attorney General in #5 on today's agenda packet page 213 regarding the Capital Facilities Plan. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the Council is breaking the law to accomplish an agenda they feel is more important than constitutional rights. It punishes those working to fulfill the single family housing needs of the community and greatly raises the cost of building new homes in Edmonds. Councilmembers swore to uphold the constitution when installed into office. Their move to punish property and homeowners who need to remove a tree, especially while adhering to the strict guidelines of Edmonds as noted in the 183 pages of the stormwater rules, defies the sworn oath, and violates the U.S. Constitution, the Washington Growth Management Act, and Edmonds own Comprehensive Plan. The Council voted to place undue hardship on Edmonds land and homeowners. The City has delayed her family's building plans by years and increased their building costs by more than $100,000, violating the GMA. Mayor Nelson and each Councilmember live in homes for which trees were removed for the homes to be built and provide views Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 32 7.4.a of the mountains and Puget Sound. She questioned whether they were willing to pay a 100% tree tax for the trees removed from their properties and if not, the tree code is illegal and discriminately targeting and punishing a group of people who are legally allowed to build homes on the single family zoned property they own. She urged the Council to revise the tree ordinance to avoid undue hardship on Edmonds citizens. Cindy Sjoblom, Edmonds, urged the Council to keep single family zoning intact, commenting the City has already met the density requirements for Edmonds per the GMA, already gone from 44,000 to 53,000 people, and adding another 3,300 units on Aurora, the population will exceed 60,000. Crime has increased and will continue to increase as the population grows. A homeless taskforce was created without public involvement or initiation by the City Council. Bias will be created and it appears by those include thus far, police, public defender's office, social worker and the city attorney, that Edmonds is headed for hard times. Revisiting a code for use of public spaces was code for allowing others to eventually take over public spaces, something most taxpayers would be angry about and as well as a violation of Washington State law to allow illegal loitering. She said Mayor Nelson's executive powers include enforcing laws, code and ordinances and handling the budget; continuous overreach will not serve him or the constituents of the community well if allowed to continue. It was the Council's job to enforce what she was saying; citizens should be represented on the task force as well as agencies that help foster self-reliance. Ms. Sjoblom continued, Edmonds College offers worker retraining programs; she suggested investing in programs that will help people get back on their feet. Unless a way of reentry into the workforce is provided, it creates dependency on federal dollars. She suggested establishing bare minimum criteria that housing will be provided to those who are drug and alcohol free; doing otherwise puts the community at risk for crime by those who steal to get money for drugs. The Council's actions matter and the community is watching. It is imperative that the Council develop a process for filing formal complaints when the Code of Conduct and or Code of Ethic violations occur. Having a Code of Conduct without a way to enforce it is useless. The code is there to help the Council understand appropriate behavior and help guide Council actions and it reflects poorly on the Council that a complaint process has not been initiated. Officials committing Code of Conduct violations can be dealt with to remedy almost any situation. Without sanctions from Council, members are set up to fail and not getting poor decision making under control will not be tolerated by the public. Constituents are not okay with Councilmembers drinking prior to or during a Council meeting while voting on City laws. Any disrespect shown to citizens is not okay and needs to be dealt with. Susan Hughes, Edmonds, expressed concern that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas has gone from trying to justify drinking on the job to bullying concerned citizens and making false statements. After she spoke about holding Councilmembers accountable for their actions at the September 7tn meeting, during Council Comments Councilmember Fraley-Monillas stated that she and Carolyn Strong, who also commented about her drinking on the job, called her drunk and that what they said was hate speech. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also turned off her camera while Ms. Hughes was speaking and flipped the "loser" sign at Carolyn Strong when she was speaking. All of this can be seen, heard and read in the Council minutes. Apparently Councilmember Fraley-Monillas has taken a page out of Mayor Nelson's page book, gaslight untrue inflammatory statements, vindictive and bullying. Every citizen should watch or read the comments made by citizens at the July 27t1i meeting; heartfelt comments from concerned citizens on issues affecting the City. The Mayor turned on those citizens; citizens should listen to the Mayor's false statements at the end of the August 3`d meeting where he was bullying, gaslighting and creating a false narrative as to what citizens said at the July 27t' meeting. Citizens have verifiable evidence of the false statements and outright lies of the Mayor. The silence of Councilmembers to hold the Mayor accountable for the false statements shows Edmonds citizens they have proof of the Mayor's lies. Now the Mayor has said and done nothing concerning a Councilmember drinking on the job. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 33 7.4.a Ms. Hughes questioned who in City government was allowed to drink on the job, remarking that evidentially Mayor Nelson felt everyone was. She questioned why the Council was not upholding the Code of Conduct which states, personal, insulting or intimidating language, body language and actions are not allowed and no signs of prejudice or disrespect should be evident on the part of Councilmembers toward any individual participating in a public meeting. City Council adopted a Code of Conduct they don't follow. She only recently began paying attention to City government after living in Edmonds for 40 years and was appalled. She found it frightening that the Mayor and a Councilmember are attacking concerned citizens, an attitude of they can do no wrong and are above reproach which does not serve the citizens they have taken an oath to represent. It is time to raise the level of professionalism in City government. It is an honor to be elected to the City Council and on November 2, the voters need to elect people that respect that position. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented on trees and equity as these subjects touch several of tonight's agenda items. Tonight the City is conducting a hearing on the stormwater code. Given the process by which draft code amendments are reviewed by Ecology, it is too late to make major adjustments at this point. This is one code where the City can make real progress that favors retention and planting of trees. Trees are already recognized as low impact development best management practice 5.16 in the Western Washington Stormwater Manual. This City could take further steps to prioritize the use of this BMP in its code and seek to require drainage easements for trees as a stormwater BMP. Drainage easements can provide a long term durable space for trees in the urban environment and come with a built in enforcement mechanism through the Clean Water Act. It would be significantly easier to enforce than a tree maintenance regulation. She referenced the City of Philadelphia as an example of trees used as drainage infrastructure and she hoped the City would include the necessary preliminary planning work to have it be a component of the City's code when the next municipal permit update and corresponding code revision happen in five years. Ms. Seitz referred to equity, $1.6 million for park construction and another $4.4 million for facilities maintenance, likely including renovation of Frances Anderson Center for the benefit of downtown. She will continue to be critical of the selection and planning process that went into Civic Center; the 2016 PROS Plan that both identified that the downtown was well resourced in comparison to the rest of the City, and deciding that this $15 million investment in Civic Center was the right action. A neighborhood park with no parking for the greater Edmonds community and the 2016 PROS Plan process where the vast majority of public events were held downtown, similar to the master plan for Civic Center. These were selective rather than robust planning processes; is it any wonder that this was the outcome? While the Taste and hanging flower baskets boost downtown businesses, where is the investment in the International District and SR-99 commercial corridor that drive commercial sales taxes for the City? Why hasn't the City helped create spaces near the International District so events can be held there? Why isn't the Interurban Trail, a recognized recreational bicycle resource with no dedicated lane from the intersection of SR-104, identified in the Citywide Bicycle Improvement project? How many of the grants from the Edmonds Rescue Plan went to businesses and non-profit organizations outside the Bowl — not many and not enough. The City has spoken of Civic Center as a generational, legacy investment. While many of the above funding decisions were not initiated by this Council and she understood it was hard to change course, the current Council is responsible for the decisions it makes today in the biased planning processes and inequitable investments. Civic Center will be remembered as a generational legacy, perhaps not the one intended. She thanked the Council for their consideration and for their service. Carolyn Strong, Edmonds, speaking from outside City Hall along with other constituents, requested the Council return to in -person meetings on September 28t''. Citizens have the right to partake in meetings and being shut out from speaking with elected officials is unacceptable. As adults, they can choose to be present or take part on Zoom; their health choices are their own choice. The fact that Councilmember Distelhorst ridiculed adults who may or may not have been vaccinated was out of line and not pertinent to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 34 7.4.a the fact that the Council refuses to have in -person Council meetings. He was calling some first responders, teachers, medical personnel and other adults who have decided the vaccine may not be the best for their health irresponsible adults which she found outrageous and out of touch. She questioned who Councilmember Distelhorst thought he was to speak to constituents like that, commenting it must be easy to speak outlandishly when hiding behind a computer camera. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas spoke for the Council by signing a letter in response to a letter to the editor in My Edmonds News last week. In her letter, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas falsely likened constituents speaking their heartfelt concerns to the Council as an insurrection, which Ms. Strong found out of touch. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas then doubled -down on the Mayor's comments, insinuating that on July 27t' the citizens at the Council meeting, whose median age was well over 50, were having some kind of kegger in the parking lot; this from a Councilmember caught drinking while voting on City issues and never apologizing to the people for breaching the City's Code of Conduct, also demonstrating that she was out of touch. Ms. Strong requested the Council censure this Councilmember for drinking on the job, slandering the citizens of Edmonds and for immaturely flashing a "loser" sign at her during her public comments two weeks ago. She also requested Councilmember Fraley-Monillas grow up and take her job seriously. Until the Council puts teeth behind breaching the Code of Conduct and enforces it, no one will take the Council seriously. She questioned whether it would take a lawsuit from a slandered citizen to make the Council wake up, noting we may soon find out. These outrageous behaviors mentioned above came about because the Council is out of touch with citizens and not seeing constituents face-to-face has given them a warped perspective and they are completely out of touch with reality. Edmonds craves and deserves accountability and dignity in local government; sadly there is none. She urged the Council to do their job and serve the people of Edmonds rather than continually disrespecting them. Nora Carlson, Edmonds, urged the Council to assist the neighbors and staff of Westgate Elementary School who have ongoing concerns about safety issues with the dangerous intersection of 96t'' & 224th. She referred to a message she sent Council yesterday with a summary of issues and actions taken thus far to address the safety concerns of this intersection which is well known for its challenges. She highlighted the continued safety concerns. Vehicles frequently exceed the speed limit on 224t' in both directions, vehicles use 224' to bypass 220t' and Edmonds Way to access 9t' with fewer stops, vehicles proceed through the stop signs on 96t' in both directions causing near misses with other vehicles and pedestrians, drivers confused whether it is a 2-way or 4-way stop even with the current signage, and visibility challenges for drivers at the north -facing stop sign at 96t' with current signage location and pavement markings. On behalf of the neighbors along with staff, parents, and students at Westgate Elementary School, she requested the intersection become a priority for needed changes to ensure the safety of pedestrian and drivers who use this intersection near Westgate Elementary. It is truly a matter of time before there could be a serious accident where 96t' and 224t' intersect that could potentially injure or kill an adult or child. She did not want to live with that and it motivated her to continue working toward improving the safety of this location. Help is urgently needed to effectively address changes to this intersection. She expressed appreciation for the Council's time, attention and support. Adam Bettcher, Edmonds, referenced the proposed design of 100t1i & Edmonds Way, explaining he bikes and drives through the intersection and finds it messy for both modes. There has been discussion about whether to use sharrows or bike lanes; he supported bike lanes as the bare minimum to help sort out this mess of an intersection. The intersection is risky now and sharrows will not make it better because they don't give clear direction and basically the thoughts and prayers of biking structure and can actually make it more dangerous and confusing by creating a false sense of security. He has had close calls both in cars and on bikes in that intersection and would appreciate the clarity. With regard to concerns about this option not being optimized to make vehicle flows as fast as possible during peak travel times, he said a slightly less efficient intersection isn't a factor. He has seen people of all ages getting around in this neighborhood and a decision to create a more dangerous street at this intersection would make it more Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 35 hostile and result in bad outcomes. He has had friends hit in the intersection. He urged the City to install bike lanes that are nice and clear and will ultimately make it safer which he, as a motorist and a cyclist, would appreciate. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, referred to the bicycle lane configuration and pedestrian safety discussion later on the agenda, explaining she has driven this route to work for over 20 years and is extremely concerned about Westgate and a potential loss of the dual through vehicle lanes in each direction that allow vehicles to easily get through the area to reach a further destination as well as accommodate vehicles turning in/out of businesses in this tight commercial access for cars. It must be one of the most heavily traveled intersections with tight business corridors outside of Highway 99 and even crosses a state highway. The packet includes yet another attempt to remove a vehicle travel lane from each direction on 100t' through the Westgate corridor. In listening to the public at previous meetings, hundreds of emails from residents who live nearby and travel these routes, there was no clamor by almost anyone to remove drive lanes at Westgate in exchange for dedicated bike lanes. If anything, the overwhelming majority expressed the same concern of losing vehicle lanes at Westgate. Vehicle trips are now closer to pre- COVID numbers with schools back in person. The few bicyclist who travel through the intersection could be directed toward the middle of the intersection with cars turning every which way, making it unsafe for everyone especially a bicyclist competing for even tighter lane spaces with cars. Having bicyclists take a single minute to dismount and walk their bicycles across a very well -marked crosswalk along with pedestrians would be the best and safest option. Dr. Dotsch She recommended keeping the original plan of bicycles using the sidewalk and crosswalk and not removing two of the four vehicle lanes north and south through Westgate. Even Mr. Williams agreed this was the best option at the last presentation and she questioned why it was being revisited this again. With regard to the proposed bulb -outs, she recommended use of flashing beacons and crosswalks as the bulb -outs, as people on Dayton discovered, are the reason the ridiculous ghost island had to be installed at 8' and Dayton. The consequence of a 2%2 time sized corner side walk pushes buses, trucks, cars and even bicycles into the center of the road, making the old wide turning radius with a more effective small roundabout in the intersection no longer possible. Driving on 84t'' from 220t' to Five Corners illustrates more problems from bulb -outs. There have been orange cones for two years on the 84t' Avenue bulb -out because it is literally in the road, no one can see it or expects to see it there. It is redundant and creates other unintended consequences. She urged the City to take out the proposed 21/2 time sized sidewalks and put the extra cement to better use for normal sidewalks in Edmonds that citizens want for safety or use the extra money for the intersection that previous commenter spoke about. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ROBERT HOLT 5. JULY 2021 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 36 7.4.a 6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PFD CHARTER 7. AUDIONISUAL ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION 8. CIVIC PARK FUNDING - WASHINGTON STATE DOC GRANT 9. CIVIC PARK FUNDING - 2021 SNOHOMISH COUNTY ILA 10 WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - EWORKS LANDSCAPE CONTRACT AMENDMENT #4 11. PURCHASE OF NEW WASTEWATER PUMP FOR LIFT STATION 1 8. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODE (ECDC 18.30) UPDATE Public Works Director Phil Williams provided an introduction. Stormwater Engineer Zack Richardson reviewed: • Why the Update? o Stormwater NPDES Permit requires our development code to meet or exceed Ecology's standards designed to protect surface water from being impacted by development ■ In 2019 Ecology issued Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) ■ Changes in ECDC are required by July, 2022 ■ We are on track to be in compliance by January 1, 2022 ■ Ecology's changes are mostly organizational - These changes are summarized in the Executive Summary of the 2019 Revisions and Crosswalk: 2014-2019 SWMMWW. (attached in Packet) • Drainage Review 101 o Drainage mitigation is required when projects exceed certain thresholds of new plus replaced hard surfaces and/or clearing limits. o Two categories of project o Category 1 between 2,000 and 5,000 SF hard surfaces ■ LID mitigation (MR #5) required for all project in this category - Aimed at low flow events that cause erosion, not large flows. o Category 2 larger than 5,000 SF hard surfaces ■ Flow control (MR #7) over 10,000 SF (or 0.15 cfs increase in 100-year flow) - Match flows duration of 2-year through 50-year storm to historic conditions ■ Water Quality (MR #6) over 5,000 pollution generating hard surfaces (including all vehicle areas) - Treat the 2-year flow ("first flush") o Looking at 52 recently reviewed SFRs applications: ■ 24 utilized dispersion or infiltration based BMPs, ■ 22 were caught with Edmonds detention requirements (otherwise exempt from ECY requirements) ■ 1 direct discharge & 5 perforated pipes • What's Changing? o Most changes are updates to match Ecology reorganization and/or to provide clarity where staff have experienced commonly missed or misinterpreted information by manual users & designers. o See 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendum Summary of Changes (agenda packet) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 37 7.4.a ■ Direction from Ecology (Orange) = Ecology prescribed/required ■ Direction from Staff (White) = City -proposed clarification, reorganization, or update without substantial change/impact ■ Direction from Staff (Green) = Staff -proposed change with potential impacts o Department of Commerce and SEPA approval required prior to formal Council adoption. Change #1: New connections of existing hard surfaces o Old: Current code allows for connection of existing hard surfaces on case -by -case basis with a focus on maintaining City pipe capacity. o New: Staff propose revisions to require new connections of existing hard surfaces to be treated like new hard surfaces requiring full drainage mitigation. ■ This is specific to new connections; where residents have an existing connection, they are permitted to replace the connection in -kind without any mitigation requirements. o Rationale: These new connections of existing surfaces are still new or altered impacts to the City system and any surfaces water they drain to; they should be mitigated for as new impacts. o Potential Impacts: Affects a very small number of applicants. For the handful that would be impacted, this could potentially be the most -costly change proposed this year. Full drainage design and BMP implementation for these size projects can cost between $6,000 to $20,000. However, the impacts of allowing every pre -drainage code residence or business to connect to our system could result in a continuation of the negative impacts from historic unmitigated development and detrimental to our ability to manage the capacity of our systems. Change #2: Removing Edmonds Way as a direct discharge basin o Old: Current code recognizes the Edmonds Way drainage basin as a partial direct discharge basin with reduced requirements for LID (MR #5) and flow control (MR #7) o New: Staff proposes revisions to remove all exemptions for the Edmonds Way basin, resulting in equal application of all drainage code requirements to the Edmonds Way basin. o Rationale: The Edmonds Way drainage pipe (WSDOT) is known to overflow to the Edmonds Marsh under certain conditions; since this demonstrates a capacity issue and now discharges to a non -manmade water body, the direct discharge exemption should no longer apply. o Potential Impacts: This change removes a discount which previously existed in one specific basin within Edmonds and brings projects within Edmonds Way to be equal in cost to other projects through in the City. The additional cost is generally limited to increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and BMP implementation. Larger projects which trigger full flow control (MR #7) will have the most significant cost increases. Small SFR projects can expect between $500 and $2000 cost increase, but larger (15,000 SF) commercial/multifamily projects could see increases of $20,000 to $50,000. Change #3: Increasing protection of Perrinville Creek o Old: Current code applies the drainage code uniformly to all areas of City, including the Perrinville Creek Basin. o New: Staff propose revisions to increase the retrofit requirement for LID and increase the flow control standard within the Perrinville Creek basin (only). ■ Retrofit (applies to existing unmitigated surfaces to remain): 25% _> 50% ■ Flow control: Match 50-year peak => Match 100-year peak (ie. King County Level 3 Standard) o Rationale: The Perrinville has been greatly affected by past development and needs enhanced protections. The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abuses on the creek.. o Potential Impacts: Both changes result in additional cost that is generally limited to increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and BMP implementation. The flow control component will only impact larger projects with Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 38 7.4.a minimal impacts on large project budgets; estimated to add between $2,000 and $16,000 for a larger (15,000 SF) commercial development. The retrofit requirement has the potential to impact homeowners who are expanding existing homes, but minimally; estimated to add $400 to $600 for a SFR project which keeps most of the existing home (2,500 SF). Change #4: Detention preferred over perforated pipes o Old: Current code adopted the Ecology BMP list for MR #5 and then added an Edmonds - specific detention BMP to the end of the list, making its priority less than that of a perforated pipe connection. o New: Staff propose revisions to elevate the Edmonds -specific detention BMP to be considered before a perforated pipe connection. o Rationale: Perforated pipe connections are only used when infiltration has been found infeasible for very specific reasons, and when broad infiltration is infeasible, perforated pipes usually will not work very well either and they may well get proposed in undesirable locations where instability and failure could result. Our modeling comparisons have shown detention to provide significantly better outcomes. o Potential Impacts: Neary all projects within Edmonds over 2,000 SF of impervious would have to provide stormwater detention, at a minimum. Additional cost is generally limited to increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and BMP implementation. Detention systems, as compared to a perforated pipe system, may add between $500 and $4,000 for a larger SFR project (5,500 SF). What's Next? o SEPA review underway (-60-days) o Department of Commerce review underway (60-days) o This public hearing ■ Held now to avoid conflicts with budgeting process o Brought back for formal approval pending Commerce & SEPA approval. o Questions/concerns: Zachary.Richardson@edmondswa.gov Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Richardson for his very thoughtful presentation, commenting the biggest elephant in room on Change #3 regarding Perrinville is the neighbor to the east, Lynnwood. She asked if anything was being done with regard to mitigation or an ILA with Lynnwood due to the amount of building Lynnwood is doing in that area. For example, the pipe right by the post office, there is a tremendous amount of sediment flowing into the creek due to the amount of water coming from Lynnwood. She asked whether it would be possible to address that in the stormwater code update. Mr. Williams referred to a conversation with Council President Paine this afternoon where she suggested once Edmonds adopts the code, working through the Council to pass a resolution asking Lynnwood to adopt a similar code for the portions of the Perrinville Basin that are in Lynnwood. Snohomish County is also a potential partner since a great deal of the sediment at the bottom of the hill comes from the county park. Right now it is almost an emergency situation in lower Perrinville Creek, but there are important conversations to be had in the future regarding larger projects. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Snohomish County is coming to the table at WRIA 8 to discuss things like this. Lynnwood does not believe they have any impact on the watershed when they actually have a tremendous impact. She was hopeful there would be discussion with Lynnwood about sharing the costs. Mr. Richardson said he has reached out to his counterpart in Lynnwood and Lynnwood has not done this update yet so there are still opportunities. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was concerned about Perrinville Creek, the drainage basin and the storm events that cause flooding and siltation. She asked how the proposed changes in the stormwater code will affect future development in the Perrinville drainage basin both in Edmonds and in Lynnwood. Mr. Richardson answered this code relates only to Edmonds; enacting anything in Lynnwood would Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 39 7.4.a require them to implement changes in their code. For Edmonds, there are two changes, it will take a slightly bigger chunk of the existing impervious surface, that is the idea behind the retrofit change, it will mitigate for conditions that are already impacting the creek. The second changes relates primarily redevelopment and new development, and requires matching the 100 year peak so in theory there is no flow change to the creak from those projects. Typical flow control tops out at the 50 year peak so in theory under the current code, there could be a storm where the 100 year peak is exceeded at the end of the development requirement which will hopefully get the upper the high flows under control. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that 100 year peaks occur more frequently than in the past. She asked if a stricter requirement would be preferred. Mr. Richardson was uncertain how the City could go above a 100 year storm because the state modeling tops out at a 100 year storm so a hydrology update from state would be required. He anticipated that would eventually that catch up, but it was not there yet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she shared the concerns about Perrinville Creek. She will concentrate on three items that caught her attention and concerned her. First, with regard to the term hard surfaces versus permeable surfaces. The terms were used interchangeably during the presentation and she was concerned with widespread confusion, misunderstanding or possible misuse of the terms. Hard surfaces conjures up certain ideas versus pervious surfaces which many understand. She suggested doing a better job defining that term to ensure it was not misused. Second, with regard to the 52 recently reviewed SFR applications and a handful that slipped through with a direct discharge exemption and if the location is close to the Sound, we don't really care about slowing the water, but just getting it to the Sound. She asked if that meant that roads and houses close to the Sound were allowed to pollute. She also questioned the comment about roofs not usually being considered pollution generating, pointing out people often put moss killer and chemicals on their roofs and if they are not considered pollution generating, that could be a problem. With regard to hard surfaces and impervious surfaces, Mr. Richardson said he was not a stickler when speaking about those but during review there was much more technical separation. Those terms were not defined by the City, they were handed down from Ecology in the last update. The industry has been using those for at least the five years so most people are aware of them. The single biggest thing is there are a lot things in between like pervious pavement or turf field, so Ecology created a catch all so there is no debate over impervious/pervious. There are definition at the beginning of the section. He welcomed more direction if the Council thought more was needed. With regard to the direct discharge exemption to Puget Sound, Mr. Richardson said there is more to that, it has to be in an all pipe system and cannot go to a creek. They also have to check the capacity on the pipe system before they qualify to ensure the pipe system can handle flows to the Sound. That is a flow control requirement; water quality/treatment is completely independent of that. If someone has direct discharge and is over 5,000 square feet of pollution generating, they would have to do the water quality treatment, just not the flow control. With regard to roofs, Mr. Richardson said Councilmember L. Johnson's example was a good one; the answer to that is educating people what to use/not use and what is an illicit discharge. He agreed more research could be done on that issue. That topic has been addressed in yard care but not for roofs. That issue arises more often with commercial and multifamily projects that have mechanical equipment on the roof which requires ensuring the metals are treated properly so they do not leach when it rains. Rooftop mechanical equipment also has to be self-contained with spill control so in the event a hydraulic line came off it would not spill onto the roof. He summarized there are usually some qualifiers. Council President Paine expressed appreciation for the presentation and all the work put into the stormwater update and getting it to the Council sooner rather than later. With regard to the suggestion she Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 40 7.4.a made to Mr. Williams, she will do some research and she invited Councilmember's input. Her suggestion was to see if Lynnwood would adopt a code similar to Edmonds' code that was specific to the Perrinville watershed so that it would be like to like. Councilmember Olson said she posed this question to Mr. Williams prior to the meeting, but felt it was important for the public to hear the answer related to the Salmon Safe certification that the Council financed in the budget last year that could have a significant impact on the stormwater code depending on what they find and their citations and suggestions. She requested Mr. Williams share with the public the process for bringing the code back again later to incorporate those changes. Mr. Williams recalled the question was whether there was a reason to move forward with these changes or should the City wait until the Salmon Safe recommendations are available. His response was it is important to move forward with these changes now. Mr. Williams relayed another question Councilmember Olson asked about how long it would take to incorporate any Salmon Safe recommendations. He anticipated it would be similar to this process for updating the stormwater code. The third question was whether staff intended to amend the code if Salmon Safe makes suggestions. Mr. Williams assured once the information is received, staff will consider it and make recommendations and follow through with a process to make additional changes to the code if necessary. He did not recommend waiting to make these changes, they are important and should be done as soon as possible. Mr. Richardson said if the Salmon Safe changes are at all substantive, this same process will be required so there was little benefit to not implementing these stormwater improvements now. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested if there was time, having a second public hearing or a continuation because she did not think people were aware they will be responsible for paying to help implement the stormwater code, especially in Perrinville. She recalled an interesting email about the same issue in Shellabarger due to erosion. She commented on increased density that occurs without enough infiltration with trees, etc., and everything flows downhill or to Puget Sound. She was uncertain it necessitated a second public hearing although if she lived on Perrinville Creek, she would want to know. She reiterated the need to loop Lynnwood in because they are part of this basin and Edmonds is the victim of their development. She wondered how the stormwater was handled for the units that were recently constructed in Lynnwood. Mr. Williams said the Administration and Council need to make decisions regarding the regulations specific to Perrinville due to the huge workload in that basin. Once the changes are adopted, it would be appropriate to do public outreach and communication about what is being done, why it is necessary and the impacts. With regard to potential cost, he said that would be part of the review process in the future and applicants would receive staff comments on their applications and they would have to meet certain requirements, most of which are required by the state. Staff is recommending some additional changes that would make it an Edmonds specific code. He summarized it was justified and the right thing to do and he would hate to slow the process at this point, but acknowledged that was up to the Council. Councilmember L. Johnson said she looked up hard surfaces in the definitions and it states an impervious surface, a permeable pavement or a vegetated roof. She took that to mean impervious surfaces including permeable pavement and vegetated roofs and suggested adding "including but not limited to" so it did not exclude things like turf fields. She referred to Ms. Seitz's comment tonight about using trees as drainage infrastructure with drainage easements for trees and asked if that had ever been considered. Mr. Richardson said that is an existing BMP and is available in the toolkit. There are a couple issues with it; in his ten years doing stormwater in Washington, he had seen it used once. It doesn't quite count toward the LID BMPs, it is a flow control BMP; if someone in a single family home is reviewing the list such as a rain garden at 5% or a trench at 1000 feet per square feet, the tree option is not included. Modeling is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 41 7.4.a required to get credit for trees. He believed one of the reasons it was not used frequently was the credits are not very strong because people are hesitant to have trees as infrastructure because they are seen as potentially temporary. For example if a tree provided stormwater mitigation, would there be a storm drain problem if that tree fell or died in the future. There is a hesitance to use that as a sole BMP, but it is currently an option for some projects. There is also a BMP credit for reduced clearing footprint. As a follow-up on Councilmember L. Johnson's comments on turf fields, Councilmember Distelhorst asked if turf fields would be included on packet page 310 regarding hard surfaces. Mr. Richardson answered it is actually its own special exception, it depends on the drainage. Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Olson asked whether the Council wanted to continue the public hearing. She recalled there was one citizen who expressly asked to continue the public hearing and she was surprised there were no public comments when there were quite a few emailed comments today. She questioned whether the emailed comments counted as comments for the public hearing so the people would have standing. City Clerk Scott Passey answered they would be part of the public record and are entered into the minutes. Councilmember Olson reiterated her surprise that there were no public comments during the public hearing since there was great deal of interest via email. Due to possible technology issues, she suggested continuing the public hearing to next week. Mr. Passey said that would be a Council decision. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NEXT WEEK IN CASE THERE WERE OTHER COMMENTERS. Council President Paine said she did not object to continuing the public hearing but requested the introduction be abbreviated as the September 28th meeting is already busy. She noted the public could also submit emails in addition to making comment at the public hearing. She favored wrapping up the public hearing to provide certainty to staff s efforts. She was lukewarm about continuing the public hearing but would not oppose it. Councilmember Buckshnis said only the comment from Lora Petso referenced the stormwater public hearing, the other emails only referenced stormwater. She asked if the emails sent to Council related to stormwater would be included in the public hearing record. Mr. Passey said the public hearing notice also provides an email address to submit public comments; comments received at that address are counted as public hearing comments. Councilmember Buckshnis said some of the comments were sent to Councilmembers and not to the public comment address. She suggested that would be a reason to continue the public hearing. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding from Mr. Williams and Mr. Richardson that this will come back in the future so whether it is an official public hearing with a notice period or just collecting comments and feedback as usual, there will be time for further comments during the Ecology and SEPA review. He was unsure the public hearing needed to be continued because there were still options for reviewing and commenting during the period of time prior to adoption. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the only comments she received were from Lora Petso, Joe Scordino, and Mar ie Fields. Councilmember Olson said Councilmember Distelhorst made good point, but public hearings give people certain standings so there is a difference. She offered to send the emails she received today to the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 42 7.4.a PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov email and asked if that would suffice. She still hoped the Council would vote to continue the public hearing, anticipating it would be very short if there were no public comments, but there may have been technical difficulties tonight that prevented the public from participating. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION GRANT AWARDS Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty reviewed: • Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund (ERPF) o The ERPF was approved by City Council on 7/20/21 as Ordinance 4229. o There are six accounts in the ERPF, including Account D — "Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund Nonprofit Organization Support," with an allocation of $500,000. o Small grants up to $20,000 are approvable by the Mayor, for a cumulative total of $100,000. o Larger grants of any amount over $20,000 are approvable by City Council, for a cumulative total of $400,000. • Non-profit Organization Grants o On July 30, 2021 notice of grant availability went out via press release, City's website, Facebook and direct email to network of organizations o Deadline for applications 8/20/21 o Applications required: ■ Proof of nonprofit status ■ Amount requested ■ Proposed use of requested funds. ■ Statement of need — especially describing financial hardship created by COVID, etc. ■ Other sources of funds available ■ Statement of how organization enhances economic, cultural and/or quality of life aspects in Edmonds o Sixteen applications were received: ■ One application was ineligible since the organization is not currently located in Edmonds. ■ Seven applications were for amounts of $20,000 or less which the Mayor reviewed and awarded the following grants: Organization Award/Request Cascade Symphony $19,000 / $20,000 DeMiero Jazz Festival $18,000 / $20,000 Edmonds Boys & Girls Club $18,000 / $20,000 Sculptors Workshop $8,000 / $10,000 Sno-King Youth Club $15,000 / $17,500 Steel Magic Northwest $14,000 / $15,000 West Edmonds Cooperative Preschool $8,000 / $10,000 TOTAL $100,000 o Remaining eight applications are available for City Council review and consideration, and are summarized as follows: Organization Request Art Start Northwest $50,000 Cascadia Art Museum $50,000 Edmonds Center for the Arts $50,000 Edmonds Driftwood Players $50,000 Edmonds Waterfront Center $50,000 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 43 7.4.a Olympic Ballet Theatre $45,000 Phoenix Theater $27,500 Rotary Club of Edmonds $30,000 TOTAL $352,500 Council Grant Awards o All eight applications meet eligibility criteria. o One application, Art Start NW, appears to include up to $32,000 in capital -related items associated more directly with the completion of the Graphite arts complex than with its own stated nonprofit mission. o Council has direct authority to grant up to the amounts requested by the organizations. o Any amounts left over would roll over to allow for a future call for requests (likely in January 2022) Recommendation o Discuss and make grant award decisions this evening o Applicants will be notified immediately Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the application that was denied, Washington Kids in Transition (WKT), because they were not based in Edmonds. She referred to the criteria regarding how the organization and its programs, projects or activities enhance economic, cultural and/or quality of life aspects within the Edmonds community, commenting they definitely do that but understood they were not based in Edmonds. She asked if WKT would qualify somewhere else or should the Council consider granting them funds with the caveat that the funds would be used to benefit specifically Edmonds residents. Mr. Doherty said the ordinance contains a great deal of specificity and would require amendment to provide funds to a non-profit organizations outside Edmonds but serving Edmonds residents. There will be some funds remaining after these awards are made and another round of awards could be considered early next year. Council President Paine reiterated her surprise that the Edmonds Food Bank did not apply. She asked if the accounting associated with determining the services provided to Edmonds residents was a barrier to the Edmonds Food Bank or other non -profits that serve more than just Edmonds residents. She noted the list of awards included organizations that serve the broader community so Edmonds benefits overall. Mr. Doherty said Edmonds Food Bank did not contact the City during the application period although he would be surprised if they did not know about it. The information was distributed via the regular channels and to be fair he did not prompt entities to apply. The City provided a substantial amount in CARES funding to the Edmonds Food Bank last year to meet food needs. Council President Paine said she agreed they had been served but wondered if tracking was a barrier. Mr. Doherty said he did not believe it was because it was discussed with them related to the CARES funds that they serve people who are not Edmonds residents. At that time the judgment was made that the majority are Edmonds residents although proof of residency is not requested, the food bank is an enhancement to the community and the intent is to be welcoming, accepting and generous which is an overall enhancement to quality of life by helping people even if they live beyond Edmonds' boundaries. At that time it was portrayed to them that the intent was not to create barriers so he assumed they would not perceive it as a barrier for applying for these funds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she liked the list, commenting it looked fair to each organization. She suggested in round two looking at agencies that had not been supported in the past such as Washington Kids in Transition, the Edmonds Food Bank or other organizations. The funding will help a number of organizations including the Edmonds Waterfront Center's lunch program. She was uncertain how sustainable the cost of $15/meal was, but it will serve a number of seniors on a long term basis. She observed lunch at the Senior Center a couple weeks ago where there were approximately 11 people; she Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 44 7.4.a was glad to see the center was helping those with food instability or other reasons they for not eating at home. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the seven grants that the Mayor awarded that totaled $100,000. She asked the difference between those grant requests and the amount awarded. Mr. Doherty responded there were eight applications including one that was not eligible. The Mayor's authority was to approve up to $20,000 grants up to a total of $100,000. Mayor Nelson was very interested in the programs and services provided by those agencies and wanted to award the grants quickly. The total was just above $100,000 so a decision was made to reduce the amount slightly, $1000 to $2000 less than requested. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the difference between what was funded and requested. She noted $400,000 was allocated for the Council to award and questioned whether the difference between the requests and the award for those organizations should be allocated by the Council. Mr. Doherty advised the difference between the request amounts and the awards was $11,500. Having received grant funds and been on grant review committees, Mr. Doherty assured it is very common when applying for grants to receive slightly less than the requested amount. All the organizations who were awarded funds by the Mayor have been contacted and contracts for the amounts have been provided. The entities were all thrilled and no one complained about the amount they received. It is within the Council's authority to grant funds the way they wish, but he recommended leaving those grants as is. Councilmember Olson reminded the audience and Councilmembers it was not a coincidence that many of these organizations are arts related because they were not covered by past programs and private donations. These are American Rescue Plan funds which were intended for more institutional type things that were impacted by people not going out, that would not survive without assistance and would maintain the best bulkheads of the local society. She recognized it may seem odd that the grants are not for direct human type needs such as food, but those needs have been supported by many other programs and the ARP was designed for this purpose. She thanked the Council for allowing her extra time for research and Mr. Doherty for providing additional information. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING GRANT AWARDS: ARTS START NORTHWEST - $18,000; CASCADIA ART MUSEUM - $50,000; EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS - $50,000; EDMONDS DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS - $50,000; EDMONDS WATERFRONT CENTER - $50,000; OLYMPIC BALLET THEATER - $45,000; PHOENIX THEATER - $27,500 AND ROTARY CLUB OF EDMONDS - $30,000 FOR A TOTAL OF $320,500. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 10. NEW BUSINESS 1. PROJECT UPDATE FOR THE CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mr. Williams introduced Capital Project Manager Ryan Hague, City Engineer Rob English, and Pablo Para, PH Consulting. Mr. Hague reviewed: • Brief Timeline Reap o City pursued and won a $1.85M Sound Transit grant in September, 2019 for installation of bike lanes at various locations in Edmonds o Design contract was awarded in September 2020 ■ Intense public interest in the project triggered a public outreach effort including - "Listening sessions" held with interested residents in December 2020 - Public meeting via Zoom in February 2021 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 45 7.4.a - One-on-one meetings with residents as requested - Online surveys - Project email address and website o Public input combined with data to drive design decisions o Project design recommendations were presented to Council May 4, 2021 ■ Questions were raised about the Westgate intersection ■ Additional public meeting was requested - Public meeting held June 2, 2021 Westgate Intersection o Existing Conditions: SR-104 & 100' Ave W o Alternative 1 ■ Adds 1 bike lane in each direction ■ Eliminates 1 through -lane in each direction ■ Adds northbound and southbound right turn lanes o Alternative 2 (staff s recommended alternative) ■ Adds 1 northbound bike lane ■ Adds shared lane markings (sharrows) to southbound through -lane ■ Provides ramps so that southbound cyclists can exit onto the sidewalk, walk through the intersection and re-enter the roadway south of the intersection ■ Maintains current number of through -lanes ■ Travel lanes get slightly narrower Side -by -side Comparison o Impacts to motorists Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Vehicle lanes maintain current width Vehicle lanes get slightly narrower Intersection LOS drops from C to D Intersection LOS stays at C 238' Elm travel time during PM Peak 238' Elm travel time during PM Peak No build - 207.2s No build - 207.2s Alternative 1 - 235.3s Alternative 2 - 209.6s Delay - 28.1 s Delay - 2.4s o Queue lengths at Westgate ■ Graphic identifying 50% and 95% queue length northbound and southbound during peak hour Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Extends queues substantially impacting business driveways in both directions Substantially shorter queues, does not impact businesses any more than current o Impacts to Bicyclists Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Completes the bicycle lane network with a Southbound cyclists are required to either direct connection for all cyclists through share a lane with vehicles or exit onto the Westgate sidewalk Increases usability of corridor by cyclists Cyclists will not consider this corridor to be as safe or efficient as Alt 1 o Intangibles Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Longer queues and greater delays could Increase future grant opportunities; cause motorists to seek alternative routes. granting agencies may be more likely to This could result in adjacent fund a future bike lane expansion than neighborhoods seeing increases in traffic future lanes for motorized vehicles volumes and speeds • Additional Improvements Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 46 7.4.a o Public comments indicated residents want additional pedestrian safety improvements o Design Team identified four intersections where enhanced pedestrian safety facilities could bring added quality to the project o Design Team also identified one intersection where existing pedestrian facilities could be realigned to streamline vehicle traffic. o None of these improvements were accepted in the original project and would require additional City funds to install o Alternative 1: 9t1i & Pine Pedestrian improvements ■ Intersection experiences significant pedestrian traffic ■ Flashing beacons and potentially bulbed out curbs would increase safety o Alternative 2: Yost Park Entrance Improvements ■ Intersection sees significant pedestrian traffic (Yost Park entrance) ■ Bulbed-out curbs, new parking spots, and minor intersection realignment could slow down vehicles and increase safety o Alternative 3: Bowdoin & Pioneer Pedestrian Improvements ■ No marked crossings exist for approximately 0.8 miles between Yost Park entrance and Five Corners roundabout ■ Residents have requested safer crossings in this area, specifically ■ Possible improvements such as flashing beacons and bulbed-out curbs would increase safety o Alternative 4: 100t1i & 224' Pedestrian Improvements ■ No marked crosswalks exist for approximately 0.6 mile between Westgate and 220t' St SW ■ Flashing beacons crosswalk markings and potentially bulbed-out curbs would increase safety o Alternative 5: Woodway Campus Entrance Improvements ■ Current configuration has crosswalk north of the intersection. Pedestrians interfere with motorists turning left to go north on 100t' ■ This requires longer green time to clear queues from high school and consequently more disruptions on 100t' ■ Proposed configuration would mitigate disruptions to traffic on 100t' by moving crosswalk to south side of intersection • Cost of Additional Improvements Description Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Totals Ped Improve Yost Park Ped Improve Ped Improve & High Z v� & 9th/Pine Ent & Bowdoin ? 100th/224th School Ent w Un Consultants $13,500 $17,155 $13,500 $13,500 $7,884 $65,539 Qv H Const. Contract $33,250 $58,150 $33,250 $33,250 $33,250 $191,150 Mgmt Reserve 10% $3,325 $5,815 $3,325 $3,325 $3,325 $19,115 v Const. Mgmt $5,985 $10,467 $5,985 $5,985 $5,985 $34,407 E 1%Art $333 $582 $333 $333 $333 $1,912 0 Total Const. $42,893 $75,014 $42,893 $42,893 $42,893 $246,584 U Total Cost Alt $56,393 $92,169 56,93 $56,393 $50,777 $312,123 Running Total $148,561 $204,954 $261,346 $321,123 • Remaining Schedule o Design Phase - complete winter 2021-2022 o Construction phase - start in spring 2022 and completed in end of 2022 Mr. Williams referred to the side by side comparison of queues lengths at Westgate in Alternate 1, explaining the red is the 50% queue, average queue during PM peak hour (weekday 4:30 5 p.m.) which Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 47 7.4.a is basically worse case. Adding the blue bar to the red takes it to the 95t1i percentile, only 3 minutes out of 1 hour that the queue would exceed the combined blue and red queue which is 15 minutes a week; 99.85% of the time those queues would not happen. He explained this is a worst case scenario for that short albeit important period of time. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding that this project would add bike lanes to encourage people of all ages to use them. Adding bike lanes approaching the Westgate intersection is to encourage bike riders to go through the Westgate intersection. The presentation stated Alternative 1 creates a complete network and Alternative 2 does not and cyclists will not consider this corridor to be as safe or as efficient as Alternative 1. Under intangibles it addresses using alternate routes. She recalled a comment during Audience Comments about drivers using alternate routes. She understood the east -west alternate routes such as 220t' and 224' to avoid Edmonds Way, but these bike routes are north and south. She asked about reasonable north and south alternate routes that the intangibles address. Mr. Williams acknowledged there are not a lot of good north -south routes in Edmonds. This is an important corridor but the recommendation is not a complete blockage either. It would be more convenient and faster for a bicyclist to cycle through the intersection in a dedicated space; however, there is not adequate real estate without eliminating two travel lanes so there has to be a balance. The entire cycle time is 130 seconds, so it takes 2 minutes 10 second for the green ball to return so the model suggests delays in the PM peak hour could range from that much to zero. Average queues are what drivers are more likely to experience, maybe less, maybe more. He acknowledged there would be some interference with driveway access, but that intersection already experiences delays today. The longest queue is northbound. It has not been finetuned yet, but there has been some attempt to balance the delay for all phases of the intersection. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was struggling with the City was working toward providing Complete Streets and to increase safety, and this would create a 28 second during the PM peak, but 98.5% of the time that would not occur. For those reasons she questioned why Alternative 1 was not the preferred alternative. Mr. Williams answered if there was additional space, it would be an obvious choice. Bicycle counts at that intersection are extremely low but probably because people do not even want to try riding there. With regard to "if you build it, will they come," he said that has been the experience with bike lane projects, a dramatic growth in bicycle activity after bike lanes are installed and he expected that to occur. Staff provided a recommendation they feel is reasonable for right now. A follow-on project for a separated bike lane could be added to the CIP with planning about what that would look like and effort to acquire funding. Staff s recommendation is Alternative 2 and try to acquire enough space for a second bike lane. Councilmember L. Johnson commented when someone is riding their bike somewhere, they are also return so she was concerned with providing only half of it and questioned whether there would be full usage by only providing half resulting in a cyclist being safe in one direction but not so much in other. Mr. Williams answered a bicyclist could be safe in both directions, but there would be some additional delay by using the ramp up to the sidewalk and walking through the intersection. He did not see that as the end of the world but recognized it was seen as a negative for bicyclists and likely would impact the stimulus that this project would provide at some level. If only one bike lane can be installed, the northbound lane is the right one for the PM peak hour. Councilmember Distelhorst commented he does not speak often or for very long; tonight will be different. He asked about the delay to cyclists to use crosswalk, anticipating it would be a minimum of 130 seconds. Mr. Williams answered when a cyclist arrived at the intersection would dictate how long it takes, it could be almost no delay up to a 60 second delay. Councilmember Distelhorst explained for transit headways the projected delay is divided by half, if so if it is 130 seconds, the average is slightly over a minute Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 48 7.4.a versus a potential worst case scenario of 28 seconds during 90 minutes of the day for vehicles. Mr. Williams commented the longest queue, the center through lane, is currently approximately 47 seconds and would increase to 68 seconds. Councilmember Distelhorst commented that was still shorter than the average delay for someone on a bike using the sidewalk and crosswalk. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the time savings for southbound vehicles turning right onto SR-104 had been modeled (currently those vehicles are blocked from turning right by through traffic). Mr. Williams answered he did not know off the top of his head but could report back. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed the five pedestrian improvements would improve safety and he supports them. Council receives numerous public comments and emails from residents who want enhanced public safety for pedestrian, scooters, etc. on the sidewalk. However, that cannot be coupled with a bike lane project for non -motorized access that does not prioritize safety. Bike lanes are the bare minimum, sharrows are insulting and studies indicate sharrows actually decrease safety. He referred to the Sound Transit access grant comments for the award of this grant that say, Edmonds needs to construct protected bike lanes, not ineffective painted lanes and sharrows. None of this money should go to that kind of outdated infrastructure. Use better designs now that are safer. Pay attention to where you plan to make bicyclists cross the street, especially around highway interchanges. Councilmember Distelhorst explained WSDOT, historically a pretty conservative organization when it comes to active transportation, came out with a new Active Transportation Program Plan 1 in May that included public engagement and graphics regarding bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS). It looks at the type of facilities and who will use them depending on how stressful it is. For a dedicated, buffered bike lane which this project includes south and north of SR-104, 82% of people feel comfortable using that infrastructure. The design for SR-104 with sharrows, 1% of people on bikes will use that infrastructure. He agreed it does not create a full network or a safe environment and will only have the bare minimum of use by cyclists who already use it because there is absolutely no upgrade. When he asked Public Works staff whether they would ride this intersection with sharrows, they said no. Councilmember Distelhorst said Council President Paine, Mr. Hague and he have ridden this intersection and sharrows will not improve it. There are parks, schools and businesses that people can access via non - motorized modes but without the infrastructure, that will not happen. He expressed concern with adding to this project in 2, 5 or 10 years, commenting that is holding the safety of someone on a bike hostage for a future grant opportunity. This is a non -motorized grant, it needs to prioritize non -motorized transportation that is included in the Climate Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. If the City builds for cars, the result will be more cars and there will not be the desired mode shift. He was also concerned about the fiscal implications of a future project, commenting there is an opportunity now two achieve both the bicycle connection as well as safety without expending more money. Seeking grant opportunities in the future will mean more money and purchasing land from businesses at that intersection to acquire right-of-way. Mr. Williams commented land could also be acquired via redevelopment without the investment of municipal funds. Councilmember Distelhorst commented that could be achieved now without acquiring further right-of- way via Alternative 1. He recognized widening intersections means more infrastructure that needs to be maintained. The City's annual road maintenance program needs to be closer to $2M/year; road widening means more maintenance and road maintenance is currently underfunded. He would like to see better maintenance of the current network and not expand roads for which maintenance is currently underfunded. Alternative 1 provide real safety, real connections, bike lanes have been proven in many studies in this region and in many areas to increase ridership and support businesses by providing multiple options for people to access them opposed to only by vehicle. He hoped the Council understood the safety implications, recalling a Councilmember's relative was hit by a vehicle while on their bike in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 49 7.4.a this intersection. The Council need to do its best to provide a safe environment for people who are not in vehicles. Basic mobility is a human right and designing only around vehicles is not sustainable for the climate, for safety, or for the future. Councilmember K. Johnson said she disagreed with most of Councilmember Distelhorst's comments. She recalled the presentation indicated Alternative 1 will drop the intersection from LOS C to D and asked in which year. Pablo Para, PH Consulting, answered the forecast is based on 2030 which includes traffic growth and some development projects. Councilmember K. Johnson said those numbers did not add up for her. She referred to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, commenting 9th Avenue/100ti' is a minor arterial and the posted speed is 30 mph, SR-104 is a highway of statewide significance. That is a very important intersection and had the second highest collision rate in the City for data collected 2009-2014. She felt Alternative 1 would be a mistake and intrinsically unsafe because it pits a 2,000 pound vehicle against a person on a bike. She is a bicyclist and she would not like to ride in those protect lanes, but would rather dismount and cross at the intersection. Councilmember K. Johnson explained there are two kinds of bicyclists, recreational bicyclists such as children and families, and serious bicyclists who they can be in any lane they choose if they are skillful enough. It is a false premise that protected lanes will protect bicyclists because turning movements and through movements create too much potential for conflict. This is a road, it is not about making it the most efficient for bicyclists, but for all road users. She put more value on the experience of the vehicle driver than the bicyclist. She acknowledged the interest in a multimodal system; the City received a $1.85M grant from Sound Transit. She recommended going back to the drawing board and developing Alternative 3 as Alternative 1 does not do the job and Alternative 2 is only half a program. She will add more when the Council discusses the pedestrian improvements. Councilmember Olson thanked the team, commenting that having followed this project through the process she saw the public's input taken into consideration and implemented in design changes. However, Alternative 1 does not do that, having followed the process, in the beginning parking was a priority on 9' Avenue as well as this intersection and the anticipated delays were protested when the Council was considering acceptance of the grant. After hearing all the input, seeing Alternative 1 proposed made her angry. She found downgrading the LOS from C, which is not great, to D completely unacceptable. There may be infrastructure funds in the future that could be used to expand that intersection. In the big picture the extraordinary delays in Alternative 1 do not make sense. It is not just cars versus bicyclist; there are very few bicyclists on this route and not all of them as in such a hurry that they cannot dismount and cross via the crosswalk, experiencing a 1-1.5 minute delay instead of having a high volume of cars experience a 20 second delay. Councilmember Olson pointed out the 20 second vehicle delay has a climate impact due to pollution caused by cars idling at the intersection. Achieving climate goals is a big reason for having bike lanes in the first place. If Alternative 1 where constructed, she felt it would be a huge breach of the public's earlier concerns when the Council considered acceptance of the grant. The public did not want to wait an extra 20 second at the intersection and were kind of told they would not happen. The alternatives should have been no change at the intersection except the offramp from the bike lanes to the sidewalk so bicyclists could walk across and/or sharrows if those are not less safe. She objected to having a huge negative impact in the short term and downgrading the intersection for the purpose of adding bike lanes. Alternative 2 may be a reasonable compromise but no bike lanes in the intersection would be preferrable and absolutely not Alternative 1. Council President Paine thanked the team for their work. When she reviewed past emails from the public, she found a lot of comments about bike lanes. She recalled in early discussions about parking, Councilmember K. Johnson pointing out it is the City's right-of-way and not a resident's personal parking Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 23 Packet Pg. 50 7.4.a space. Although not a confident bike rider, she has biked along 9' Avenue and would prefer to have designated bike lanes in both directions. She recalled a lot of comments from people who ride electric bikes; 9' Avenue crossing to 100t' is fairly flat and provides access to a different part of the City either on a bike or an e-bike. People can grocery shop or bring a picnic to a park on an e-bike. The ability to access another area of the City is something the Council may be missing. SR-104 divides the City and not should not be lightly. There are inequities built into decisions; this is an opportunity to provide equity via additional infrastructure to connect across SR-104. SR-104 is terrifying; she is always scared when she sees students crossing at SR-104 & 15t'' to reach Sherwood and there have been multiple fatalities on SR- 104. She liked the proposed bulb -outs because they slow traffic and slower roads make roads safer. She expressed support for Alternative 1, relaying her thanks for the team for listening to the community. Council President Paine agreed the pedestrian improvements may be a separate topic for another night because "we're just in the dreaming stage." The five pedestrian improvements are solid ideas that address real needs. As a former resident on 14t' Ave SW that connects to 224ti', she agreed drivers take shortcuts through residential neighborhoods in terrifying ways. Having 9t' Avenue and 100' available for bicyclist adds dimensionality to the transportation system. She said Councilmember Distelhorst described it well in technical terms, but adding usability and accessibility for a different mode of transportation as well as connecting another part of city is important. She liked Alternative 1 because it focused on safety, and although safety can result in delays, the community has asked for safety. One of her family members was hit at that intersection on his bike. She summarized it is important to focus on safety as well as adding connectivity with an equity lens. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support either alternative. She believed in safety, but felt there were other alternatives such as 9511i, 7t', or coming through Woodway. This intersection is already built, it is a major thoroughfare with traffic galore, turning movements, and driveways; a dangerous situation waiting to happen. She read all the comments and did not recall citizens expressing support for these changes to the intersection. There are not a lot of bicyclists using this intersection; she did not have a problem with bicyclists riding on 9t' or on Bowdoin up to Yost. She would not support either alternative until another open house was held. A lot of citizens have said they do not support bike lanes at Westgate and suddenly they are happening. She supported diversity and equity for bikes to travel with cars, recalling when former Portland Mayor Sam Adams did this, it was a disaster. Comments from Edmonds citizens were very clear that this is a very dangerous intersection and there is nothing wrong with bicyclists getting off their bikes and walking across the street. Ferry traffic on SR-104 makes it a very busy throughfare and 9tn/100t' & SR-104 is a very business intersection due to the location of the ferry, businesses and residence. She was in favor of going back to the drawing board. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has spent an hour on an item scheduled for 15 minutes and she was doubtful the Council could resolve it tonight. Having ridden that intersection for 50 years, she agreed it was safer for bicyclists to walk their bikes across SR-104 at this intersection. A lot of the comments the Council received were related to parking and homeowners viewing the parking in front of their house as their own parking. She expressed concern with that and suggested if someone claimed that as their own parking it should have a tax base. She had.no problem with bike lanes elsewhere, but was concerned with bike lanes crossing SR-104 due to traffic volumes, much of which she attributed to the ferry. Although she did not have a definitive answer, she did not want to throw the baby out with bath water and suggested Councilmembers get their questions answered about a "halfway in between" option. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:25 P.M. SO THE COUNCIL CAN GET TO THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 24 Packet Pg. 51 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO PAUSE THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL THE OCTOBER 5Ta MEETING AND COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with scheduling 15 minutes for an hour topic and recommended scheduling adequate time on October 5t' to discuss it so Councilmembers do not feel rushed. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out all Councilmembers made their points and questioned whether those same points would be made at the October 5' meeting. She has heard these same comments from Councilmembers and citizens the last time this was discussed. She questioned whether the intent was simply to rehash this on October 5t' or would Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 be presented. Mr. Williams took issue with the hint that this was a staff driven project. Council President Paine raised a point of order, pointing out there is a motion on the floor. She urged Councilmembers to submit their questions to staff prior to the October 5t' meeting. Councilmember Olson said Councilmember Buckshnis made a good point, what is the intent of bringing this item back, what will happen between now and then, and where do we go from here? Council President Paine said she was hoping Councilmembers would get their questions answered and if there needs to be additional discussion, that can be figured out on October 5r''. It is now 10 p.m. and there is one fun item remaining on the agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was fair to get questions answered. She wished questions had been answered prior to tonight's meeting as that would have avoided the hour-long discussion. She urged Councilmembers to get responses to their questions before the next meeting. Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether any new information would be provided if this item is moved to October 5t'', whether there would be a third or fourth alternative for consideration, noting the Council was at a stalemate. Mr. Williams answered the project and the grant application was geared toward making this connection. He did not know of another alternative that does that. This connection on 9t' & 100t' needs to be made in one form or another. He pointed out the rest of the project does a lot of good things with bicycle lanes and pedestrian improvements and those should not be overlooked. This is a very important but small piece of the system. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding from Mr. Williams' comment that the Council should not expect a third alternative. Mr. Williams pointed out there was a third alternative that received no support when it was presented. The three alternatives were 1) two sharrows, 2) one bike lane and one sharrow, and 3) two bike lanes. There is no other viable option to show unless someone on team has one that he not heard about. ICI [lI[I]0[4l\ S 91 D11111,/ARUVE1111K " 2. SHIRLEY JOHNSON PROPERTY DONATION Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Angie Feser reviewed: • Address: 9309 Bowdoin Way, connects Bowdoin to Yost Park • Size: 1.14 acres • Appraised Value with condition be used for a community park: $350,000 • Market value without condition: $1.5M • Zoning: Single family, potential for 6 lots Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 25 Packet Pg. 52 • Quote from will: "Purpose of being used as a park and/or community garden... for the citizens of Edmond and the local community as the Cit of Edmonds deems best in their discretion." • Recognize Ms. Johnson's estate attorney Peter Bennett for securing home and maintaining site • Outstanding expenses: $46,532 (back taxes, title insurance, attorney fees) • Photos of site in January 2021 with big leaf maple, site after attorney secured buildings and removed items, sheds, boarded up house, invasive holly tree • Next steps o Council approval o Short term ■ Site security ■ Assessment of personal items ■ Basic maintenance ■ Tree inventory and maintenance assessment ■ Possible demolition of the buildings o Long term ■ Continued basic maintenance ■ Tree care ■ Master Plan - 2022 PROS Plan - Community Process Councilmember K. Johnson explained she has been involved in this for the past four years. Shirley Johnson was her next door neighbor growing up; there are now four houses between them. Ms. Johnson outlived her son and her husband and had no other relatives except a nephew. She did not want to sell her property to developers and wanted to preserve her family's farm. The outbuildings were chicken coops and the family had a business selling eggs. When Ms. Johnson could not figure out how to save her land, she had early conversations with then-Councilmember Mesaros and then -Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and the Council had several executive sessions. Ms. Hite suggested connecting Ms. Johnson with the Bennett law firm to assist with drafting a will and a plan. She was very satisfied that Ms. Johnson's wishes are being carried out. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she loved hearing this presentation at the committee meeting last week; it was very touching that Ms. Johnson's legacy would be carried on through the preservation of her property. She appreciated having it brought to full Council so the community could hear about it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her appreciation to Ms. Johnson for her willingness to donate her property. She reminded the Council and others that unfortunately Ms. Johnson lived the last years of her life with no water, electricity and a leaky roof. This is an example of where a social service program could have helped her live a safe and productive life. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of clarification. Contrary to what Councilmember Fraley- Monillas stated, Ms. Johnson's roof did not leak and she had electricity, although it was true that she did not have water service. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember K. Johnson for correcting her, commenting it would be nice if the City had a social service program that could have ensured the last years of Ms. Johnson's life in home were comfortable. It is wonderful that she decided to donate her property to the City and it will be up to the City to take good care of it. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Shirley Johnson was definitely a treasure. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 26 Packet Pg. 53 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY THROUGH A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED FROM THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY M. JOHNSON SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TERMS WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN THAT DEED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES iV► Xf11JQ[yMprofflUMu104eIR Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Natalie Seitz for bringing up issues of equity for those living on the east side of Edmonds. She appreciated Ms. Seitz reminding Council at every meeting that there are inequities between one side of Edmonds and the other. Councilmember Olson said she was disappointed that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not have a different Council comment. After her impassioned advocacy for a new Code of Conduct, putting it on the Council agenda as Council President and dedicating many hours of Councilmembers' time and effort and voting for it herself, Councilmember Olson said she had a hard time understanding Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' refusal to own her two blatant Code of Conduct violations. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating this was inappropriate place to be talking about individual Councilmembers. If Councilmember Olson wanted to bring her up on charges, there was executive session to do that. Councilmember Olson asked if that was a valid point of order. Mayor Nelson suggested Council refrain from identifying specific Councilmembers. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, explaining the purpose of a Council comment is to allow the Councilmember to provide whatever information she/he wants to say. There have been many Council comments through the I I years she and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas have been on Council and Councilmembers have named names. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating this was against the Code of Conduct. Councilmember Olson asked how it was against the Code of Conduct. Mayor Nelson said it was up to the Council to decide if they wanted to use Council Comments as a forum to go after each other, he would not tell them yes or no but suggested using common sense regarding how to use their time. He will not rule on how or what Council Comments should be, they are the Council's comments. Councilmember Olson said she did not understand the refusal to own the violations and to render a sincere apology for both. With that being the case, she questioned where the Council majority was with sanctions for this Councilmember who is snubbing the public and the code and importantly and where is the equity. Everyone knows the answer to whether she (Councilmember Olson) would be sanctioned if she was the one doing these things instead of another Councilmember. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Olson for her town hall meetings last Saturday. She was able to attended all three and found the conversations very interesting. Citizens continue to question whether if we build it, will they come? Citizens are concerned with grants for projects like guardrails and whether they are really needed. It will be important to look carefully at the CIP/CFP this year. She looked forward to Councilmember Olson's remaining town hall meetings. She expressed support for Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 27 Packet Pg. 54 7.4.a Councilmember Olson's comments tonight about the Code Conduct violations and how nothing was done. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, commenting she would not bring her personal medical issues in front of the Council. She understood this was election season and this was a great time to dump. Mayor Nelson recommended Councilmembers be allowed to make their comments uninterrupted. Councilmember Buckshnis looked forward to the remaining budget town halls. She encouraged residents to attend, commenting it was very fun to hear their wishes and concerns. Citizens have concerns about the human services program; the City is providing great transparency on that. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed September is National Suicide Prevention Month. This year she has had the honor of carrying on the work started by Councilmember Distelhorst last year. There are two upcoming events, a community panel discussion on mental health and suicide prevention this Thursday at 7 p.m.. Panelist include members of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevent, the Edmonds Senior Center, the Edmonds School District and other Edmonds community members. Next Thursday, September 30' at 7 p.m., Wendy Burchill, Snohomish Health District, will prevent free Question, Persuade and Refer (QPR) Suicide Prevention training. Both events will be held virtually; further information is available at WeCare.Edmondswa.gov. Through this planning process she has been touched and inspired by the number of individuals who are very passionate about mental health advocacy, removing the stigma about talking about mental health challenges, and working hard toward suicide prevention. She thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for bringing this to Edmonds, commenting it had been an honor to carry it on. She hoped the public could join one or both presentations. Councilmember K. Johnson provided additional comment about the proposal for bike lanes. In addition to what was discussed, the consultant developed and staff recommended five additional pedestrian improvements for a total of $312,123. This is good information that can be incorporate in the update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It should not be funded at this time because there are plans to update the Transportation Plan which includes a complete list of sidewalk projects that are evaluated on a point system using six criteria. As a result of the scores, 40 sidewalk projects are listed and none of them include the five projects that are suggested for implementation now. She preferred to fold those projects into the process and not implement them outside the CIP and Comprehensive Plan. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized she wanted to focus on bike lanes at the next discussion and not spend a lot of time on the pedestrian proposals because it was outside the normal good governance process. Council President Paine thanked Ms. Feser for bringing the great news of the property donation. Residents are always welcome to donate land to the City; it is a great way to do land acquisition and it may help with estate planning. She thanked Councilmember Olson for putting together the budget meet - up; she has attended two and it was nice to see people interested in hearing about the budget and talking about City business. She plans to do something similar next year. Council President Paine reminded of the upcoming budget process, recalling at the budget retreat the Council discussed having a shortened budget process. There are some big items on upcoming agendas and it will be helpful if Councilmembers get their questions answered early so the Council can have productive discussions at Council meetings. She thanked staff and Councilmembers for covering a lot of territory at tonight's meeting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 28 Packet Pg. 55 7.4.a Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Councilmember L. Johnson for continuing the work related to mental health and suicide prevention. He looked forward to seeing Councilmembers and community members at the two events on mental health and suicide prevention, important topics for people of all ages in the community. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported although COVID numbers are plateauing, they are still unacceptably high, over 440/100,000 and overwhelmingly the people contracting COVID and being hospitalized are unvaccinated. A glimmer of hope was announced recently, Pfizer's is having good results in clinical trials with a vaccine for children ages 5 to 11. It still needs to go through the FDA process but it is promising news that the youngest and most vulnerable will have access to a vaccine sooner rather than later. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 29 Packet Pg. 56 7.4.a Public Comment for 9/21/21 Council Meeting: From: Tina Swithin Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:24 PM To: Gretchen Pawling Cc: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Bennett, Michelle <michelle.bennett@edmondswa.gov>; Schick, Jill <Jill.Schick@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: November is Family Awareness Court Month #MeTooFamilyCourt Gretchen- thank you so much for the introduction. Mayor Mike Nelson and Edmonds City Council - it is wonderful to connect with you, even if it is by email. We would be honored if you would consider a proclamation for this very important cause. I have included proposed wording (below) for the proclamation which may prove helpful to you (or your staff):WHEREAS, the mission at One Mom's Battle (OMB) and the Family Court Awareness Month Committee (FCAMC) is to increase awareness on the importance of a family court system that prioritizes child safety and acts in the best interest of children, and; • WHEREAS, the mission at the FCAMC is to increase awareness on the importance of education and training on domestic violence, childhood trauma and post separation abuse for all professionals working within the family court system, and; • WHEREAS, the mission at the FCAMC is to educate judges and other family court professionals on the empirical data and research that is currently available. Such research is a critical component to making decisions that are truly in the best interest of children. This research includes The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study (CDC - Kaiser Permanente), Saunder's Study (Us Department of Justice), The Meier Study: Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Abuse Allegations, and the Santa Clara Law Study (Confronting the Challenge of High -Conflict Personality in Family Court), and; • WHEREAS, the mission at the FCAMC is fueled by the desire for awareness and change in the family court system while honoring the 800(+) children who have been murdered by separating or divorcing parents, and; Thank you for your time and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tina Swithin Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 30 Packet Pg. 57 7.4.a On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 2:59 PM Gretchen Pawling <pawlingg@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Mike Nelson and Edmonds City Council, November is Family Court Awareness Month. The month of November provides an excellent opportunity for Edmonds to demonstrate its support in recognizing the importance of a family court system that prioritizes child safety and acts in the best interest of children. During the inaugural Family Court Awareness Month (2020), the top advocates in the family court system joined forces in a united effort to honor the 758 children who had been murdered by a separating or divorcing parent (2008-2020, Center for Judicial Excellence). This collaboration was organized by Tina Swithin of One Mom's Battle and Sandra Ross of California Protective Parents Association. Joining in this awareness campaign was The National Family Violence Law Center, The Court Said USA, Kayden's Korner Foundation, Kyra Franchetti Foundation, Pollack Group LLC, Center for Judicial Excellence, and the Stop Abuse Campaign. Efforts to coin the month of November as Family Court Awareness Month received recognition and endorsements from California Congresswoman Judy Chu, Senator Susan Rubio and Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio. At the Los Angeles press conference on November 1, 2020, Senator Rubio and Assemblywoman Rubio were in attendance and spoke prior to the ribbon cutting ceremony. The Los Angeles event was the first in a series of press conferences across the country. Speakers at these events were notable voices in the domestic violence and family court advocacy communities. These speakers included Jacqueline Franchetti whose daughter, Kyra Franchetti was murdered as a result of a New York family court failure. Ana Estevez, whose beloved son, Piqui, was murdered as a result of a California family court failure and Kathy Sherlock, mother to Kayden, who was murdered as a result of a Pennsylvania family court failure. Since last November, the number of children murdered by separating or divorcing parents has increased to 806; 48 additional children have lost their lives in less than a year. Currently, many families in our community are struggling in silence and facing the reality that child safety is not being prioritized. Our family court system lacks the proper training on domestic violence, childhood trauma and post separation abuse. In fact, many are shocked to discover that most states do not have domestic violence training requirements prior to a judicial officer presiding over family court cases and ultimately, determining the fate of innocent children. In the states that do have requirements for domestic violence training, it is very minimal. Our goal for Family Court Awareness Month 2021, is to shine a spotlight on solutions such as the research that is currently available, but not being utilized. This research includes: The Meier Study Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 31 Packet Pg. 58 7.4.a The Saunders Study The Santa Clara University Study (High Conflict individuals in the family court system I would be honored if you would sponsor an official proclamation to recognize November as Family Court Awareness Month. Your proclamation would lend official recognition to the important work of educating the public, as well as emphasize your personal commitment to help support matters that are of the utmost importance to your community, child safety. As you are probably aware, October is National Domestic Violence Awareness month. Domestic Violence is about power and control, this doesn't go away when the relationship ends. For many survivors it actually intensifies with the separation and the abuse shifts to a new platform, the family court system. Post Separation Abuse makes for a perfect segue between Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Family Court Awareness Month. I have cc'd founder, Tina Swithin(tina@familycourtawarenessmonth.com) on this email and if it works with her schedule, she would be honored to be in attendance (virtually) when the proclamation is presented. If you, or your staff, have any questions concerning the request, or Family Court Awareness Month, please call let me know. I will follow-up with your office on this request in the next few days. As always, we appreciate your support. Thank you for considering this very important request. Sincerely, Gretchen Pawling ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: Coercive Control: https://youtu.be/YbZYSBeHuLU & https://youtu.be/UO1O8eTViec Making the Case for ACES List of Cities issuing proclamations this year Letter to the United Nations Over One Hundred Mothers Denounce the United States of America Before the United Nations, for Human Rights Violations. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:15 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 32 Packet Pg. 59 7.4.a <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Public Comments for the September 21, 2021 Public Hearing for Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) update I am highly alarmed that Council seemed unaware of my Public Comments for tonight's Public Hearing. I submitted these comments at 7:25 am this morning per the City's instructions for written comments. This causes me to wonder if City Council is reading Public Comments submitted in writing specific to Public Hearings. This is yet another reason for the City to read Public Comments submitted in writing out loud during the related Public Hearing. Doing so assures Council hears the Public Comments prior to voting. Ken Reidy From: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:03 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Heinsight (MCAC) <heinsight@earthlink.net> Subject: Fw: Dangerous intersection Forwarding to public comments per letter writer's request. Susan Paine, (she/her) M.P.A. Edmonds City Council, position 6 425-361-8844 From: Lora M.Hein Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 6:29 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Dangerous intersection Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 33 Packet Pg. 60 7.4.a Dear Edmonds City Council Members, I will be reading this message at the public comments of tonight's council meeting. I wanted you to have this written message to refer to for specifics. I live near the dangerous intersection of 224th St. SW and 96th Ave W, an intersection within the School Zone of Westgate Elementary School. Twice in one round trip this weekend I experienced drivers disregarding the north and south bound stop signs with additional signage saying "Cross traffic does not stop." While I was driving to the Saturday market, a car traveling south on 96th flew through the southbound stop sign making a left onto 224th in front of me. I pointed with wide eyes saying STOP! The look on the driver's face was like "what's with you crazy lady?" As I was returning from the farmers' market, coming up 224th from the west, a car headed north slowed on 96th before crossing directly in front of me making a left turn. If I had not been preemptively slowing it would have hit me. It began to accelerate before I slowed, as if he assumed I had a stop. Those two stop signs might as well not be there the way they are disregarded by drivers as they assume there are stop signs on 224th. If this intersection is not made into a four way stop, perhaps red flashers could be installed on the present signs to draw attention to the two-way nature of the stops, or rumble strips to alert drivers they are approaching a stop. SOMETHING!! Another alternative would be for intermittent posting of police to enforce the speed zone and stop signs. I frequently observe vehicles exceeding the 30 mph limit on 224th not to mention the 20 mph school zone limit. I frequently hear the screeching of brakes and have personally observed at least one vehicular collision that required cars to be towed after one was shoved onto the sidewalk cut at the crosswalk. I hope the city will do something about this dangerous intersection before serious injury or a fatality result from the ineffective signage at the intersection of 96th Ave W and 224th St. SW. Thank you for your consideration. Lora Hein heinsight@earthlink.net https://www.lorahein.com https://www.facebook.com/pg/LoraHeinAuthor/ Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 34 Packet Pg. 61 7.4.a "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." — Margaret Mead From: Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:02 PM To: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Public Hearing on Stormwater Code Update Thanks you! I agree - no consultants - just Zach Diane Buckshnis (she/her) City Council Position #4 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council PSP Salmon Recovery Council cell 425-275-7695 From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:51 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Hearing on Stormwater Code Update Concern for Timing and Content of Stormwater Code Update. Last year, the Council approved the Mayor's 2021 budget initiative for a "Salmon Safe Certification" process which would provide an independent review and verification of the City's environmental practices for protecting water quality and habitat. The process included an expert review of the City's Stormwater Management Policies and Practices relative to protecting the health of the watersheds in Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 35 Packet Pg. 62 7.4.a Although the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee worked with the Salmon Safe organization, at the Mayor's request, to develop a Scope of Work specific to Edmonds before January 2021, the City's Agreement/Contract with the Salmon -Safe Organization still has not yet been issued. Thus, an environmental 'expert' stormwater management review is not available for this stormwater code update. Thus, the Council does not have an environmental expert's input on current stormwater management in this City to evaluate whether the proposed update to the City's stormwater code is adequate to protect the health of the Edmonds watersheds. We do know that Perrinville Creek has been and continues to be destroyed by stormwater that gushes into the creek during heavy rainfall. We also know that the instream fish habitat in Shell Creek is also being devastated by sediment deposits caused by stormwater flows. We know that stormwater impacts on our watersheds have been getting worse and we are not seeing that change. What the City (and Council) don't know is what the "Salmon -Safe" environmental expert's assessment will show and what otherwise would/should have been used by the City in updating the stormwater code. Citizens concerned about stormwater management and how it is affecting our streams and wetlands are not in a good position to provide constructive comments on the stormwater code without first having the environmental expert recommendations that will come out of the "Salmon -Safe Certification" process. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:02 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for September 21, 2021 Council Meeting For a Municipal Government to function properly, city officials understand they work for the citizens. Citizens are granted courtesy, their emails are responded to, and their questions are answered. An emphasis on friendly and courteous service to the public improves the quality of public service and confidence of citizens. Communications between the citizens and all Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 36 Packet Pg. 63 7.4.a municipal officers is supposed to be encouraged. Refusing to respond to citizen emails is a violation of the Code of Ethics. Councilmembers have submitted complaints against fellow Councilmembers that reference the Code of Ethics. As such, why do Councilmembers choose to violate that same Code of Ethics? Why do Councilmembers ignore citizens who make complaints like their own complaints made against fellow Councilmembers? Again, see attached. Over the years, I have asked city officials hundreds of questions covering a wide range of topics. Many of my questions have gone unanswered. For example, the last email response I received from an Edmonds Mayor was in March of 2012. My confidence in City government has greatly decreased because of this conduct by city officials. As a reminder, all city officials are below citizens on the City's Organizational Chart. Elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers serving in an official capacity (i.e. Boards and Commissions) have a responsibility to emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens. This is mandatory. The Code of Ethics clearly states: "We shall:". (As a side note, one more reason the Code of Ethics should be improved is it doesn't address a City Councilmember who was not "elected".) Elected Officials - Please respond to citizen emails and answer all citizen questions! If you don't want to do what is mandatory and emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens, RESIGNATION from office is a way you can rid yourself of these responsibilities. Many Edmonds citizens have been willing to serve after Councilmembers have resigned in the past. Several current city officials have experienced this directly. Please be very aware that the Code of Ethics states WE SHALL: Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens. The Code of Ethics is the same document the following words were pulled from on the attached document: dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships. Citizens of Edmonds need greatness from our city officials at this time. I think citizens deserve great city officials. Please do all possible to promote improved city government. Please strive for better city government! Thank you. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 37 Packet Pg. 64 7.4.a Attachment: From: Buckshnis. Diane To: Taraday, Jeff; Passey, Scott Cc: Paine, Susan Subject: Re: Executive Session for one hour on 9/22/2020 for complaint Date: Friday, September 18, 2020 2:01:30 PM Attachments: ima e001. n ComplainComplaint9 22 2020 executive session.docx Good Afternoon, I have spoken to Susan and she helped me in putting this together. Scott, I would guess that Susan will have to lead this meeting? Than ks, Dian e From: Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 1:11 PM To: Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Executive Session for one hour on 9/22/2020 for complaint by two Council Members against another Jeff Taraday 600 Stewart Street, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-273-7440 E-mail: jeff@lihthouselawroup.com THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVATE AND PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON MEANT TO RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE DELETE IT AND PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE. From: Scott Passey <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Date: Friday, September 18, 2020 at 12:21 PM To: Jeffrey Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Cc: "Paine, Susan" <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>, "Monillas, Adrienne" <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>, Diane Buckshnis <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Executive Session for one hour on 9/22/2020 for complaint by two Council Members against another P. 2 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 38 Packet Pg. 65 7.4.a Jeff, TIA, Scott From: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Mon illas@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 12:12 PM To: Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Re: Executive Session for one hour on 9/22/2020 for complaint by two Council Members against another I also have another complaint to file under the RCW. So let's book a hour Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Edmonds City Council On Sep 18, 2020, at 11:35 AM, Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> wrote: Good Morning Scott and Adrienne, I would like to ensure that there an executive session for one hour for a complaint regarding RCW 42.23.070 from two Council Member against another and I understand this information was requested yesterday. Thank you. Diane Diane Buckshnis City Council Position #4 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council PSP Salmon Recovery Council cell425-275-7695 Complaint — In open session on September 15, 2020 during the Council Comment section, Council President Fraley Monillas disclosed portions of a conversation that took place in an executive session of September 8, 2020. Specifically, RCW section 42.23.070 (Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers: Prohibited Acts) prohibits Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 39 Packet Pg. 66 7.4.a disclosure of confidential information. The specific violation was 42.23.070(4) which is: No municipal officer may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer's position, nor may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit. This comment is contrary to our code of ethics — by being dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships and to not allow a member to personally benefit or profit by confidential information being disclosed or by misuse of public resources. This comment is contrary to our code of conduct for all group leaders specifically leaders should not intimidate other members or be disrespectful towards them. The comment is also contrary to Robert's Rule of Order — Rule 43:24 that Council refrain from speaking adversely or disclosing any action that was resolved and/or not pending. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:26 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the September 21, 2021 Public Hearing for Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) update As a reminder, the City of Sea Tac reads Written Public Hearing Comments into the record, up to 5 minutes in length. Why doesn't the City of Edmonds do that? Public Comments for Public Hearing for Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) update Prior to updating the Stormwater Management code, please answer the following questions: 1. When the City claims it needs property for a public purpose such as stormwater overflow, why does it leave that property in private hands? Why did the City not buy or condemn the property that was later sold to Donna Breske? Had the City done so, the Breske family's horrible experience with the City of Edmonds would never have been possible. 2. How did City Water, sewer and storm utilities get located partially within a 60- ft planned right-of-way in the Seaview Woods area? Did the placement of City Water, sewer and storm utilities within the "planned right-of-way' open the right-of-way or is a right-of- way only opened when it is improved so that it can be used for ingress/egress? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 40 Packet Pg. 67 7.4.a 3. When the City discovers a stormwater pipe has been installed without permit in an unopened right-of-way, can the City require the fee title owner to grant the party that installed the pipe an easement during a street vacation process? Why would the City do that instead of requiring the party to remove its pipe installed without permit? 4. Can the City divest ownership of publicly owned stormwater facilities to a private property owner such as was done as part of the Westgate Chapel street vacation? 5. If the City accepts a bond to finalize a plat, does the City have a duty to use the related bond to finish the required plat improvements so neighboring property owners will not be impacted by stormwater flowing onto their property? Thank you for answering all these questions prior to updating the Stormwater Management code. Ken Reidy From: Gretchen Pawling Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 2:59 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: tina@familycourtawarenessmonth.com; Bennett, Michelle <michelle.bennett@edmondswa.gov>; Schick, Jill <Jill.Schick@edmondswa.gov> Subject: November is Family Awareness Court Month #MeTooFamilyCourt Dear Mayor Mike Nelson and Edmonds City Council, November is Family Court Awareness Month. The month of November provides an excellent opportunity for Edmonds to demonstrate its support in recognizing the importance of a family court system that prioritizes child safety and acts in the best interest of children. During the inaugural Family Court Awareness Month (2020), the top advocates in the family court system joined forces in a united effort to honor the 758 children who had been murdered by a separating or divorcing parent (2008-2020, Center for Judicial Excellence). This collaboration was organized by Tina Swithin of One Mom's Battle and Sandra Ross of California Protective Parents Association. Joining in this awareness campaign was The National Family Violence Law Center, The Court Said USA, Kayden's Korner Foundation, Kyra Franchetti Foundation, Pollack Group LLC, Center for Judicial Excellence, and the Stop Abuse Campaign. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 41 Packet Pg. 68 7.4.a Efforts to coin the month of November as Family Court Awareness Month received recognition and endorsements from California Congresswoman Judy Chu, Senator Susan Rubio and Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio. At the Los Angeles press conference on November 1, 2020, Senator Rubio and Assemblywoman Rubio were in attendance and spoke prior to the ribbon cutting ceremony. The Los Angeles event was the first in a series of press conferences across the country. Speakers at these events were notable voices in the domestic violence and family court advocacy communities. These speakers included Jacqueline Franchetti whose daughter, Kyra Franchetti was murdered as a result of a New York family court failure. Ana Estevez, whose beloved son, Piqui, was murdered as a result of a California family court failure and Kathy Sherlock, mother to Kayden, who was murdered as a result of a Pennsylvania family court failure. Since last November, the number of children murdered by separating or divorcing parents has increased to 806; 48 additional children have lost their lives in less than a year. Currently, many families in our community are struggling in silence and facing the reality that child safety is not being prioritized. Our family court system lacks the proper training on domestic violence, childhood trauma and post separation abuse. In fact, many are shocked to discover that most states do not have domestic violence training requirements prior to a judicial officer presiding over family court cases and ultimately, determining the fate of innocent children. In the states that do have requirements for domestic violence training, it is very minimal. Our goal for Family Court Awareness Month 2021, is to shine a spotlight on solutions such as the research that is currently available, but not being utilized. This research includes: 0 The Meier Study M Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) 0 The Saunders Study 0 The Santa Clara University Study (High Conflict individuals in the family court system I would be honored if you would sponsor an official proclamation to recognize November as Family Court Awareness Month. Your proclamation would lend official recognition to the important work of educating the public, as well as emphasize your personal commitment to help support matters that are of the utmost importance to your community, child safety. As you are probably aware, October is National Domestic Violence Awareness month. Domestic Violence is about power and control, this doesn't go away when the relationship ends. For many survivors it actually intensifies with the separation and the abuse shifts to a new platform, the family court system. Post Separation Abuse makes for a perfect segue between Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Family Court Awareness Month. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 42 Packet Pg. 69 7.4.a I have cc'd founder, Tina Swithin (tina@familycourtawarenessmonth.com) on this email and if it works with her schedule, she would be honored to be in attendance (virtually) when the proclamation is presented. If you, or your staff, have any questions concerning the request, or Family Court Awareness Month, please call let me know. I will follow-up with your office on this request in the next few days. As always, we appreciate your support. Thank you for considering this very important request. Sincerely, Gretchen Pawling ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: Coercive Control: https://youtu.be/YbZYSBeHuLU & https://youtu.be/UO1O8eTViec Making the Case for ACES List of Cities issuing proclamations this year Letter to the United Nations Over One Hundred Mothers Denounce the United States of America Before the United Nations, for Human Rights Violations. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 21, 2021 Page 43 Packet Pg. 70 7.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 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 #249112 through #249269 dated September 23, 2021 for $1,031,337.54 and wire payment of $1,781.60. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64807 through #64810 and check #64817 for $597,044.38, benefit checks #64811 through #64816 and wire payments of $582,177.00 for the pay period September 1, 2021 through September 15, 2021. 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 09-23-21 wire 09-22-21 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-23-21 payroll summary 09-20-21 payroll summary 09-20-21 b payroll summary 09-20-21 c payroll benefits 09-20-21 Packet Pg. 71 7.5.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 09/22/2021 12:04:10PM City of Edmonds L 3 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account .y Amoun o a m 249112 9/23/2021 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-90826 INTERPRETER CAMBODIAN XZ081 INTERPRETER CAMBODIAN XZ081 U 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 170.0( 15-91338 INTERPRETER MARSHALLESE 1AC INTERPRETER MARSHALLESE 1Aa ui 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 170.0( 15-91347 INTERPRETER 1A0273074 KOREAI` v INTERPRETER 1A0273074 KOREAI` 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 170.0( c Total : 510.0( M 249113 9/23/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 49081 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI o 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 90.0( j, 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 9.3E 49380 PUBLIC WORKS - PEST CONTROL PUBLIC WORKS - PEST CONTROL U 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 150.0( o 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 15.6( o 49505 PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUSI PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUS a Q 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 125.0( 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 13.0( Cl) Total : 402.9E c 249114 9/23/2021 078538 ACKER, SCOTT 2006051.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP E REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' 001.000.239.200 295.0( Total: 295.0( E 249115 9/23/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 141772234 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 72 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249115 9/23/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 141772235 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 141788685 FIRE ALARM MONITORING - SNOIS Fire Alarm Monitoring - Snolsle Librar 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 141788686 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS 1 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS 1 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 7.5.a Page: 2 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a aD 50.9z 'D r U d 50.9z 45.8z m t 58.5E u 25.41 (D a� 22.9, �a 0 L 32.9< a 32.9< 29.6z u 0 37.8 1 > 0 16.4E a Q 14.8" N c%) N 92.8E o 9.6E c 27.2' E t 27.2, Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 73 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249115 9/23/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 141788687 ALARM MONITORING - SNO ISLE LI ALARM MONITORING FOR Sno Isle 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 141788688 ALARM MONITORING - FS #16 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 141788689 ALARM MONITORING - FS #17 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 141788690 ALARM MONITORING - CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS 1 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 141788691 ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT ALARM MONITORING FOR Wastew� 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 141788692 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC SAFE ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 7.5.a Page: 3 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 2.8< u L_ 2.& N m z 167.8E u 4 17.4E c aD M c 30.9E 0 L 3.2, a E 70.9E .� 7.3E 0 Ta 0 L 116.9( a Q 12.1E N Cl) N 45.9E c 4.7E c 101.9( E t 10.6( L) Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 74 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 4 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 249115 9/23/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL (Continued) 0 m 141788693 ALARM MONITORING - F.S. #17, SK Fire Inspection - Sno Isle 650 Main Si m 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 315.7, .L Fire Inspection - Fire Station #17, 27E 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 55.4, Fire Inspection - Historical Museum, 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 35.0, u Fire Inspection Public Safety, 250 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 153.3z c 141789311 ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON ( ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON ( 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 287.8- 141789312 FIRE INSPECTION ANDERSON CEI` 0 ALARM MONITORING FRANCES AN 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 277.9E a Total: 2,297.3E 249116 9/23/2021 078639 AGNIESZKA & JOHN CAMPA 5-12962 #21-245186 UTILITY REFUND U #21-245186 Utility refund due to 0 411.000.233.000 212.7£ �a Total: 212.7f o L Q 249117 9/23/2021 071634 ALLSTREAM 17718916 C/A 768328 Q- Q PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,339.3' N Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 N 11.0" o� Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 11.0- E Total: 1,361.3E 249118 9/23/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC 091521003 FINANCE DEPT WATER c Finance dept water E 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 51.5( 10.4% Sales Tax Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 75 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249118 9/23/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC 249119 9/23/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 091521006 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 Total 6560000110677 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE: PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE: 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE: 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE: 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6560000110680 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT 7.5.a Page: 5 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 5.3E 'D U d 15.2E N 73.7( U m c d 1.6" c �a 6.1" o 6.0£ a 0.1 m'E 0.6, o �a 0.6z o a a 0.6z Q 0.6z N Cl) N 0.6" o 6.1' .E R U 6.1' aD 6.1' E U �a Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 76 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249119 9/23/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 656000105087 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 656000107362 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 7.5.a Page: 6 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 9.2� u 19.1( N 0.91 v 1.9� 4- (D c a� 63.4, �a 6.5� o L �a a 1.6' E 6.1' u 0 6.1' > 0 L 6.1' a Q 6.1' N c%) 6.0£ N rn 0 0.3< 0.6, U c 0.6, E t 0.61 Q Page: 6 Packet Pg. 77 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 249119 9/23/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 656000107365 656000108795 656000108800 656000108803 249120 9/23/2021 071377 ARGUELLES, ERIN 8302021 PO # Description/Account 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 WWTP:9/15/21 UNIFORMS,TOWEL Mats/Towels $47.88 + $4.99 tax = $5 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 3 lab coats @ $17.each = $0.51 + tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 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 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 Total UPTOWN EVENING MARKET - CON UPTOWN EVENING MARKET - CON 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 7.5.a Page: 7 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 0.61 U L 0.3: N m z 9.2� u 19.1( c a� 1.5E �a 1.4- o L �a a 52.8, 0.5E U 0 Ta 63.4', o a a 6.5c Q N 29.5E N rn 0 3.0, 359.7: c a� 330.0( E 330.0( u Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 78 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249121 9/23/2021 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 249122 9/23/2021 078050 BALL, STEVEN E 249123 9/23/2021 002258 BENS EVER READY 249124 9/23/2021 070641 BHARTI KIRCHNER 249125 9/23/2021 078535 BIRDABILITY 249126 9/23/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 15741 SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT TROPHY SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT TROPHY 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 Total 07092021.Steve Ball BIRD FEST 2021 PRESENTER: INTF BIRD FEST 2021 PRESENTER: INTF 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 21031 FLEET MAINT - FIRE EXTINGUISHE FLEET MAINT - FIRE EXTINGUISHE 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 Total WOTS CONTRACT WOTS FICTION WRITING CONTES- WOTS Contract for Professional 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Total 05102021.Birdability BIRD FEST 2021 PRESENTER: TRA BIRD FEST 2021 PRESENTER: TRA 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 0015637 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 649.40 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 649.40 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1270114 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 565.80 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 565.80 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Total 7.5.a Page: 8 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 15.0( u L 1.5E 16.5f m v 100.0( 100.0( c �a 473.0( �a a 49.1 522.1 < •� 0 �a 130.0( o 130.0( a a Q N 100.0( Cl) 100.0( N rn 0 E 1,408.0" 2 c aD 1,232.0( E 2,640.01, UM Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 79 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 249127 9/23/2021 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 21593 EODC SERVICES THRU 6/26/2021 EODC SERVICES THRU 6/26/2021 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 21824 EODC SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 EODC SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Tota I : 249128 9/23/2021 078583 BOWERS, GREG 2006079.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 249129 9/23/2021 069638 BREWSTER, DAVID WOTS CONTRACT WOTS POETRY CONTEST JUDGE WOTS Contract for Professional 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Total 249130 9/23/2021 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IL89946 UNIT 8 - PARTS UNIT 8 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 249131 9/23/2021 074714 BUELL RECREATION LLC 210173 PM: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SL PM: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SU 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 249132 9/23/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 27332510 CANON C2501 F contact charge 9/2021 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 7.5.a Page: 9 Page: 9 Packet Pg. 80 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 249132 9/23/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 27332511 27332512 27332513 27332514 27332515 27332519 27332520 PO # Description/Account 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 RENTAL/LEASE - COPY MACHINE Bldg Dept Copier- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 RENTAL/LEASE - COPIER Planning Dept Copier- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 INV 27332519 - EDMONDS PD 9/21 -CONTRACT - WXD01878 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 7.5.a Page: 10 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 2.7E 'D r U d 32.3z N 3.3E v 32.3z (D a� 3.3E �a 0 32.3z `>, M a 3.3E U 45 26.4z 0 �a 2.7E O a a Q 32.3z N Cl) 3.3E N rn 0 185.7z . R 19.3, c a� E t 54.7z U Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 81 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249132 9/23/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27332521 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 PW Office Copier for 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 PW Office Copier for 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 PW Office Copier for 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 PW Office Copier for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 PW Office Copier for 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27332522 INV 27332522 - EDMONDS PD 9/21 FAXBOARD CONTRACT CHAR 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 7.5.a Page: 11 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 54.7< u L 5.7( N 5.6E v 66.1E c a� 37.4� �a 37.4� o L �a 26.4E E 26.4E 26.4E 0 �a 6.8E o a a 3.9( Q N 3.9( Cl) N 2.7E o E 2.7E 'M v 2.7E aD E t 36.0, Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 82 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 249132 9/23/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 0 m 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 3.7,' u 27332524 DEV SVCS COPIER - MONTHLY CO L Planning Copier (SN: 3AP01472)- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 217.4, 19 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 22.6, v 27332525 CANON SEPTEMBER 2021 CANON SEPTEMBER 2021 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 212.5E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 22.1- Total: 1,285.01 o L 249133 9/23/2021 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 009 STATE LOBBYIST SEPTEMBER 202 a STATE LOBBYIST SEPTEMBER 202 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,750.0( Total: 3,750.0( 0 249134 9/23/2021 077735 CENTRAL PAVING LLC E21 CA PMT 1 E21 CA PMT 1 THRU 7/09/21 Ta E21 CA PMT 1 THRU 7/09/21 > 0 112.000.68.542.30.48.00 53,627.0z a E21 CA PMT 1 THRU 7/09/21 Q' Q 125.000.68.542.30.48.00 191,580.6E v E21 CA PMT 1 THRU 7/09/21 126.000.68.542.30.48.00 143,394.0E N E21 CA PMT 1 THRU 7/09/21 0� 421.000.74.542.30.48.00 138,763.9E N E21 CA PMT 1 THRU 7/09/21 E 422.000.72.542.30.48.00 60,377.1 2 E21 CA PMT 1 THRU 7/09/21 .. 423.000.75.542.30.48.00 33,914.3( y Total: 621,657.1° E t 249135 9/23/2021 078568 CHANDRAN, RAMYA 2006087.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP U Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 83 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 249135 9/23/2021 078568 CHANDRAN, RAMYA (Continued) REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 249136 9/23/2021 078643 CHARLES G ENTERPRISES LLC 1-09450 #21-2308WA UTILITY REFUND #21-2308WA Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total 249137 9/23/2021 078644 CHERYLEE JESTER 4-17725 #0217317-OC-MP UTILITY REFUND #0217317-OC-MP Utility refund due ti 411.000.233.000 Tota I : 249138 9/23/2021 077841 CHOE, SARAH 2O06094.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 249139 9/23/2021 078540 CHUA, KATHERINE 2006053.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 249140 9/23/2021 074537 CITY OF BELLEVUE 40316 MBP SUBSCRIPTION 03 2021 MBP Subscription 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 Total 249141 9/23/2021 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS INV-44 E20CE ENG2021-0327 ROW PERMI E20CE ENG2021-0327 ROW PERMI 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Tota I : 249142 9/23/2021 078635 CLARK, JAMES J 2018-10707 RETURN OF FUNDS CASE 18-1070' RETURN SEIZED FUNDS 18-10707 7.5.a Page: 13 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 75.0( u 75.0( .L N m 151.9 r 151.91 m c d 168.0( r- 168.0( — 0 L �a a 64.0( .E 64.0( 0 �a 150.0( o 150.0( a El N 5,900.9E N 5,900.9E c E 2 U 370.0( 370.0( E t U �a Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 84 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 14 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 249142 9/23/2021 078635 CLARK, JAMES J (Continued) 001.000.245.900 1,140.0( Tota I : 1,140.0( 249143 9/23/2021 077793 CLARK, JOYCE 2006082.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 74.0( Total : 74.0( 249144 9/23/2021 077126 CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP 2999549 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8/28 & ! PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8/28 & ! 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 14,632.8( Total: 14,632.8( 249145 9/23/2021 075269 COBURN, LINDA 2006050.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 845.0( Tota I : 845.0( 249146 9/23/2021 078329 COMPENSATION CONNECTIONS LLC 1765 WWTP CONSULTING WWTP CONSULTING 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,035.0( Total : 2,035.0( 249147 9/23/2021 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING AUG 2021 AUG 2021 - EDMONDS PD AUG 2021 DRY CLEANING CHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 269.6E Total : 269.6E 249148 9/23/2021 078562 CURRY, WHITNEY 2006080.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 224.0( Tota I : 224.0( 249149 9/23/2021 078536 DEAN, JANAN 2006047.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 70.0( Page: 14 Packet Pg. 85 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 15 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 249149 9/23/2021 078536 078536 DEAN, JANAN (Continued) Total : 70.0( 249150 9/23/2021 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY LN-000001441 WWTP: L1400002 #15 LOAN PAYME Principal: 423.000.76.591.39.78.10 15,220.6� Interest: 001-727-1-1400002N-0409-0 423.000.76.592.39.83.10 2,886.6z Admin/Debt Service Charge: 423.000.76.592.35.89.00 2,177.6z Total : 20,284.9 , 249151 9/23/2021 078541 DIMOND, ELIZABETH 2O06054.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 150.0( Total : 150.0( 249152 9/23/2021 070441 DOBSON, IAN UEM 9/9/2021 UPTOWN EVENING MARKET PERF UPTOWN EVENING MARKET PERF 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 350.0( Tota I : 350.0( 249153 9/23/2021 078550 DORAN, MICHELLE 2006063.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 75.0( Tota I : 75.0( 249154 9/23/2021 078494 ECONORTHWEST 24457 DEV SVCS - PROF SVCS Edmonds Gap Analysis- 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 3,016.2.E Total : 3,016.2E 249155 9/23/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2552 PM: SPRAY PAINT PM: SPRAY PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.2E 2553 PM: FOLDING KNIFE Page: 15 Packet Pg. 86 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249155 9/23/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) PM: FOLDING KNIFE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2556 PM: COUPLER LOCK PM: COUPLER LOCK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2566 PM: PRIMER, FLASHLIGHT PM: PRIMER, FLASHLIGHT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2568 PM: STAPLEGUN, SILICONE, RUBB PM: STAPLEGUN, SILICONE, RUBB 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 2571 PM: TARP STRAPS PM: TARP STRAPS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2572 WWTP: PO 481 EPDXY PO 481 EPDXY 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2578 PM: COUPLING HOSE PM: COUPLING HOSE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.5.a Page: 16 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 34.9£ u L 3.6z N m 29.9� v 3.1, c aD c 27.5f 0 2.8, >+ M a E 71.0( .i 7.3£ 0 Ta 0 L 13.3E a Q 1.3� N Cl) N 29.5E c 3.0£ c 7.9E E t 0.& Q Page: 16 Packet Pg. 87 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249155 9/23/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2582 PM: PRIMER PM: PRIMER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2584 PM: NUTS, BOLTS PM: NUTS, BOLTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2585 F.A.C. - SUPPLIES F.A.C. - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2586 PM: EPDXY STICK PM: EPDXY STICK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2588 PM: TAPE PM: TAPE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2589 PM: SPRAY PAINT PM: SPRAY PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2591 PM: RAKES PM: RAKES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 7.5.a Page: 17 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U d 17.1E 1.7( Y m U 5.9, +' m c 0.6, M c �a 4.7E 0 L 0.5( a E 15.9E 0 1.6E > 0 L Q a 5.9E Q 0.6, Cl) N 0 11.1f 1.1E c aD 83.9; E U �a Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 88 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 249155 9/23/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2592 PM: SHAFT EXTENSION 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: SHAFT EXTENSION 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 249156 9/23/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-00080 IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 5-10351 INTERURBAN TRAIL INTERURBAN TRAIL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00025 MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00200 FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00475 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-01280 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK CITY PARK SPRAY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 7.5.a Page: 18 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 8.7< U m L 7.8( N 74.9� 492.9: U m c d 53.9z c �a 0 63.2E 1, �a a 2,143.3E U 4- 0 1,736.0E 0 0 L a 1,578.0E Q N 2,956.4( N rn 0 3,506.7, E .ii U 2,679.1( E t U 5,255.0E Q Page: 18 Packet Pg. 89 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249156 9/23/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02727 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02736 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A� FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A� 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02737 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02745 VETERANS PLAZA VETERANS PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02875 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02885 DOWNTOWN RESTROOM DOWNTOWN RESTROOM 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02900 FAC SPRINKLER FAC SPRINKLER 7.5.a Page: 19 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 2,509.2E N 337.5E 332.8� (D a� 2,621.5< 0 L 13.5, a E 459.3' u 0 �a 1,091.3< o a a Q 500.6< N Cl) N 6,379.8, c E 23.7E u c aD 712.2E E t U �a Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 90 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 20 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 249156 9/23/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 0 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 as 2,296.4E -0 6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( U FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( L 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,271.7E 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI d 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 649.0E U 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 240.3, 6-03575 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 382.0E p 6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : L-, FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; a 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,556.1.' 6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TI- FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF U 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 13.5 1 0 6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER �a SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER o L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,198.7E 0- 6-04425 SEAVIEW PARK Q .r SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 775.5' N 6-04450 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER Cl) SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,521.3E 6-05155 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 218.7E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; y 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 831.2E E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : U 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 M 831.2E Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 91 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 249156 9/23/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-05156 6-06040 6-07775 6-08500 6-08525 249157 9/23/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR199998 PO # Description/Account PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 YOST PARK SPRINKLER YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total ELECTRONIC BUSINESS SYSTEMS B/W & COLOR COPIES CANON C1E 7.5.a Page: 21 aD L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 831.2E u L 831.2E N 831.2, v 1.7( c a� 6.4z �a 6.4z o L �a 6.4z E 6.4z .� 6.4< 0 �a 0 258.6E a Q 1,672.7E Cl) N 0 1,970.8E M 321.6E 55,491.86 E t U �a Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 92 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 249157 9/23/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 249158 9/23/2021 078554 EMMONS, NOELE AR201298 AR201308 2006067.009 PO # Description/Account 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 C57501 bw meter overage 8/16/21 - 9/15/21 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 bw meter overage 8/16/21 - 9/15/21 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 bw meter overage 8/16/21 - 9/15/21 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 clr meter overage 8/16/21 - 9/15/21 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 clr meter overage 8/16/21 - 9/15/21 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 clr meter overage 8/16/21 - 9/15/21 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 WWTP: 8/16-9/15/21 MO. CHG 8/16-9/15/21 MO. CHG Contract over 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501 P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501: accot 001.000.64.571.22.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.45.00 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 7.5.a Page: 22 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a aD 165.8 1 'D r U d 17.2E N v 1.5, m c 1.5< c 20.6 , 0 20.6, >+ M a 20.6E 2.3" u 0 2.3- > 0 L 2.3( a Q 97.2E N 10.1- o E M 126.2� Z c 13.1' 0 503.35 t U co Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 93 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249158 9/23/2021 078554 EMMONS, NOELE 249159 9/23/2021 078101 ERIKSSON, SHARON 249160 9/23/2021 078640 EVAN & ELYSE RADEMACHER 249161 9/23/2021 078433 EVERT, BRIAN D 249162 9/23/2021 078567 FABIA, NATHAN Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2006102.009 4-37550 �11. 1. 11• 2006086.009 249163 9/23/2021 076712 FARWEST CORROSION CONTROL CO 0021917-IN 249164 9/23/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 170375 PO # Description/Account REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total REFUND: SCHEDULE CONFLICT REFUND: SCHEDULE CONFLICT: # 001.000.239.200 Total #21-246889 UTILITY REFUND #21-246889 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI' REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI' 001.000.239.200 Total WWTP: PO 509 CP SYSTEM ANNU/ PO 509 CP SYSTEM TEST 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total SEP-2021 SUPPORT SERVICES Sep-2021 Support Services 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total 7.5.a Page: 23 Page: 23 Packet Pg. 94 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249165 9/23/2021 078573 FOOTE, DEANA 249166 9/23/2021 077668 FRISK, DONNA 249167 9/23/2021 078281 FRITCHMAN, TIFFANY 249168 9/23/2021 078645 GARY EKROM 249169 9/23/2021 078647 GEOFFREY & CYNTHIA BENNETT 249170 9/23/2021 078539 GOODPASTER, DARIN Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 2006095.009 2006069.009 � � . � •I�IiIr>r] 8-25425 8-16125 2006052.009 249171 9/23/2021 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 165319 PO # Description/Account REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total #70174688-KW UTILITY REFUND #70174688-KW Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total UB OVERPAYMENT REFUND UB Overpayment refund 411.000.233.000 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total UNIT 64 - TIRES UNIT 64 - TIRES 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 WA STATE TIRE FEE 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 7.5.a Page: 24 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 72.0( u 72.0( .L N m 550.0( 550.0( m c a� 234.0( 234.0( — 0 L �a a 324.2, ,E 324.2 , 0 �a 11018.7m o 1,018.7i a Q N 295.0( N 295.0( c E 2 U 265.2( c aD 2.0( E t U 27.8E Q Page: 24 Packet Pg. 95 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 249171 9/23/2021 063137 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTE (Continued) 249172 9/23/2021 077519 GORENKO, KATSIARYNA 2006092.009 249173 9/23/2021 012199 GRAINGER 249174 9/23/2021 078544 GRAVES, JESSICA 249175 9/23/2021 078580 HAIGHT, CODY 249176 9/23/2021 078563 HANSEN, GELSI 249177 9/23/2021 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 249178 9/23/2021 078564 HARRISON-FAULKNER, CINDY Description/Account Total ; REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 9044327501 PUBLIC SAFETY - PARTS PUBLIC SAFETY - PARTS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota I : 2006057.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 2006105.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 2006081.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total FOCS544505 UNIT 282 - SERVICE & REPAIRS UNIT 282 - SERVICE & REPAIRS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Tota I : 2006083.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 7.5.a Page: 25 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 295.0! 0 U d L_ 188.0( 188.0( m 383.6E m c 39.9, -a 423.6( 0 L �a 75.0( a 75.0( E U 4- 0 100.0( > 100.0( o a a Q 258.0( N 258.0( Cl) rn 0 E 291.3E 30.5� y 321.9 , E t U co Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 96 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249178 9/23/2021 078564 HARRISON-FAULKNER, CINDY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 249179 9/23/2021 066575 HERC RENTALS INC 32328168-001 249180 9/23/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2019-272 249181 9/23/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0552294655 0552294656 0552294657 0552294658 0552294659 0552294660 0552294661 PO # Description/Account REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total PM: BOOM LIFT RENTAL PM: BOOM LIFT RENTAL 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 Total ; TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Total HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED 7.5.a Page: 26 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 74.0( u 74.0( .L N m 1,253.9' 130.4- 1,384.3i c �a 1,866.0( 1,866.0( a E U 644.9� c �a 439.6( a a Q 346.0( N Cl) N 120.4E o E 120.4E c aD E 221.6E �a Q Page: 26 Packet Pg. 97 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 249181 9/23/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET (Continued) 249182 9/23/2021 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG CD21-07 249183 9/23/2021 072528 INTERCOM LANGUAGE SERVICES 65103 249184 9/23/2021 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC W3Y0200005 249185 9/23/2021 078642 JAMES PRICE & D EDSON CLARK 6-08050 249186 9/23/2021 078542 JIN, NANHUA 249187 9/23/2021 078565 JOHNSON, MARY 249188 9/23/2021 078543 JONES, ANDREW 2006055.009 2006084.009 2006056.009 PO # Description/Account MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 Total HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY SERVIC HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY SERVIC 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total INTERPRETER 9Z1166164 SPANISF INTERPRETER 9Z1166164 SPANISF 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total WWTP: PROF SERVICES THRU 8/2 PROF SERVICES THRU 8/27/21 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total #21001190-SC-MP UTILITY REFUNE #21001190-SC-MP Utility refund due 411.000.233.000 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 7.5.a Page: 27 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 1,514.1, u 3,407.2E N m 250.0( 250.0( m c a� 100.0( 100.0( — 0 L �a a 2,283.0( .E 2,283.0( 0 Ta 3,162.4E o 3,162.4E a Q N 295.0( N 295.0( c E 2 U 74.0( 74.0( y E t U �a Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 98 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 28 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 249188 9/23/2021 078543 JONES, ANDREW (Continued) 001.000.239.200 295.0( Tota I : 295.0( 249189 9/23/2021 078546 KENNEDY, ASHLEY 2006059.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 75.0( Total : 75.0( 249190 9/23/2021 078641 KIMBERLY CALKINS & C ROGOWSKI 3-26100 #21-246667 UTILITY REFUND #21-246667 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 484.8� Tota I : 484.85 249191 9/23/2021 078556 KITCHENS, KYLEE 2006070.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI' REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 75.0( Tota I : 75.0( 249192 9/23/2021 078560 KLEIN, KELLI 2006074.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 150.0( Total : 150.0( 249193 9/23/2021 078532 KUNIHOLM, PAUL OTF KUNIHOLM OTF KUNIHOLM CONTRACT FOR A OTF KUNIHOLM CONTRACT FOR A 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.0( Total : 500.0( 249194 9/23/2021 078561 KUZARA, AUDREY 2006075.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 150.0( Tota I : 150.0( 249195 9/23/2021 078581 KVISTAD, JAMIE 2006107.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI' 001.000.239.200 144.0( Page: 28 Packet Pg. 99 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 249195 9/23/2021 078581 078581 KVISTAD, JAMIE (Continued) 249196 9/23/2021 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH JULY2021 249197 9/23/2021 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 48955 249198 9/23/2021 078571 LANIER, GABRIELA 2006091.009 249199 9/23/2021 078632 LAPLANTE, LESLIE 2006178.009 249200 9/23/2021 078549 LE, KATHY 2006062.009 249201 9/23/2021 075474 LEACH, JENNIFER 09162021 249202 9/23/2021 078471 LEMM, KEVIN 9904 TAEKWON-DO PO # Description/Account Total JULY2021- EDMONDS PD JULY 2021 CAR WASH CHARGES 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 Total EOMA SERVICES THRU 8/28/21 EOMA SERVICES THRU 8/28/21 332.100.64.594.76.41.00 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' 001.000.239.200 Total REFUND: PRESCHOOL WITHDRA1l\ REFUND: PRESCHOOL WITHDRAIA 001.000.239.200 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' 001.000.239.200 Total BIRD FEST REIMBURSEMENT FOR BIRD FEST REIMBURSEMENT FOR 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 BIRD FEST REIMBURSEMENT FOR 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 9904 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 9904 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 7.5.a Page: 29 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 144.0( U d L_ 172.3E 172.31 m z 1,181.2E m 1,181.2E c �a 234.0( o 234.0( a E 2,340.0( 2,340.0( 0 �a 0 L a a 295.0( Q 295.0( N Cl) N rn 24.0( N E 48.0( 72.0( c aD E t U 720.0( Q Page: 29 Packet Pg. 100 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249202 9/23/2021 078471 078471 LEMM, KEVIN 249203 9/23/2021 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 249204 9/23/2021 078634 LIMBERIS, TOBIAS 249205 9/23/2021 078552 LINGEREW, HAREGEWOIN 249206 9/23/2021 006048 LN CURTIS AND SONS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Total Sept-2021 09-2021 LEGALS FEES 09-2021 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 Total 2006180.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 2006065.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total INV514029 INV514029 - EDMONDS PD FILL STATION ADAPTER 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 LESS LETHAL LAUNCHER 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 ORING OVERHAUL KIT 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 INV519377 INV519377 - EDMONDS PD LESS LETHAL PROJECTILES 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 249207 9/23/2021 076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW 699 Total CONFLICT COUNSEL 1 A0154210 CONFLICT COUNSEL 1AO154210 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 7.5.a Page: 30 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 720.0( 0 U d L_ 51,878.0( 51,878.0( m 75.0( m 75.0( a0i c �a 75.0( o 75.0( a E 278.0( u 0 2,676.0( > 0 78.0( a Q 306.2< N A N 1,500.0( o 151.5( 4,989.7; c a� E t 502.5( U Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 101 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 31 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 249207 9/23/2021 076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW (Continued) CONFLICT COUNSEL 1 A0154210 E, 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 3.7.E 700 CONFLICT COUNSEL XZ0288301 CONFLICT COUNSEL XZ0288301 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 112.5( Total: 618.7° 249208 9/23/2021 078578 LYNCH, MICHAEL 2006101.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 288.0( Tota I : 288.0( 249209 9/23/2021 076098 LYNNWOOD GUN & AMMUNITION LLC 92849 INV 92849 - EDMONDS PD 65 RED DOT SIGHTS 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 18,850.0( 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 1,979.2.E Total : 20,829.2; 249210 9/23/2021 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 047785 01 PM: IRRIGATION SUPPLIES PM: IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.3z 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.5E Total : 47.8! 249211 9/23/2021 078646 MARGO RADOVICH 4-41775 UB OVERPAYMENT REFUND UB Overpayment refund 411.000.233.000 1,847.1( Total : 1,847.1( 249212 9/23/2021 078637 MICHAEL & BARBARA SCHMIDT 3-10900 #4222-3486601 UTILITY REFUND #4222-3486601 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 420.1, Total: 420.1 , Page: 31 Packet Pg. 102 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 249213 9/23/2021 078638 MITSY POMEROY 3-51425 #4201-3735141 UTILITY REFUND #4201-3735141 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Tota I : 249214 9/23/2021 076264 MONO ROOFTOP SOLUTIONS 26265 PUBLIC WORKS - ROOF REPAIRS PUBLIC WORKS - ROOF REPAIRS 001.000.66.518.30.48.10 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.10 Total 249215 9/23/2021 075266 MORGAN MECHANICAL INC S21-5536 WWTP: TROUBLESHOOT FAN TROUBLESHOOT FAN 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total 249216 9/23/2021 078534 NATIONALAUDUBON SOCIETY INC 05102021 SEWARD PARK BIRD FEST 2021 PRESENTER: JOY BIRD FEST 2021 PRESENTER: JOY 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Total 249217 9/23/2021 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0628813-IN WATER - PARTS WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Tota I : 249218 9/23/2021 078582 NEWHOUSE, COURTNEY 2006108.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 249219 9/23/2021 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS N036113 E187WR - PARTS 7.5.a Page: 32 Page: 32 Packet Pg. 103 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 33 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 249219 9/23/2021 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS (Continued) E187WR - PARTS 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 64.3< 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.3( Total: 70.6: 249220 9/23/2021 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 3249621-00 FLEET MAINT - PARTS FLEET MAINT - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 175.0( Freight 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 21.0, 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 20.3E 3249624-00 UNIT 120 - PARTS UNIT 120 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 438.2E Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 70.7.E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 52.9E Total : 778.25 249221 9/23/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 3685-159978 UNIT 42 - PARTS UNIT 42 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.0E Total : 22.0E 249222 9/23/2021 078545 PALMER, DALE 2006058.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' 001.000.239.200 295.0( Total : 295.0( 249223 9/23/2021 069633 PET PROS 1436 INV 1436 - EDMONDS PD HOBBS/A, Page: 33 Packet Pg. 104 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249223 9/23/2021 069633 PET PROS 249224 249225 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 9/23/2021 078533 PETERSON STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2102-0106-001 9/23/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2A37112 2A48533 2A54980 2A71354 PO # Description/Account HOBBS FOOD -DISCOUNT 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 ACE FOOD -DISCOUNT 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 Total : ESKA SERVICES THRU 8/31/21 ESKA SERVICES THRU 8/31/21 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 Total WWTP: PO 654 HOF RHJ1008HWPI PO 654 HOF RHJ1008HWPL1 LG RA 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WWTP: PO 638 BATTERY PO 638 BATTERY 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 WWTP: PO 638 GREASE GUN PO 638 GREASE GUN 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 WWTP: PO 654 ENCLOSURE PO 654 ENCLOSURE 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 7.5.a Page: 34 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 151.9f u L 118.7z N 29.9, 300.6z u m c d 3,289.1( 3,289.1( 0 �a a 28.4( 2.9E U 4- 0 Ta 116.2( p L a 12.0E Q N 358.0( N rn 37.2( N E 2 120.4< c a� 12.5" E z U 13.& Q Page: 34 Packet Pg. 105 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 35 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 249225 9/23/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) 2A80023 WWTP: PO 660 STRAIN RELIF GRIP PO 660 STRAIN RELIF GRIP 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 115.4- 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 12.0( Tota I : 829.0f 249226 9/23/2021 078579 PRINCE, CHERYL 2006104.009 REFUND: SCHEDULE CONFLICT REFUND: SCHEDULE CONFLICT 001.000.239.200 80.0( Tota I : 80.0( 249227 9/23/2021 071559 PUBLIC SAFETY PSYCHOLOGICAL SV 1649 INV 1649 POST COE EVAL 8/3/21 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 400.0( POST COE EVAL 8/14/21 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 400.0( Total : 800.0( 249228 9/23/2021 078570 PUSZTAI, JULIE 2006089.009 REFUND: SCHEDULE CONFLICT REFUND: SCHEDULE CONFLICT: # 001.000.239.200 74.0( Total : 74.0( 249229 9/23/2021 075770 QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC 7900 0440 8030 3286 QUADIENT POSTAGE postage 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 108.0E Tota I : 108.0f 249230 9/23/2021 078575 RAGSDALE, MIMI 2006097.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 64.0( Tota I : 64.0( 249231 9/23/2021 078576 REDFORD, JESSICA 2006098.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP Page: 35 Packet Pg. 106 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 249231 9/23/2021 078576 REDFORD, JESSICA (Continued) 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 249232 9/23/2021 078574 ROBERTS, AMY 2006096.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 249233 9/23/2021 078558 RODRIGUEZ, NORA 2006072.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 249234 9/23/2021 078547 ROSE, CRAIG 2006060.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 249235 9/23/2021 078572 SCHEEL, SUSAN 2006093.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 249236 9/23/2021 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B14053239 AUG-2021 CLOUD SERVICE CHAR( Aug-2021 Cloud Service Charges 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 Total 249237 9/23/2021 078548 SINGH, TEJINDER 2006061.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 249238 9/23/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-416170-2 UNIT 64 - PARTS 7.5.a Page: 36 W L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 64.0( -0 64.0( m L_ T3 N 72.0( y 72.0( m c 550.0( 550.0( 0 L �a 295.0( a 295.0( E U 4- 0 35.0( > 35.0( o a a Q 947.7c N Cl) N 98.5 - c 1,046.3, 2 U 295.0( a0i 295.0( E t U �a Q Page: 36 Packet Pg. 107 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 249238 9/23/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC (Continued) 249239 9/23/2021 078633 SJODING, BRITTA 2006179.009 249240 9/23/2021 036955 SKY NURSERY T-1880483 249241 9/23/2021 078569 SLEMP, ALEXIS 2006088.009 �iPZYi>r1tililr>r] 249242 9/23/2021 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3459 249243 9/23/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3467 200496834 PO # Description/Account UNIT 64 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total PM: FLOWER PROGRAM FERTILIZE PM: FLOWER PROGRAM FERTILIZE 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total PD - CASE RELATED EXPENSES PD - CASE RELATED EXPENSES 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 AUGUST PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTF AUGUST PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTF 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R 7.5.a Page: 37 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 111.0" L 11.5E 122.5E m v 75.0( 75.0( c �a 17.9E �a a 1.8E 19.8: •� 0 7a 75.0( c a a 72.0( Q 147.0( N Cl) N 0 6.0( 42,021.7( 42,027.7( E t U co Q Page: 37 Packet Pg. 108 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249243 9/23/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 200650851 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 200651644 PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 200723021 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 201184538 HICKMAN PARK HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 201383270 CITY PARK GAZEBO CITY PARK GAZEBO 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 201431236 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 201431244 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 201441755 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 201790003 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 202114484 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 202289450 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 7.5.a Page: 38 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 56.3- u 16.0< m 628.1- c a� 34.5, �a 0 23.7< `5% M a E 16.0' 'i U 4- 0 15.4E 0 L Q a 20.0< Q N 200.7E N rn 25.0, .E �a U 68.3E y E t 88.3E Q Page: 38 Packet Pg. 109 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249243 9/23/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 249244 249245 249246 249247 9/23/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 9/23/2021 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 9/23/2021 078557 SNOW, KIMBERLY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 202540647 204425847 220547574 221732084 2021-6935 79891 2006071.009 9/23/2021 078417 SOLOMON ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT UEM 9/9/2021 PO # Description/Account SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total INV 2021- 6935 - AUG 2021 - EDMOI 81 BASE RATE @ $142.63EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 27 BOOKINGS @ $128.88EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 10.25 CT VIDEO HRS @ $207.96EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 Total PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total UPTOWN EVENING MARKET PERF UPTOWN EVENING MARKET PERF 7.5.a Page: 39 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 17.1; N 50.7- v 83.Of d 110.5( 1,454.21 p 0 �a a 11,553.0E 3,479.7E o �a 2,131.5� o 17,164.31 a Q N 1,451.0( N 1,451.0E 0 E 75.0( 75.0( aD E t U �a Q Page: 39 Packet Pg. 110 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 40 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 249247 9/23/2021 078417 SOLOMON ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT (Continued) 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 525.0( Tota I : 525.0( 249248 9/23/2021 078551 SUM, ALEX 2006064.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 295.0( Total : 295.0( 249249 9/23/2021 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 9864 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR SEF SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR SEF 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 550.0( Tota I : 550.0( 249250 9/23/2021 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 180015193-00 UNIT 120 - PARTS UNIT 120 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.01 180018398-00 PM SUPPLIES: ZERO -RUST, PAINT PM SUPPLIES: ZERO -RUST, PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 306.3E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.8E Total : 349.0' 249251 9/23/2021 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 9201 B CREATIVE DISTRICT DIGITAL ADVE CREATIVE DISTRICT DIGITALADVE 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 3,200.0( Total : 3,200.0( 249252 9/23/2021 078553 THOMAS, BRI 2006066.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 295.0( Tota I : 295.0( 249253 9/23/2021 078585 TING, ELISABETH 2O06181.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP Page: 40 Packet Pg. 111 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.a Page: 41 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 249253 9/23/2021 078585 TING, ELISABETH (Continued) REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 75.0( Tota I : 75.0( 249254 9/23/2021 070774 ULINE INC 138134593 INV 138134593 - CUST 2634605 - El ZEBRA BARCODE PRINTER 001.000.41.521.80.35.00 639.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.80.35.00 35.7.E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.35.00 70.1 , Tota I : 744.9, 249255 9/23/2021 073310 UNISAFE INC 712413 WWTP: PO 659 GLOVES X-LRG PO 659 GLOVES X-LRG 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 859.6( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 39.9E Total : 899.5E 249256 9/23/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9888333452 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 107.1 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 41.2( Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.0£ Total: 195.4° 249257 9/23/2021 078555 VU, RYAN 2006068.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 295.0( Total : 295.0( 249258 9/23/2021 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.04-40 CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Page: 41 Packet Pg. 112 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 249258 9/23/2021 075155 WALKER MACY LLC 249259 9/23/2021 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 249260 9/23/2021 073472 WAPRO 249261 9/23/2021 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 249262 9/23/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 Tota I : 215184 INV 215184 - CS 21-22486 - EDMON TOW SILVER LEXUS - CS 21-22486 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Total 2983 WAPRO FALL TRAINING wapro fall training for L. Gray 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 3012 WAPRO FALL TRAINING wapro fall training for S. Quan 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 Total 121-550 PM: TREE REMOVAL: CITY PARK PM: TREE REMOVAL: CITY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 121-551 PM: TREE REMOVAL: CITY PARK PM: TREE REMOVAL: CITY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Total 12428236 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ TOWEL DI; FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ TOWEL DI; 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 7.5.a Page: 42 Page: 42 Packet Pg. 113 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 249262 9/23/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12428237 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total : 249263 9/23/2021 078302 WEBER, CAROL 8 VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 249264 9/23/2021 078566 WHITMARSH, GERRY 2006085.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 249265 9/23/2021 078577 WILLIAMS, KRISTIN 2006100.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 249266 9/23/2021 078537 WITTKAMPER, LIS 2006049.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 249267 9/23/2021 078559 WRIGHT, MARIA 2006073.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP 001.000.239.200 Total 249268 9/23/2021 078636 YONGNIAN WANG & HONG LIN 3-52365 #4244-3765420 UTILITY REFUND #4244-3765420 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 7.5.a Page: 43 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 0.6, 'D U m L 1,746.4E N 181.6: 1,93417 U m c d 500.0( 500.0( 0 �a a 74.0( 74.0( .E ca U 0 90.0( > 90.0( a a Q 75.0( Cl) 75.0( N rn 0 E 550.0( u 550.0( }; c a� E t U 263.1 f Q Page: 43 Packet Pg. 114 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 249268 9/23/2021 078636 078636 YONGNIAN WANG & HONG LIN (Continued) 249269 9/23/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 425-697-6502 425-712-0417 425-712-8251 425-775-1344 425-775-2455 425-776-3896 158 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 158 Vouchers in this report PO # Description/Account Total ; MUSEUM ALARM LINES - 118 5TH A Museum Alarm Lines - 118 5th Ave N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL, FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 7.5.a Page: 44 aD L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 263.1E 0 U d L 109.7, N m 36.01 36.0' c d M 17.0, 0 85.1 £ �a a 71.5E E 71.5E U 0 95.3E �u 0 L a a 75.7z Q N 68.3, N rn 0 139.1- E 805.65 2 1,031,337.5z c aD E 1,031,337.5z �a Q Page: 44 Packet Pg. 115 vchlist 09/22/2021 12 :04 :10 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 7.5.a Page: 45 Amoun Page: 45 Packet Pg. 116 7.5.b vchlist 09/22/2021 3:47:21 PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 9222021 9/22/2021 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 5923 UPTOWN MARKET LIGHT POLE W UPTOWN MARKET LIGHT POLE W 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 AMAZON RETURN - OUTDOOR LIG 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 5923 CS/ECON DEV CREDIT CARD AUGI Bird Fest Poster 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 EnjoyEdmonds.com Domain Renewa 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 Facebook Ad for the Uptown Market 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Mailchimp for issuing bulletins for 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 Mouse Pad 001.000.61.557.20.49.00 Facebook Ad Uptown Market 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 OfficeSpace website listing for Augus 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 File Folders 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 Uptown Market Lights & Poles 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 BID-9798 BID/ED! CREDIT CARD AUGUST 20: Media Temple Site Hosting 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Zoom Subscription September 2021 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 Facebook ad for August 2021 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 Total Bank total Page: 1 m L 3 c ea Amoun 00 0 a m 264.6( m =a -36.1 Y m t 381.2( w m c 21.1( (D 50.0( 30.9� �a 0_ 9.9' E .ii 12.5E U 4- 0 100.0( 0 L 16.9( 0- Q 490.1 N N N 279.7z c m L 16.5z '3 673.1 z 1,781.6( t 1,781.6( a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 117 vchlist 09/22/2021 3:47:21 PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.5.b Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun Total vouchers : 1,781.6( Page: 2 Packet Pg. 118 7.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 - SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA LSTM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA 2019 Traffic Calming 1 i038 STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD ES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB MR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA ISTR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC STPW 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 STR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 STR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA STR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force i062 _ E21 DB SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i060 E21 CC STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 STR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21 AA WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program i059 E21 CB STR 2022 Overlay Program i063 E22CA 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program i065 E22CC STR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program i066 E22CD STR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program i064 E22CB STR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC IL STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave Overlay (196th W i052 STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STR 89th PI W Retaining i025 STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 STR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA S MOT tywide Bi rovements Project i050 SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB ■ STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements"M�=I i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB Revised 9/15/2021 Packet Pg. 119 7.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) IL WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station ' FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STM Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project STR Edmonds Street Wattint Connector WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement m Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization &STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects SW R Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study t Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Project Accounting Number c551 c536 c482 c455 c443 c564 c478 c561 i058 c473 c282 s014 c436 s0ll �c461 Engineering Project Number EOMA EOMA ESJB E4FE E4MB E21FE ESDB E21JB E21 DA ESKA EBMA E6AA E4FD ESGB STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA Vb Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 E21 FC WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB hase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project c563 E21 FD SW R Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA lase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c559 E21 GA FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 E21GB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD ELLM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA orm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c49 STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements -MMEEk— 354 1WE1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA e STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) 4 PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA MoorWaterfront 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 WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA Revised 9/15/2021 Packet Pg. 120 7.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program EOCC 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project LS c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Pro' WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) Civic Center Playfield (Desig GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR E20CB 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E21AA iO56 2021 Traffic Calming 1AB 2021 Guardrail Installations STIR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program _ E21 CB Jok 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i06O 2021 Sewer Overlay Program E21 CD J� 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STIR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave 9K E21 DB i062 2021 Pedestrian Task Force PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization _ STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study c563 Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project STM E21 FE c564 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project SWR E21 GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement E22CA i063 2022Wrlay Prog�r STIR E22CB i064 2022 Waterline Overlay Program STIR E22CC i065 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program STIR E22CD i066 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program E3DB cAL 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Av STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Stud WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring Revised 9/15/2021 Packet Pg. 121 7.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title 4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System c474 Bikelink Project STIR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector eaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP Outfall Pipe Modification c481 WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) E51KA c473 , Five Corners Reservoir Re-coattn UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates s0la Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining W STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW NPDES (Students Saving Salmc WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement 9r PRK c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STIR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive 'Wi029 E8CA 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STIR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STIR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8,113 s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update Ir PM c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STR i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STM E9FA Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 9/15/2021 Packet Pg. 122 7.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71stAve Storm Improvements WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM EBFC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility WTR E21JA c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project SWR E21 GA c559 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project STM E21FB c560 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement SWR E21 GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services STM E21 FD c563 Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project STM E21 FE c564 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall Revised 9/15/2021 Packet Pg. 123 7.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STR EBAB i028 220th Adaptive STR EBCA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR EBCC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STR EBDB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STR EBDC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STR EODB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program STR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STR EOCC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave WTR E21CB i059 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i060 2021 Sewer Overlay Program STM E21 CD i061 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STR E21 DB i062 2021 Pedestrian Task Force STR E22CA i063 2022 Overlay Program STR E22CB i064 2022 Waterline Overlay Program STR E22CC i065 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program STR E22CD i066 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates SWR ESGB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM EBFA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES EBJB s02O 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design STR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update WTR EOJB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study Revised 9/15/2021 Packet Pg. 124 7.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Protect 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 PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 E21 CD STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STM Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project c563 E21 FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 E21 FC 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 STM Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project c564 E21 FE 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 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB STIR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA STIR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA 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 STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA Revised 9/15/2021 Packet Pg. 125 7.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Protect Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21 DA STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC STR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force i061 E21 DB STR 2022 Overlay Program i063 E22CA STR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program i064 E22CB STR 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program i065 E22CC STR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program i066 E22CD STR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i060 E21 CC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0ll ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c559 E21 GA SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 E21GB UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program i059 E21 CB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement c561 E21JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 9/15/2021 Packet Pg. 126 7.5.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,014 (09/01/2021 to 09/15/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 46.00 0.00 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 32.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 570.00 23,416.34 122 VACATION VACATION 1,421.00 60,262.17 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 69.00 2,852.00 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 16.00 611.45 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 247.75 10,566.90 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 18.50 653.19 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 20.00 1,092.11 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEA 15.00 271.21 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 27.00 1,128.54 149 KELLY DAY KELLY DAYS BUY BACK 26.55 981.38 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Dav Used 60.00 2,635.93 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 6.63 245.07 153 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY BUY BACK 8.00 295.71 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 88.80 4,834.26 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 32.00 1,955.42 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,463.25 631,666.87 194 SICK Emerciencv Sick Leave 30.00 1,084.61 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 20.00 917.89 205 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME .5 2.00 34.59 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 188.63 9,131.73 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,861.29 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 16.00 1,467.18 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 358.00 23,439.97 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 11.50 800.32 405 ACTING PAY OUT OF CLASS - POLICE 0.00 627.00 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 349.01 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,167.92 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 14.68 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 43.50 0.00 603 COMP HOURS Holidav Comp 1.0 27.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 138.00 0.00 09/22/2021 Packet Pg. 127 7.5.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,014 (09/01/2021 to 09/15/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 2.0 14.00 0.00 901 SICK ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 23.83 0.00 903 MISCELLANEOUS CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 0.00 -37.50 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 82.04 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 200.63 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 96.39 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 90.46 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 180.92 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 492.28 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 691.00 deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI 0.00 163.96 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 123.92 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 850.86 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 773.36 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 558.38 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 5,929.41 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 440.96 fmlv VACATION Familv Medical Leave Vacation 2.00 58.10 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 1,265.60 51,330.42 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 266.41 less MISCELLANEOUS LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 86.54 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,102.30 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 599.74 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 4,496.08 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 633.16 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 888.02 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 251.44 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 374.16 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 1,268.93 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 325.07 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 307.02 I0 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 8% 0.00 710.88 mels SICK Medical Leave Sick 80.00 2,888.09 09/22/2021 Packet Pg. 128 7.5.d Hour Type Hour Class mtc MISCELLANEOUS ooc MISCELLANEOUS nds MISCELLANEOUS pfmp ABSENT pfms SICK phy MISCELLANEOUS prof MISCELLANEOUS pto MISCELLANEOUS sdp MISCELLANEOUS sgt MISCELLANEOUS slw SICK st REGULAR HOURS traf MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,014 (09/01/2021 to 09/15/2021) Description Hours Amount MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 123.92 OUT OF CLASS 0.00 186.00 Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 116.54 Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup 296.30 0.00 Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 127.70 4,968.48 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,454.99 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 196.58 Training Officer 0.00 157.28 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 301.49 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 196.58 SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 18.00 0.00 Serqeant Pav 0.00 147.44 TRAFFIC 0.00 123.92 20,877.54 $870,561.39 Total Net Pay: $592,163.16 09/22/2021 Packet Pg. 129 7.5.e Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,073 (09/01/2021 to 09/15/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 80.00 3,520.45 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 8.00 352.05 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 19.36 88.00 $3,891.86 Total Net Pay: $2,479.53 0 a a� 0 =a y Y V d t r a� c a� c �a 0 L CQ C V 0 O L Q Q Q r N O N a) O i fC E E 3 N 0 L Q i E c,> R Q 09/22/2021 Packet Pg. 130 7.5.f Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,074 (09/01/2021 to 09/15/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 122 VACATION VACATION 2.00 85.47 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 22.00 940.23 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 48.00 2,051.40 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 8.00 341.90 80.00 $3,419.00 Total Net Pay: $2,401.69 09/22/2021 Packet Pg. 131 7.5.g Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,014 - 09/01/2021 to 09/15/2021 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 64811 09/20/2021 bpas BPAS 5,160.30 0.00 64812 09/20/2021 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 5,781.00 0.00 64813 09/20/2021 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 631.76 0.00 64814 09/20/2021 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 3,906.24 0.00 64815 09/20/2021 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,950.00 0.00 64816 09/20/2021 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 3,673.89 0.00 24,103.19 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3258 09/20/2021 awc AW C 310,486.53 0.00 3261 09/20/2021 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 25,256.04 0.00 3262 09/20/2021 us US BANK 113,003.62 0.00 3263 09/20/2021 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 102,657.43 0.00 3265 09/20/2021 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,905.69 0.00 3267 09/20/2021 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 764.50 0.00 0.00 558,073.81 Grand Totals: 582,177.00 0.00 9/22/2021 Packet Pg. 132 7.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Randall J. Hodges Photography Staff Lead: NA Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Randall J. Hodges Photography Narrative Randall J. Hodges Photography 317 Main Street ($14,900) Attachments: Hodges, Randall - Claim for Damages - for council Packet Pg. 133 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: _ DRIVER: Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Received by City n C6ap plq 9 — Please take note that 06", PL'rwho currently resides at _ mailing address <&q Mee,A home phone # work phone # q Z S-Z 1 u- e6'F64, and who resided at at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is ��`, is claiming damages against Cry p n7 .1� in the sum of $ 1 Y O) arising out of the fallowing circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: U' zo�� TIME: C, U0'k IV4 LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE. 0 m ) Ud 1) PfboU, `e � /� ln1 � 2_ � I DESCRIPTION: Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the A or aamage. a� (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. C Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. Yes X No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) (model) OWNER: Address: Phone#: Name: Address: Form Revised 04/09/2021 Paget of 2 rn m �l E E .2 U Packet Pg. 134 7.6.a This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant. I declare under penalty of p rjury rider the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Slgrfitu ai an Date rid pface (resideritial address, city and county) Or Signature of Representative Date and place (residential address, city and county) Print Name of Representative Bar Number (if applicable) Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Form Revised 04/0912021 Page 2 of 2 E .2 U Packet Pg. 135 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 2021 September Budget Amendment Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History Amend the 2021 Ordinance No. 4230 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approves Ordinance No. XXXX amending the 2021 Budget. Attachments: 2021 September Amendment Exhibits 2021 September Budget Amendment Ordinance Packet Pg. 136 8.1.a New Item for Council to Consider (September 2021) Budget Amendment for: September 21st, 2021 Item Description: To unfreeze the salaries and benefits for the Administrative Services Deputy Director position. Department: jAdministrative Services Division: Fund 001 GENERAL Title: Administrative Services Deputy Director Name: Preparer: Marissa Cain Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? On -Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? 10perating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fill out on -going costs & revenues Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.31.514.20.11.00 Salaries $ 46,881 $ 125,016 $ 125,016 $ 125,016 $ 125,016 001.000.31.514.20.23.00 Benefits 13,286 35,428 35,428 35,428 35,428 Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 60,167 $ 160,444 $ 160,444 $ 160,444 $ 16Q444 Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ S $ S $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 60,167) $ 160,444 $ 160,444 $ 160,444 $ 160,444 Total Ending Fund Balance hicrease Decrease $ 60,167 $ 160,444 $ 160,444 $ 160,444 $ 160,444 r C d E C d E Q d a� 3 m L d sZ d to T N O N N :E x W r c d E C d E Q L E d C. d co N O N a+ C d E M V 2 r+ Q Packet Pg. 137 8.1.a New Item for Council to Consider (September 2021) Budget Amendment for: September 21st, 2021 Item Description: This decision package adds authority to the budget to transfer $40,000 into the General Fund in order to closeout the Firemen's Pension Fund. Department: Administrative Services Fund Name: MULTIPLE FUNDS Division: Finance Title: Close Firemen's Pension Fund Preparer: Marissa Cain Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 617.000.51.597.00.55.00 Interfund Transfer $ 40,000 S $ S $ Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 40,000 $ S $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.397.00.000.00 Interfund Transfer $ 40,000 $ $ S $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 40,000 $ - $ $ $ 617.000.51.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 40,000 Total Ending Fund Balance hicrease Decrease $ $ $ $ $ r C d E C d Q d a� 3 m L d sZ d to T N O N N :E x W r c d E C d E Q L E d C. d co N O N a+ C d E t V 2 r+ Q Packet Pg. 138 8.1.a New Item for Council to Consider (September 2021) Budget Amendment for: September 21st, 2021 Item Description: The Tree Fund was created with Ordinance No. 4218, which requires payments into the fund through the tree code's fee -in -lieu program to be spent on either tree planting or the purchase of open space. Fund 118 was established via Ordinance 2396 in 1983, and has been virtually dormant for years. It has been determined the best use of the funds in the Memorial Tree Fund would be to repurpose them for the new Tree Fund. This decision package is to add the authority to transfer the funds out of the Memorial Tree Fund into the new Tree Fund. Department: Parks & Recreation Fund Name: MULTIPLE FUNDS Division: Title: Tree Fund Transfer Preparer: Marissa Cain Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? 10perating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 118.000.64.597.80.55.00 Interfund Transfer $ 20,528 $ $ S $ Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 20,528 $ S $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 143.000.397.19.000.00 Interfund Transfer $ 20,528 $ $ S $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ 20,528 $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 118.000.64.508.30.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 20,528 $ $ $ $ 143.000.64.508.30.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 20,528 Total Ending Fund Balance hicrease Decrease $ $ $ $ $ r C d E C d Q d a� 3 m L d sZ d to T N O N N x W r c d E C d E Q L E d C. d co N O N a+ C d E t V 2 r+ Q Packet Pg. 139 8.1.a Previously Discussed by Council (September 2021) Budget Amendment for: September 21st, 2021 Item Description: To add the city's new Urban Forest Planner position to the budget. Department: Development Services Fund Name: 001 GENERAL Division: Planning Title: Urban Forest Planner Preparer: Marissa Cain Budget Amendment Type Previously Discussed By Council Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? June 15, 2021 How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? On -Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? 10perating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fill out on -going costs & revenues Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.62.558.60.11.00 Salaries $ 27,666 $ 85,068 $ 85,068 $ 85,068 $ 85,068 001.000.62.558.60.23.00 Benefits 8,096 24,892 24,892 24,892 24,892 Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 35,762 $ 109,960 $ 109,960 $ 109,960 $ 109,960 Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ S $ S $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 35,762) $ (109,960) $ 109,960) $ (109,960) $ 109,960 Total Ending Fund Balance hicrease Decrease $ 35,762 $ 109,960 $ 109,960 $ 109,960 $ 109,960 r C d E C d E Q d a� 3 m L d !Z d to T N O N N t K W r c d E C d E Q L E d C. d co N O N a+ C d E M V 2 r+ Q Packet Pg. 140 8.1.a Previously Discussed by Council (September 2021) Budget Amendment for: September 21st, 2021 Item Description: This decision package adds authority to the budget to transfer $25,000 from the General Fund into the Risk Management Reserve Fund. Department: Administrative Services Fund Name: MULTIPLE FUNDS Division: Finance Title: Risk Management Reserve Fund Transfer Preparer: Marissa Cain Budget Amendment Type Previously Discussed By Council Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.39.597.19.55.11 Interfund Transfer $ 25,000 S $ S $ Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 011.000.397.19.001.00 Interfund Transfer $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ 011.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 25,000 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ $ $ $ $ r C d E C d Q d a� 3 m L d !Z d to T N O N N :E x W r c d E C d E Q d E d C. d co N O N a+ C d E t V 2 r+ Q Packet Pg. 141 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4230 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2021 Budget; and THEREFORE, WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 4230 amending the budget for the fiscal year 2021 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D adopted herein by reference. 1 Packet Pg. 142 8.1.b Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE NELSON 2 Packet Pg. 143 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4230 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2021. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 144 EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (September 2021) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2021 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2021 ENDING FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 13,347,278 42,490,777 46,099,647 9,738,408 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 459,105 300,000 467,140 291,965 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 25,000 - 25,000 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 1,825,890 2,620 - 1,828,510 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 11,517 5,010 5,900 10,627 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 210,222 - 210,222 - 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 864,490 20,000 844,490 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 123,581 123,581 - 019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 28,445 - 28,445 - 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 159,431 165,370 45,800 279,001 111 STREET FUND 941,253 1,722,360 2,187,430 476,183 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/I MP ROVE 2,189,972 3,068,385 2,862,297 2,396,060 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 599,272 165,060 236,880 527,452 118 MEMORIAL STREETTREE 20,534 270 20,528 276 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 88,392 71,460 87,150 72,702 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 87,233 25,240 26,880 85,593 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 14,041 1,390 3,000 12,431 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 75,353 24,000 29,900 69,453 125 PARK ACC/IMPROVEMENT 2,000,717 1,282,050 1,601,298 1,681,469 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 1,946,015 1,285,240 2,053,911 1,177,344 127 G I FTS CATALOG FU N D 316,106 103,930 100,900 319,136 130 CEM ETERY MAI NTENANCE/I MPROV 213,707 179,800 200,998 192,509 136 PARKSTRUSTFUND 169,460 2,200 50,000 121,660 137 CEMETERYMAINTENANCETRLIST FD 1,107,524 29,220 25,000 1,111,744 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,408 10,120 11,900 8,628 140 BUSI N ESS I M P ROVEMENT D I STRI CT FU N D 10,346 79,239 76,340 13,245 141 AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND 65,112 65,000 - 130,112 142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND - 5,946,550 5,946,550 - 143 TREE FUND 20,528 - 20,528 211 LID FUND CONTROL - - - 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 759,710 759,700 10 332 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 6,046,540 1,392,520 5,552,490 1,886,570 421 WATER 22,026,766 10,299,357 10,760,050 21,566,073 422 STORM 9,914,166 6,265,225 7,293,890 8,885,501 423 SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT 55,138,987 31,130,450 40,492,284 45,777,153 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 843,931 1,985,870 1,985,870 843,931 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 8,712,017 1,331,100 1,429,954 8,613,163 512 Technology Renta I Fund 734,287 1,204,880 1,257,909 681,258 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 137,533 67,270 136,167 68,636 Totals 130,439,631 111,507,201 132,190,011 109,756,821 L N E C� d Cn r CV O CV C d E t v R r r Q Packet Pg. 145 8.1.b EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (September 2021) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION Adopted Budget Ord. #4211 1/1/2021 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4216 3/10/2021 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4221 4/27/2021 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4230 7/23/2021 Proposed Amendment Ord. # 912021 2021 Amended Revenue Budget 001 General Fund $ 42,450,777 $ $ $ - $ 40,000 $ 42,490,777 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 300,000 - 300,000 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund - 25,000 25,000 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 2,620 - 2,620 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,010 5,010 016 Building Maintenance Fund - - 017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund 018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund 019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund - - 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 165,370 165,370 111 Street Fund 1,722,360 1,722,360 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 3,048,185 20,200 3,068,385 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 165,060 - 165,060 118 Memorial Street Tree 270 270 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 71,460 71,460 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 25,240 25,240 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,390 1,390 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 24,000 24,000 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,282,050 1,282,050 126 Special Capital Fund 1,285,240 1,285,240 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 103,930 103,930 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 179,800 179,800 136 Parks Trust Fund 2,200 2,200 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd 29,220 29,220 138 Sister City Commission 10,120 10,120 140 Business Improvement District Fund 79,239 79,239 141 Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund 65,000 - 65,000 142 Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund - 5,946,550 - 5,946,550 143 Tree Fund - 20,528 20,528 211 Lid Fund Control - - - 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 759,710 759,710 332 Parks Construction 1,392,520 1,392,520 421 Water 10,299,357 10,299,357 422 Storm 6,012,300 252,925 6,265,225 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 28,131,150 2,999,300 31,130,450 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,985,870 - 1,985,870 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,331,100 1,331,100 512 Technology Rental Fund 1,204,880 1,204,880 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 67,270 67,270 Totals $ 102,202,698 $ 3,272,425 $ $ 5,946,550 1 $ 85,528 $ 111,507,201 C N E C N E Q r Ci) 7 m L d E N Q d CV O CV L E C� d Cn r CV 0 CV C d E t v R r Q Packet Pg. 146 8.1.b EXHIBIT "C: Budget Amendments by Expenditure (September 2021) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION Adopted Budget Ord. #4211 1/1/2021 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4216 3/10/2021 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4221 4/27/2021 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4230 7/23/2021 Proposed Amendment Ord. # 912021 2021 Amended Expenditure Budget 001 General Fund $ 45,179,468 $ 610,850 $ 188,400 $ $ 120,929 $ 46,099,647 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 467,140 - - - 467,140 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund - - 012 Contingency Reserve Fund - - 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,900 5,900 016 Building Maintenance Fund 210,222 - 210,222 017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund - 20,000 20,000 018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund 123,581 - 123,581 019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund 28,445 28,445 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 45,800 - 45,800 111 Street Fund 2,172,530 14,900 2,187,430 112 Combined StreetConst/Improve 2,781,828 36,469 44,000 2,862,297 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 236,880 - - 236,880 118 Memorial Street Tree - 20,528 20,528 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 87,150 - 87,150 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 26,880 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 29,900 - - 29,900 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,428,736 47,562 125,000 1,601,298 126 Special Capital Fund 1,761,841 292,070 - 2,053,911 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 100,900 - 100,900 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 200,998 200,998 136 Parks Trust Fund 50,000 50,000 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd 25,000 25,000 138 Sister City Commission 11,900 11,900 140 Business Improvement District Fund 76,340 76,340 141 Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund - - 142 Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund 5,946,550 5,946,550 143 Tree Fund - - 211 Lid Fund Control - - 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 759,700 759,700 332 Parks Construction 5,360,378 192,112 - 5,552,490 421 Water 10,578,596 136,054 45,400 10,760,050 422 Storm 6,847,783 406,307 39,800 7,293,890 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 35,634,329 4,789,555 68,400 40,492,284 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,985,870 - - 1,985,870 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,292,815 53,139 84,000 1,429,954 512 Technology Rental Fund 1,251,409 - 6,500 - 1,257,909 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 1 96,167 40,0001 136,167 Totals 1 $118,861,486 1 $ 6,564,118 1 $ 636,400 1 $ 5,946,550 1 $ 181,457 1 $ 132,190,011 C N E C N E Q r N 7 m L d E N r Q d r N O L N E N d 07 r N 0 N C d E t v R r r Q Packet Pg. 147 EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendment Summary (September 2021) 8.1.b Proposed Proposed Proposed Amendment Amendment Amendment Changein Change in Change in Ending Fund Number Revenue Expense Fund Balance 001 40,000 120,929 (80,929) 011 25,000 - 25,000 118 - 20,528 (20,528) 143 20,528 - 20,528 617 - 40,000 (40,000) Total Change 85,528 1 181,457 1 (95,929) C N E C N E Q r N 7 m L d E Q d r N O N a+ Q Packet Pg. 148 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Public Hearing for Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) update Staff Lead: Zack Richardson Department: Engineering Preparer: Rob English Background/History On July 13, 2021, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee. On July 20, 2021, staff presented this item to City Council for review and comments. On September 21, 2021, staff presented this item to the City Council and a public hearing was scheduled to receive public comment. City Council continued the public hearing to the September 28, 2021 City Council meeting. Staff Recommendation Consider public comment provided at the Public Hearing. Discuss possible changes or forward the item for approval on a future consent agenda pending SEPA and Department of Commerce approval. Background: The City's municipal NPDES permit with the Washington Department of Ecology requires that the City maintain adequate stormwater management code for new development in order to protect surface waters. Each 5-year cycle of the permit requires an update to the City code to remain compliant with the most current guidance from Ecology. The current permit requires that our codes be updated to reflect their 2019 Surface Water Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) by July of 2022, but staff have proposed to have the new code effective 1/1/2022 for better clarity of application of standards for future projects. Narrative The City must adopt drainage management code which is at least as protective as SWMMWW, but the City does have the ability to add Edmonds -specific provisions which are in addition to Ecology minimums. The difference between SWMMWW and Edmonds codes are managed in the Edmonds Storm water Addendum (Addendum) so that the update to ECDC 18.30 is ultimately to adopt the 2019 SWMMWW as modified in the Addendum. The revised versions of both ECDC 18.30 and the Addendum are attached in a clean version (as proposed) and a redlined version, which tracked all changes between the current proposal and the existing code. The changes since the previous version of the drainage code are summarized in Attachment E (2022 ECDC 18.30 and Storm water Addendum Summary of Changes) and are broken into three categories. Packet Pg. 149 8.2 1. Ecology directed provisions, shown in orange, are revisions need to generally maintain compliance with Ecology guidance. These are generally items that the City does not have the ability to omit or revise in the code. 2. Staff -proposed revisions for clarity only, are shown in white, and generally will not impact development. These revisions are predominantly to assist staff in communicating requirements to designers and to assist with enforcement; they are not new impacts. 3. Staff -proposed revisions which are substantive changes, are shown in green, and would be anticipated to have some potential for impact on development. Ecology did a reorganization of the manual for the current version, so there are a fair number of changes to their manual, but most are non -substantive. Most of the updates are reorganizational only and not changes to requirements themselves. See Attachment G and Attachment F for more information on the Ecology revisions. Staff have proposed four substantive changes to the Edmonds -specific portions of code. 1. Changes to the way new connections of existing impervious surfaces are handled; revised to be treated like new impervious and mitigated for in accordance with drainage code. 2. Removed Edmonds Way as 'direct discharge basin' and any corresponding exemptions; project in Edmonds Way to be treated same as rest of City. 3. Increased protections of Perrinville Creek by (a) increasing the application of the City "retro-fit" LID requirement and (b) increasing the flow control standard for projects within the basin. 4. Revising the LID BMP list so that the Edmonds -specific detention BMP is used for LID treatment before the "perforate pipe connection" BMP See the attached documents for more details on the changes and their anticipated impacts. Attachments: Attachment A— Draft Ordinance Attachment B — Revised ECDC 18.30 (Clean) Attachment C — Revised Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (Clean) Attachment D — Revised ECDC 18.30 (Redlines) Attachment E — Revised Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (Redlines) Attachment F — 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendum Summary of Changes Attachment G — Ecology Executive Summary of the 2019 Revisions & Edmonds Response Attachment H — Crosswalk: 2014 — 2019 SWMMWW Attachment I - Presentation Packet Pg. 150 8.2.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.30 ECDC, ENTITLED "STORMWATER MANAGEMENT," IN ITS ENTIRETY. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is a Department of Ecology Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit holder; and WHEREAS, as a Phase II permit holder, the City is required to update its stormwater code by July XX 2022, to meet the minimum requirements of the 2019 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWWMM); and WHEREAS, these requirements include reviewing and revising all development -related codes, rules, and standards to incorporate and require Low Impact Development principles and best management practices to make Low Impact Development the preferred and commonly used approach to site development; and WHEREAS, the goal of Low Impact Development is to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff onsite to the extent feasible; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Stormwater Management," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The existing text of chapter 18.30 ECDC shall be replaced entirely with the text shown in Attachment A. Section 2. 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. Packet Pg. 151 8.2.a Section 3. 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 upon the latter of five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title and January 1, 2022. APPROVED: MAYOR MICHAEL 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. 152 8.2.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2021, 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 CHAPTER 18.30 ECDC, ENTITLED "STORMWATER MANAGEMENT," IN ITS ENTIRETY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12021. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 Packet Pg. 153 8.2.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Chapter 18.30 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Sections: 18.30.000 Purposes. 18.30.010 Definitions. 18.30.020 Authority and Regulation. 18.30.030 Applicability. 18.30.040 Exemptions. 18.30.050 Administration. 18.30.060 Requirements. 18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeal. 18.30.080 Access and Covenants. 18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities. 18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures. 18.30.000 Purposes. Page 1/25 A. To set forth standards for managing stormwater runoff from construction and development sites to minimize 1. Degradation of surface water quality by controlling the scouring and sedimentation of creeks, streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, other water bodies. 2. Degradation of groundwater quality. 3. Damage to adjacent and other downstream private properties from erosion or other impacts from stormwater runoff. 4. Damage of City -owned parcels, City roads, rights -of -way and associated infrastructure. B. To comply with requirements in the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit as issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). C. To complement site planning activities that minimize: 1. Impervious surfaces area. 2. The loss of native or non-native site vegetation. 3. The generation of stormwater runoff. D. To make low impact development (LID) the preferred and commonly used approach to site development; to require LID be considered at the site planning stage; and to implement LID BMPs unless they are infeasible. E. To require that all publicly -owned and privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control best management practices (BMPs)/Facilities are operated, maintained and repaired in manner that conforms to this chapter. F. To provide the authority for the City to inspect privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. G. To provide enforcement procedures for ensuring compliance with this chapter. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 154 8.2.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 2/25 18.30.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: Arterial. A road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or streets considered collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property. See also RCW 35.78.010, RCW 36.86.070, and RCW 47.05.021. Adjustment. A variation in the application of a minimum requirement to a particular project. Adjustments provide substantially equivalent environmental protection. Applicant. The owning individual(s) or corporations or their representatives applying for the permits or approvals described in this chapter. Approval. The proposed work or completed work conforming to this chapter as approved by the public works Director or their designee. Best management practices (BMPs). The schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the City that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State. Bioretention BMPs. Engineered facilities that treat stormwater by passing it through a specified soil profile, and either retain or detain the treated stormwater for flow attenuation. Refer to the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), Volume V for bioretention BMP types and design specifications. Category 1 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.I through No.5. See ECDC 18.30.60. C. Category 2 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.1 through No.9. See ECDC 18.30.60.C. Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). An individual who has current certification through an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by Ecology (see BMP C160 in the SWMMWW). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater and, the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control course. Course listings are provided online at Ecology's website. City's municipal separate storm sewer system or "MS4." A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) that are owned or operated by the City of Edmonds, designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater, and are not a combined sewer nor part of a publicly owned treatment works as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 122.2, and which is defined as "large" or "medium" or "small" or otherwise designated by Ecology pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26. Clearing. The destruction and removal of vegetation by manual, mechanical, or chemical methods. Commercial Agriculture. Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and activities involved in the production of crops or livestock for commercial trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial agriculture when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Common plan of development or sale. A site where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules and/or by different contractors, but still under a single plan. Examples include: 1) phase projects and projects with multiple filings or lots, even if the separate phases or Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 155 8.2.b Edmonds Page 3/25 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT filings/lots will be constructed under separate contract or by separate owners (e.g., a development where lots are sold to separate builders); 2) a development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is still under a consistent plan for long-term development; 3) projects in a contiguous area that may be unrelated but still under the same contract, such as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility; and 4) linear projects such as roads, pipelines, or utilities. If the project is part of a common plan of development or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan must be used in determine permit requirements. Converted vegetation (areas). The change in land cover changed from native vegetation, pasture scrub/shrub, or unmaintained non-native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or where native vegetation is converted to pasture. Creek. Is synonymous with "streams," which is defined in ECDC 23.40.320. Detention facility. An above or below ground facility, such as a pond or tank, that temporarily stores stormwater runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or no infiltration of stored stormwater. Development. Land -disturbing activities, including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses. Creation or addition of hard surfaces, or replacement of hard surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity. Structural development, including construction, installation, replacement, or expansion of a building or other structure. Subdivision, short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW Director. The City's Public Works and Utilities Director or a designee with an appropriate background in engineering or another related discipline. Discharge point. The location where a discharge leaves the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) through the City's MS4 facilitiesBMPs designed to infiltrate. Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology Effective impervious surface. Those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a drainage system. Impervious surfaces on residential development sites are considered ineffective if. 1) the runoff is dispersed through at least 100 feet of native vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 — "Full Dispersion," as described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with downspout Full Infiltration Systems in BMP T5.10A in Volume III of the SWMMWW; or 3) approved continuous runoff modeling methods indicate the entire runoff file is infiltrated. Erodible or leachable materials. Wastes, chemicals, or other substances that measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of runoff when exposed to rainfall. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage. Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including such processes as gravitational creep. Also, detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity. See the SWMMWW Glossary for examples of types of water erosion. Excavation. The mechanical removal of earth material. Exception. Relief from the application of a minimum requirement to a project. Fill. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. Groundwater. Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or below a water body Hard surface. An impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 156 8.2.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 4/25 Highway. A main public road connecting towns and cities. In Edmonds, this includes State Route 99, State Route 524, and portions of State Route 104, that are classified as principal arterials in the City's comprehensive transportation plan. Illicit discharge. Any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the City's MS4, groundwaters, or a water body, except as expressly allowed by ECDC Chapter 7.200. Impervious surface. A non -vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor swimming pools shall be considered impervious surfaces in all situations. In addition, lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and other areas that have modified runoff characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains and impermeable or low permeability liners are to be considered impervious surfaces. If no liner is installed, these areas (lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, etc.) served by underdrains may be considered partially pervious if the underdrain is set a minimum of 8 inches above the in -situ soils in a manner to allow infiltration over the facility bottom. Lake. An inland body of fresh water surrounded by land. Land disturbing activity. Any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non - vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land -disturbing activities include but are not limited to demolition, clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be considered a land -disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices, including landscape maintenance and gardening, are not considered land -disturbing activity. Stormwater facility maintenance is not considered land disturbing activity if conducted according to established standards and procedures. Low impact development (LID). A stormwater and land use strategy that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design. LID Best Management Practices (BMPs). Distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project design, that emphasize pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. LID principles. Land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff. Maintenance. Repair and maintenance activities conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and equipment that involves no expansion or use beyond that previously existing and results in no significant adverse hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities, including cases where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as long as the functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a collapsed, fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. In regard to stormwater facilities, maintenance includes assessment to ensure ongoing proper operation, removal of built up pollutants (i.e., sediments), replacement of failed or failing treatment media, and other actions taken to correct defects as identified in the maintenance standards of Appendix A, Volume V of the SWMMWW. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 157 8.2.b Edmonds Page 5/25 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Maximum extent practicable (MEP). Refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. MS4. The City's municipal separate storm sewer system. Native vegetation. Vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest which could have been reasonably expected to occur naturally on the site. Examples include trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big -leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed. Natural drainage systems and outfalls. The location of the channels, swales, and other non -manmade conveyance systems as defined by the earliest documented topographic contours existing for the subject property, either from maps or photographs, or such other means as appropriate. New Development. Land disturbing activities, including Class IV -general forest practices that are conversions from timberland to other uses; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or other structure; creation of hard surfaces; and subdivision, short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW. ECDC 18.30 does not distinguish the difference between new development and redevelopment; all projects in Edmonds shall meet the requirements for new development. New Impervious Surface. A surface that is: 1) changed from a pervious surface to an impervious surface (e.g., resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, a bituminous surface treatment ("chip seal"), asphalt, concrete, or an impervious structure); or 2) upgraded from gravel to chip seal, asphalt, concrete, or an impervious structure; or 3) upgraded from chip seal to asphalt, concrete, or an impervious structure. Note that if asphalt or concrete has been overlaid by a chip seal, the existing condition should be considered as asphalt or concrete. Outfall. A point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a discharge leaves the City's MS4 and enters a surface receiving waterbody or surface receiving waters. Outfall does not include pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other surface waters and are used to convey primarily surface waters (i.e., culverts). On -site Stormwater Management BMPs. A synonym for Low Impact Development BMPs. Permeable pavement. Pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir. Pervious Surface. Any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn, landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements. Person. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal corporation, agency of the state, or City government unit, however designated. Pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS). Those hard surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. See the listing of surfaces under pollution -generating impervious surface. Pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS). Those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use; industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; metal roofs unless they are coated with an inert, non -leachable material (e.g., baked -on enamel coating); or roofs that are subject to venting significant amounts of dusts, mists, or fumes from manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 158 8.2.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 6/25 Pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS). Any pervious surface subject to 1) vehicular use, 2) industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); or 3) storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall, 4) use of pesticides and fertilizers, or 5) loss of soil. Typical PGPS include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns, and landscaped areas including: golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turf). Pre -developed condition. The native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro- American settlement. The pre -developed condition shall be assumed to be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement. Project: Any proposed action to alter or develop a site. Project site. That portion of a property, properties, and/or right-of-way subject to land -disturbing activities, new hard surfaces, or replaced hard surfaces. For projects that involve land disturbing activity on one or more parcels and/or land disturbing activity in the City right-of-way, the "Project site" includes all areas of land disturbance. If the project is part of a common development plan or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan shall be used in determining permit requirements. Rain garden. A non -engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost -amended native soils and adapted plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile. Receiving waterbody or Receiving waters. Naturally and/or reconstructed naturally occurring surface water bodies, such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine waters, or groundwater, to which a MS4 discharges. Redevelopment. ECDC 18.30 does not distinguish the difference between new development and redevelopment; all projects in Edmonds shall meet the requirements for new development. Where existing unmitigated surfaces are to remain, the additional "retro-fit" requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.i Replaced hard surface. For structures means the removal and replacement of hard surfaces down to the foundation. For other hard surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement. Replaced impervious surface. For structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces down to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement. Roadway. Traveled hard surface portion of any public or private road or street. Road -related project. A project that all of, or the majority of, the new or replaced hard surface consist of roadway, shoulders, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or walkways, either publicly or privately funded. Frontage improvements constructed as a requirement for a development project are not consider a road -roadway project. Runoff. Water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that is found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes and wetlands, as well as shallow ground water. It also means the portion of rainfall or other precipitation that becomes surface flow and interflow. Site. The area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to development. For road projects, or utility projects in the right-of-way, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries define the site. Note that drainage impacts are generally assessed for the "project site", under separate definition. Slope. The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal; measured as a numerical ratio, percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the vertical distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, with a 90-degree slope being vertical (maximum) and 45 degrees being a 1:1 or 100 percent slope. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 159 8.2.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 7/25 Soil. The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the intermediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. Source control BMPs. A structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with storm water through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of pollutants. The SWMMWW separates source control BMPs into two types. Structural source control BMPs are physical, structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. Operational Source Control BMPs are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering stormwater. See Volume IV of the SWMMWW for details. Stormwater facility. A constructed component of a stormwater drainage system, designed and constructed to perform a particular function or multiple functions. Stormwater facilities include, but are not limited to, pipes, swales, ditches, culverts, street gutters, detention ponds, retention ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration devices, catch basins, oil/water separators, and biofiltration swales. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The Washington State Department of Ecology's 2019Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Referred to as the 2019 SWMMWW Stormwater site plan. The comprehensive report containing all of the technical information and analysis necessary for regulatory agencies to evaluate a proposed development project for compliance with stormwater requirements. Contents of the Stormwater Site Plan will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics. It includes a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Construction SWPPP) and a Permanent Stormwater Control Plan (PSC Plan). Guidance on preparing a Stormwater Site Plan is contained in Chapter 3 of Volume I of the SWMMWW. Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. Detention facilities, treatment BMPs/facilities, bioretention, vegetated roofs, and permeable pavements that help meet Minimum Requirements No.6 (Treatment), Minimum Requirement No.7 (Flow Control), or both as described in ECDC 18.30.060. Threshold discharge area. An area within a project site draining to a single natural discharge location or multiple natural discharge locations that combine within one -quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath). The examples in Figure 1: Example TDA Delineations below,illustrate this definition. The purpose of this definition is to clarify how the thresholds of this code are applied to project sites with multiple discharge points Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 160 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Figure 1: Example TDA Delineations 8.2.b Page 8/25 Example of a Project Site Example of a Project Site Example of a Project Site with with a single natural with multiple natural multiple natural discharges and discharge and a single TDA discharges and a single TDA multiple TDAs ' .._.�'--- Jy ,TDA - TDA Single - TDA 2 Natural r Natural J 1 Natural discharge Greater than location discharge discharge 1I4 mile locations 114 milelocations r ` 114 miles f 1/4 mile i i Example of a road project with multiple d1wharge points and a single TDA o mBecause the right -most discharge . connecls to the other two discharge flow �I roadway crown paths within I mite, all areas are �i connected as one TDA. Discharge 114 mde 114 mile location — - 114 mile -. c S 3 / Example of a road project with multiple ` / discharge points and multiple TDAs. �1 Note: Shaded areas represent - Discharge 11+i mle the limits of the location project site. 11 4 NOT TO SCALE Example TDA Delineations DEPARTMENT OF Revised March 2018 ECOLOGYPlease see http.IA+vwwecyy wa.govloopyright htmf for copyright notice including permissions, State of Washington limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 161 8.2.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 9/25 Vehicular Use. Regular use of an impervious or pervious surface by motor vehicles. The following are subject to regular vehicular use: roads, un-vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways. The following are not considered subject to regular vehicular use: sidewalks not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, paved bicycle pathways separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance access roads. Waterbody. Surface waters including rivers, streams, lakes, marine waters, estuaries, and wetlands. Waters of the state. Includes those waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of Washington State, and "waters of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW which includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Wetlands. As defined in ECDC 23.40.005. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016]. 18.30.020 Authority and Regulation. A. The Public Works and Utilities Director shall administer this chapter and shall be referred to as the Director. B. The Director shall have the authority to develop, implement, and enforce policies and procedures to administer and enforce this chapter per ECDC 18.30.110 and 18.30.120, such as the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. C. The requirements of this chapter are minimum requirements. They do not replace, repeal, abrogate, supersede, or affect any other more stringent requirements, rules, regulations, covenants, standards, or restrictions. Where this chapter imposes requirements that are more protective of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. When this chapter imposes requirements that are less protective of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of the more protective requirements shall prevail. D. The Director shall have the authority to impose additional requirements on a project or site to meet the purpose of this chapter based on site -specific factors including, but not limited to, location, soil conditions, slope, and designated use. E. Approvals and permits granted under this chapter are not waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do they indicate compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including rules promulgated under authority of this chapter. F. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not necessarily mitigate all impacts to the environment. Thus, compliance with this chapter should not be construed as mitigating all drainage water or other environmental impacts, and additional mitigation may be required to protect the environment pursuant to other applicable laws and regulations. The primary obligation for compliance with this chapter and for preventing environmental harm on or from property is placed upon the applicant. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.030 Applicability. A. This chapter applies to applications: 1. Submitted on or after January 1, 2022, and 2. Submitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022, and 3. Submitted prior to January 1, 2022, which have not started construction by July 1, 2027. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 162 Edmonds Page 10/25 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT B. This chapter applies to the following actions on sites that discharge to the City's MS4 or discharges to waters of the state whether or not a City -issued permit is required: 1. Land -disturbing activity, or 2. Creation of new hard surfaces, or 3. Replacement of existing hard surfaces, or 4. Conversion of pervious surfaces, or 5. New connections to the City's MS4, or 6. Any other actions that can increase the volume or rate of stormwater runoff, or cause the generation of pollutants, from the site. 18.30.040 Exemptions. A. Full Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Forest practices regulated under WAC Title 222, except for Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timberland to other uses, are exempt from the provisions of the minimum requirements. 2. Commercial agriculture practices that involve working land for production are generally exempt. However, land conversion from timberland to agriculture and the construction of impervious surfaces are not exempt. 3. Construction of drilling sites, waste management pits, and associated access roads, and construction of transportation and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines, natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline compressor stations, and crude oil pumping stations are exempt. Operators are encouraged to implement and maintain best management practices to minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during storm events. 4. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are exempt: pothole and square -cut patching, overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement with asphalt or concrete without expanding the area of coverage, shoulder grading, reshaping/regrading drainage systems, crack sealing, resurfacing with in -kind material without expanding the road prism, pavement preservation activities that do not expand the road prism, and vegetation maintenance. B. Partial Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are partially exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in -kind material or materials with similar runoff characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement No. 2, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. a. Utility installations as part of a development project, whether in the right-of-way or on private property, are not considered an underground utility project for the sake of this partial exemption. 2. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are considered development, and therefore are not categorically exempt. a. Removing and replacing a paved surface to base course or a lower level, or repairing the pavement base: These are considered replaced hard surfaces. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 163 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 11/25 b. Extending the pavement edge without increasing the size of the road prism or paving graveled shoulders: these are considered new hard surfaces. c. Resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, asphalt, or concrete; or upgrading from gravel to asphalt or concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous surface treatment ("chip seal") to asphalt or concrete: these are considered new hard surfaces. 18.30.050 Administration. A. Application, Submittals, and Review. 1. The Director shall review all plans and all other submittals required by ECDC 18.30.050.A.3 for compliance with this chapter when: a. An application for a City permit is required under all other chapters of ECDC Title 18 or 19, or b. A subdivision application is submitted per ECDC 20.75.040. 2. In all other situations when actions under ECDC 18.30.030 apply to a project site, review shall be under a Stormwater permit. 3. All stormwater review submittals shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other applicable City code, a Stormwater Site Plan as described in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (see ECDC 18.30.060) and any other information required by the Director. B. Inspections. 1. The Director shall inspect projects at various stages of the work to determine if they comply with the requirements of this chapter, and enforcement actions shall be taken as necessary. These inspections will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Prior to site clearing and construction to assess site erosion potential, and b. During construction to verify proper installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment controls and other approved plan components, and c. All permanent stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities and catch basins in new residential developments every six months until 90 percent of the lots are constructed (or when construction is stopped and the site is fully stabilized) to identify maintenance needs and enforce compliance with maintenance standards as needed, and d. Upon completion of construction and prior to final approval to ensure proper installation of permanent Stormwater control facilities and verify that a maintenance plan is completed and responsibility for maintenance is assigned for stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities, and e. Post -Construction inspections per ECDC 18.30.090. 2. When reasonably required by the Director to accomplish the purpose of this chapter or to comply with local, state or federal law or regulation on stormwater, special inspection or testing shall be performed by the applicant. C. Fees. Application, review and inspection fees as set in ECDC Chapter 15.00 shall be paid. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 164 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 18.30.060 Requirements. Page 12/25 A. Documents. The sources of the stormwater management requirements for the City are from the following documents: 1. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, Appendix 1, modification date August 1, 2019 2. 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) 3. The Edmonds Stormwater Addendum In the event of conflicts between the various provisions, the more stringent provision shall apply. B. Illicit Discharges and Connections. Non-stormwater illicit discharges, including spills, into the MS4, groundwaters, or a water body from any developed or undeveloped lands are prohibited per ECDC Chapter 7.200. C. Thresholds and Applicability 1. The thresholds outlined in this section are only applicable to ECDC 18.30.060.C. See also the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for supplemental information on thresholds. a. All development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 2. b. Category 1 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. Category 1 includes projects that: i. Result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or ii. Have land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater. c. Category 2 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. Category 2 includes projects that: i. Result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or ii. Convert 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or iii. Convert 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture. 2. Additional Requirements for road -related projects. For road -related projects, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces (including pavement, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) and the converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements only if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within the project limits. Otherwise, the minimum requirements only apply to the new hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas that exceed the thresholds in (1) above. The project limits shall be defined by the length of the project and the width of the right-of-way. 3. New Connections to the City's MS4 when the proposed connection does not involve activity that meets the definition of development. Sites that are not currently connected to the City's MS4 but that wish to connect directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 may be allowed on a case -by -case basis, subject to City approval. For sites that propose to drain greater than or equal to 2,000 square feet of hard surface area to the City's MS4, the project shall comply with the requirement of this chapter, treating all hard surfaces to be drained to the City system as new hard surfaces, unless applicant can demonstrate that the site will discharge in the same manner and quantities prior to the proposed project. Applicant shall account for natural dispersion and/or infiltration which may be occurring if these new hard surfaces area currently drain through pervious areas. 4. Minimum Requirements may be met for an equivalent (flow and pollution characteristics) area. The equivalent area may be within the same TDA. If the equivalent area is outside the TDA, or off -site, the equivalent area must drain to the same receiving water and the guidance for equivalent facilities using in - basin transfers must be followed, as detailed in Appendix D of Volume 1 of SWMMWW. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 165 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 13/25 D. Minimum Technical Requirements. This section describes the minimum technical requirements for stormwater management at development sites. 1. Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans The City shall require a Stormwater Site Plan from all projects meeting the thresholds in ECDC 18.30.060.C. Stormwater Site Plans shall use site -appropriate development principles to retain native vegetation and minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. 2. Minimum Requirement No. 2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) a. Thresholds: i. All development projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of sediment and other pollutants into receiving waters. Compliance with this minimum requirement can be achieved for an individual site if the site is covered under Ecology's General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and fully implementing the requirements of that permit. ii. A Construction SWPPP is required for all projects which a) result in 2,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surface area, b) where a structure with an exterior hard surface area of at least 2,000 square feet is being demolished, c) which disturb 7,000 square feet or more of land, or d) when the site falls within the Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, Landslide Hazard Area or steep slope critical area. Projects that do not meet any of the above criteria are not required to prepare a Construction SWPPP, but must consider all of the elements listed below for Construction SWPPPs and develop controls for all Construction SWPPP elements that pertain to the project site. b. General Requirements: i. The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in . the narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. Each of the thirteen elements referenced below must be considered and included in the SWPPP unless site conditions render the element unnecessary and the exemption from that element is clearly justified in the narrative of the SWPPP. ii. Clearing and grading activities for developments shall be permitted only if conducted pursuant to an approved site development plan (e.g., building permit, subdivision approval) that establishes permitted areas of clearing, grading, cutting, and filling. These permitted clearing and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve critical or sensitive areas, buffers, native growth protection easements, or tree retention areas as required by the City, shall be delineated on the site plans and the development site. iii. The SWPPP shall be implemented beginning with initial land disturbance and until final stabilization. Sediment and Erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained in Chapter 4 of Volume II of the SWMMWW. c. Seasonal Work Limitations: From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities may only be authorized by the City if it can be demonstrated that silt -laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following: Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 166 Edmonds Page 14/25 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT i. Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and ii. Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and iii. Proposed erosion and sediment control measures, in accordance with ECDC 18.30.060.D.2.d below. Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the City may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations, except for sites lying in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 19.10.020.F: Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs, ii. Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil, and iii. Activities where there is one hundred percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. d. Construction SWPPP Elements Construction SWPPP elements are required in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2 of Volume I of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 3. Minimum Requirement No. 3 — Source Control of Pollution All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs must be required for all projects approved by the City. Source control BMPs must be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume IV of the SWMMWW. All single family residential projects shall, at a minimum, incorporate required BMPs from SWMMWW Volume IV, S411 — BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management. 4. Minimum Requirement No. 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down gradient properties. The discharge must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate outfall location (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system). All outfalls require energy dissipation. To demonstrate compliance with this core requirement, all projects shall submit an off -site qualitative analysis. If an existing problem (or potential future problem after development) is identified, mitigation will be required to prevent worsening of that problem. A quantitative analysis may be required for any project deemed to need additional information or where the project proponent or the City determines that a quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system. See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on complying with this requirement. 5. Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management a. Applicability: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs are required in accordance with the following project thresholds, standards, and lists to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on -site to the extent feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 167 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT b. Project Thresholds: Page 15/25 There are five project scenarios outlined below that determine the applicability of Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management. The first four scenarios apply to projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4. The fifth scenario applies to project discharges that do not enter the City's MS4. Note that more than one of the five scenarios may apply to a given proj ect: Retrofit. Projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain existing hard surfaces on the parcel or common plan of development that do not drain to an approved stormwater management facility are required to provide On -site Stormwater Management BMPs to manage a portion of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after project completion. BMPs from List No.1 (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d) shall be applied to a minimum of 25 percent of those existing unmanaged surfaces, but to no more than the area equal to the proposed new plus replaced hard surfaces. Within the Perrinville Creek basin, the retrofit value shall be increased from 25% to 50%. Only for those existing unmanaged hard surfaces that remain after project completion, applicants are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility for these existing surfaces (as is required under ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b [ii] and [iii] below). However, if it is determined that the minimum percentage requirement cannot be met due to BMP infeasibility, documentation of BMP infeasibility is required. In addition, when runoff from unmanaged hard surfaces is mixed with runoff from managed hard surfaces, those BMPs must be selected and designed for all areas which contribute runoff to the BMP (per sections [ii] and [iii] below). See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. ii. This requirement is specific to minimum requirement #5 only. The surfaces treated by this requirement do no need to be added to project thresholds or mitigated under other minimum requirements. Impervious surfaces disturbed solely for installation of BMPs proposed to satisfy this requirement need not be consider as replaced hard surfaces for the project. Category 1. Category 1 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5 (per ECDC 18.30.060.C) shall either: a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.l for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d); or b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW. iii. Category 2. Category 2 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9 (per ECDC 18.30.060.C) shall either: a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.2 for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.e); or b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW. iv. Direct Discharge Requirement. Projects that discharge directly to Puget Sound through the City's MS4 (in accordance with the restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound presented in Section 3.4.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW) do not have to achieve the LID Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 168 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 16/25 Performance Standard, nor consider bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavement, or full dispersion, but must implement BMP T5.13 (Post -Construction Soil Quality & Depth); BMPs T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration Systems, T5.1013 Downspout Dispersion Systems, or T5.1013 Perforated Stub -out Connections; and BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion or T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion; if feasible for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility V. Projects that do not drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 are required to implement one of the following: a. Project sites may discharge to the downstream private property (e.g., projects located above BNSF property) with approval from the downstream property owner(s). b. Project sites may discharge runoff to an on -site system. For sites located within earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers, a geotechnical design, analysis, and report by a geotechnical engineer is required for the on -site system. On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.I in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d shall be evaluated for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. Projects are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility. The project applicant may be subject to an extra permit processing fee for City review of the geotechnical analysis. Projects are required to comply with all other applicable City requirements, such as ECDC 19.10 (earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas). ii. For sites located outside earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers, ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.ii and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.iii shall be followed to evaluate site appropriate BMP's. c. Subject to prior approval by the City, project sites may pump on -site runoff to the City's MS4. A quantitative downstream analysis in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 4 and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum will be required. If the City's MS4 does not have adequate capacity to receive the applicant's pumped flows, the applicant is required to install an on -site detention system to store runoff and pump it to the MS4 at an approved rate. vi. Projects under 2,000 SF of new plus replaced hard surfaces which discharge to an existing BMP with a surfaces overflow, shall expand the BMP size for the proposed new plus replaced hard surfaces based on existing design data. Alternatively, or where existing design data can not be found, the project shall discharge to a separate system appropriate sized per the designer. c. LID Performance Standard For projects that elect to meet the LID Performance Standard to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii) and (iii), Stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 8 percent of the 2-year peak flow to 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow from the project site. Refer to the Standard Flow Control Requirement section in Minimum Requirement No. 7 for information about the assignment of the pre -developed condition. Project sites that must also meet Minimum Requirement No. 7 shall match flow durations between 8 percent of the 2-year flow through the full 50-year flow. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 169 Edmonds Page 17/25 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT i. Projects meeting the LID performance criteria are still required to comply with the requirements for BMP T5.13: Post -Construction Soils Quality and Depth, to the maximum extent feasible. d. List No.I for Category 1 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. For projects that elect to use List No. 1 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii), for each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for each BMP in the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 3 of Volume I of the SWMMWW. Lawn and landscaped areas: Roofs: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. ii. Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Volume V of the SWMMWW. iii. Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14 or Bioretention in accordance with BMP T7.30 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it. iv. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1 OB in Volume V of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 6.3. vi. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Volume V of the SWMMWW. Other Hard Surfaces: Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. ii. Full infiltration for equivalent surfaces areas per BMP T5.1OA and/or Permeable Pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Volume V of the SWMMWW, or iii. Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14 or Bioretention in accordance with BMP T7.30of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it. iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 6.3. e. List No.2 for Category 2 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 170 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 18/25 For projects that elect to use List No. 2 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (iii), for each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for each BMP in the SWMMWW; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 3 of Volume I of the SWMMWW. Lawn and landscaped areas: Roofs: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. ii. Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.I OA in Volume V of the SWMMWW. iii. Bioretention in accordance with BMP T7.30 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it. iv. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1 OB in Volume III of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 6.3. vi. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Volume III of the SWMMWW. Other Hard Surfaces: Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. ii. Full infiltration for equivalent surfaces areas per BMP T5.I OA in Volume III of the SWMMWW and/or Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. iii. Bioretention (See Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total surface area draining to it. iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 in Volume V of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 6.3. Overflows: All non -dispersion BMPs sized solely for Minimum Requirement #5 are anticipated to have an overflow discharge on a semi -regular basis and therefore requires a sub -surface piped connection directly to the MS4 system. i. In order to eliminate a piped overflow connection, the project shall be designed to infiltrate 100% of the modelled 100-year storm per continuous modeling. A safe and certain surface overflow path must still be provided and may not negatively impact adjacent properties. ii. In cases where the City MS4 is not in a location where a reasonable connection can be made for a project in capable of fully infiltrating per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.£i above: Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 171 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 19/25 • Extensions equal to or less than the length of the project frontage would be anticipated and generally not consider for an exception to 18.30.060.D.5.f.i. • Extension exceeding the project frontage length will be considered on a case -by -case basis for exception to 18.30.060.D.5.f.i. 6. Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment a. Project Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider those hard and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. The following require construction of stormwater treatment facilities: Projects in which the total of pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS) is 5,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area of the project, or ii. Projects in which the total of pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) — not including permeable pavements — is 0.75 acres or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which there will be a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site. b. Treatment -Type Thresholds and Facility Sizing: Treatment -Type Thresholds in accordance with Section 1.2, Volume III of the SWMMWW Phosphorus treatment shall be required for projects draining to Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger. ii. Treatment Facility Sizing, including Water Quality Design Storm Volume, Water Quality Design Flow Rate, and Downstream Facilities, in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 3.4.6, Volume I of the SWMMWW. c. Treatment Facility Selection, Design, and Maintenance Stormwater treatment facilities shall be: Selected in accordance with the process identified in Chapter 1 of Volume III of the SWMMWW, ii. Designed in accordance with the design criteria in Volume V of the SWMMWW, and iii. Maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedule in Volume V of the SWMMWW. d. Additional Requirements The discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution -generating hard surfaces to ground water will not be authorized by the City except for infiltration or dispersion of runoff through BMPs designed and implemented per ECDC 18.30 and SWMMWW. Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control a. Applicability: Flow control is required on projects meeting the thresholds summarized below to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff from hard surfaces and land cover conversions. Flow control in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 7 is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound subject to the restrictions of the TDA Exemption (aka. direct discharge exemption) per SWMMWW Section 3.4.7 of Volume I (other minimum requirements may still apply). See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv and Section 3.4.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for additional restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 172 Edmonds Page 20/25 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT If the discharge drains to a stream that leads to a wetland, or to a wetland that has an outflow to a stream, both this minimum requirement (Minimum Requirement No. 7) and Minimum Requirement No. 8 apply. b. Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider only those impervious, hard, and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. The following circumstances require achievement of the standard flow control requirement for western Washington: Projects in which the total of effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area, or ii. Projects that convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscape, or convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site, or iii. Projects that through a combination of hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas cause a 0.10 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase or greater in the 100-year flow frequency from a threshold discharge area as estimated using the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other approved model and one -hour time steps (or a 0.15 cfs increase or greater using 15- minute time steps). Standard Flow Control Requirement (applies to discharges directly or indirectly to the City's MS4, except for projects that meet the direct discharge requirements outlined in "a" above and/or projects discharging to Perrinville Creek): Stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. The pre -developed condition to be matched shall be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is available that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement (modeled as "pasture" in the Western Washington Hydrology Model). This standard requirement is waived for sites that will reliably infiltrate all the runoff from hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. d. Perrinville Basin Flow Control Standard (applies to all discharges within the Perrinville Creek basin) shall be an elevated level of flow control design. Discharges to the Perrinville Creek Basin shall maintain the durations of high flows at their predevelopment levels for all flows greater than one-half of the 2-year flow up to the 50-year flow AND holding the 100-year peak flow rate at its predevelopment level. The predevelopment peak flow rates for the 2-year and 10-year runoff events are also intended to be maintained. e. Additional Requirement: Flow Control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume III of the SWMMWW or an approved equivalent. 8. Minimum Requirement No. 8 — Wetlands Protection a. Applicability: The requirements below apply only to projects whose stormwater discharges into a wetland, either directly or indirectly through a conveyance system. b. Thresholds: The thresholds identified in Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment, and Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control shall also be applied to determine the applicability of this requirement to discharges to wetlands. c. Standard Requirement: Projects shall comply with Guide Sheets No. 1 through No. 3 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition to determine the existing hydrologic conditions unless directed otherwise by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 173 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 21/25 d. Additional Requirements: Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a natural vegetated buffer, except for: Necessary conveyance systems as approved by the City; or ii. As allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification or treatment in accordance with Guide Sheet 2 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW. An adopted and implemented basin plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of Appendix 1 of the Phase II NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. 9. Minimum Requirement No. 9 — Operation and Maintenance An operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provisions in Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW is required for proposed Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/facilities. The party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified in the operation and maintenance manual. For private facilities approved by the City, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site, and shall be transferred with the property to the new owner. For public facilities, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained in the appropriate department. A log of maintenance activity that indicates what actions were taken shall be kept and be available for inspection. 18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeals. A. Exceptions. 1. The Director may approve a request for an exception to the minimum requirements of this chapter following legal public notice of an application for an exception and of the Director's decision on the application. All legal public notice related to this request for an exception shall be in the manner prescribed in ECDC 20.03.002 and the applicant shall pay all costs to publish the legal public notices required by this provision. The Director shall provide and keep written findings of fact of the decision. 2. The approval of the exception shall only be granted when the applicant demonstrates that the requirement would cause a severe and unexpected economic hardship. To determine whether the requirement imposes a severe and unexpected economic hardship on the project applicant, the applicant must document for City review and approval, all of the following, at a minimum: a. The current, pre -project use of the site; and b. How application of the requirement(s) for which an exception is being requested restricts the proposed use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of this chapter; and c. The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted; and d. The possible uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of this chapter; and e. A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the requirements versus the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to adoption of the requirements of this chapter; and f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to apply the requirements of this chapter. 3. Any exception must meet the following criteria: a. The exception will not increase risk to the public health and welfare, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state; and Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 174 Edmonds Page 22/25 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT b. The exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the minimum requirements. 4. An exception to the requirements shall only be granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the economic hardship as determined by the Director, to alleviate the harm or threat of harm to the degree that compliance with the requirement becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency work that the Director determines is warranted. 5. The Director may require an applicant to provide additional information at the applicant's expense, including (but not limited to) an engineer's report or analysis. 6. When an exception is granted, the Director may impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate harm or the threat of harm that may be caused by granting the exception, or that would have been prevented if the exception had not been granted. B. Adjustments. 1. The Director may approve a request for adjustments to the requirements of this chapter when the Director finds that: a. The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection; and b. The objectives of safety, function, environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met, based on sound engineering practices. During construction, the Director may require, or the applicant may request, that the construction of drainage control facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical conditions are discovered on the site that are inconsistent with the assumptions on which the approval was based, including (but not limited to) unexpected soil or water conditions, weather -generated problems, or changes in the design of the improved areas; and A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall be submitted to the Director for review and approval prior to implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide facts substantiating the requirements of subsection (C)(1) of this section, and if made during construction, the factors in subsection (C)(2) of this section. Any such modifications made during the construction of drainage control facilities shall be included with the final approved drainage control plan. C. Appeal. 1. The Director's decision on an application for an exception or adjustment may appeal to the hearing examiner in accordance with a Type II appeal process in ECDC Chapter 20.06. 2. The applicant shall carry the burden of proof. 3. The decision of the hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.080 Access and Covenants. A. Access. Proper ingress and egress shall be provided to the City to inspect or perform any duty imposed upon the City by this Title. The City shall notify the responsible party in writing of a failure to provide access. If the responsible party fails to respond within seven days from the receipt of notification, the City may order the work required to be completed or otherwise address the cause of improper access. The obligation for the payment of all cost that may be incurred or expended by the City in causing such work to be done shall be imposed on the person holding title to the subject property. B. Covenants. Maintenance covenants shall be required for each site/lot that will be maintained by a private entity such as an individual, corporation, or homeowner's association. The maintenance covenant shall address or append Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 175 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 23/25 requirements and responsibilities for long-term management and maintenance the applicable BMP(s). Maintenance covenants shall be as specified in City Engineering Division documents or approved by the Director, and recorded with Snohomish County and on all proper deeds [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities. Proper construction inspection and maintenance of stormwater facilities is essential for the protection of the City's MS4 and the environment. A. Stormwater Maintenance and Inspection Standards. Stormwater facilities shall be inspected and maintained per the requirements of Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW. For systems which do not have a maintenance standard, the owner shall develop a standard based on guidelines from the manufacturer, designer, or a registered professional engineer and submit the standards to the Director for approval. The purpose of the maintenance standard is to determine if maintenance is required. The maintenance standard is not a measure of the facility's required condition at all times between inspections. Exceeding the maintenance standard between inspections is not a violation of this chapter. B. Ownership. Stormwater facilities are either privately or publicly owned and maintained. All stormwater facilities that serve private property are private, unless an agreement between the property owner and the City states otherwise. Stormwater facilities that are privately owned by a homeowner's association or similar organization also are private. The City may offer an incentive program to owners to support the proper maintenance of private storm drainage facilities. C. Public Stormwater Facilities. The City shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing public stormwater facilities as funded through the Stormwater Utility. D. Maintenance and Inspection of Permanent Facilities. All privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls shall be maintained by the owner, or the homeowner or owner association ("owner") if one is established as part of a residential or commercial development. All private storm drainage facilities shall be regularly inspected to ensure proper operation and shall monitor the facility or control as required or as set forth in the SWMMWW. The Owner shall maintain records of inspection and maintenance, disposal receipts, and monitoring results. The records shall catalog the action taken, the person who took it, the date said action was taken, how it was done, and any problems encountered or follow-up actions required. The records shall be made available to the City upon request. The Owner shall maintain a copy of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual (if required) on site, and shall make reference to such document in real property records filed with Snohomish County, so others who acquire real property served by the privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls are notified of their obligation to maintain such facilities or controls. E. City Inspection of private stormwater facilities. The City shall have the authority to periodically inspect private stormwater facilities, including low impact development stormwater facilities, for compliance with this chapter. F. Right of Entry. An authorized representative of the City may enter private property at all reasonable times to conduct inspections, tests or to carry out other duties imposed by the a state or Federal program provided that the City makes a good faith effort to notify the property owner or person responsible for the premises prior to entering and presents proper credentials to that person. If entry is refused or cannot be obtained, the Director shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including but not limited to, obtaining an administrative warrant for entry. G. Right of Entry for Illicit Discharge. In the event of an illicit discharge from a privately -owned stormwater facility caused by improper maintenance or operation or other circumstance, the provisions of ECC 7.200 shall apply. H. Maintenance Responsibilities. Upon written notice by the City, a private stormwater facility shall be promptly repaired and/or brought up to applicable standards by the property owner or the person responsible for said facility. If a private stormwater facility serves multiple lots and the responsibility for maintenance has not been specified on a recorded subdivision plat, short plat, or other legal document, maintenance, operation and repair responsibility Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 176 8.2.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 24/25 shall rest with the homeowners' association, if one exists, or otherwise with the properties served by the facility, or finally, with the owners of the property on which the facilities are located. I. Disposal of Waste from Maintenance Activities. Disposal of waste from maintenance activities shall be conducted in accordance with the minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, Chapter 173-304 WAC, guidelines for disposal of waste materials from storm water maintenance activities, and where appropriate, the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. 18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures. A. General enforcement action shall be in accordance with this chapter whenever a person has violated any provision of this chapter. The choice of enforcement action is at the discretion of the City. B. Civil Penalties Adopted. ECDC Chapter 20.110 enforcement procedures are herein adopted in full, as modified in this chapter, with the proviso that repeat offenders or violations deemed an immediate public hazard shall be subject to compliance and appeal timelines as deemed appropriate by the Director based on the specific nature of the violation. C. Maintenance Orders. The Director shall have the authority to issue to an owner or person an order to maintain or repair a component of a stormwater facility or BMP to bring it into compliance with this chapter, the SWMMWW, the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum, and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The order shall include: 1. A description of the specific nature, extent and time of the violation and the damage or potential damage that reasonably might occur; 2. A notice that the violation or the potential violation cease and desist and, in appropriate cases, the specific corrective actions to be taken; and 3. A reasonable time to comply, depending on the circumstances. D. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter, who fails to conform to an approval or order issued, who undertakes development without first obtaining approval, or who fails to comply with a stop work order issued under these regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty levied in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110; provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a notice of violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040.13. 1. Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110; provided, however, that in addition to the penalties set forth in that chapter, the hearing examiner is authorized to levy a penalty of up to twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per occurrence based upon an assessment of the following factors. Where such factors are present, the hearing examiner is authorized to levy such penalty after taking into consideration the full impact of the violation and any mitigating circumstances (see subsection (2) below): a. The violation created a risk to public health and the significance of the risk. b. The violation damaged the environment and the significance of the damage. c. The violation caused damage to public and private property and the significance of such damage. d. A history of similar violations, if any. e. The economic benefit of the violations, if any, to the person or entity responsible for the violations. 2. Mitigating circumstances which may be used to offset or reduce the time resulting from the application of the preceding factors are limited to: a. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and no history of similar violations. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 177 8.2.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 25/25 b. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and a history of one or two similar violations (lesser reduction). c. A "voluntary compliance agreement' is defined as a legally binding agreement entered into between the City and the alleged violators, by which the violator(s) acknowledge the existence of the violation, waive all appeal rights, and agree to and do pay a fine in an amount stipulated to between the violator and the City. If the violation(s) are not corrected as ordered, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within that time period and no appeal is filed, the penalty for the next 15-day period shall be 150 percent of the initial penalties, and the penalties for the next 15-day period shall be 200 percent of the initial penalties. The intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the maximum penalties stated as an additional means to achieve timely compliance. Unless otherwise provided in a voluntary compliance agreement, civil penalties shall be paid within 30 days of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed under this chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to correct the violation or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to this chapter. The City may suspend immediate payment of civil penalties if the person responsible for a code violation has entered into a voluntary compliance agreement. Penalties shall begin to accrue again pursuant to the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied, canceled or not pursued, if corrective action identified in the voluntary compliance agreement is not completed as specified, or if the property is allowed to return to a condition similar to that condition which gave rise to the voluntary compliance agreement; provided, however, that additional penalties shall not be imposed until additional notice and opportunity for hearing have been provided in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110. Civil penalties assessed create joint and several personal obligations in all persons responsible for a code violation. E. The determination of the hearing examiner issued in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110 shall be appealable to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW. F. The remedies provided for in this section shall not be exclusive. The City may also use other civil and administrative remedies available to it, including but not limited to the remedies provided in ECDC Title 19 and the state building and dangerous buildings codes. Version: July 2021 Packet Pg. 178 8.2.c ADDENDUM TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.30 (EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM) j oAp ^�C �g�O July 2021 Packet Pg. 179 8.2.c U a Packet Pg. 180 OCTOBER 2021 8.2.c EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM CONTENTS 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1 2 How to Use this Addendum......................................................................................................3 2.1 SWMMWW Volume I......................................................................................................3 2.2 SWMMWW Volume 11.....................................................................................................4 2.3 SWMMWW Volume III....................................................................................................4 2.4 SWMMWW Volume IV...................................................................................................4 2.5 SWMMWW Volume V.....................................................................................................5 2.6 Addendum Content Not Covered in the SWMMWW......................................................5 3 Applicability of the Minimum Requirements...........................................................................7 3.1 Thresholds and Applicability............................................................................................9 3.1.1 Additional Requirements for Road -Related Projects.........................................9 3.1.2 New Connections to the City's MS4..................................................................9 3.1.3 Comparisons to the SWMMWW.....................................................................10 4 Project Basin Location and Applicable Requirements...........................................................11 4.1 Determining Downstream Receiving System(s).............................................................11 4.2 Other Considerations....................................................................................................... I I 5 Project Minimum Requirements.............................................................................................13 5.1 Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans ..........................13 5.2 Minimum Requirement No. 2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 13 5.3 Minimum Requirement No. 3 — Source Control of Pollution.........................................13 5.4 Minimum Requirement No. 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls............................................................................................................................14 5.5 Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -Site Stormwater Management................................15 5.6 Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment.........................................................17 5.6.1 Edmonds -Specific Oil and Floatables Control.................................................18 5.7 Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control................................................................18 5.8 Minimum Requirement No. 8 — Wetland Protection.......................................................18 5.9 Minimum Requirement No. 9 — Operation and Maintenance.........................................19 6 Additional Requirements........................................................................................................21 6.1 Protection of LID Facilities During Construction...........................................................21 6.1.1 General Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs Applicable to LID...................21 6.1.2 Additional Construction Techniques for LID BMPs........................................22 edmondsstormwateraddendum 2022 redlines.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Packet Pg. 181 EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM 8.2.c OCTOBER 2021 6.1.3 BMP-Specific Construction Techniques..........................................................25 6.2 Off -Site Analyses and Documentation............................................................................28 6.2.1 Category 1 Projects...........................................................................................28 6.2.2 Category 2 Projects...........................................................................................28 6.3 Design Requirements for Detention Vaults and Pipes....................................................30 6.3.1 Sizing & Design................................................................................................31 6.4 Underground Injection Controls......................................................................................31 7 Submittal Requirements..........................................................................................................33 7.1 Category 1 Stormwater Site Plans...................................................................................33 7.2 Category 2 Stormwater Site Plans...................................................................................33 APPENDICES Appendix A — On -Site Stormwater Management BMP Infeasibility Criteria Appendix B — Methods for Determining Design Infiltration Rates Appendix C — Checklists for Various Project Submittal, Review, and Field Procedure Elements Appendix D — Design Checklists for the Main On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Development.................................8 Figure 7.1. Typical Category 1 Stormwater Site Plan Components........................................33 Figure 7.2. Typical Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan Components........................................34 H TABLE OF CONTENTS zr edmondsstormwoteraddendum 2022 redlines.docx Packet Pg. 182 8.2.c 1 INTRODUCTION This Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (Addendum) provides direction for implementing the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.30, Stormwater Management. The City of Edmonds is required to regulate stormwater discharges to the municipal stormwater system and to waters of the state, in compliance with the Western Washington Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit (the Permit). Under the Permit, the City must establish and apply the minimum requirements specified in the Permit and provide design guidance for stormwater quality and quantity control for development projects in Edmonds. Through ECDC Chapter 18.30 and this Addendum, the City is complying with federal requirements under the Clean Water Act and the Permit. This Addendum is organized into 7 chapters, briefly summarized below: • Chapter 2 — How to Use this Addendum includes information on how to use the Addendum in conjunction with the ECDC and Ecology's 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), and to clarify for users where the ECDC, SWMMWW, or Addendum apply. • Chapter 3 — Applicability of the Minimum Requirements includes details on the thresholds that determine the applicability of the minimum requirements to different projects. This information is based on SWMMWW Volume I, Section 3.3, but has been updated to reflect the specific requirements of ECDC 18.30. Chapter 3 also includes a brief summary of how ECDC 18.30.060 compares to the SWMMWW (regarding applicability of the minimum requirements). • Chapter 4 —Project Basin Locations and Applicable Requirements describes downstream receiving waterbodies and/or drainage systems in the city, which will affect how the minimum requirements apply to a given project (primarily Minimum Requirements No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7). Chapter 4 also includes a brief discussion of the unique soil and topographical conditions in the City of Edmonds. • Chapter 5 —Project Minimum Requirements highlights the primary differences between the minimum requirements presented in the SWMMWW and those in the ECDC and provides additional details and guidance to help projects comply with each minimum requirement. • Chapter 6 — Additional Requirements includes additional information on City -specific requirements that are not fully described in the SWMMWW or ECDC. Specific topics include: 1. Additional requirements pertaining to Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) 2. Details on the off -site analyses and documentation required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 4, Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Packet Pg. 183 8.2.c 3. Design requirements for detention vaults and pipes when used to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5 4. Information on Underground Injection Controls (UICs) • Chapter 7 — Submittal Requirements summarizes the process and requirements for preparing project submittals that meet the requirements of the SWMMWW, the ECDC, and this Addendum The appendices included in this Addendum provide additional background information and requirements related to stormwater management in the city. (Also note that there are several additional pertinent appendices within the SWMMWW that are adopted by reference.) The following City -specific appendices are included in this Addendum: • Appendix A — On -Site Stormwater Management BMP Infeasibility Criteria • Appendix B — Methods for Determining BMP Design Infiltration Rates • Appendix C — Checklists for Various Project Submittal, Review, and Field Procedure Elements o Checklist 1 — Category 1 Stormwater Site Plans o Checklist 2 — Category 2 Stormwater Site Plans o Checklist 3 — Construction SWPPP Drawings and Report o Checklist 4 — Methods for Determining Infiltration Rates o Checklist 5 — Field and Design Procedures for Bioretention, Permeable Pavement, Rain Gardens, and Downspout Infiltration Systems o Checklist 6 — Procedures for Infiltration Trenches and Basins • Appendix D — Design Checklists for the Main On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs o Checklist 7 — Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth o Checklist 8 — Sheet Flow Dispersion o Checklist 9 — Concentrated Flow Dispersion o Checklist 10 — Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Boxes o Checklist 11 — Permeable Paving o Checklist 12 — Rain Gardens o Checklist 13 — Downspout Infiltration o Checklist 14 — Downspout Dispersion o Checklist 15 — Perforated Stub -out Connections 2 1. INTRODUCTION Packet Pg. 184 8.2.c 2 HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM Review ECDC Chapter 18.30.030 and 18.30.040 to determine if the City's Stormwater Code and this Addendum apply to your project. Review the definitions section of ECDC Chapter 18.30.10 (and if necessary the Glossary in SWMMWW Volume I, Appendix G for clarification on terminology used in ECDC Chapter 18.30 and this Addendum. As per ECDC Chapter 18.30.60, the stormwater management requirements in the City of Edmonds — including but not limited to thresholds, definitions, minimum requirements, adjustment and variance criteria, and exceptions to these requirements — shall be governed by the 2019 SWMMWW, with additional requirements and modifications as outlined in the provisions of ECDC Chapter 18.30 and this Addendum. Project proponents must review ECDC 18.30 (18.30.060 in particular) and this Addendum to identify how the City's requirements and the requirements of the SWMMWW apply to a given project. In the event of inconsistencies between the various provisions, the more stringent provisions shall apply, unless otherwise approved by the City. Where requirements in this Addendum are also covered in any other law, ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation of any kind (i.e., outside of ECDC Chapter 18.30), the more restrictive requirement shall govern, unless otherwise approved by the City. This Addendum includes information to supplement or elaborate on the guidelines and requirements outlined in ECDC Chapter 18.30 and the SWMMWW. To highlight for Addendum users where the ECDC, SWMMWW, or Addendum apply, the following sections outline the general applicability of each document, summarized according to the organization of the SWMMWW. Note however that the SWMMWW is not always written in a manner that is suitable as a municipal regulatory tool, therefore there are known overlaps among the ECDC, SWMMWW, and Addendum. As such, this section is only intended to be a guide, not a definitive resource on SWMMWW applicability. When questions or potential inconsistencies arise, project proponents should contact the City for clarification and interpretation. 2.1 SWMMWW VOLUME I • Chapter 1 — Introduction: Adopted in its entirety. • Chapter 2 — Relationship of This Manual to Permits, Requirements, and Programs: Adopted in its entirety. • Chapter 3 — Minimum Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment: Users should refer first to ECDC Chapter 18.30.60 and this Addendum. Note that some portions of ECDC 18.30.60 refer back to the SWMMWW as well as specific sections of this Addendum. o In addition, for all minimum requirements that require flow modeling, unless otherwise specified, all continuous modeling shall be performed using the "Puget East 36" precipitation time series, consisting of a 158-year precipitation and evaporation time series that are representative of the climatic conditions in the City of Edmonds. This time series is available in WWHM (select "Use WS-DOT data") and MGSFlood (Extended Timeseries menu). 2. HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM 3 Packet Pg. 185 8.2.c o In addition, ECDC 18.30 includes an additional "retro-fit" specific to Minimum Requirement #5; see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.i. • Chapter 4 — UIC Program: Adopted in its entirety. All UICs within Edmonds shall comply with the applicable requirements of this section. • Appendices —Use Appendix G for the SWMMWW only and refer to ECDC Chapter 18.30.10 for ECDC definitions. 2.2 SWMMWW VOLUME II • SWMMWW Volume II is adopted in its entirety. o In addition, this Addendum includes supplemental information to support compliance with SWMMWW Minimum Requirement No. 2, Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development BMPs. See Chapter 6. 2.3 SWMMWW VOLUME III • Chapter 1 — Choosing your BMPs: Chapter adopted in its entirety. o The infeasibility criteria typically are included within the specific BMP descriptions in the SWMMWW, but are summarized in Appendix A for clarity and ease of use. Appendix A also includes additional BMP infeasibility criteria that are specific to the City of Edmonds, and not necessarily included in the 2014 SWMMWW. o In addition, ECDC 18.30 adds detention to the list of BMPs to be considered under minimum requirement #5; see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5. • Chapter 2 — Modelling Your BMPs: Chapter adopted in its entirety. o In addition, Checklist 8 thru 15 of this Addendum include checklists for designing BMPs. • Chapter 3 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans: Refer first to Chapter 7 of this Addendum, and associated Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3. The requirements of SWMMWW Volume III, Chapter 3 apply to projects in Edmonds, but Chapter 7 of this Addendum has been created to facilitate compliance with both the SWMMWW requirements for preparation of Stormwater Site Plans, as well as additional City -specific submittal requirements. 2.4 SWMMWW VOLUME IV • SWMMWW Volume IV is adopted in its entirety. 4 2. HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM Packet Pg. 186 8.2.c 2.5 SWMMWW VOLUME V • SWMMWW Volume V is adopted in its entirety. o In addition, this Addendum includes supplemental information to support determination of On -Site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. Specifically, Appendix A of this Addendum summarizes infeasibility criteria that apply to each BMP (to be used in complying with Minimum Requirement No. 5). The infeasibility criteria typically are included within the specific BMP descriptions in the SWMMWW, but are summarized in Appendix A for clarity and ease of use. Appendix A also includes additional BMP infeasibility criteria that are specific to the City of Edmonds, and not necessarily included in the 2019 SWMMWW. Where there are differences between the SWMMWW and Appendix A, the requirements in Appendix A shall apply unless otherwise approved by the City. o In addition, this Addendum includes design requirements for detention tanks and vaults to meet the Edmonds -specific application of a detention as a BMP for Minimum Requirement #5 in Section 6.3. o In addition, ECDC 18.30 includes a "retrofit" provision under Minimum Requirement #5 which requires mitigating a portion of existing unmitigated hard surfaces to remain on a project site; see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.i 2.6 ADDENDUM CONTENT NOT COVERED IN THE SWMMWW T Note that in addition to the items included in Sections 2.1 through 2.5 above, this Addendum includes extensive information that is unique to the City and not tied to a specific SWMMWW volume or issue. Therefore, in addition to the notes above, users must review all of this Addendum and ECDC 18.30 for applicable requirements. This includes the Appendices and checklists included in this Addendum (particularly the BMP design checklists), which contain City -specific design, procedural, and submittal requirements that may not be reflected in the SWMMWW or ECDC. • In addition, as noted in Section 2.1 above, unless otherwise specified, all continuous modeling shall be performed using the "Puget East 36" precipitation time series, consisting of a 158-year precipitation and evaporation time series that are representative of the climatic conditions in the City of Edmonds. This time series is available in WWHM (select "Use WS-DOT data") and MGSFlood (Extended Timeseries menu). • The use of corrugated metal pipe within Edmonds is prohibit on both private and public properties storm drain conveyance and /or BMPs (i.e. detention tanks). 2. HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM 5 Packet Pg. 187 8.2.c U Q Packet Pg. 188 8.2.c 3 APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS This chapter is based on SWMMWW Volume I, Section 2.4, however the content below has been updated to reflect the specific requirements of ECDC 18.30. Project proponents must review ECDC 18.30 in detail. The following provides additional information and direction on the thresholds and applicability of minimum requirements outlined in ECDC 18.30.060. Project proponents must be aware that not all of the minimum requirements apply to every development project. The applicability varies depending on the project type and size. This chapter summarizes thresholds that determine the applicability of the minimum requirements to different projects. Review ECDC 18.30.060 and use the flow chart in Figure 3.1 to determine which of the minimum requirements apply to your project. (The minimum requirements themselves are provided in 18.30.060.D and are summarized in Chapter 5 of this Addendum). The thresholds described below and in Figure 3.1 are to be determined at the time of application for a subdivision, plat, short plat, building permit, or other construction permit. For projects involving only land disturbing activities, (e.g., clearing or grading), the thresholds apply at the time of application for the permit allowing or authorizing that activity. 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 7 Packet Pg. 189 8.2.c Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater? Yes No Minimum Requirements No. 1 through 5 apply I Minimum Requirement No. 2 applies Next Question IF Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surfaces? OR Convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? No Yes No Is this a road related project? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced Yes hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. All Minimum Requirements apply to the new hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Yes Does the project add 5,000 square feet or No more of new hard surfaces? Yes Do new hard surfaces add 50% or more to the existing hard surfaces within the project limits? No Figure 3.1. Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Development. No additional requirements. 8 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 190 8.2.c 3.1 THRESHOLDS AND APPLICABILITY All development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 2. The following Category 1 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5: • Results in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or • Have land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater. The following Category 2 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9: • Results in 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surfaces, or • Converts 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or • Converts 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture. 3.1.1 Additional Requirements for Road -Related Projects For road -related projects, runoff from the new hard surfaces (including pavement, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) and the converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more. In addition, if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within the project limits, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements. The project limits shall be defined by the length of the project and the width of the right-of- way. 3.1.2 New Connections to the City's MS4 When a property owner proposes a new connection to the City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), and the situation either 1) does not exceed the Category 1 or Category 2 thresholds above, or 2) does not involve activity that meets the definition of development, the following applies: • Sites that are not currently connected to the City's MS4 but wish to connect directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 may be allowed on a case -by -case basis, subject to City approval. • For sites that propose to drain greater than or equal to 2,000 square feet of hard surface area to the City's MS4, the project shall comply with the requirements of this chapter, treating all hard surfaces to be drained to the City system as new hard surfaces, unless applicant can demonstrate that the site will discharge in the same manner and quantities prior to the proposed project. Applicant shall account for natural dispersion and/or infiltration which may be occurring if these new hard surfaces area currently drain through pervious areas in their analysis. 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 9 Packet Pg. 191 8.2.c 3.1.3 Comparisons to the SWMMWW Project proponents must review ECDC 18.30 in detail, but the following notes are provided to help clarify how ECDC 18.30.060 compares to the SWMMWW regarding applicability of the minimum requirements (see Chapter 5 for additional details on the individual minimum requirements and how they differ from the SWMMWW): 1. ECDC 18.30 refers to "Category 1" projects and "Category 2" projects. See ECDC 18.30.060 for complete details, but in general: O Category 1 project sites result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area and shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. O Category 2 project sites result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area and shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. 2. ECDC 18.30 does not differentiate between new development and redevelopment. 3. Information regarding which surfaces each minimum requirement applies to (e.g., new hard surfaces, replaced hard surfaces, or both) is typically discussed under each minimum requirement as opposed to within the initial applicability section. 4. In addition to item No. 3 above, ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b includes a retrofit requirement for projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain existing hard surfaces that do not drain to an approved stormwater management facility. These projects are required to provide On -site Stormwater Management BMPs to manage a portion (a minimum of 25 percent) of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after project completion. See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b for complete details on this requirement. 5. ECDC 18.30.060.D.5 also adds detention as a BMP to be considered for feasibility under Minimum Requirement #5 in additional to those in SWMMWW, see Section 6.3. 6. As per the SWMMWW, for road -related projects, if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within the project limits, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces shall meet all the minimum requirements. Otherwise, the minimum requirements only apply to the new hard surfaces (if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more). Unlike the SWMMWW, non -road -related projects do not have to assess the valuation of the proposed improvements in order to determine the applicability of the minimum requirements. In general, once triggered by the applicable project area thresholds (see below and ECDC 18.30.060), the minimum requirements apply to both new and replaced hard surfaces. 7. ECDC 18.30 and this Addendum also includes requirements for new connections to the City's MS4, when the proposed connection does not involve activity that meets the definition of development. See the previous section of this Addendum for additional information on new connections. 8. ECDC 18.30 and this Addendum modify the flow modelling basin to be used in modelling, see Section 2.6. 9. ECDC 18.30 and this Addendum requires use of the phosphorus treatment menu within the Hall's Creek and Lake Ballinger basins; see Section 5.6. 10. Section 5.3, below, prohibits the use of corrugated metal piping (CMP) within Edmonds. 10 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 192 8.2.c 4 PROJECT BASIN LOCATION AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS 4.1 DETERMINING DOWNSTREAM RECEIVING SYSTEM(S) Broadly speaking, stormwater runoff in the City of Edmonds either travels west to Puget Sound (via a creek or piped system) or to the east to Lake Ballinger or Hall Creek, which discharges to Lake Ballinger. In addition to assessing the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas associated with a project, the minimum requirements (primarily Minimum Requirements No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7) can also vary depending on the project's downstream receiving waterbody and/or drainage system. The specific details of each minimum requirement are outlined in Chapter 5, but in general, projects should determine what type of system(s) their project site drains to early in the development process: The two primary systems to be aware of are described below. Note that these systems are not mutually exclusive: 1. Direct Discharge areas: Those site areas that discharge runoff directly to Puget Sound via a constructed conveyance system (e.g., pipe or ditch) without first entering a creek or other receiving water. (See Section 3.4.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for the full list of restrictions that must be met to qualify as a direct discharge.) 2. City of Edmonds Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): Those site areas that discharge to the City's MS4 before ultimately discharging to a downstream receiving water (e.g., a creek, lake, or Puget Sound). See the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for the complete MS4 definition, but this generally includes sites that discharge to a dedicated stormwater conveyance system (including roads with drainage systems, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) owned or operated by the City and that discharge to waters of Washington State (including creeks, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and Puget Sound). A map of watersheds in Edmonds is available via the Edmonds GIS Map that can be accessed on the City's website here: (<www.maps.edmondswa.gov>). Direct Discharge Basins are those labeled "Puget Sound" or "Puget Sound Piped." Edmonds Way is known to have an overflow under certain conditions which creates a discharge to Edmonds Marsh (not considered man-made drainage course for the purposes of this exemption), and therefore the Edmonds Way basin shall not be considered a direct discharge basin. An applicant with site -specific information that is contrary to the basin designations shown in Figure B-1 can present this information to the Public Works Director (Director) or designee for a possible change in basin designation. The Director or designee will make a determination on any requests for a site -specific change in basin designation. 4.2 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Edmonds is fortunate to be located adjacent to Puget Sound and possess topography that facilitates desirable views. The underlying soils and relatively steep slopes, however, complicate the application of stormwater management techniques. 4. PROJECT BASIN TYPE AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS 11 Packet Pg. 193 8.2.c Prior to logging and subsequent development of the Edmonds area, trees and the forest duff layer above the soil surface (consisting primarily of needles, leaves, branches, bark, and stems in various stages of decomposition) covered the city. With logging came the elimination of the majority of the tree canopy and the duff layer, and with it the elimination of the water -holding capacity of the natural land cover. hi the majority of the city, the soils that remain (after forest removal and subsequent development) consist of till or hard pan, which is much less effective at storing or absorbing rainwater. Although this Addendum and the SWMMWW place substantial emphasis on the use of infiltration and on -site stormwater management techniques, the soil regime in the City of Edmonds can make this goal challenging. It is therefore important that project sites thoroughly investigate and understand their soil conditions (as well as other site conditions such as slope, groundwater levels, etc.) before proceeding too far with the site stormwater design. See the submittal checklists in Appendix C (Checklists 1 through 3), BMP infeasibility criteria in Appendix A, and SWMMWW for additional details and requirements. In addition to challenging soil conditions, approximately 25 percent of the land area in the City of Edmonds has a slope of 15 percent or greater or is in an Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (the Meadowdale area in the northernmost portion of the city). Geologic hazards in these areas can be increased when stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces percolates into the soil. As emphasized in the submittal checklists in Appendix C (Checklists 1 through 3), BMP infeasibility criteria in Appendix A, and SWMMWW Chapter 3; consideration of slopes in the project vicinity is a critical component of the site stormwater design. 161 12 4. PROJECT BASIN TYPE AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 194 8.2.c 5 PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS This chapter should be used as a supplement to ECDC 18.30.060.D and SWMMWW Volume I, Chapter 3 as it emphasizes the key differences between the minimum requirements outlined in the SWMMWW and those outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D. Project proponents must still review ECDC 18.30.060.D in detail, but the following text provides additional information and direction on the minimum requirements outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D. As noted previously in Chapter 4, once a given minimum requirement is triggered (per the thresholds in Chapter 3), the specifics of the minimum requirement may vary depending on the project downstream receiving waterbody and/or drainage system. 5.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 1 - PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS Stormwater Site Plans are required for all projects subject to Minimum Requirement No. 1, as outlined in Chapter 3 and ECDC 18.30.060.C. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. However, because Chapter 3 of the SWMMWW includes extensive technical requirements, but does not explicitly specify how those requirements shall be consistently documented, submitted, and/or reviewed for a typical development project, the City of Edmonds has developed project checklists to facilitate compliance with this minimum requirement (and thus project submittal and review). Those checklists are introduced in Chapter 7 and provided in Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3. 5.2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 2 - CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN See ECDC 18.30.060.D.2. In addition, note that ECDC 18.30.060.D.2.d.i points to the SWMMWW Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2 for details on the requirements for Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), including the 13 Elements that must be reflected in the Construction SWPPP. See Chapter 6 for additional requirements pertaining to Construction SWPPP Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development BMPs, which are not provided in the SWMMWW. 5.3 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 3 - SOURCE CONTROL OF POLLUTION See ECDC 18.30.060.D.3 and SWMMWW Volume IV. Note that all single-family residential projects shall, at a minimum, incorporate required BMPs from SWMMWW Volume IV, S411 — BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management. 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 13 Packet Pg. 195 8.2.c Corrugated metal pipe (CMP) has been found to be a routine failure problem in Edmonds and a potential source of additional sediment in the City system. For this reason, CMP pipe is not permitted within Edmonds on either public or private property or both conveyance storm pipe and for detention tanks. 5.4 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 4 - PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND OUTFALLS See ECDC 18.30.060.D.4 and the content presented below. Although this minimum requirement is based on Minimum Requirement No. 4 in SWMMWW Volume I, Section 3.4.4, there are enough differences between the City's requirements and those in the SWMMWW that project proponents should not refer to the SWMMWW for Minimum Requirement No. 4. Only ECDC 18.30.060.D.3 and the following shall be required. To demonstrate compliance with this minimum requirement, all projects shall submit as part of their Stormwater Site Plan an off -site analysis that assesses the potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges. (See the end of this section, and Chapter 6, for details on the requirements for analysis and documentation.) Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters or down gradient properties. The discharge must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate outfall location (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system). All outfalls require energy dissipation. (Designs for outfall systems to protect against adverse impacts from concentrated runoff are included in SWMMWW Volume V, Chapter 1.) In addition, existing upstream flows must be accommodated without causing erosion or flooding impacts. Upstream drainage means drainage from adjacent property that enters the proposed project site (other than a defined natural channel). Upstream flows shall not be routed through the project's conveyance, treatment, or retention/detention systems, unless those systems are sized to control those flows. Upstream flows that are collected and routed through or around the site in a separate conveyance shall be dispersed at the downgradient property line, if feasible, or discharged at a project outfall (or outfalls) in a manner that does not violate the criteria below or cause the capacity of a conveyance system to be exceeded. Where no conveyance system exists at the adjacent downgradient property line and the discharge was previously unconcentrated flow or significantly lower concentrated flow, measures must be taken to prevent downgradient impacts. Drainage easements from downstream property owners may be needed and should be obtained prior to approval of engineering plans. For Category 2 projects only — where no conveyance system exists at the adjacent downstream property line and the natural (existing) discharge is unconcentrated, any runoff concentrated by the proposed project, including upstream drainage, must be discharged as follows: 1. If the 100-year peak discharge is less than or equal to 0.2 cfs (0.3 cfs using 15-minute time steps) under existing conditions and will remain less than or equal to 0.2 cfs under developed conditions, then the concentrated runoff may be discharged onto a rock pad or to any other system that serves to disperse flows. 2. If the 100-year peak discharge is between 0.2 and 0.5 cfs (or 0.75 cfs using 15-minute time steps) under existing conditions and will remain in that range under developed conditions, then the 14 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 196 8.2.c concentrated runoff may be discharged through a dispersal trench or other dispersal system, provided the applicant can demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems. 3. If the 100-year peak discharge is greater than 0.5 cfs for either existing or developed conditions, or if a significant adverse impact to downgradient properties or drainage systems is likely, then a conveyance system shall be provided to convey the concentrated runoff across the downstream properties to an acceptable discharge point (i.e., an enclosed drainage system or open drainage feature where concentrated runoff can be discharged without significant adverse impact). To demonstrate compliance with this minimum requirement, all projects shall submit as part of their Stormwater Site Plan an off -site analysis that assesses the potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges. Off -site analyses shall assess upstream and downstream conditions, including the conveyance capacity and erosion potential in the downstream system. If a problem is found, mitigation is required to prevent worsening of that problem or to mitigate an existing flooding or erosion problem. The off -site analysis shall include, at a minimum, a qualitative analysis of each upstream drainage system entering a site, and each downstream drainage system leaving a site. A quantitative analysis may be required for any project deemed to need additional downstream information or where the project proponent or the City determines that a quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system (e.g., where there is evidence of a risk to downstream systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water quality degradation, or other related impacts). See Chapter 6 for additional details on off -site analyses and documentation. 5.5 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 5 - ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The City has made several additions and changes to the contents of Minimum Requirement No. 5 relative to the SWMMWW. Project proponents must review ECDC 18.30.060.D.5 in detail to ensure all City - specific requirements are addressed. This section of the Addendum provides a summary of the City - specific elements of Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, this Addendum includes several tools to support implementation of Minimum Requirement No. 5 and related requirements. These tools include: A summary of infeasibility criteria for all On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs (see Appendix A). These infeasibility criteria must be considered when evaluating the feasibility of On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs as part of List No. 1 or List No. 2. The infeasibility criteria are included within the specific BMP descriptions in the SWMMWW, but are summarized in Appendix A for clarity. Appendix A also includes additional BMP infeasibility criteria that are specific to the City of Edmonds, and not necessarily included in the 2019 SWMMWW. 2. A summary of acceptable methods for determining BMP design infiltration rates (see Appendix B; and Appendix C, Checklist 4). Initial site infiltration rates may be determined either using field testing procedures, or the Soil Grain Size Analysis Method. These methods are described in detail in Appendix B. 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 15 Packet Pg. 197 8.2.c A summary of site investigation and field and design procedures required for several of the On - Site Stormwater Management BMPs as well as for infiltration basins and trenches (see Appendix C, Checklists 5 and 6). The field and design procedures required to design and implement On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs can be considerable, and include issues such as determining infiltration rates, determining depth to groundwater or other impermeable layers, soils reporting requirements, etc. 4. Submittal checklists for Category 1 and Category 2 projects, including notes on project site, soil, and BMP design information that must be documented and submitted to the City to meet the City of Edmonds and SWMMWW requirements related to Minimum Requirement No. 5 (and other minimum requirements. See Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3. 5. Design checklists for most of the On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs in List No. 1 and List No. 2 (see Appendix D). The applicability of Minimum Requirement No. 5 depends on the project type, project location, and the existing and proposed surfaces at the project site. See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5 for details, but in summary: Projects that drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain existing hard surfaces that do not drain to an approved stormwater management facility are required to provide On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs to manage a minimum of 25 percent of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after the project. The intent is to bring a portion of any existing, unmanaged surfaces up to current standards. If the 25 percent minimum is met, projects are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility for these existing surfaces (as per the subsequent project scenarios). 2. Similar to the SWMMWW, Category 1 project sites (project sites subject to Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5) that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 shall either use On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No. 1 (see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d) for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed, or demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c). Note that in the City of Edmonds, List No. 1 includes detention vaults or pipes as the final BMP option for roofs and other hard surfaces. See Chapter 6 for associated design requirements for detention vaults and pipes, including simplified sizing methods for meeting Minimum Requirement No. 5. (Note also that if the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault or pipe is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5.) Categor,2project sites (project sites subject to Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9) are subject to similar requirements as Category 1 projects, but must use List No. 2 instead of List No. 1 (see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.e). 4. Projects that discharge directly to Puget Sound through the City's MS4 (in accordance with the restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound presented in Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW) do not have to achieve the LID Performance Standard, and only have to evaluate a subset of the BMPs in List No. 1 or List No. 2. 5. Projects that do not drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 are required to either: o Discharge to the downstream private property (with approval) 16 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 198 8.2.c o Discharge runoff to an on -site system from List No. 1 (see in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d). ■ Sites located within earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility. However, a geotechnical design, analysis, and report by a geotechnical engineer is required. ■ For sites located outside earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers, projects must meet applicable Category 1 or Category 2 project requirements for Minimum Requirement No. 5 (see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.ii and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.iii). o Project sites may pump on -site runoff to the City's MS4, with prior approval; in such cases, projects shall meet all provisions of ECDC 18.30 as they would drain to the MS4 in post project conditions. 6. Finally, the following guidance shall be used to help clarify the requirements in the SWMMWW specific to List No. 1 and No. 2. Where the SWMMWW and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d/e states that "for each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. No other On -Site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface" the following clarifications are provided: o The goal of List No. 1 and List No. 2 is to manage 100 percent of each surface. If a project cannot manage 100 percent of a given surface with the first feasible BMP, a second BMP may be required to manage the remaining unmanaged area (depending on the size of the unmanaged area and the site -specific constraints). For example, where a roof surface drains to multiple downspouts around the perimeter of the structure, it is generally insufficient to only manage runoff that drains to a single downspout and to leave the remaining downspouts unmanaged (i.e., due to infeasibility considerations). 7. For BMPs without specific sizing criteria in this Addendum, single family residential projects under 2,000 SF of new plus replaced hard surfaces only, may use the simplified sizing per the included checklist for each BMP or per Volume V of SWMMWW to satisfy Minimum Requirement #5. However, such sizing methodology shall be assumed to generate an overflow and a piped or subsurface overflow connection is required for such BMPs unless otherwise waived by the City. 5.6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 6 - RUNOFF TREATMENT See ECDC 18.30.060.D.6 for thresholds and core requirements. See the SWMMWW for additional information on complying with this minimum requirement. In particular, the following sections should be reviewed: • Volume I, Section 3.4.6 for details on treatment facility sizing • Volume I, Chapter 4 and Volume V, Chapters 2 and 3 for general BMP selection. Note also that phosphorus treatment is required for projects that drain to Hall Creek or Lake Ballinger. • Volume V for design and maintenance requirements. 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 17 Packet Pg. 199 8.2.c 5.6.1 Edmonds -Specific Oil and Floatables Control In addition to the oil control requirements in the SWMMWW, all projects in the City of Edmonds not zoned as single-family residential that collect runoff from five or more parking spaces shall install floatable controls in catch basins (if another approved floatable control system is not employed). 5.7 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 7 — FLOW CONTROL See ECDC 18.30.060.D.7 for thresholds and core requirements. See the SWMMWW for additional information on complying with this minimum requirement (in particular, Volume I, Section 3.4.7). Note that flow control in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 7 is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound (other minimum requirements still apply, including Minimum Requirement No. 6, as well as Minimum Requirement No. 5 and the Edmonds Way direct discharge requirements). See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv and Section 3.4.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for additional restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound. In addition, the following information may be useful in determining the applicability of Minimum Requirement No. 7, specifically per the 100-year flow frequency threshold outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D.7.b.iii: Calculations to determine whether a project exceeds the 0.10 cubic feet per second (cfs), using a 1-hour time step (or 0.15 cfs using a 15-minute time step) increase in the 100-year recurrence interval flow must be performed individually for each project using an approved continuous simulation runoff model. The calculation will compare runoff in the post development site to the pre -development land cover. Pre - development, for this activity only, is the lower runoff of the pre project condition, or the site on July 6, 1977 (the effective date of the City's first drainage control ordinance). The unique site, soil, precipitation, and other project -specific factors will ultimately determine whether this threshold is exceeded. Nonetheless, the following general guidelines (based on hypothetical site designs) may be used to help identify the likelihood of this threshold being exceeded. The following land use changes are likely to exceed this threshold under certain conditions: • Converting approximately 5,000 square feet of forest to hard surface • Converting approximately 5,000 square feet of pasture to hard surface • Converting approximately 0.25 acres of forest to landscape surface • Converting approximately 1.25 acres of forest to pasture surfaces (in till soil conditions) 5.8 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. H — WETLAND PROTECTION See ECDC 18.30.060.D.8 and SWMMWW Volume I, Section 3.4.8. See also SWMMWW Volume I, Appendix I-C. 18 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 200 8.2.c 5.9 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 9 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE See ECDC 18.30.060.D.9. See also the submittal checklists provided in Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3 (also referenced previously as part of Minimum Requirements No. 1 and No. 5) for notes about submittal requirements related to the required operation and maintenance manual. 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 19 Packet Pg. 201 8.2.c U Q Packet Pg. 202 8.2.c 6 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS This chapter includes additional requirements that are either not included in the SWMMWW, or that are supplemental to the information provided in the SWMMWW. Specifically, this chapter addresses: 1. Additional requirements pertaining to Construction SWPPP Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development BMPs (required in the SWMMWW. 2. Details on the off -site analyses and documentation required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 4, Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls (City of Edmonds specific). 3. Design requirements for detention vaults and pipes when used to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. 4. Information on Underground Injection Controls (UICs). 6.1 PROTECTION OF LID FACILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION To ensure that LID stormwater facilities and BMPs will be fully functional after construction, it is important to protect these BMPs during construction activities. Protecting native soil and vegetation, minimizing soil compaction, and retaining the hydrologic function of LID BMPs during the site preparation and construction phases are some of the most important practices during the development process. The purpose of this section is to provide designers, builders, and inspectors with guidance and tools for meeting Minimum Requirement No. 2, Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development BMPs. This section does not provide guidance on construction or design of LID BMPs (see SWMMWW Volume III and Volume V), or cover all Construction SWPPP practices (see SWMMWW Volume II), but rather focuses on how to most efficiently reduce impacts on LID BMPs specifically during construction. The practices specified in this section must be applied to protect LID BMPs, unless the given practice does not apply to the project site conditions or activities. 6.1.1 General Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs Applicable to LID Overall Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements are specified in Chapter 5, Minimum Requirement No. 2 and SWMMWW Volume II. In general, Construction SWPPP BMPs limit the impact of site disturbance, erosion, and sediment deposition during construction. Some Construction SWPPP BMPs focus on providing a physical barrier or deterrent to help minimize construction -related site disturbance and/or erosion, while other Construction SWPPP BMPs help protect 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 21 Packet Pg. 203 8.2.c the site from concentrated (i.e., erosive) flows. General Construction SWPPP BMPs and their application for protection of LID BMPs in particular are summarized below. These BMPs must be considered for projects subject to Minimum Requirement No. 2 that are proposing to construct LID BMPs. Construction SWPPP BMP Application BMP C103: High Visibility Fence Use fencing to limit clearing; prevent disturbance of sensitive areas, their buffers, and other areas; limit construction traffic; and protect areas where marking with flagging may not provide adequate protection BMP C200: Interceptor Dike and Swale Use an interceptor dike and/or swale to intercept the runoff from unprotected areas and direct it to areas where erosion can be controlled BMP C201: Grass -Lined Channels Use grass lined channels where concentrated runoff may cause erosion and flooding of the site BMP C207: Check Dams Use check dams in swales or ditches to reduce the velocity and dissipate concentrated flow BMP C208: Triangular Silt Dike (TSD) Use triangular silt dikes as check dams, for perimeter protection, (Geotextile-Encased Check Dam) temporary soil stockpile protection, drop inlet protection, or as a temporary interceptor dike BMP C231: Brush Barrier Use brush barriers to decrease flow velocities and reduce transport of coarse sediment from overland flow BMP C233: Silt Fence Use silt fences to decrease flow velocities and reduce transport of sediment from overland flow BMP C234: Vegetated Strip Use vegetated strips to decrease flow velocities and reduce transport of sediment from overland flow 6.1.2 Additional Construction Techniques for LID BMPs In addition to the general Construction SWPPP BMPs presented in Section 6.1.1, this section outlines specific construction -phase techniques to protect LID BMPs. LID BMP protection is still a somewhat new and evolving practice, therefore the specific LID BMP protection measures outlined below are not explicitly called out in the SWMMWW. Rather, the techniques presented in this section supplement the Construction SWPPP BMPs presented above, and those presented in the SWMMWW Volume II. (Note these techniques can be applied to any site, not just those incorporating LID, but these techniques are particularly important for LID BMP protection.) Construction Site Planning and Sequencing Construction site planning and sequencing is a procedural BMP that is critical to successful installation and long-term operation of LID BMPs. Proper site planning and construction sequencing will minimize the impact of construction on permanent stormwater facilities by reducing the potential for soil erosion and compaction. Site planning and sequencing techniques to be used as practicable for protection of LID BMPs include: 22 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 204 8.2.c Construction Site Planning and Sequencing Requirements Construction Site Planning and Sequencing Techniques Limit clearing and grading activities • Keep grading to a minimum by incorporating natural topographic depressions into the development. • Shape final lot grades and topographic features early (i.e., at the site development stage) where feasible. • Limit the amount of cut and fill in areas with permeable soils. • Limit clearing to road, utility, building pad, lawn areas, and the minimum amount of extra land necessary to maneuver machinery (e.g., a 10-foot perimeter around a building). Limit construction activity in areas • Clearly document —and plan to meet and walk through the designated for LID site with equipment operators prior to construction —to clarify construction boundaries, limits of disturbance, and construction activities in the vicinity of LID BMPs. • General/primary contractor must inform other sub -contractors of applicable LID BMP protection requirements. This is particularly important when working around permeable pavement. Limit clearing and grading during heavy • Time construction activities to start during the summer (lowest rainfall seasons precipitation) and end in the fall (when conditions are favorable for the establishment of vegetation), if feasible. Minimize the amount and time that graded • Complete construction and erosion control activities in one areas are left exposed section of the site before beginning activity in another section. Utilize permeable and nutrient rich soils • Preserve any portion of the site with permeable soils to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff. • Leave areas of rich topsoil in place, or if excavated, utilize elsewhere on the site to amend areas with sparse or nutrient deficient topsoil. Reduce impact of construction access roads • Reduce the number and size (width/length) of construction access roads. • Locate construction access roads in areas where future roads and utility corridors will be placed (unless utilizing permeable pavement). Promote sheet flow and minimize • Avoid grading that results in steep, continuous slopes, concentrated runoff especially in areas contributing runoff to LID BMPs. LID BMP activation • LID BMPs shall not begin operation until all erosion -causing project improvements (including use of access roads that may contribute sediment) are completed and all exposed ground surfaces are stabilized by revegetation or landscaping in upland areas potentially contributing runoff to the BMP. 0 CM 00 r U U w m 0 0 L 0 a� c 0 m 2 U d c m U E c m a L 3 E `0 .., U c 0 E w a� N a� U Q 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 23 Packet Pg. 205 8.2.c Activities During Construction Many common construction -phase activities pose a risk to LID BMPs. The following techniques will help minimize these impacts. Techniques to be used for protection of LID BMPs include: Erosion Control Requirements Erosion Control Techniques Protect native topsoil during the • Where practicable, protect areas of rich topsoil. If excavation is construction phase, and reuse on site necessary, stockpile native soils that can be used on the site after construction. • Stockpile materials in areas designated for clearing and grading (such as parking areas and future impervious roadways) and away from infiltration and other stormwater facilities. • Cover small stockpiles with weed barrier material that sheds moisture yet allows air transmission. Large stockpiles may need to be seeded and/or mulched. • Do not relocate topsoil or other material to areas where they can cover critical root zones, suffocate vegetation, or erode into adjacent streams. Use effective revegetation methods • Use native plant species adapted to the local environment. • Plant during late fall, winter, or early spring months when vegetation is likely to establish quickly and survive. • Utilize proper seedbed preparation. Fertilize and mulch to protect germinating plants. Apply 1 inch of compost topped with 2 inches of mulch. • Protect areas designated for revegetation from soil compaction by restricting heavy equipment. • Provide proper soil amendments where necessary (refer to SWMMWW, Volume V, Chapter 5, BMP T5.13 Post - Construction Soil Quality and Depth). Amend soil toward the end of construction. Once established, protect from compaction and erosion. • During storage, plants should be protected by solar screens when possible to prevent overexposure and excessive drying. Perform preconstruction, routine, and • Conduct a preconstruction inspection to verify that adequate postconstruction inspections barriers have been placed around vegetation retention areas, infiltration facilities (as needed), and structural controls are implemented properly. • Conduct routine inspections to verify that structural controls are being maintained and effectively protecting LID BMPs throughout construction. • Conduct a final inspection to verify that revegetation areas are stabilized and that permanent LID BMPs are in place and functioning ro erl . 24 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 206 8.2.c 6.1.3 BMP-Specific Construction Techniques This section outlines construction -phase BMP protection techniques specific to categories of LID BMPs (e.g., infiltration and dispersion) as well as specific LID BMPs (permeable pavement, bioretention areas/rain gardens, and vegetated roofs). The BMP protection techniques presented previously in Section 6.1.2 are applicable to the overall construction site to help protect LID BMPs. The techniques outlined in this section are based on the specific BMP functions, targeting typical construction activities that pose a risk to individual BMPs. Infiltration and Dispersion Facility Construction Techniques It is critical that appropriate methods are used to protect infiltration and dispersion BMPs from compaction and sediment loading during construction. For infiltration facilities in particular, the subgrade soils must be protected from clogging and over -compaction to maintain the soil permeability and ensure BMP performance. Techniques for protection of infiltration and dispersion BMPs during various stages of construction are summarized below. Construction Stage Techniques for Protecting Infiltration and Dispersion Facilities Prior to construction • The infiltration/dispersion area shall be clearly identified (e.g., using flagging or high visibility fencing) and protected prior to construction to prevent compaction of underlying soils by vehicle traffic. • Develop a soil and vegetation management plan showing areas to be protected and restoration methods for disturbed areas before land clearing sta rts. • The Construction SWPPP sheets must outline construction sequencing that will protect the infiltration/dispersion area during construction. • Construction SWPPP BMPs and protection techniques identified in the previous sections shall be implemented as applicable. In particular, be sure to stabilize upslope construction areas (e.g., using silt fences, berms, mulch, or other Construction SWPPP BMPs) and minimize overland flow distances. Excavation • Excavation of infiltration/dispersion areas shall be performed by machinery operating adjacent to the BMP. No heavy equipment with narrow tracks, narrow tires, or large lugged high pressure tires shall be allowed on the infiltration/dispersion area footprint. • Where feasible, excavate infiltration/dispersion areas to final grade only after all disturbed areas in the upgradient project drainage area have been permanently stabilized. (If infiltration areas must be excavated before permanent site stabilization, initial excavation must be conducted to no less than 6 inches of the final elevation of the facility floor.) • Excavation of infiltration areas shall not be allowed during wet or saturated conditions. • The use of draglines and trackhoes should be considered for constructing infiltration and dispersion areas. • The bottom (and sidewalls if feasible) of an infiltration facility excavation must be raked or scarified to a minimum depth of 3 inches after final excavation to restore infiltration rates. • Scarify soil along the dispersion flow path if disturbed during construction. 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 25 Packet Pg. 207 8.2.c Construction Stage Techniques for Protecting Infiltration and Dispersion Facilities Sediment control . Bioretention, rain garden, and permeable pavement BMPs shall not be used as sediment control facilities, and all drainage shall be directed away from the BMP location after initial rough grading. Direct construction site flow away from the infiltration/dispersion area using applicable Construction SWPPP BMPs (e.g., temporary diversion swales). Permeable Pavement There are many potential applications and site scenarios where permeable pavement can be applied. The following techniques highlight the most broadly applicable techniques to be used to protect permeable pavement BMPs during construction. Refer to the previous section for construction protection methods that are applicable to all infiltration BMPs, as well as Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 for general site protection measures. In addition to those techniques, the following techniques apply specifically for protection of permeable pavement during construction: • Use procedural BMPs to plan construction. For example, phase construction to minimize compaction, sedimentation, or structural damage to the permeable pavement. • Use physical Construction SWPPP BMPs and/or grade the site to avoid sediment laden runoff from reaching permeable pavements. • Place protective surfaces (e.g., waterproof tarps and steel plates) over any permeable pavement areas used for construction staging. %% • Do not drive sediment -laden construction equipment on the base material or pavement. Do not allow sediment -laden runoff on permeable pavements or base materials. • Once the pavement is finished and set, cover the pavement surface with plastic and geotextile to protect from other construction activities. Close and protect the pavement area until the site is permanently stabilized. • Incorporate measures to protect road subgrade from over compaction and sedimentation if permeable pavement roads are used for construction access. o Cover the aggregate base or pavement surface with protective geotextile fabric and protect fabric with steel plates or gravel. Gravel should only be used to protect the fabric placed over aggregate base. o Once construction is complete and the site is permanently stabilized, remove protective geotextile, clean, and complete pavement installation. Refer to the detailed permeable pavement BMP information in SWMMWW Volume V, Chapter 5, as well as City of Edmonds Standard Details for general permeable pavement construction criteria. 26 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 208 8.2.c Bioretention Areas and Rain Gardens As with permeable pavements, there are many potential applications and site scenarios where bioretention and rain garden BMPs can be applied. The following techniques highlight the most broadly applicable techniques to be used to protect bioretention and rain garden BMPs during construction. Refer to the beginning of this section for construction protection methods that are applicable to all infiltration BMPs, as well as Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 for general site protection measures. In addition to those techniques, the following techniques apply specifically for protection of bioretention and rain garden BMPs during construction: • Excavation: o If machinery must operate in the bioretention area for excavation, use lightweight, low ground -contact pressure equipment and rip the base at completion to scarify soil to a minimum of 12 inches. • Protect bioretention soil mix from compaction during construction o Do not place bioretention soil mix if saturated or during wet periods. o Check for compaction prior to planting. If compaction occurs, aerate the bioretention soil and then proceed to plant. Refer to the detailed bioretention and rain garden BMP information in SWMMWW Volume V, Chapter 7, as well as City of Edmonds Standard Details for general bioretention and rain garden construction criteria. YV Vegetated Roofs The following additional techniques apply for protection of vegetated roof facilities during construction: • Because of their location and complexity, vegetated roofs typically require more planning and coordination effort relative to ground -level landscaping. For new construction, a critical path approach is highly recommended to establish the sequence of tasks for construction of the vegetated roof system. • During construction, it is vitally important that the waterproof membrane be protected once installed. The waterproofing should be tested prior to placement of the growth media and other subsequent vegetated roof materials. Refer to the detailed vegetated roof BMP information in SWMMWW Volume V, for general construction criteria. 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 27 Packet Pg. 209 8.2.c 6.2 OFF -SITE ANALYSES AND DOCUMENTATION All projects subject to Minimum Requirement No. 4 shall submit as part of their Stormwater Site Plan an off -site analysis that assesses the potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges. The following sections detail the analysis and documentation requirements for Category 1 and Category 2 projects. 6.2.1 Category 1 Projects Category 1 projects shall submit a qualitative analysis of potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges for each upstream drainage system entering a site, and each downstream drainage system leaving a site. The upstream analysis shall identify and describe points where water enters the site. Any upstream contributing areas shall be identified and mapped in the project Stormwater Site Plan submittal. The downstream analysis shall extend from the project site to the receiving water, or up to one -quarter mile, whichever is less. In many cases, runoff that leaves a project site will enter the City's MS4 within one -quarter mile. In these instances, the project must evaluate and document downstream conditions up to and including runoff entry into the City's MS4. In addition, the project proponent shall consult with the City to determine whether the MS4 has any existing or anticipated capacity issues downstream of the proposed project. The qualitative analysis shall identify where and how stormwater runoff will leave the proposed development site, and describe conditions downstream of the site including any existing or anticipated future problem areas (e.g., spot flooding, property damage, erosion issues, capacity -limited drainage systems, etc.). The qualitative analysis must be sufficient for the City to evaluate whether the project has adequately identified potential impacts and whether proposed mitigation measures are supported by the analysis. Some "rough" quantitative analyses, which can be based on non -surveyed field data, may be necessary as part of the qualitative analysis to adequately describe or document the extent of observed problem areas. Note that any off -site field visits should be conducted during winter months and after significant precipitation events to identify seasonal issues such as flooding, capacity constraints, or surface seeps or other indicators of near surface groundwater. A quantitative analysis may also be required for any project where the project proponent or the City determines that a more thorough analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system (e.g., where there is evidence of a risk to downstream systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water quality degradation, or other related impacts). A quantitative analysis may include calculations and/or modeling analyses of on -site and off -site water quality, erosion, slope stability, and other drainage -related impacts that may be caused or aggravated by a proposed project. 6.2.2 Category 2 Projects All Category 2 projects shall submit a qualitative analysis of potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges that extend downstream from the site to the receiving water. (If the ultimate discharge point is to Puget Sound via a culvert owned by BNSF Railway, the analysis must be followed through the drainage system all the way to Puget Sound.) A quantitative analysis may also be required for any project deemed to need additional downstream information or where the project engineer or the City determines that a quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system (e.g., where there are known capacity issues or where there is evidence of a risk to downstream 28 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 210 8.2.c systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water quality degradation, or other related impacts). The qualitative analysis must be sufficient for the City to evaluate whether the project has adequately identified potential impacts and whether proposed mitigation measures are supported by the analysis. Some "rough" quantitative analysis, which can be based on non -surveyed field data, may be required at this stage. A downstream analysis of the project for a minimum of one -quarter of a mile is required. The analysis must also extend upstream to a point beyond any backwater effects caused by the project. The analysis must include field -inspection of all existing stormwater drainage systems downstream from the project and a determination of whether the capacity of the drainage system(s) is adequate to handle the existing flows, flows generated by the proposed project, and any overflow. Adequacy will be evaluated based on conveyance capacity, flooding problems, erosion damage or potential, amount of freeboard in channel and pipes, and storage potential within the system. Note that site visits should be conducted during winter months and after significant precipitation events to identify undocumented surface seeps or other indicators of near surface groundwater. See the end of this section for specific topics to be discussed in the qualitative analysis. When deemed necessary by the project engineer or required by the City, a quantitative analysis shall include the qualitative analysis describe above, as well as quantitative calculations and/or modeling analyses of on -site and off -site water quality, erosion, slope stability, and other drainage -related impacts that may be caused or aggravated by a proposed project. Measures for preventing impacts and for not aggravating existing impacts shall also be identified. ("Aggravating existing impacts" means increasing the frequency of occurrence and/or severity of an impact.) The analysis shall document how temporary and permanent flow control and water quality control measures identified in the Stormwater Site Plan will mitigate the potential to create new problems or aggravate existing conditions. In many cases, design of flow control and water quality systems according to the procedures contained in this Addendum and the SWMMWW will be adequate demonstration of mitigation. However, upon review of this analysis and the severity of an existing problem, the City may require more detailed analysis and/or additional mitigation measures. In general, all existing and proposed off -site surface water conveyance systems shall be sized to convey flows without surcharging the City's storm system (or BNSF culverts under the railroad tracks, if applicable). Both the qualitative analysis and the quantitative analyses (when required) shall include descriptions and/or analyses of the following items. The descriptions shall identify existing or potential problem areas, and whether adequate mitigation can be identified (or whether more detailed quantitative analysis is necessary). References to other Stormwater Site Plan sections (e.g., facility sizing, conveyance, attachments and appendices, etc.) are encouraged to reduce plan redundancy, as long as all of the required Stormwater Site Plan issues are clearly presented: • Describe the drainage system between the site and the receiving surface waters. Provide information on pipe sizes, channel characteristics, and drainage structures. Describe emergency services located along the flow path (e.g., fire/police stations, hospitals). Describe environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, etc. • Describe the upstream drainage tributary to the project. Describe any bypass drainage from the project which will not be controlled. • The bulk of the analysis shall focus on highlights of important considerations from the project overview and off -site analysis sections related to the drainage system and potential problems or concerns. Existing and potential impacts to be evaluated and mitigated shall include, but not be limited to: 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 29 Packet Pg. 211 8.2.c O Conveyance system capacity issues. o Flooding or bank overtopping. o Upland erosion impacts, including slope stability and landslide hazards. O Stream channel erosion (at the outfall location and to the downstream limit of analysis). O Violations of surface water quality standards as identified in a Basin Plan or a TMDL/Water Cleanup Plan (e.g., for Lake Ballinger). O For each existing or potential problem, document: the magnitude of damage caused by the problem, the general frequency and duration, current mitigation of the problem (if any), the likely or possible cause of the problem, and whether the project is likely to aggravate the problem or create a new one. • Determine whether the project is within any other critical areas or their buffers as defined in ECDC, and whether any additional requirements apply. • All areas pertinent to the analyses such as site boundaries, study area boundaries, streets and prominent features, downstream flow path, potential/existing problems, etc. shall be keyed to features shown on the project map(s). 6.3 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR DETENTION VAULTS AND PIPES T This section includes design requirements and associated information for detention vaults and detention pipes. The focus of this section is on the use of detention vaults and pipes to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. For other design applications (e.g., to meet Minimum Requirement No. 7), designers must refer to the SWMMWW. For Category 1 and 2 projects that must comply with Minimum Requirement No. 5, the final option that is available for roofs and other hard surfaces under List No. 1 and List No. 2 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5 [d] or [e]) is the use of detention vaults or detention pipes. When using detention vaults or pipes to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 5 using List No. 1 or List No. 2 in the City of Edmonds, the following requirements apply. Note that if the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. The City may waive the requirement to install a detention vault or pipe if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement No. 4, or available City data indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial. Note that this exemption is rare and most similar to the direct discharge exemption in SWMMWW; qualifying for this exception will require unique site circumstances and may require additional information or calculations from the applicant to demonstrate lack of benefit. It shall not be applied to any site which discharges, direct or indirectly, to a stream, creek, wetland, or floodplain. 30 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 212 8.2.c 6.3.1 Sizing & Design The City has created simplified sizing techniques for detention vaults and pipes for use in complying with Minimum Requirement No. 5. The sizing calculations and requirements presented below are designed to optimize detention facility functions relative to peak flow control as well as runoff "volume managed." Volume managed is a measure of the difference between facility inflow and outflow rates, and is evaluated using continuous simulation hydrologic modeling by comparing inflow and outflow over the entire continuous simulation. Volume managed represents an estimate of the amount of the storm flow that is attenuated (or removed, for facilities that utilize infiltration) by the flow control facility. To comply with Minimum Requirement No. 5, detention vaults or pipes must be installed for any site impervious surfaces totaling greater than or equal to 1,000 square feet that are not managed by other On - Site Stormwater Management BMPs. This includes areas from multiple types of surfaces listed under the list options in Minimum Requirement No. 5. For example, if unmanaged flows from roofs plus driveway areas exceed 1,000 square feet and runoff from both surfaces can be routed to a single vault, a vault shall be installed. In addition, projects may elect to route "managed" flows to the vault if desired (e.g., where runoff from an installed On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs cannot be easily separated from runoff drainage to the vault.) In this scenario, no upsizing of the vault is required for the "managed" areas. Only the unmanaged surfaces need to be included in the sizing calculations below. The City of Edmonds has developed standards specifically for vaults and pipes used to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5 only. See City standard detail SD-651 for detention tank requirements specific to minimum Requirement #5; this detail shall be completed with design information and included with any plan set proposing detention under Minimum Requirement #5. For compliance with Minimum Requirement No. 7, SWMMWW Volume V, Chapter 12 requirements apply. For vaults with contributing areas greater than or equal to 1,000 square feet the following sizing requirements apply: • Orifice size shall be 0.5 inches • Vault interior bottom area = 2 percent of contributing surface area • Vault minimum active storage depth = 3.0 feet 6.4 UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROLS With each update to the SWMMWW, the Department of Ecology continues to emphasize the importance of maximizing the use of infiltration for stormwater runoff control. Given the heavy emphasis on infiltration in the SWMMWW, and thus ECDC 18.30 and this Addendum, it is important to be aware of related requirements for Underground Injection Controls (UICs). In certain situations, BMPs that rely on infiltration are classified as UICs and may be regulated by Ecology under the UIC Program (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173 218). For more information on UICs, see SWMMWW Volume I, Chapter 4 (UIC Program). 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 31 Packet Pg. 213 8.2.c I 2 U a 32 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 214 8.2.c 7 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Stormwater Site Plans are required for all projects subject to Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans (as well as for preparation of a Construction SWPPP, in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 2), as outlined in Chapter 3 and ECDC 18.30.060.C. This chapter summarizes the requirements for submittals of stormwater plans, reports, and other documents for review by the City of Edmonds. As noted in Section 5.1, Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the SWMMWW. However, the City of Edmonds has developed checklists to facilitate compliance with Minimum Requirement No. 1 (and thus project submittal and review). This Addendum includes a summary of core submittal requirements for Category 1 and Category 2 projects as Checklists 1 and 2 in Appendix C. 7.1 CATEGORY 1 STORMWATER SITE PLANS Stormwater Site Plans for Category 1 projects must address Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5 Detailed descriptions of submittal requirements are provided in Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3. A schematic showing the components of a typical Category 1 project submittal is presented in Figure 7.1. Typical Category 1 Stormwater Site Plan Components Site Development Drawings and Reports and Construction SWPPP Drawings Documentation (i.e., construction drawings) Stormwater Site Plan Report, Supporting Documents, and Calculations Soils Report Construction SWPPP Narrative Establishment of Maintenance Covenant Appendices Figure 7.1. Typical Category 1 Stormwater Site Plan Components. 7.2 CATEGORY 2 STORMWATER SITE PLANS Stormwater Site Plans for Category 2 projects include the full submittal package meeting all minimum requirements. The Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan submittal package includes the following 7. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 33 Packet Pg. 215 8.2.c components: Stormwater Site Plan Report, Site Development Drawings, Soils Report, Construction SWPPP, Operations and Maintenance Manual, Maintenance Covenant, and any plan appendices. A schematic showing the components of a typical Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan submittal package is presented in Figure 7.2. The Construction SWPPP consists of two parts: a narrative report and drawings, which should be included in the plan set with the other Site Development Drawings. Detailed descriptions of submittal requirements are provided in Appendix C, Checklist 2. Typical Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan Components Site Development Drawings Reports and (i.e., construction drawings) Documentation Stormwater Site Plan Report, General Drawings Supporting Documents, and Calculations Construction SWPPP Drawings Soils Report Grading/Earthwork Drawings Construction SWPPP Narrative Plan/Profile Drawings Operation and Maintenance Manual Detail Drawings Establishment of Maintenance Covenant Appendices Figure 7.2. Typical Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan Components. 34 7. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 216 8.2.c Appendix A — On -Site Stormwater Management BMP Infeasibility Criteria Packet Pg. 217 8.2.c U a Packet Pg. 218 OCTOBER 2021 EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM 8.2.c Appendix B — Methods for Determining Design Infiltration Rates 9% j Packet Pg. 219 8.2.c U a Packet Pg. 220 OCTOBER 2021 EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM 8.2.c Appendix C — Checklists for Various Project Submittal, Review, and Field Procedure Elements Packet Pg. 221 8.2.c U Q Packet Pg. 222 8.2.c Appendix D — Design Checklists for the Main On -Site Stormwater Management BM Ps j Packet Pg. 223 8.2.c U a Packet Pg. 224 8.2.d Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Chapter 18.30 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Sections: 18.30.000 Purposes. 18.30.010 Definitions. 18.30.020 Authority and Regulation. 18.30.030 Applicability. 18.30.040 Exemptions. 18.30.050 Administration. 18.30.060 Requirements. 18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeal. 18.30.080 Access and Covenants. 18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities. 18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures. 18.30.000 Purposes. Page 1/27 A. To set forth standards for managing stormwater runoff from construction and development sites to minimize 1. Degradation of surface water quality by controlling the scouring and sedimentation of creeks, streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, other water bodies. 2. Degradation of groundwater quality. 3. Damage to adjacent and other downstream private properties from erosion or other impacts from stormwater runoff. 4. Damage of City -owned parcels, City roads, rights -of -way and associated infrastructure. B. To comply with requirements in the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit as issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). C. To complement site planning activities that minimize: 1. Impervious surfaces area. 2. The loss of native or non-native site vegetation. 3. The generation of stormwater runoff. D. To make low impact development (LID) the preferred and commonly used approach to site development; to require LID be considered at the site planning stage; and to implement LID BMPs unless they are infeasible. E. To require that all publicly -owned and privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control best management practices (BMPs)/Facilities are operated, maintained and repaired in manner that conforms to this chapter. F. To provide the authority for the City to inspect privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. G. To provide enforcement procedures for ensuring compliance with this chapter. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 225 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 2/27 18.30.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: Arterial. A road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or streets considered collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property. See also RCW 35.78.010, RCW 36.86.070, and RCW 47.05.021. Adjustment. A variation in the application of a minimum requirement to a particular project. Adjustments provide substantially equivalent environmental protection. Applicant. The owning individual(s) or corporations or their representatives applying for the permits or approvals described in this chapter. Approval. The proposed work or completed work conforming to this chapter as approved by the public works Director or their designee. Best management practices (BMPs). The schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the City that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State. Bioretention BMPs. Engineered facilities that treat stormwater by passing it through a specified soil profile, and either retain or detain the treated stormwater for flow attenuation. Refer to the 2-04.4-2019 Stonrynwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), r'ia�Volume V for bioretention BMP types and design specifications. Category 1 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.I through No.5. See ECDC 18.30.60. C. Category 2 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.I through No.9. See ECDC 18.30.60.C. Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). An individual who has current certification through an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by Ecology (see BMP C160 in the SWMMWW). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater and, the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control course. Course listings are provided online at Ecology's website. City's municipal separate storm sewer system or "MS4." A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) that are owned or operated by the City of Edmonds, designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater, and are not a combined sewer nor part of a publicly owned treatment works as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 122.2, and which is defined as "large" or "medium" or "small" or otherwise designated by Ecology pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26. Clearing. The destruction and removal of vegetation by manual, mechanical, or chemical methods. Commercial Agriculture. Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and activities involved in the production of crops or livestock for commercial trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial agriculture when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Common plan of development or sale. A site where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules and/or by different contractors, but still under a single plan. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 226 8.2.d Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 3/27 Examples include: 1) phase projects and projects with multiple filings or lots, even if the separate phases or filings/lots will be constructed under separate contract or by separate owners (e.g., a development where lots are sold to separate builders); 2) a development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is still under a consistent plan for long-term development; 3) projects in a contiguous area that maybe unrelated but still under the same contract, such as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility; and 4) linear projects such as roads, pipelines, or utilities. If the project is part of a common plan of development or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan must be used in determine permit requirements. Converted vegetation (areas). The change in land cover changed from native vegetation, pasture scrub/shrub, or unmaintained non-native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or where native vegetation is converted to pasture. Creek. Is synonymous with "streams," which is defined in ECDC 23.40.320. Detention facility. An above or below ground facility, such as a pond or tank, that temporarily stores stormwater runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or no infiltration of stored stormwater. Development. Land -disturbing activities, including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses. Creation or addition of hard surfaces, or replacement of hard surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity. Structural development, including construction, installation, replacement, or expansion of a building or other structure. Subdivision, short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW Director. The City's Public Works and Utilities Director or a designee with an appropriate background in engineering or another related discipline. Discharge point. The location where a discharge leaves the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) through the City's MS4 facilitiesBMPs designed to infiltrate. Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology. Effective impervious surface. Those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a drainage system. Impervious surfaces on residential development sites are considered ineffective if: 1) the runoff is dispersed through at least 100 feet of native vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 — "Full Dispersion," as described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with downspout Full Infiltration Systems in BMP T5.10A in Volume III of the SWMMWW; or 3) approved continuous runoff modeling methods indicate the entire runoff file is infiltrated. Erodible or leachable materials. Wastes, chemicals, or other substances that measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of runoff when exposed to rainfall. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage. Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including such processes as gravitational creep. Also, detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity. See the SWMMWW Glossary for examples of types of water erosion. Excavation. The mechanical removal of earth material. Exception. Relief from the application of a minimum requirement to a project. Fill. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. Groundwater. Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or below a water body. Hard surface. An impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 227 8.2.d Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 4/27 Highway. A main public road connecting towns and cities. In Edmonds, this includes State Route 99, State Route 524, and portions of State Route 104, that are classified as principal arterials in the City's comprehensive transportation plan. Illicit discharge. Any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the City's MS4, groundwaters, or a water body, except as expressly allowed by ECDC Chapter 7.200. Impervious surface. A non -vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor swimming pools shall be considered impervious surfaces in all situations. In addition, lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and other areas that have modified runoff characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains and impermeable or low permeability liners are to be considered impervious surfaces. If no liner is installed, these areas (lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, etc.) served by underdrains may be considered partially pervious if the underdrain is set a minimum of 8 inches above the in -situ soils in a manner to allow infiltration over the facility bottom. Lake. An inland body of fresh water surrounded by land. Land disturbing activity. Any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non - vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land -disturbing activities include but are not limited to demolition, clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be considered a land -disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices, including landscape maintenance and gardening, are not considered land -disturbing activity. Stormwater facility maintenance is not considered land disturbing activity if conducted according to established standards and procedures. Low impact development (LID). A stormwater and land use strategy that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design. LID Best Management Practices (BMPs). Distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project design, that emphasize pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. LID principles. Land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff. Maintenance. Repair and maintenance activities conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and equipment that involves no expansion or use beyond that previously existing and results in no significant adverse hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities, including cases where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as long as the functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a collapsed, fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. In regard to stormwater facilities, maintenance includes assessment to ensure ongoing proper operation, removal of built up pollutants (i.e., sediments), replacement of failed or failing treatment media, and other actions taken to correct defects as identified in the maintenance standards of Chapter-4Appendix A, Volume V of the SWMMWW. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 228 8.2.d Edmonds Page 5/27 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Maximum extent practicable (MEP). Refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. MS4. The City's municipal separate storm sewer system. Native vegetation. Vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest which could have been reasonably expected to occur naturally on the site. Examples include trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big -leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed. Natural drainage systems and outfalls. The location of the channels, swales, and other non -manmade conveyance systems as defined by the earliest documented topographic contours existing for the subject property, either from maps or photographs, or such other means as appropriate. New Development. Land disturbing activities, including Class IV -general forest practices that are conversions from timberland to other uses; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or other structure; creation of hard surfaces; and subdivision, short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW. ECDC 18.30 does not distinguish the difference between new development and redevelopment: all proiects in Edmonds shall meet the reauirements for new development. New Impervious Surface. A surface that is: 1) changed from a pervious surface to an impervious surface (e.g_ resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, a bituminous surface treatment ("chip seal"), asphalt, concrete, or an impervious structure); or 2) upgraded from gravel to chip seal, asphalt, concrete, or an impervious structure; or 3) upgraded from chip seal to asphalt, concrete, or an impervious structure. Note that if asphalt or concrete has been overlaid by seal, the existing condition should be considered as asphalt or concrete. Outfall. A point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a discharge leaves the City's MS4 and enters a surface receiving waterbody or surface receiving waters. Outfall does not include pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other surface waters and are used to convey primarily surface waters (i.e., culverts). On -site Stormwater Management BMPs. A synonym for Low Impact Development BMPs. Permeable pavement. Pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir. Pervious Surface. Any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn, landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements. Person. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal corporation, agency of the state, or City government unit, however designated. Pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS). Those hard surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. See the listing of surfaces under pollution -generating impervious surface. Pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS). Those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use; industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; metal roofs unless they are coated with an inert, non -leachable material (e.g., baked -on enamel coating); or roofs that are subject to venting significant amounts of dusts, mists, or fumes from manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 229 8.2.d Edmonds Page 6/27 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS). Any pervious surface subject to )—vehicular use, 2)L industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); or 31storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall, use of pesticides and fertilizers, or Sloss of soil. Typical PGPS include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns, and landscaped areas including: golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turf). Pre -developed condition. The native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro- American settlement. The pre -developed condition shall be assumed to be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement. Project: Any proposed action to alter or develop a site. Project site. That portion of a property, properties, and/or right-of-way subject to land -disturbing activities, new hard surfaces, or replaced hard surfaces. For projects that involve land disturbing activity on one or more parcels and/or land disturbing activity in the City right-of-way, the "Project site" includes all areas of land disturbance. If the project is part of a common development plan or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan shall be used in determining permit requirements. Rain garden. A non -engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost -amended native soils and adapted plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile. Receiving waterbody or Receiving waters. Naturally and/or reconstructed naturally occurring surface water bodies, such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine waters, or groundwater, to which a MS4 discharges. Redevelopment. ECDC 18.30 does not distinguish the difference between new development and redevelopment; all projects in Edmonds shall meet the requirements for new development. Where existing unmitigated surfaces are to remain, the additional "retro-fit" requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.i Replaced hard surface. For structures means the removal and replacement of hard surfaces down to the foundation. For other hard surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement. Replaced impervious surface. For structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces down to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement. Roadway. Traveled hard surface portion of any public or private road or street. Road -related project. A project that all of, or the majority of, the new or replaced hard surface consist of roadway, shoulders, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or walkways, either publicly or privately funded. Frontage improvements constructed as a requirement for a development project are not consider a road -roadway project. Runoff. Water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that is found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes and wetlands, as well as shallow ground water. It also means the portion of rainfall or other precipitation that becomes surface flow and interflow. Site. The area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to development. For road projects, or utility projects in the right-of-way, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries define the site. Note that drainage impacts are generally assessed for the "project site", under separate definition. Slope. The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal; measured as a numerical ratio, percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the vertical distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, with a 90-degree slope being vertical (maximum) and 45 degrees being a 1:1 or 100 percent slope. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 230 8.2.d Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 7/27 Soil. The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the intermediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. Source control BMPs. A structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with storm water through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of pollutants. The SWMMWW separates source control BMPs into two types. Structural source control BMPs are physical, structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. Operational Source Control BMPs are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering stormwater. See Volume IV of the SWMMWW for details. Stormwater facility. A constructed component of a stormwater drainage system, designed and constructed to perform a particular function or multiple functions. Stormwater facilities include, but are not limited to, pipes, swales, ditches, culverts, street gutters, detention ponds, retention ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration devices, catch basins, oil/water separators, and biofiltration swales. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The Washington State Department of Ecology's 24Q�2019(as ri,orao�' ^` Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Referred to as the 20142019 SWMMWW. Stormwater site plan. The comprehensive report containing all of the technical information and analysis necessary for regulatory agencies to evaluate a proposed development project for compliance with stormwater requirements. Contents of the Stormwater Site Plan will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics. It includes a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Construction SWPPP) and a Permanent Stormwater Control Plan (PSC Plan). Guidance on preparing a Stormwater Site Plan is contained in Chapter 3 of Volume I of the SWMMWW. Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. Detention facilities, treatment BMPs/facilities, bioretention, vegetated roofs, and permeable pavements that help meet Minimum Requirements No.6 (Treatment), Minimum Requirement No.7 (Flow Control), or both as described in ECDC 18.30.060. Threshold discharge area. An on site area within a project site that drains to either -draining to a single natural discharge location or multiple natural discharge locations that combine within one -quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath). The examples min Figure 4971: Example TDA Delineations below, - presented in Volume 1 of the c.x"MN43A AI illustrate this definition. The purpose of this definition is to clarify how the thresholds of this code are applied to project sites with multiple discharge points. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 231 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 8.2.d Page 8/27 Example of a Site with a Example of a Site with Example of a Site with Single Natural Discharge Multiple Natural Multiple Natural Discharges and a Single Threshold Discharges and a Single and Multiple Threshold Discharge Area Threshold Discharge Area Discharge Areas Natural -Natural Natural Natural Natural • �{3`tschar a~--�..-_ g Discha" rge-.."" ".- '" bischaige_ -. v' Area """discharge----• Area 1 Area 2 .aiscf3aW---- Area I Area 2 THRESHOLD �' ... ...........THRE HOLE THRESIJOLD THRESHOLD DlgEIdARGE IN5C ARG - ' ,;' DISCHARGE D15CFlARt :. k AREA - EArr AREA AREA �. -A EA.2 (Shaded} 4 tit edj (shade ' Natural Natural Natural ` Discharge Discharge Discharge Location Location Location Y4 Mife Downstream -_-----_-- -- 1_--_-- - (shortest flow path) %� V I Version: September 8, 2015July 2021 Packet Pg. 232 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Figure 1: Example TDA Delineations 8.2.d Page 9/27 Example of a Project Site Example of a Project Site Example of a Project Site with with a single natural with multiple natural multiple natural discharges and discharge and a single TDA discharges and a single TDA multiple TDAs ' .._.�'--- Jy ,TDA - TDA Single - TDA 2 Natural r Natural J 1 Natural discharge Greater than location discharge discharge 1I4 mile locations 114 milelocations r ` 114 miles f 1/4 mile i i Example of a road project with multiple d1wharge points and a single TDA o mBecause the right -most discharge . connecls to the other two discharge flow �I roadway crown paths within I mite, all areas are �i connected as one TDA. Discharge 114 mde 114 mile location — - 114 mile -. c S 3 / Example of a road project with multiple ` / discharge points and multiple TDAs. �1 Note: Shaded areas represent - Discharge 11+i mle the limits of the location project site. 11 4 NOT TO SCALE Example TDA Delineations DEPARTMENT OF Revised March 2018 ECOLOGYPlease see http.IA+vwwecyy wa.govloopyright htmf for copyright notice including permissions, State of Washington limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Version: September 8, 2015July 2021 Packet Pg. 233 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 10/27 Vehicular Use. Regular use of an impervious or pervious surface by motor vehicles. The following are subject to regular vehicular use: roads, un-vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways. The following are not considered subject to regular vehicular use: sidewalks not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, paved bicycle pathways separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance access roads. Waterbody. Surface waters including rivers, streams, lakes, marine waters, estuaries, and wetlands. Waters of the state. Includes those waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of Washington State, and "waters of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW which includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Wetlands. As defined in ECDC 23.40.005. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016]. 18.30.020 Authority and Regulation. A. The Public Works and Utilities Director shall administer this chapter and shall be referred to as the Director. B. The Director shall have the authority to develop, implement, and enforce policies and procedures to administer and enforce this chapter per ECDC 18.30.110 and 18.30.120, such as the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. C. The requirements of this chapter are minimum requirements. They do not replace, repeal, abrogate, supersede, or affect any other more stringent requirements, rules, regulations, covenants, standards, or restrictions. Where this chapter imposes requirements that are more protective of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. When this chapter imposes requirements that are less protective of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of the more protective requirements shall prevail. D. The Director shall have the authority to impose additional requirements on a project or site to meet the purpose of this chapter based on site -specific factors including, but not limited to, location, soil conditions, slope, and designated use. E. Approvals and permits granted under this chapter are not waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do they indicate compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including rules promulgated under authority of this chapter. F. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not necessarily mitigate all impacts to the environment. Thus, compliance with this chapter should not be construed as mitigating all drainage water or other environmental impacts, and additional mitigation may be required to protect the environment pursuant to other applicable laws and regulations. The primary obligation for compliance with this chapter and for preventing environmental harm on or from property is placed upon the applicant. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.030 Applicability. A. This chapter applies to applications_ 1_-sSubmitted on or after January 1, 244-'-2022, and 2_ pplieatiens-sSubmitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022, and 4-3. Submitted prior to January 1, 2022, which have not started construction by July 1, 2027. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 234 Edmonds Page 11/27 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT B. This chapter applies to the following actions on sites that discharge to the City's MS4 or discharges to waters of the state whether or not a City -issued permit is required: 1. Land -disturbing activity, or 2. Creation of new hard surfaces, or 3. Replacement of existing hard surfaces, or 4. Conversion of pervious surfaces, or 5. New connections to the City's MS4, or 6. Any other actions that can increase the volume or rate of stormwater runoff, or cause the generation of pollutants, from the site. 18.30.040 Exemptions. A. Full Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Forest practices regulated under WAC Title 222, except for Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timberland to other uses, are exempt from the provisions of the minimum requirements. 2. Commercial agriculture practices that involve working land for production are generally exempt. However, land conversion from timberland to agriculture and the construction of impervious surfaces are not exempt. 3. Construction of drilling sites, waste management pits, and associated access roads, and construction of transportation and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines, natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline compressor stations, and crude oil pumping stations are exempt. Operators are encouraged to implement and maintain best management practices to minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during storm events. 4. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are exempt: pothole and square -cut patching, overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement with asphalt or concrete without expanding the area of coverage, shoulder grading, reshaping/regrading drainage systems, crack sealing, resurfacing with in -kind material without expanding the road prism, pavement preservation activities that do not expand the road prism, and vegetation maintenance. B. Partial Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are partially exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in -kind material or materials with similar runoff characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement No. 2, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. a. Utility installations as part of a development project, whether in the right-of-way or on private property, are not considered an underground utility project for the sake of this partial exemption. 2. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are considered development, and therefore are not categorically exempt. . a. Removing and replacing a paved surface to base course or a lower level, or repairing the pavement base: if impervious suffaces are not expanded, Minimm Requirements No. 1 No. 5 apply when the thfesholds identified for development projeets in ECDC 19.30.060 are met. Where appropriate, project Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 235 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 12/27 proponents are eneouraged to look for opportunities to use permeable and porous pavements, These are considered replaced hard surfaces. b. Extending the pavement edge without increasing the size of the road prism or paving graveled shoulders: these are considered new shard surfaces and are subjeet to the mini ..w requirements that are triggered when the thresholds identified for developmen4 projeets in ECDC 183n 060 are me c. Resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, asphalt, or concrete; or upgrading from gravel to asphalt or concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous surface treatment ("chip seal") to asphalt or concrete: these are considered new imper hard surfaces and afe ubje t to the milliffFamor.s tha4 afe triggered when the thfeshelds idewified fer develepment pr-ejeets in ECDC 18.30.060 are met.. 18.30.050 Administration. A. Application, Submittals, and Review. 1. The Director shall review all plans and all other submittals required by ECDC 18.30.050.A.3 for compliance with this chapter when: a. An application for a City permit is required under all other chapters of ECDC Title 18 or 19, or b. A subdivision application is submitted per ECDC 20.75.040. 2. In all other situations when actions under ECDC 18.30.030 apply to a project site, review shall be under a Stormwater permit. 3. All stormwater review submittals shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other applicable City code, a Stormwater Site Plan as described in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (see ECDC 18.30.060) and any other information required by the Director. B. Inspections. 1. The Director shall inspect projects at various stages of the work to determine if they comply with the requirements of this chapter, and enforcement actions shall be taken as necessary. These inspections will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Prior to site clearing and construction to assess site erosion potential, and b. During construction to verify proper installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment controls and other approved plan components, and c. All permanent stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities and catch basins in new residential developments every six months until 90 percent of the lots are constructed (or when construction is stopped and the site is fully stabilized) to identify maintenance needs and enforce compliance with maintenance standards as needed, and d. Upon completion of construction and prior to final approval to ensure proper installation of permanent Stormwater control facilities and verify that a maintenance plan is completed and responsibility for maintenance is assigned for stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities, and e. Post -Construction inspections per ECDC 18.30.090. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 236 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 13/27 2. When reasonably required by the Director to accomplish the purpose of this chapter or to comply with local, state or federal law or regulation on stormwater, special inspection or testing shall be performed by the applicant. C. Fees. Application, review and inspection fees as set in ECDC Chapter 15.00 shall be paid. 18.30.060 Requirements. A. Documents. The sources of the stormwater management requirements for the City are from the following documents: 1. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, Appendix 1, modification date january 16, 2044August 1, 2019 2. 2414 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) 3. The Edmonds Stormwater Addendum In the event of conflicts between the various provisions, the more stringent provision shall apply. B. Illicit Discharges and Connections. Non-stormwater illicit discharges, including spills, into the MS4, groundwaters, or a water body from any developed or undeveloped lands are prohibited per ECDC Chapter 7.200. C. Thresholds and Applicability 1. The thresholds outlined in this section are only applicable to ECDC 18.30.060.C. See also the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for supplemental information on thresholds. a. All development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 2. b. Category 1 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. Category 1 includes projects that: i. Result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or ii. Have land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater. c. Category 2 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. Category 2 includes projects that: i. Result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or ii. Convert 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or iii. Convert 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture. 2. Additional Requirements for road -related projects. For road -related projects, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces (including pavement, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) and the converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements only if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within the project limits. Otherwise, the minimum requirements only apply to the new hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas that exceed the thresholds in (1) above. The project limits shall be defined by the length of the project and the width of the right-of-way. 3New Connections to the City's MS4 when the proposed connection does not involve activity that meets the definition of development. Sites that are not currently connected to the City's MS4 but that wish to connect directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 may be allowed on a case -by -case basis, subject to City approval. For sites that propose to drain greater than or equal to 2,000 square feet of hard surface area to the City's MS4, the project shall comply with the requirement of this chapter, treating all hard surfaces to be drained to the City system as new hard surfaces, unless applicant can demonstrate that the site will discharge in the same manner and quantities prior to the proposed project. Applicant shall account for natural dispersion and/or infiltration which may be occurring if these new hard surfaces area currently drain through pervious areas. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 237 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 14/27 treatment (such as those outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D [1] th ough [91) may be required if the conneeti poses any risk to downstream systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water— qualitydegradation, or- athef Felated wets. -34. Minimum Requirements may be met for an equivalent (flow and pollution characteristics) area. The equivalent area may be within the same TDA. If the equivalent area is outside the TDA, or off -site, the equivalent area must drain to the same receiving water and the guidance for equivalent facilities using in_ basin transfers must be followed, as detailed in Appendix D of Volume 1 of SWMMWW. D. Minimum Technical Requirements. This section describes the minimum technical requirements for stormwater management at development sites. 1. Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans The City shall require a Stormwater Site Plan from all projects meeting the thresholds in ECDC 18.30.060.C. Stormwater Site Plans shall use site -appropriate development principles to retain native vegetation and minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. 2. Minimum Requirement No. 2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) a. Thresholds: i. All development projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of sediment and other pollutants into receiving waters. Compliance with this minimum requirement can be achieved for an individual site if the site is covered under Ecology's General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and fully implementing the requirements of that permit. ii. A Construction SWPPP is required for all projects which a) result in 2,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surface area, b) where a structure with an exterior hard surface area of at least 2,000 square feet is being demolished, c) which disturb 7,000 square feet or more of land, or d) when the site falls within the Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, Landslide Hazard Area or steep slope critical area. Projects that do not meet any of the above criteria are not required to prepare a Construction SWPPP, but must consider all of the elements listed below for Construction SWPPPs and develop controls for all Construction SWPPP elements that pertain to the project site. b. General Requirements: The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. Each of the thirteen elements referenced below must be considered and included in the SWPPP unless site conditions render the element unnecessary and the exemption from that element is clearly justified in the narrative of the SWPPP. ii. Clearing and grading activities for developments shall be permitted only if conducted pursuant to an approved site development plan (e.g., building permit, subdivision approval) that establishes permitted areas of clearing, grading, cutting, and filling. These permitted clearing and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve critical or sensitive areas, buffers, native growth protection easements, or tree retention areas as required by the City, shall be delineated on the site plans and the development site. iii. The SWPPP shall be implemented beginning with initial land disturbance and until final stabilization. Sediment and Erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained in Chapter 4 of Volume II of the SWMMWW. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 238 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT c. Seasonal Work Limitations: Page 15/27 From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities may only be authorized by the City if it can be demonstrated that silt -laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following: Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and ii. Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and iii. Proposed erosion and sediment control measures, in accordance with ECDC 18.30.060.D.2.d below. Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the City may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations, except for sites lying in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 19.10.020.F: Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs, ii. Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil, and iii. Activities where there is one hundred percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. d. Construction SWPPP Elements Construction SWPPP elements are required in accordance with Chapter 23, Section 2­'-5.23.4.2 of Volume I of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. 3. Minimum Requirement No. 3 — Source Control of Pollution All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs must be required for all projects approved by the City. Source control BMPs must be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume IV of the SWMMWW. All single family residential projects shall, at a minimum, incorporate required BMPs from SWMMWW Volume IV, S411 — BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management. 4. Minimum Requirement No. 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down gradient properties. The discharge must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate outfa111ocation (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system). All outfalls require energy dissipation. To demonstrate compliance with this core requirement, all projects shall submit an off -site qualitative analysis. If an existing problem (or potential future problem after development) is identified, mitigation will be required to prevent worsening of that problem. A quantitative analysis may be required for any project deemed to need additional information or where the project proponent or the City determines that a quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system. See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on complying with this requirement. 5. Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 239 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT a. Applicability: Page 16/27 On -site Stormwater Management BMPs are required in accordance with the following project thresholds, standards, and lists to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on -site to the extent feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. b. Project Thresholds: There are five project scenarios outlined below that determine the applicability of Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management. The first four scenarios apply to projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4. The fifth scenario applies to project discharges that do not enter the City's MS4. Note that more than one of the five scenarios may apply to a given proj ect: Retrofit. Projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain existing hard surfaces on the parcel or common plan of development that do not drain to an approved stormwater management facility are required to provide On -site Stormwater Management BMPs to manage a portion of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after project completion. BMPs from List No.l (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d) shall be applied to a minimum of 25 percent of those existing unmanaged surfaces, but to no more than the area equal to the proposed new plus replaced hard surfaces. Within the Perrinville Creek basin, the retrofit value shall be increased from 25% to 50%. Only for those existing unmanaged hard surfaces that remain after project completion, applicants are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility for these existing surfaces (as is required under ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b [ii] and [iii] below). However, if it is determined that the minimum percentage requirement cannot be met due to BMP infeasibility, documentation of BMP infeasibility is required. In addition, when runoff from exiting -unmanaged hard surfaces is mixed with runoff from new plus Fepla eamanaged hard surfaces, those BMPs must be selected and designed i-n- -dan e witl the 0 epAs for- maaagem&4 ofnewplus -epl ee for all areas which contribute runoff to the BMPha� (per sections [ii] and [iii] below). See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. This requirement is specific to minimum requirement #5 only. The surfaces treated by this requirement do no need to be added to project thresholds or mitigated under other minimum requirements. Impervious surfaces disturbed solely for installation of BMPs proposed to satisfy this requirement need not be consider as replaced hard surfaces for the project. ii. Category 1. Category 1 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5 (per ECDC 18.30.060.C) shall either: a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.l for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d); or b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW. iii. Category 2. Category 2 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9 (per ECDC 18.30.060.C) shall either: Version: September 8, 201 5July 2021 Packet Pg. 240 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 17/27 a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.2 for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.e); or b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW. iv. Direct Discharge Requirement. Projects that discharge directly to Puget Sound through the City's MS4 (in accordance with the restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound presented in Section2-.5-.73.4.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW) do not have to achieve the LID Performance Standard, nor consider bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavement, or full dispersion, but must implement BMP T5.13 (Post -Construction Soil Quality & Depth); BMPs T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration Systems, TS.IOB Downspout Dispersion Systems, or T5.1 OB Perforated Stub -out Connections; and BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion or T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion; if feasible for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibili ymust meet the following: V. Projects that do not drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 are required to implement one of the following: a. Project sites may discharge to the downstream private property (e.g., projects located above BNSF property) with approval from the downstream property owner(s). b. Project sites may discharge runoff to an on -site system. For sites located within earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers, a geotechnical design, analysis, and report by a geotechnical engineer is required for the on -site system. On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.I in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d shall be evaluated for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. Projects are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility. The project applicant may be subject to an extra permit processing fee for City review of the geotechnical analysis. Projects are required to comply with all other applicable City requirements, such as ECDC 19.10 (earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas). ii. For sites located outside earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers, ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.ii and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.iii shall be followed to evaluate site appropriate BMP's. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 241 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 18/27 c_Subject to prior approval by the City, project sites may pump on -site runoff to the City's MS4. A quantitative downstream analysis in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 4 and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum will be required. If the City's MS4 does not have adequate capacity to receive the applicant's pumped flows, the applicant is required to install an on -site detention system to store runoff and pump it to the MS4 at an approved rate. vi. Projects under 2,000 SF of new plus replaced hard surfaces which discharge to an existing BMP with a surfaces overflow, shall expand the BMP size for the proposed new plus replaced hard surfaces based on existing design data. i}i. Alternatively, or where existing design data can not be found, the project shall discharge to a separate system appropriate sized per the designer. c. LID Performance Standard For projects that elect to meet the LID Performance Standard to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii) and (iii), Stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 8 percent of the 2-year peak flow to 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow from the project site. Refer to the Standard Flow Control Requirement section in Minimum Requirement No. 7 for information about the assignment of the pre -developed condition. Project sites that must also meet Minimum Requirement No. 7 shall match flow durations between 8 percent of the 2-year flow through the full 50-year flow. Projects meeting the LID performance criteria are still required to comply with the requirements for BMP T5.13: Post -Construction Soils Quality and Depth, to the maximum extent feasible. d. List No.I for Category 1 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. For projects that elect to use List No. 1 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii), for each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for each BMP in the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 5-3 of Volume V-I of the SWMMWW. Lawn and landscaped areas: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapterf Volume V of the SWMMWW. Roofs: i. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in 0t Volume V of the SWMMWW_ i-. ii. -Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Seetie ff 3.1.' w Volume ITV of the SWMMWW. ii,iii. Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter c of Volume V, or Bioretention in accordance with Chapter-7BMP T7.30 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 242 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 19/27 iii-.iv. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1 OB in Seetion 3.' .2 of -Volume ITV of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 6.3. iv-.vi. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume ITV of the SWMMWW. Other Hard Surfaces: Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in r''�5-af-Volume V of the SWMMWW. ii. Full infiltration for equivalent surfaces areas per BMP T5.10A and/or Permeable Pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Ch^orVolume V of the SWMMWW, or ii-iii. Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14 ^ in Chapter- 5 e fNle ff fie N' _or Bioretention in accordance with BMP T7.30Chapter- 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it. ii}iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 in 0i Volume V of the SWMMWW. iv-. v. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 6.3. The -- City Minimum Requirement #4, or available City data, indioate that peak flow eonlrol is not e. List No.2 for Category 2 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. For projects that elect to use List No. 2 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (iii), for each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for each BMP in the SWMMWW; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 5-3 of Volume V—I of the SWMMWW. Lawn and landscaped areas: Roofs: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in C4a of -Volume V of the SWMMWW_ i-. ii. Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Seeti ... 3. 1.1 of Volume ITV of the SWMMWW. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 243 8.2.d Edmonds Page 20/27 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT iii. Bioretention in accordance with BMP T7.30 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area drainingto o it. Q H. 1318feten4leff (See (C;kapter4 01 Volume 3.1 elthe SNYA4?,4NVNV) taetlities that have a miampmH herizon4ally below the is least 5 the t 0 M projected s�urfaee area overflow which at pereent of draining 00 surface area to ' U 0 iii,iv. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP TS.I OB in Seetio 3.1.2 of Volume U III of the SWMMWW. waU V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 6.3. r c iv,vi. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP TS.I OC in Seel on 3.1.3 of Volume m III of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in aecor-danee with the Edmonds StormitwterAddendum. Note that if L the is to flow f4eility to Minimum projeet required eonstruet a eon4rol eomply with Requirement No. 7 ECDC 19.30.060.D.7), detention is to be installed (per a vault not required m to Nfininium Requirement No. 5. in the City the R meet addition, may waive requiremen install detention if the dovmstream in Mininmm Requiremen4 #4, a vault analysis or available E data,City indioate that peak flow control is not benefieial. 0 v! Other Hard Surfaces: `o i. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in C ^ Volume V of the SWMMWW. c`o d x ii. Full infiltration for equivalent surfaces areas per BMP T5.I OA in Volume III of the U SWMMWW and/or Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. a iii. Bioretention (See Q'^�Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total 5 surface area draining to it. y iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in o accordance with BMP T5.11 in r1i�, Rpte S-of-Volume V of the SWMMWW. 00 V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 6.3. Note U U w to N4iaiffPafn Requif:ement a� meet . rn install detepAioa if the deA%stream a vault analysis N r;*data, 1; *o that .o fl v .., r.r l :not oaoa l ., • f. Overflows: All non -dispersion BMPs sized solely for Minimum Requirement #5 are anticipated to I have an overflow discharge on a semi -regular basis and therefore requires a sub -surface piped connection directly to the MS 4 system. E i. In order to eliminate a piped overflow connection, the project shall be designed to infiltrate 100% of the modelled 100-year storm per continuous modeling. A safe and certain surface overflow path must still be provided and may not negatively impact adjacent properties. Q ii. In cases where the City MS4 is not in a location where a reasonable connection can be made for a project in capable of fully infiltrating per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.fi above: • Extensions equal to or less than the length of the project frontage would be anticipated and generally not consider for an exception to 18.30.060.D.5.f.i. coo a Version: September 4 201 cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 244 8.2.d Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 21/27 • Extension exceeding the project frontage length will be considered on a case -by -case basis for exception to 18.30.060.D.5.f.i. 6. Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment a. Project Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider those hard and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. The following require construction of stormwater treatment facilities: Projects in which the total of pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS) is 5,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area of the project, or ii. Projects in which the total of pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) — not including permeable pavements — is 0.75 acres or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which there will be a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site. b. Treatment -Type Thresholds and Facility Sizing: Treatment -Type Thresholds in accordance with Step 2 roil Control), Step n (Phosphorus Treatment), Step 5 (Enhanced Treatment), and Step 6 (Basie Treatmeno of Chapter , Section 2-41 2, Volume V—I1I of the SWMMWW. Phosphorus treatment shall be required for projects draining to Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger. ii. Treatment Facility Sizing, including Water Quality Design Storm Volume, Water Quality Design Flow Rate, and Downstream Facilities, e -in accordance with Chapter 23, Section ''�3.4.6, Volume I of the SWMMWW. c. Treatment Facility Selection, Design, and Maintenance Stormwater treatment facilities shall be: Selected in accordance with the process identified in Chapter 41 of Volume III, and Chapter 2 of Volume V of the SWMMWW, ii. Designed in accordance with the design criteria in Volume V of the SWMMWW, and iii. Maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedule in Volume V of the SWMMWW d. Additional Requirements The discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution -generating hard surfaces to ground water will not be authorized by the City except for infiltration or dispersion of runoff through BMPs designed and implemented per ECDC 18.30 and SWMMWW. All associate-' m ne ff'must be treatment in aeeordanee with Chapter 5, Volume V and Chapter 7, Volume 3.1 of the treated using On site Stermwater Management BNIPs designed to provide the required level of or by infiltration thfough soils meeting the soil suitability criteria in Chapter 3 of Volume H! of thee cMrnW. Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control a Applicability: Flow control is required on projects meeting the thresholds summarized below to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff from hard surfaces and land cover conversions. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 245 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 22/27 Flow control in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 7 is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound subject to the restrictions of the TDA Exemption (aka. direct discharge exemption)_per SWMMWW Section 3.4.7 of Volume I - (other minimum requirements may still apply). See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv and Section 153_4.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for additional restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound. If the discharge drains to a stream that leads to a wetland, or to a wetland that has an outflow to a stream, both this minimum requirement (Minimum Requirement No. 7) and Minimum Requirement No. 8 apply. a-.b_Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider only those impervious, hard, and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. The following circumstances require achievement of the standard flow control requirement for western Washington: Projects in which the total of effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area, or , ii. Projects that convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscape, or convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site, or iii. Projects that through a combination of hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas cause a 0.10 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase or greater in the 100-year flow frequency from a threshold discharge area as estimated using the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other approved model and one -hour time steps (or a 0.15 cfs increase or greater using 15- minute time steps). b:c_Standard Flow Control Requirement (applies to discharges directly or indirectly to the City's MS4, except for projects that meet the direct discharge requirements outlined in "a" above and/or projects discharging to Perrinville Creek): Stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. The pre -developed condition to be matched shall be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is available that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement (modeled as "pasture" in the Western Washington Hydrology Model). This standard requirement is waived for sites that will reliably infiltrate all the runoff from hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. d. Perrinville Basin Flow Control Standard (applies to all discharges within the Perrinville Creek basin) shall be an elevated level of flow control design. Discharges to the Perrinville Creek Basin shall maintain the durations of high flows at their predevelopment levels for all flows greater than one-half of the 2-year flow up to the 50-year flow AND holding the 100-year peak flow rate at its predevelopment level. The predevelopment peak flow rates for the 2-year and 10-year runoff events are also intended to be maintained. Ee_Additional Requirement: Flow Control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume III of the SWMMWW or an approved equivalent. 8. Minimum Requirement No. 8 — Wetlands Protection a. Applicability: The requirements below apply only to projects whose stormwater discharges into a wetland, either directly or indirectly through a conveyance system. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 246 8.2.d Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 23/27 b. Thresholds: The thresholds identified in Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment, and Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control shall also be applied to determine the applicability of this requirement to discharges to wetlands. c. Standard Requirement: Projects shall comply with Guide Sheets No. 1 through No. 3 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition to determine the existing hydrologic conditions unless directed otherwise by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction. d. Additional Requirements: Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a natural vegetated buffer, except for: Necessary conveyance systems as approved by the City; or ii. As allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification or treatment in accordance with Guide Sheet 2 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW. An adopted and implemented basin plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of Appendix 1 of the Phase II NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. 9. Minimum Requirement No. 9 — Operation and Maintenance An operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provisions in Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW is required for proposed Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/facilities. The party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified in the operation and maintenance manual. For private facilities approved by the City, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site, and shall be transferred with the property to the new owner. For public facilities, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained in the appropriate department. A log of maintenance activity that indicates what actions were taken shall be kept and be available for inspection. 18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeals. A. Exceptions. 1. The Director may approve a request for an exception to the minimum requirements of this chapter following legal public notice of an application for an exception and of the Director's decision on the application. All legal public notice related to this request for an exception shall be in the manner prescribed in ECDC 20.03.002 and the applicant shall pay all costs to publish the legal public notices required by this provision. The Director shall provide and keep written findings of fact of the decision. 2. The approval of the exception shall only be granted when the applicant demonstrates that the requirement would cause a severe and unexpected economic hardship. To determine whether the requirement imposes a severe and unexpected economic hardship on the project applicant, the applicant must document for City review and approval, all of the following, at a minimum: a. The current, pre -project use of the site; and b. How application of the requirement(s) for which an exception is being requested restricts the proposed use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of this chapter; and c. The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted; and d. The possible uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of this chapter; and e. A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the requirements versus the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to adoption of the requirements of this chapter; and Version: September 8, 201 5July 2021 Packet Pg. 247 8.2.d Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to apply the requirements of this chapter. 3. Any exception must meet the following criteria: Page 24/27 a. The exception will not increase risk to the public health and welfare, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state; and b. The exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the minimum requirements. 4. An exception to the requirements shall only be granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the economic hardship as determined by the Director, to alleviate the harm or threat of harm to the degree that compliance with the requirement becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency work that the Director determines is warranted. 5. The Director may require an applicant to provide additional information at the applicant's expense, including (but not limited to) an engineer's report or analysis. 6. When an exception is granted, the Director may impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate harm or the threat of harm that may be caused by granting the exception, or that would have been prevented if the exception had not been granted. B. Adjustments. 1. The Director may approve a request for adjustments to the requirements of this chapter when the Director finds that: a. The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection; and b. The objectives of safety, function, environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met, based on sound engineering practices. During construction, the Director may require, or the applicant may request, that the construction of drainage control facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical conditions are discovered on the site that are inconsistent with the assumptions on which the approval was based, including (but not limited to) unexpected soil or water conditions, weather -generated problems, or changes in the design of the improved areas; and A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall be submitted to the Director for review and approval prior to implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide facts substantiating the requirements of subsection (C)(1) of this section, and if made during construction, the factors in subsection (C)(2) of this section. Any such modifications made during the construction of drainage control facilities shall be included with the final approved drainage control plan. C. Appeal. 1. The Director's decision on an application for an exception or adjustment may appeal to the hearing examiner in accordance with a Type II appeal process in ECDC Chapter 20.06. 2. The applicant shall carry the burden of proof. 3. The decision of the hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.080 Access and Covenants. A. Access. Proper ingress and egress shall be provided to the City to inspect or perform any duty imposed upon the City by this Title. The City shall notify the responsible party in writing of a failure to provide access. If the Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 248 8.2.d Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 25/27 responsible party fails to respond within seven days from the receipt of notification, the City may order the work required to be completed or otherwise address the cause of improper access. The obligation for the payment of all cost that may be incurred or expended by the City in causing such work to be done shall be imposed on the person holding title to the subject property. B. Covenants. Maintenance covenants shall be required for each site/lot that will be maintained by a private entity such as an individual, corporation, or homeowner's association. The maintenance covenant shall address or append requirements and responsibilities for long-term management and maintenance the applicable BMP(s). Maintenance covenants shall be as specified in City Engineering Division documents or approved by the Director, and recorded with Snohomish County and on all proper deeds [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities. Proper construction inspection and maintenance of stormwater facilities is essential for the protection of the City's MS4 and the environment. A. Stormwater Maintenance and Inspection Standards. Stormwater facilities shall be inspected and maintained per the requirements of Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW. For systems which do not have a maintenance standard, the owner shall develop a standard based on guidelines from the manufacturer, designer, or a registered professional engineer and submit the standards to the Director for approval. The purpose of the maintenance standard is to determine if maintenance is required. The maintenance standard is not a measure of the facility's required condition at all times between inspections. Exceeding the maintenance standard between inspections is not a violation of this chapter. B. Ownership. Stormwater facilities are either privately or publicly owned and maintained. All stormwater facilities that serve private property are private, unless an agreement between the property owner and the City states otherwise. Stormwater facilities that are privately owned by a homeowner's association or similar organization also are private. The City may offer an incentive program to owners to support the proper maintenance of private storm drainage facilities. C. Public Stormwater Facilities. The City shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing public stormwater facilities as funded through the Stormwater Utility. D. Maintenance and Inspection of Permanent Facilities. All privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls shall be maintained by the owner, or the homeowner or owner association ("owner") if one is established as part of a residential or commercial development. All private storm drainage facilities shall be regularly inspected to ensure proper operation and shall monitor the facility or control as required or as set forth in the SWMMWW. The Owner shall maintain records of inspection and maintenance, disposal receipts, and monitoring results. The records shall catalog the action taken, the person who took it, the date said action was taken, how it was done, and any problems encountered or follow-up actions required. The records shall be made available to the City upon request. The Owner shall maintain a copy of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual (if required) on site, and shall make reference to such document in real property records filed with Snohomish County, so others who acquire real property served by the privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls are notified of their obligation to maintain such facilities or controls. E. City Inspection of private stormwater facilities. The City shall have the authority to periodically inspect private stormwater facilities, including low impact development stormwater facilities, for compliance with this chapter. F. Right of Entry. An authorized representative of the City may enter private property at all reasonable times to conduct inspections, tests or to carry out other duties imposed by the a state or Federal program provided that the City makes a good faith effort to notify the property owner or person responsible for the premises prior to entering and presents proper credentials to that person. If entry is refused or cannot be obtained, the Director shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including but not limited to, obtaining an administrative warrant for entry. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 249 Edmonds Page 26/27 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT G. Right of Entry for Illicit Discharge. In the event of an illicit discharge from a privately -owned stormwater facility caused by improper maintenance or operation or other circumstance, the provisions of ECC 7.200 shall apply. H. Maintenance Responsibilities. Upon written notice by the City, a private stormwater facility shall be promptly repaired and/or brought up to applicable standards by the property owner or the person responsible for said facility. If a private stormwater facility serves multiple lots and the responsibility for maintenance has not been specified on a recorded subdivision plat, short plat, or other legal document, maintenance, operation and repair responsibility shall rest with the homeowners' association, if one exists, or otherwise with the properties served by the facility, or finally, with the owners of the property on which the facilities are located. I. Disposal of Waste from Maintenance Activities. Disposal of waste from maintenance activities shall be conducted in accordance with the minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, Chapter 173-304 WAC, guidelines for disposal of waste materials from storm water maintenance activities, and where appropriate, the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. 18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures. A. General enforcement action shall be in accordance with this chapter whenever a person has violated any provision of this chapter. The choice of enforcement action is at the discretion of the City. B. Civil Penalties Adopted. ECDC Chapter 20.110 enforcement procedures are herein adopted in full, as modified in this chapter, with the proviso that repeat offenders or violations deemed an immediate public hazard shall be subject to compliance and appeal timelines as deemed appropriate by the Director based on the specific nature of the violation. C. Maintenance Orders. The Director shall have the authority to issue to an owner or person an order to maintain or repair a component of a stormwater facility or BMP to bring it into compliance with this chapter, the SWMMWW, the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum, and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The order shall include: 1. A description of the specific nature, extent and time of the violation and the damage or potential damage that reasonably might occur; 2. A notice that the violation or the potential violation cease and desist and, in appropriate cases, the specific corrective actions to be taken; and 3. A reasonable time to comply, depending on the circumstances. D. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter, who fails to conform to an approval or order issued, who undertakes development without first obtaining approval, or who fails to comply with a stop work order issued under these regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty levied in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110; provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a notice of violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040.13. 1. Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110; provided, however, that in addition to the penalties set forth in that chapter, the hearing examiner is authorized to levy a penalty of up to twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per occurrence based upon an assessment of the following factors. Where such factors are present, the hearing examiner is authorized to levy such penalty after taking into consideration the full impact of the violation and any mitigating circumstances (see subsection (2) below): a. The violation created a risk to public health and the significance of the risk. b. The violation damaged the environment and the significance of the damage. c. The violation caused damage to public and private property and the significance of such damage. d. A history of similar violations, if any. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 250 8.2.d Edmonds Page 27/27 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT e. The economic benefit of the violations, if any, to the person or entity responsible for the violations. 2. Mitigating circumstances which may be used to offset or reduce the time resulting from the application of the preceding factors are limited to: a. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and no history of similar violations. b. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and a history of one or two similar violations (lesser reduction). c. A "voluntary compliance agreement" is defined as a legally binding agreement entered into between the City and the alleged violators, by which the violator(s) acknowledge the existence of the violation, waive all appeal rights, and agree to and do pay a fine in an amount stipulated to between the violator and the City. If the violation(s) are not corrected as ordered, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within that time period and no appeal is filed, the penalty for the next 15-day period shall be 150 percent of the initial penalties, and the penalties for the next 15-day period shall be 200 percent of the initial penalties. The intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the maximum penalties stated as an additional means to achieve timely compliance. Unless otherwise provided in a voluntary compliance agreement, civil penalties shall be paid within 30 days of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed under this chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to correct the violation or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to this chapter. The City may suspend immediate payment of civil penalties if the person responsible for a code violation has entered into a voluntary compliance agreement. Penalties shall begin to accrue again pursuant to the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied, canceled or not pursued, if corrective action identified in the voluntary compliance agreement is not completed as specified, or if the property is allowed to return to a condition similar to that condition which gave rise to the voluntary compliance agreement; provided, however, that additional penalties shall not be imposed until additional notice and opportunity for hearing have been provided in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110. Civil penalties assessed create joint and several personal obligations in all persons responsible for a code violation. E. The determination of the hearing examiner issued in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110 shall be appealable to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW. F. The remedies provided for in this section shall not be exclusive. The City may also use other civil and administrative remedies available to it, including but not limited to the remedies provided in ECDC Title 19 and the state building and dangerous buildings codes. Version: September Q 201cJuly 2021 Packet Pg. 251 8.2.e ADDENDUM TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.30 (EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM) J oAp �g�O r1r.1 010 Dial wra-12 ll 2021 Packet Pg. 252 8.2.e U U W_ d O v C d E O R C R L Cu : E L O L O W �L d ci IL m c m E c a� Q L Cu 3 E L O O E W W r_ d E t ci f+ Q E 0 Q Packet Pg. 253 ii NE 2017-OCTOBER 2021 8.2.e EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM CONTENTS 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1 2 How to Use this Addendum......................................................................................................3 2.1 SWMMWW Volume I......................................................................................................3 2.2 SWMMWW Volume II.....................................................................................................4 2.3 SWMMWW Volume III....................................................................................................4 2.4 SWMMWW Volume IV.................................................................................................54 2.5 SWMMWW Volume V.....................................................................................................5 2.6 Addendum Content Not Covered in the SWMMWW......................................................5 3 Applicability of the Minimum Requirements...........................................................................7 3.1 Thresholds and Applicability............................................................................................9 3.1.1 Additional Requirements for Road -Related Projects.........................................9 3.1.2 New Connections to the City's MS4..................................................................9 3.1.3 Comparisons to the SWMMWW.....................................................................10 4 Project Basin Location and Applicable Requirements.......................................................1344 4.1 Determining Downstream Receiving System(s).........................................................1344 4.2 Other Considerations...................................................................................................1444 5 Project Minimum Requirements.........................................................................................154-3- 5.1 Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans ...................... 154-3- 5.2 Minimum Requirement No. 2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 154-3- 5.3 Minimum Requirement No. 3 — Source Control of Pollution ..................................... 154-3- 5.4 Minimum Requirement No. 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls........................................................................................................................164-4 5.5 Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -Site Stormwater Management ............................174-5 5.6 Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment.....................................................194-7 5.6.1 Edmonds -Specific Oil and Floatables Control.............................................204-9 5.7 Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control............................................................204-8 5.8 Minimum Requirement No. 8 — Wetland Protection...................................................214-8 5.9 Minimum Requirement No. 9 — Operation and Maintenance.....................................214} 6 Additional Requirements....................................................................................................2324 6.1 Protection of LID Facilities During Construction....................................................... 23-24 6.1.1 General Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs Applicable to LID...............23-24 6.1.2 Additional Construction Techniques for LID BMPs....................................2422 edmondsstormwateraddendum 2022 redlines.docx _ TABLE OF CONTENTS Packet Pg. 254 EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM 8.2.e 11 INE'=7OCTOBER 2021 6.1.3 BMP-Specific Construction Techniques......................................................2725 6.2 Off -Site Analyses and Documentation........................................................................302-9 6.2.1 Category 1 Projects.......................................................................................302-9 6.2.2 Category 2 Projects.......................................................................................302-8. 6.3 Design Requirements for Detention Vaults and Pipes................................................32-38 6.3.1 Sizing & Design............................................................................................33-4 6.4 Underground Injection Controls..................................................................................34-4 7 Submittal Requirements......................................................................................................35-3-3 7.1 Category 1 Stormwater Site Plans...............................................................................35-34 7.2 Category 2 Stormwater Site Plans...............................................................................35-34 APPENDICES Appendix A — On -Site Stormwater Management BMP Infeasibility Criteria Appendix B — Methods for Determining Design Infiltration Rates Appendix C — Checklists for Various Project Submittal, Review, and Field Procedure Elements Appendix D — Design Checklists for the Main On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Development.................................8 Figure 7.1. Typical Category 1 Stormwater Site Plan Components . ................................... 35-4 Figure 7.2. Typical Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan Components . ................................... 36-3-2 H TABLE OF CONTENTS zz* edmondsstormwateraddendum 2022 redlines.docx'° ^°°°^ ^^^ — "" -" a^cx Packet Pg. 255 8.2.e 1 INTRODUCTION This Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (Addendum) provides direction for implementing the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.30, Stormwater Management. The City of Edmonds is required to regulate stormwater discharges to the municipal stormwater system and to waters of the state, in compliance with the Western Washington Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit (the Permit). Under the Permit, the City must establish and apply the minimum requirements specified in the Permit and provide design guidance for stormwater quality and quantity control for development projects in Edmonds. Through ECDC Chapter 18.30 and this Addendum, the City is complying with federal requirements under the Clean Water Act and the Permit. This Addendum is organized into 7 chapters, briefly summarized below: • Chapter 2 — How to Use this Addendum includes information on how to use the Addendum in conjunction with the ECDC and Ecology's 20142019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), and to clarify for users where the ECDC, SWMMWW, or Addendum apply. • Chapter 3 — Applicability of the Minimum Requirements includes details on the thresholds that determine the applicability of the minimum requirements to different projects. This information is based on SWMMWW Volume I, Section 2:43.3, but has been updated to reflect the specific requirements of ECDC 18.30. Chapter 3 also includes a brief summary of how ECDC 18.30.060 compares to the SWMMWW (regarding applicability of the minimum requirements). • Chapter 4 —Project Basin Locations and Applicable Requirements describes downstream receiving waterbodies and/or drainage systems in the city, which will affect how the minimum requirements apply to a given project (primarily Minimum Requirements No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7). Chapter 4 also includes a brief discussion of the unique soil and topographical conditions in the City of Edmonds. • Chapter 5 —Project Minimum Requirements highlights the primary differences between the minimum requirements presented in the SWMMWW and those in the ECDC and provides additional details and guidance to help projects comply with each minimum requirement. • Chapter 6 — Additional Requirements includes additional information on City -specific requirements that are not fully described in the SWMMWW or ECDC. Specific topics include: 1. Additional requirements pertaining to Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) 2. Details on the off -site analyses and documentation required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 4, Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Packet Pg. 256 8.2.e 3. Design requirements for detention vaults and pipes when used to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5 4. Information on Underground Injection Controls (UICs) • Chapter 7 — Submittal Requirements summarizes the process and requirements for preparing project submittals that meet the requirements of the SWMMWW, the ECDC, and this Addendum The appendices included in this Addendum provide additional background information and requirements related to stormwater management in the city. (Also note that there are several additional pertinent appendices within the SWMMWW that are adopted by reference.) The following City -specific appendices are included in this Addendum: • Appendix A — On -Site Stormwater Management BMP Infeasibility Criteria • Appendix B — Methods for Determining BMP Design Infiltration Rates • Appendix C — Checklists for Various Project Submittal, Review, and Field Procedure Elements o Checklist 1 — Category 1 Stormwater Site Plans o Checklist 2 — Category 2 Stormwater Site Plans o Checklist 3 — Construction SWPPP Drawings and Report o Checklist 4 — Methods for Determining Infiltration Rates o Checklist 5 — Field and Design Procedures for Bioretention, Permeable Pavement, Rain Gardens, and Downspout Infiltration Systems o Checklist 6 — Procedures for Infiltration Trenches and Basins • Appendix D — Design Checklists for the Main On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs o Checklist 7 — Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth o Checklist 8 — Sheet Flow Dispersion o Checklist 9 — Concentrated Flow Dispersion o Checklist 10 — Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Boxes o Checklist 11 — Permeable Paving o Checklist 12 — Rain Gardens o Checklist 13 — Downspout Infiltration o Checklist 14 — Downspout Dispersion o Checklist 15 — Perforated Stub -out Connections 2 1. INTRODUCTION Packet Pg. 257 8.2.e 2 HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM Review ECDC Chapter 18.30.030 and 18.30.040 to determine if the City's Stormwater Code and this Addendum apply to your project. Review the definitions section of ECDC Chapter 18.30.10 (and if necessary the Glossary in SWMMWW Volume I, Appendix G for clarification on terminology used in ECDC Chapter 18.30 and this Addendum. As per ECDC Chapter 18.30.60, the stormwater management requirements in the City of Edmonds — including but not limited to thresholds, definitions, minimum requirements, adjustment and variance criteria, and exceptions to these requirements — shall be governed by the 20142019 SWMMWW, with additional requirements and modifications as outlined in the provisions of ECDC Chapter 18.30 and this Addendum. Project proponents must review ECDC 18.30 (18.30.060 in particular) and this Addendum to identify how the City's requirements and the requirements of the SWMMWW apply to a given project. In the event of inconsistencies between the various provisions, the more stringent provisions shall apply, unless otherwise approved by the City. Where requirements in this Addendum are also covered in any other law, ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation of any kind (i.e., outside of ECDC Chapter 18.30), the more restrictive requirement shall govern, unless otherwise approved by the City. This Addendum includes information to supplement or elaborate on the guidelines and requirements outlined in ECDC Chapter 18.30 and the SWMMWW. To highlight for Addendum users where the ECDC, SWMMWW, or Addendum apply, the following sections outline the general applicability of each document, summarized according to the organization of the SWMMWW. Note however that the SWMMWW is not always written in a manner that is suitable as a municipal regulatory tool, therefore there are known overlaps among the ECDC, SWMMWW, and Addendum. As such, this section is only intended to be a guide, not a definitive resource on SWMMWW applicability. When questions or potential inconsistencies arise, project proponents should contact the City for clarification and interpretation. 2.1 SWMMWW VOLUME I Chapter 1 — Introduction : Adopted in its entirety. • Chapter 2 Relationship of This Manual to Permits. Requirements, and Programs: Adopted in its entire . Chapter 2-3 —Minimum Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment_- Users should refer first to ECDC Chapter 18.30.60 and this Addendum. Note that some portions of ECDC 18.30.60 refer back to the SWMMWW as well as specific sections of this Addendum. o In addition, note dia4 for all minimum requirements that require flow modeling, unless otherwise specified, all continuous modeling shall be performed using the "Puget East 36" precipitation time series, consisting of a 158-year precipitation and evaporation time series that are representative of the climatic conditions in the City of Edmonds. This time series is available in WWHM241-2 (select "Use WS-DOT data") and MGSFlood (Extended Timeseries menu). 2. HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM 3 Packet Pg. 258 8.2.e o In addition, ECDC 18.30 includes an additional "retro-fit" specific to Minimum Requirement #5: see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.i. Chapter- 3 apply to pr-oj eets in Edmonds, btA Chaptef 7 of this AddeRdufli has been er-eated Plans, Gity as well as additional speeifie stibmittal • • Chapter 4 — UIC Program: Adopted in its entirety. All UICs within Edmonds shall comply with the applicable requirements of this section. • Appendices —Use Appendix G for the SWMMWW only and refer to ECDC Chapter 18.30.10 for ECDC definitions. 2.2 SWMMWW VOLUME II • SWMMWW Volume II is adopted in its entirety. o In addition, this Addendum includes supplemental information to support compliance with SWMMWW Minimum Requirement No. 2, new Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development BMPs. See Chapter 6. 2.3 SWMMWW VOLUME III .Chapter 1 -Choosing your BMPs: Chapter adopted in its entirety. o The infeasibility criteria typically are included within the specific BMP descriptions in the SWMMWW, but are summarized in Appendix A for clarity and ease of use. Appendix A also includes additional BMP infeasibility criteria that are specific to the City of Edmonds, and not necessarily included in the 2014 SWMMWW. o In addition, ECDC 18.30 adds detention to the list of BMPs to be considered under minimum requirement #5; see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5. •in addition, note that Chapter- 6 of this Addendum ineludes infefma4iea to supplement the andChapter 2 — Modelling Your BMPs: Chapter adopted in its entirety. o In addition, Checklist 8 thru 15 of this Addendum include checklists for desi rg iing BMPs. • Chapter 3 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans: Refer first to Chapter 7 of this Addendum, and associated Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3. The requirements of SWMMWW Volume III, Chapter 3 apply to projects in Edmonds, but Chapter 7 of this Addendum has been created to 4 2. HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM Packet Pg. 259 8.2.e facilitate compliance with both the SWMMWW requirements for preparation of Stormwater Site Plans, as well as additional City -specific submittal requirements. 2.4 SWMMWW VOLUME IV • SWMMWW Volume IV is adopted in its entirety. 2.5 SWMMWW VOLUME V • SWMMWW Volume V is adopted in its entirety. o In addition, this Addendum includes supplemental information to support determination of On -Site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. Specifically, Appendix A of this Addendum summarizes infeasibility criteria that apply to each BMP (to be used in complying with Minimum Requirement No. 5). The infeasibility criteria typically are included within the specific BMP descriptions in the SWMMWW, but are summarized in Appendix A for clarity and ease of use. Appendix A also includes additional BMP infeasibility criteria that are specific to the City of Edmonds, and not necessarily included in the 20142019 SWMMWW. Where there are differences between the SWMMWW and Appendix A, the requirements in Appendix A shall apply unless otherwise approved by the City. o In addition, this Addendum includes design requirements for detention tanks and vaults to meet the Edmonds -specific application of a detention as a BMP for Minimum Requirement #5 in Section 6.3. o In addition, ECDC 18.30 includes a "retrofit" provision under Minimum Requirement #5 which requires mitigating a portion of existingunmitigated nmitigated hard surfaces to remain on a project site; see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.i 2.6 ADDENDUM CONTENT NOT COVERED IN THE • Note that in addition to the items included in Sections 2.1 through 2.5 above, this Addendum includes extensive information that is unique to the City and not tied to a specific SWMMWW volume or issue. Therefore, in addition to the notes above, users must review all of this Addendum and ECDC 18.30 for applicable requirements. This includes the Appendices and checklists included in this Addendum (particularly the BMP design checklists), which contain City -specific design, procedural, and submittal requirements that may not be reflected in the SWMMWW or ECDC. • In addition, as noted in Section 2.1 above, unless otherwise specified, all continuous modeling shall be performed using the "Puget East 36" precipitation time series, consisting of a 158-year precipitation and evaporation time series that are representative of the climatic conditions in the City of Edmonds. This time series is available in WWHM2412 (select "Use WS-DOT data") and MGSFlood (Extended Timeseries menu). 2. HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM 5 Packet Pg. 260 8.2.e • The use of corrugated metal pipe within Edmonds is prohibit on both private and public properties storm drain conveyance and /or BMPs (i.e. detention tanks). 6 2. HOW TO USE THIS ADDENDUM Packet Pg. 261 8.2.e 3 APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS This chapter is based on SWMMWW Volume I, Section 2.4, however the content below has been updated to reflect the specific requirements of ECDC 18.30. Project proponents must review ECDC 18.30 in detail. The following provides additional information and direction on the thresholds and applicability of minimum requirements outlined in ECDC 18.30.060. Project proponents must be aware that not all of the minimum requirements apply to every development project. The applicability varies depending on the project type and size. This chapter summarizes thresholds that determine the applicability of the minimum requirements to different projects. Review ECDC 18.30.060 and use the flow chart in Figure 3.1 to determine which of the minimum requirements apply to your project. (The minimum requirements themselves are provided in 18.30.060.D and are summarized in Chapter 5 of this Addendum). The thresholds described below and in Figure 3.1 are to be determined at the time of application for a subdivision, plat, short plat, building permit, or other construction permit. For projects involving only land disturbing activities, (e.g., clearing or grading), the thresholds apply at the time of application for the permit allowing or authorizing that activity. 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 7 Packet Pg. 262 8.2.e Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater? Yes No Minimum Requirements No. 1 through 5 apply I Minimum Requirement No. 2 applies Next Question Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surfaces? OR Convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? No Yes No Is this a road related project? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced Yes hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. All Minimum Requirements apply to the new hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Yes Does the project add 5,000 square feet or No more of new hard surfaces? Yes Do new hard surfaces add 50% or more to the existing hard surfaces within the project limits? No Figure 3.1. Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Development. No additional requirements. 8 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 263 8.2.e 3.1 THRESHOLDS AND APPLICABILITY All development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 2. The following Category 1 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5: • Results in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or • Have land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater. The following Category 2 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9: • Results in 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surfaces, or • Converts 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or • Converts 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture. 3.1.1 Additional Requirements for Road -Related Projects For road -related projects, runoff from the new hard surfaces (including pavement, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) and the converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more. In addition, if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within the project limits, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements. The project limits shall be defined by the length of the project and the width of the right-of- way. 3.1.2 New Connections to the City's MS4 When a property owner proposes a new connection to the City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), and the situation either 1) does not exceed the Category 1 or Category 2 thresholds above, or 2) does not involve activity that meets the definition of development, the following applies: • Sites that are not currently connected to the City's MS4 but wish to connect directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 may be allowed on a case -by -case basis, subject to City approval. • For sites that propose to drain greater than or equal to 2,000 square feet of hard surface area to the City's MS4, the project shall comply with the requirements of this chapter, treating all hard surfaces to be drained to the City system as new hard surfaces, unless applicant can demonstrate that the site will discharge in the same manner and quantities prior to the proposed project. Applicant shall account for natural dispersion and/or infiltration which may be occurring if these new hard surfaces area currently drain through pervious areas in their analysis.min4ffmm poses any risk to dowastfeam systems stieh as efesion, flooding, pr-epei4y damage, habita4 damage,,water- "alit), degia 4iea, vvriaerTeWed impaets. 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 9 Packet Pg. 264 8.2.e 3.1.3 Comparisons to the SWMMWW Project proponents must review ECDC 18.30 in detail, but the following notes are provided to help clarify how ECDC 18.30.060 compares to the SWMMWW regarding applicability of the minimum requirements (see Chapter 5 for additional details on the individual minimum requirements and how they differ from the SWMMWW): 1. ECDC 18.30 refers to "Category 1" projects and "Category 2" projects. See ECDC 18.30.060 for complete details, but in general: O Category 1 project sites result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area and shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. O Category 2 project sites result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area and shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. 2. ECDC 18.30 does not differentiate between new development and redevelopment. 3. Information regarding which surfaces each minimum requirement applies to (e.g., new hard surfaces, replaced hard surfaces, or both) is typically discussed under each minimum requirement as opposed to within the initial applicability section. 4In addition to item No. 3 above, ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b includes a retrofit requirement for projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain existing hard surfaces that do not drain to an approved stormwater management facility. These projects are required to provide On -site Stormwater Management BMPs to manage a portion (a minimum of 25 percent) of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after project completion. See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b for complete details on this requirement. 45. ECDC 18.30.060.D.5 also adds detention as a BMP to be ^er�'�.onsidered for feasibility under Minimum Requirement #5 in additional to those in SWMMWW, see Section 6.3. 5-.6. As per the SWMMWW, for road -related projects, if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within the project limits, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces shall meet all the minimum requirements. Otherwise, the minimum requirements only apply to the new hard surfaces (if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more). Unlike the SWMMWW, non -road -related projects do not have to assess the valuation of the proposed improvements in order to determine the applicability of the minimum requirements. In general, once triggered by the applicable project area thresholds (see below and ECDC 18.30.060), the minimum requirements apply to both new and replaced hard surfaces. 7ECDC 18.30-.060 and this Addendum also includes requirements for new connections to the City's MS4, when the proposed connection does not involve activity that meets the definition of development. See the previous section of this Addendum for additional information on new connections. 8. ECDC 18.30 and this Addendum modify the flow modelling basin to be used in modelling, see Section 2.6. 9. ECDC 18.30 and this Addendum requires use of the phosphorus treatment menu within the Hall's Creek and Lake Ballinger basins; see Section 5.6. 6 10. Section 5.3, below, prohibits the use of corrugated metal piping (LCMP) within Edmonds. 10 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 265 8.2.e a 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 11 Packet Pg. 266 8.2.e U U W_ d O v C d E O R C R L Cu : E L O L O W �L ci IL m c m o: E c a� Q L Cu 3 E L O O E W W r_ d E t ci f+ Q E 0 Q Packet Pg. 267 8.2.e 4 PROJECT BASIN LOCATION AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS 4.1 DETERMINING DOWNSTREAM RECEIVING SYSTEM(S) Broadly speaking, stormwater runoff in the City of Edmonds either travels west to Puget Sound (via a creek or piped system) or to the east to Lake Ballinger or Hall Creek, which discharges to Lake Ballinger. In addition to assessing the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas associated with a project, the minimum requirements (primarily Minimum Requirements No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7) can also vary depending on the project's downstream receiving waterbody and/or drainage system. The specific details of each minimum requirement are outlined in Chapter 5, but in general, projects should determine what type of system(s) their project site drains to early in the development process: The two primary systems to be aware of are described below. Note that these systems are not mutually exclusive: 1. Direct Discharge areas: Those site areas that discharge runoff directly to Puget Sound via a constructed conveyance system (e.g., pipe or ditch) without first entering a creek or other receiving water. (See Section 2.53.4.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for the full list of restrictions that must be met to qualify as a direct discharge.) 2. City of Edmonds Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): Those site areas that discharge to the City's MS4 before ultimately discharging to a downstream receiving water (e.g., a creek, lake, or Puget Sound). See the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for the complete MS4 definition, but this generally includes sites that discharge to a dedicated stormwater conveyance system (including roads with drainage systems, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) owned or operated by the City and that discharge to waters of Washington State (including creeks, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and Puget Sound). A map of watersheds in Edmonds is available via the Edmonds GIS Map that can be accessed on the City's website here: (<www.maps.edmondswa.gov>). (Note that the City's NIS4 is fet ide ti fie r City's S4+Direct Discharge Basins are those labeled "Puget Sound;" or "Puget Sound Piped_;"­ef "Edmends x; ay." - Edmonds Way is known to have an overflow under certain conditions which creates a discharge to Edmonds Marsh (not considered man-made drainage course for the purposes of this exemption), and therefore the Edmonds Way basin shall not be considered a direct discharge basin. An applicant with site -specific information that is contrary to the basin designations shown in Figure B-1 can present this information to the Public Works Director (Director) or designee for a possible change in basin designation. The Director or designee will make a determination on any requests for a site -specific change in basin designation. 4. PROJECT BASIN TYPE AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS 13 Packet Pg. 268 8.2.e 4.2 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Edmonds is fortunate to be located adjacent to Puget Sound and possess topography that facilitates desirable views. The underlying soils and relatively steep slopes, however, complicate the application of stormwater management techniques. Prior to logging and subsequent development of the Edmonds area, trees and the forest duff layer above the soil surface (consisting primarily of needles, leaves, branches, bark, and stems in various stages of decomposition) covered the city. With logging came the elimination of the majority of the tree canopy and the duff layer, and with it the elimination of the water -holding capacity of the natural land cover. In the majority of the city, the soils that remain (after forest removal and subsequent development) consist of till or hard pan, which is much less effective at storing or absorbing rainwater. Although this Addendum and the SWMMWW place substantial emphasis on the use of infiltration and on -site stormwater management techniques, the soil regime in the City of Edmonds can make this goal challenging. It is therefore important that project sites thoroughly investigate and understand their soil conditions (as well as other site conditions such as slope, groundwater levels, etc.) before proceeding too far with the site stormwater design. See the submittal checklists in Appendix C (Checklists 1 through 3), BMP infeasibility criteria in Appendix A, and SWMMWW Chapter- 3-for additional details and requirements. In addition to challenging soil conditions, approximately 25 percent of the land area in the City of Edmonds has a slope of 15 percent or greater or is in an Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (the Meadowdale area in the northernmost portion of the city). Geologic hazards in these areas can be increased when stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces percolates into the soil. As emphasized in the submittal checklists in Appendix C (Checklists 1 through 3), BMP infeasibility criteria in Appendix A, and SWMMWW Chapter 3; consideration of slopes in the project vicinity is a critical component of the site stormwater design. 44 FVJ 14 4. PROJECT BASIN TYPE AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 269 8.2.e 5 PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS This chapter should be used as a supplement to ECDC 18.30.060.13 and SWMMWW Volume I, Seetion 3 as it emphasizes the key differences between the minimum requirements outlined in the SWMMWW and those outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D. Project proponents must still review ECDC 18.30.060.D in detail, but the following text provides additional information and direction on the minimum requirements outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D. As noted previously in Chapter 4, once a given minimum requirement is triggered (per the thresholds in Chapter 3), the specifics of the minimum requirement may vary depending on the project downstream receiving waterbody and/or drainage system. 5.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 1 - PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS Stormwater Site Plans are required for all projects subject to Minimum Requirement No. 1, as outlined in Chapter 3 and ECDC 18.30.060.C. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 4-III of the SWMMWW. However, because Chapter 3 of the SWMMWW includes extensive technical requirements, but does not explicitly specify how those requirements shall be consistently documented, submitted, and/or reviewed for a typical development project, the City of Edmonds has developed project checklists to facilitate compliance with this minimum requirement (and thus project submittal and review). Those checklists are introduced in Chapter 7 and provided in Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3. 5.2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 2 - CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN See ECDC 18.30.060.D.2. In addition, note that ECDC 18.30.060.D.2.d.i points to the SWMMWW Chapter -23, Section 2-.5--.23.4.2 for details on the requirements for Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), including the 13 Elements that must be reflected in the Construction SWPPP. See Chapter 6 for additional requirements pertaining to Construction SWPPP Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development BMPs, which are not provided in the SWMMWW. 5.3 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 3 - SOURCE CONTROL OF POLLUTION See ECDC 18.30.060.D.3 and SWMMWW Volume IV. Note that all single-family residential projects shall, at a minimum, incorporate required BMPs from SWMMWW Volume IV, S411 — BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management. 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 15 Packet Pg. 270 8.2.e Corrugated metal pipe (CMP) has been found to be a routine failure problem in Edmonds and a potential source of additional sediment in the Citysystem. For this reason, CMP pipe is not permitted within Edmonds on either public or private property or both conveyance storm pipe and for detention tanks. 5.4 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 4 - PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND OUTFALLS See ECDC 18.30.060.D.4 and the content presented below. Although this minimum requirement is based on Minimum Requirement No. 4 in SWMMWW Volume I, Section 1-543.4.4, there are enough differences between the City's requirements and those in the SWMMWW that project proponents should not refer to the SWMMWW for Minimum Requirement No. 4. Only ECDC 18.30.060.D.3 and the following shall be required. To demonstrate compliance with this minimum requirement, all projects shall submit as part of their Stormwater Site Plan an off -site analysis that assesses the potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges. (See the end of this section, and Chapter 6, for details on the requirements for analysis and documentation.) Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters or down gradient properties. The discharge must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate outfall location (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system). All outfalls require energy dissipation. (Designs for outfall systems to protect against adverse impacts from concentrated runoff are included in SWMMWW Volume V, Chapter 41.) In addition, existing upstream flows must be accommodated without causing erosion or flooding impacts. Upstream drainage means drainage from adjacent property that enters the proposed project site (other than a defined natural channel). Upstream flows shall not be routed through the project's conveyance, treatment, or retention/detention systems, unless those systems are sized to control those flows. Upstream flows that are collected and routed through or around the site in a separate conveyance shall be dispersed at the downgradient property line, if feasible, or discharged at a project outfall (or outfalls) in a manner that does not violate the criteria below or cause the capacity of a conveyance system to be exceeded. Where no conveyance system exists at the adjacent downgradient property line and the discharge was previously unconcentrated flow or significantly lower concentrated flow, measures must be taken to prevent downgradient impacts. Drainage easements from downstream property owners may be needed and should be obtained prior to approval of engineering plans. For Category 2 projects only — where no conveyance system exists at the adjacent downstream property line and the natural (existing) discharge is unconcentrated, any runoff concentrated by the proposed project, including upstream drainage, must be discharged as follows: 1. If the 100-year peak discharge is less than or equal to 0.2 cfs (0.3 cfs using 15-minute time steps) under existing conditions and will remain less than or equal to 0.2 cfs under developed conditions, then the concentrated runoff may be discharged onto a rock pad or to any other system that serves to disperse flows. 2. If the 100-year peak discharge is between 0.2 and 0.5 cfs (or 0.75 cfs using 15-minute time steps) under existing conditions and will remain in that range under developed conditions, then the 16 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 271 8.2.e concentrated runoff may be discharged through a dispersal trench or other dispersal system, provided the applicant can demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems. 3. If the 100-year peak discharge is greater than 0.5 cfs for either existing or developed conditions, or if a significant adverse impact to downgradient properties or drainage systems is likely, then a conveyance system shall be provided to convey the concentrated runoff across the downstream properties to an acceptable discharge point (i.e., an enclosed drainage system or open drainage feature where concentrated runoff can be discharged without significant adverse impact). To demonstrate compliance with this minimum requirement, all projects shall submit as part of their Stormwater Site Plan an off -site analysis that assesses the potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges. Off -site analyses shall assess upstream and downstream conditions, including the conveyance capacity and erosion potential in the downstream system. If a problem is found, mitigation is required to prevent worsening of that problem or to mitigate an existing flooding or erosion problem. The off -site analysis shall include, at a minimum, a qualitative analysis of each upstream drainage system entering a site, and each downstream drainage system leaving a site. A quantitative analysis may be required for any project deemed to need additional downstream information or where the project proponent or the City determines that a quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system (e.g., where there is evidence of a risk to downstream systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water quality degradation, or other related impacts). See Chapter 6 for additional details on off -site analyses and documentation. 5.5 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 5 - ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The City has made several additions and changes to the contents of Minimum Requirement No. 5 relative to the SWMMWW. Project proponents must review ECDC 18.30.060.D.5 in detail to ensure all City - specific requirements are addressed. This section of the Addendum provides a summary of the City - specific elements of Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, this Addendum includes several tools to support implementation of Minimum Requirement No. 5 and related requirements. These tools include: A summary of infeasibility criteria for all On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs (see Appendix A). These infeasibility criteria must be considered when evaluating the feasibility of On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs as part of List No. 1 or List No. 2. The infeasibility criteria are included within the specific BMP descriptions in the SWMMWW, but are summarized in Appendix A for clarity. Appendix A also includes additional BMP infeasibility criteria that are specific to the City of Edmonds, and not necessarily included in the 240442019 SWMMWW. 2. A summary of acceptable methods for determining BMP design infiltration rates (see Appendix B; and Appendix C, Checklist 4). Initial site infiltration rates may be determined either using field testing procedures, or the Soil Grain Size Analysis Method. These methods are described in detail in Appendix B. 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 17 Packet Pg. 272 8.2.e A summary of site investigation and field and design procedures required for several of the On - Site Stormwater Management BMPs as well as for infiltration basins and trenches (see Appendix C, Checklists 5 and 6). The field and design procedures required to design and implement On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs can be considerable, and include issues such as determining infiltration rates, determining depth to groundwater or other impermeable layers, soils reporting requirements, etc. 4. Submittal checklists for Category 1 and Category 2 projects, including notes on project site, soil, and BMP design information that must be documented and submitted to the City to meet the City of Edmonds and SWMMWW requirements related to Minimum Requirement No. 5 (and other minimum requirements. See Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3. 5. Design checklists for most of the On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs in List No. 1 and List No. 2 (see Appendix D). The applicability of Minimum Requirement No. 5 depends on the project type, project location, and the existing and proposed surfaces at the project site. See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5 for details, but in summary: Projects that drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain existing hard surfaces that do not drain to an approved stormwater management facility are required to provide On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs to manage a minimum of 25 percent of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after the project. The intent is to bring a portion of any existing, unmanaged surfaces up to current standards. If the 25 percent minimum is met, projects are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility for these existing surfaces (as per the subsequent project scenarios). 2. Similar to the SWMMWW, Category 1 project sites (project sites subject to Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5) that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 shall either use On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No. 1 (see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d) for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed, or demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c). Note that in the City of Edmonds, List No. 1 includes detention vaults or pipes as the final BMP option for roofs and other hard surfaces. See Chapter 6 for associated design requirements for detention vaults and pipes, including simplified sizing methods for meeting Minimum Requirement No. 5. (Note also that if the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault or pipe is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5.) Categor,2project sites (project sites subject to Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9) are subject to similar requirements as Category 1 projects, but must use List No. 2 instead of List No. 1 (see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.e). 4. Projects that discharge directly to Puget Sound through the City's MS4 (in accordance with the restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound presented in Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW) do not have to achieve the LID Performance Standard, and only have to evaluate a subset of the BMPs in List No. 1 or List No. 2. in addition, Edmonds Way Basi- (see the Edmonds GIS Map available on the City's website) n:mst demenstfate that the pr-qjeet's -post development 10 , and 100 year- r-eetifFeRee ifltel=val POWs W4 not exeeed 0.25 and 0.45 eubie feet per- seeend per- aer-e of impen4ous sur-faee area, r-espeetiv4y-. 5. Projects that do not drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 are required to either: 18 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 273 8.2.e o Discharge to the downstream private property (with approval) o Discharge runoff to an on -site system from List No. 1 (see in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d). ■ Sites located within earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility. However, a geotechnical design, analysis, and report by a geotechnical engineer is required. ■ For sites located outside earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers, projects must meet applicable Category 1 or Category 2 project requirements for Minimum Requirement No. 5 (see ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.ii and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.iii). o Project sites may pump on -site runoff to the City's MS4, with prior approval. a,,wast e ri, analysis will be .o ,,; oa ; in such cases, projects shall meet all provisions of ECDC 18.30 as they would drain to the MS4 in post project conditions. 6. Finally, the following guidance shall be used to help clarify the requirements in the SWMMWW specific to List No. 1 and No. 2. Where the SWMMWW and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d/e states that "for each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. No other On -Site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface" the following clarifications are provided: o The goal of List No. 1 and List No. 2 is to manage 100 percent of each surface. If a project cannot manage 100 percent of a given surface with the first feasible BMP, a second BMP may be required to manage the remaining unmanaged area (depending on the size of the unmanaged area and the site -specific constraints). For example, where a roof surface drains to multiple downspouts around the perimeter of the structure, it is generally insufficient to only manage runoff that drains to a single downspout and to leave the remaining downspouts unmanaged (i.e., due to infeasibility considerations). 7. For BMPs without specific sizing criteria in this Addendum, single family residential projects under 2,000 SF of new plus replaced hard surfaces only, may use the simplified sizing per the included checklist for each BMP or per Volume V of SWMMWW to satisfy Minimum Requirement #5. However, such sizing methodology shall be assumed to generate an overflow and a piped or subsurface overflow connection is required for such BMPs unless otherwise waived by the City. 5.6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 6 - RUNOFF TREATMENT See ECDC 18.30.060.D.6 for thresholds and core requirements. See the SWMMWW for additional information on complying with this minimum requirement. In particular, the following sections should be reviewed: • Volume I, Section2-.-S-.63.4.6 for details on treatment facility sizing • Volume I, Chapter 4 and Volume V, Chapters 2 and 3 for general BMP selection. Note also that phosphorus treatment is required for projects that drain to Hall Creek or Lake Ballinger. 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 19 Packet Pg. 274 8.2.e 0 Volume V for design and maintenance requirements. 5.6.1 Edmonds -Specific Oil and Floatables Control In addition to the oil control requirements in the SWMMWW, all projects in the City of Edmonds not zoned as single-family residential that collect runoff from five or more parking spaces shall install floatable controls in catch basins (if another approved floatable control system is not employed). 5.7 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 7 — FLOW CONTROL See ECDC 18.30.060.D.7 for thresholds and core requirements. See the SWMMWW for additional information on complying with this minimum requirement (in particular, Volume I, Section 1-5-.73.4.7). Note that flow control in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 7 is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound (other minimum requirements still apply, including Minimum Requirement No. 6, as well as Minimum Requirement No. 5 and the Edmonds Way direct discharge requirements). See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv and Section 2-.5-.73.4.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for additional restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound. In addition, the following information may be useful in determining the applicability of Minimum Requirement No. 7, specifically per the 100-year flow frequency threshold outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D.7.b.iii: Calculations to determine whether a project exceeds the 0.10 cubic feet per second (cfs), using a 1-hour time step (or 0.15 cfs using a 15-minute time step) increase in the 100-year recurrence interval flow must be performed individually for each project using an approved continuous simulation runoff model. The calculation will compare runoff in the post development site to the pre -development land cover. Pre - development, for this activity only, is the lower runoff of the pre project condition, or the site on July 6, 1977 (the effective date of the City's first drainage control ordinance). The unique site, soil, precipitation, and other project -specific factors will ultimately determine whether this threshold is exceeded. Nonetheless, the following general guidelines (based on hypothetical site designs) may be used to help identify the likelihood of this threshold being exceeded. The following land use changes are likely to exceed this threshold under certain conditions: • Converting approximately 5,000 square feet of forest to hard surface • Converting approximately 5,000 square feet of pasture to hard surface • Converting approximately 0.25 acres of forest to landscape surface • Converting approximately 1.25 acres of forest to pasture surfaces (in till soil conditions) 20 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 275 8.2.e 5.8 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 8 - WETLAND PROTECTION See ECDC 18.30.060.D.8 and SWMMWW Volume I, Section ''�3.4.8. See also SWMMWW Volume I, Appendix I-D-C . 5.9 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NO. 9 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE See ECDC 18.30.060.D.9. See also the submittal checklists provided in Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3 (also referenced previously as part of Minimum Requirements No. 1 and No. 5) for notes about submittal requirements related to the required operation and maintenance manual. !, I 5. PROJECT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 21 Packet Pg. 276 8.2.e U U W_ d O v C d E O R C R L Cu : E L O L O W �L ci IL m c m o: E c a� Q L Cu 3 E L O O E W W r_ d E t ci f+ Q E 0 Q Packet Pg. 277 8.2.e 6 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS This chapter includes additional requirements that are either not included in the SWMMWW, or that are supplemental to the information provided in the SWMMWW. Specifically, this chapter addresses: 1. Additional requirements pertaining to Construction SWPPP Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development BMPs (required in the SWMMWW, bttt not outlined in this level of detail) 2. Details on the off -site analyses and documentation required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 4, Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls (City of Edmonds specific). 3. Design requirements for detention vaults and pipes when used to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. 4. Information on Underground Injection Controls (UICs). 6.1 PROTECTION OF LID FACILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION To ensure that LID stormwater facilities and BMPs will be fully functional after construction, it is important to protect these BMPs during construction activities. Protecting native soil and vegetation, minimizing soil compaction, and retaining the hydrologic function of LID BMPs during the site preparation and construction phases are some of the most important practices during the development process. The purpose of this section is to provide designers, builders, and inspectors with guidance and tools for meeting Minimum Requirement No. 2, Element No. 13 — Protect Low Impact Development BMPs. This section does not provide guidance on construction or design of LID BMPs (see SWMMWW Volume III and Volume V), or cover all Construction SWPPP practices (see SWMMWW Volume II), but rather focuses on how to most efficiently reduce impacts on LID BMPs specifically during construction. The practices specified in this section must be applied to protect LID BMPs, unless the given practice does not apply to the project site conditions or activities. 6.1.1 General Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs Applicable to LID Overall Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements are specified in Chapter 5, Minimum Requirement No. 2 and SWMMWW Volume II. In general, Construction SWPPP BMPs limit the impact of site disturbance, erosion, and sediment deposition during construction. Some Construction SWPPP BMPs focus on providing a physical barrier or deterrent to help minimize construction -related site disturbance and/or erosion, while other Construction SWPPP BMPs help protect 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 23 Packet Pg. 278 8.2.e the site from concentrated (i.e., erosive) flows. General Construction SWPPP BMPs and their application for protection of LID BMPs in particular are summarized below. These BMPs must be considered for projects subject to Minimum Requirement No. 2 that are proposing to construct LID BMPs. Construction SWPPP BMP Application BMP C103: High Visibility Fence Use fencing to limit clearing; prevent disturbance of sensitive areas, their buffers, and other areas; limit construction traffic; and protect areas where marking with flagging may not provide adequate protection BMP C200: Interceptor Dike and Swale Use an interceptor dike and/or swale to intercept the runoff from unprotected areas and direct it to areas where erosion can be controlled BMP C201: Grass -Lined Channels Use grass lined channels where concentrated runoff may cause erosion and flooding of the site BMP C207: Check Dams Use check dams in swales or ditches to reduce the velocity and dissipate concentrated flow BMP C208: Triangular Silt Dike (TSD) Use triangular silt dikes as check dams, for perimeter protection, (Geotextile-Encased Check Dam) temporary soil stockpile protection, drop inlet protection, or as a temporary interceptor dike BMP C231: Brush Barrier Use brush barriers to decrease flow velocities and reduce transport of coarse sediment from overland flow BMP C233: Silt Fence Use silt fences to decrease flow velocities and reduce transport of sediment from overland flow BMP C234: Vegetated Strip Use vegetated strips to decrease flow velocities and reduce transport of sediment from overland flow 6.1.2 Additional Construction Techniques for LID BMPs In addition to the general Construction SWPPP BMPs presented in Section 6.1.1, this section outlines specific construction -phase techniques to protect LID BMPs. LID BMP protection is still a somewhat new and evolving practice, therefore the specific LID BMP protection measures outlined below are not explicitly called out in the SWMMWW. Rather, the techniques presented in this section supplement the Construction SWPPP BMPs presented above, and those presented in the SWMMWW Volume II. (Note these techniques can be applied to any site, not just those incorporating LID, but these techniques are particularly important for LID BMP protection.) Construction Site Planning and Sequencing Construction site planning and sequencing is a procedural BMP that is critical to successful installation and long-term operation of LID BMPs. Proper site planning and construction sequencing will minimize the impact of construction on permanent stormwater facilities by reducing the potential for soil erosion and compaction. Site planning and sequencing techniques to be used as practicable for protection of LID BMPs include: 24 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 279 8.2.e Construction Site Planning and Sequencing Requirements Construction Site Planning and Sequencing Techniques Limit clearing and grading activities • Keep grading to a minimum by incorporating natural topographic depressions into the development. • Shape final lot grades and topographic features early (i.e., at the site development stage) where feasible. • Limit the amount of cut and fill in areas with permeable soils. • Limit clearing to road, utility, building pad, lawn areas, and the minimum amount of extra land necessary to maneuver machinery (e.g., a 10-foot perimeter around a building). Limit construction activity in areas • Clearly document —and plan to meet and walk through the designated for LID site with equipment operators prior to construction —to clarify construction boundaries, limits of disturbance, and construction activities in the vicinity of LID BMPs. • General/primary contractor must inform other sub -contractors of applicable LID BMP protection requirements. This is particularly important when working around permeable pavement. Limit clearing and grading during heavy • Time construction activities to start during the summer (lowest rainfall seasons precipitation) and end in the fall (when conditions are favorable for the establishment of vegetation), if feasible. Minimize the amount and time that graded • Complete construction and erosion control activities in one areas are left exposed section of the site before beginning activity in another section. Utilize permeable and nutrient rich soils • Preserve any portion of the site with permeable soils to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff. • Leave areas of rich topsoil in place, or if excavated, utilize elsewhere on the site to amend areas with sparse or nutrient deficient topsoil. Reduce impact of construction access roads • Reduce the number and size (width/length) of construction access roads. • Locate construction access roads in areas where future roads and utility corridors will be placed (unless utilizing permeable pavement). Promote sheet flow and minimize • Avoid grading that results in steep, continuous slopes, concentrated runoff especially in areas contributing runoff to LID BMPs. LID BMP activation • LID BMPs shall not begin operation until all erosion -causing project improvements (including use of access roads that may contribute sediment) are completed and all exposed ground surfaces are stabilized by revegetation or landscaping in upland areas potentially contributing runoff to the BMP. a 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 25 Packet Pg. 280 8.2.e Activities During Construction Many common construction -phase activities pose a risk to LID BMPs. The following techniques will help minimize these impacts. Techniques to be used for protection of LID BMPs include: Erosion Control Requirements Erosion Control Techniques Protect native topsoil during the • Where practicable, protect areas of rich topsoil. If excavation is construction phase, and reuse on site necessary, stockpile native soils that can be used on the site after construction. • Stockpile materials in areas designated for clearing and grading (such as parking areas and future impervious roadways) and away from infiltration and other stormwater facilities. • Cover small stockpiles with weed barrier material that sheds moisture yet allows air transmission. Large stockpiles may need to be seeded and/or mulched. • Do not relocate topsoil or other material to areas where they can cover critical root zones, suffocate vegetation, or erode into adjacent streams. Use effective revegetation methods • Use native plant species adapted to the local environment. • Plant during late fall, winter, or early spring months when vegetation is likely to establish quickly and survive. • Utilize proper seedbed preparation. Fertilize and mulch to protect germinating plants. Apply 1 inch of compost topped with 2 inches of mulch. • Protect areas designated for revegetation from soil compaction by restricting heavy equipment. • Provide proper soil amendments where necessary (refer to SWMMWW, Volume V, Chapter 5, BMP T5.13 Post - Construction Soil Quality and Depth). Amend soil toward the end of construction. Once established, protect from compaction and erosion. • During storage, plants should be protected by solar screens when possible to prevent overexposure and excessive drying. Perform preconstruction, routine, and • Conduct a preconstruction inspection to verify that adequate postconstruction inspections barriers have been placed around vegetation retention areas, infiltration facilities (as needed), and structural controls are implemented properly. • Conduct routine inspections to verify that structural controls are being maintained and effectively protecting LID BMPs throughout construction. • Conduct a final inspection to verify that revegetation areas are stabilized and that permanent LID BMPs are in place and functioning ro erl . 26 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 281 8.2.e 6.1.3 BMP-Specific Construction Techniques This section outlines construction -phase BMP protection techniques specific to categories of LID BMPs (e.g., infiltration and dispersion) as well as specific LID BMPs (permeable pavement, bioretention areas/rain gardens, and vegetated roofs). The BMP protection techniques presented previously in Section 6.1.2 are applicable to the overall construction site to help protect LID BMPs. The techniques outlined in this section are based on the specific BMP functions, targeting typical construction activities that pose a risk to individual BMPs. Infiltration and Dispersion Facility Construction Techniques It is critical that appropriate methods are used to protect infiltration and dispersion BMPs from compaction and sediment loading during construction. For infiltration facilities in particular, the subgrade soils must be protected from clogging and over -compaction to maintain the soil permeability and ensure BMP performance. Techniques for protection of infiltration and dispersion BMPs during various stages of construction are summarized below. Construction Stage Techniques for Protecting Infiltration and Dispersion Facilities Prior to construction • The infiltration/dispersion area shall be clearly identified (e.g., using flagging or high visibility fencing) and protected prior to construction to prevent compaction of underlying soils by vehicle traffic. • Develop a soil and vegetation management plan showing areas to be protected and restoration methods for disturbed areas before land clearing sta rts. • The Construction SWPPP sheets must outline construction sequencing that will protect the infiltration/dispersion area during construction. • Construction SWPPP BMPs and protection techniques identified in the previous sections shall be implemented as applicable. In particular, be sure to stabilize upslope construction areas (e.g., using silt fences, berms, mulch, or other Construction SWPPP BMPs) and minimize overland flow distances. Excavation • Excavation of infiltration/dispersion areas shall be performed by machinery operating adjacent to the BMP. No heavy equipment with narrow tracks, narrow tires, or large lugged high pressure tires shall be allowed on the infiltration/dispersion area footprint. • Where feasible, excavate infiltration/dispersion areas to final grade only after all disturbed areas in the upgradient project drainage area have been permanently stabilized. (If infiltration areas must be excavated before permanent site stabilization, initial excavation must be conducted to no less than 6 inches of the final elevation of the facility floor.) • Excavation of infiltration areas shall not be allowed during wet or saturated conditions. • The use of draglines and trackhoes should be considered for constructing infiltration and dispersion areas. • The bottom (and sidewalls if feasible) of an infiltration facility excavation must be raked or scarified to a minimum depth of 3 inches after final excavation to restore infiltration rates. • Scarify soil along the dispersion flow path if disturbed during construction. 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 27 Packet Pg. 282 8.2.e Construction Stage Techniques for Protecting Infiltration and Dispersion Facilities Sediment control . Bioretention, rain garden, and permeable pavement BMPs shall not be used as sediment control facilities, and all drainage shall be directed away from the BMP location after initial rough grading. Direct construction site flow away from the infiltration/dispersion area using applicable Construction SWPPP BMPs (e.g., temporary diversion swales). Permeable Pavement There are many potential applications and site scenarios where permeable pavement can be applied. The following techniques highlight the most broadly applicable techniques to be used to protect permeable pavement BMPs during construction. Refer to the previous section for construction protection methods that are applicable to all infiltration BMPs, as well as Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 for general site protection measures. In addition to those techniques, the following techniques apply specifically for protection of permeable pavement during construction: • Use procedural BMPs to plan construction. For example, phase construction to minimize compaction, sedimentation, or structural damage to the permeable pavement. • Use physical Construction SWPPP BMPs and/or grade the site to avoid sediment laden runoff from reaching permeable pavements. • Place protective surfaces (e.g., waterproof tarps and steel plates) over any permeable pavement areas used for construction staging. %% • Do not drive sediment -laden construction equipment on the base material or pavement. Do not allow sediment -laden runoff on permeable pavements or base materials. • Once the pavement is finished and set, cover the pavement surface with plastic and geotextile to protect from other construction activities. Close and protect the pavement area until the site is permanently stabilized. • Incorporate measures to protect road subgrade from over compaction and sedimentation if permeable pavement roads are used for construction access. o Cover the aggregate base or pavement surface with protective geotextile fabric and protect fabric with steel plates or gravel. Gravel should only be used to protect the fabric placed over aggregate base. o Once construction is complete and the site is permanently stabilized, remove protective geotextile, clean, and complete pavement installation. Refer to the detailed permeable pavement BMP information in SWMMWW Volume V, Chapter 5, as well as City of Edmonds Standard Details for general permeable pavement construction criteria. 28 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 283 8.2.e Bioretention Areas and Rain Gardens As with permeable pavements, there are many potential applications and site scenarios where bioretention and rain garden BMPs can be applied. The following techniques highlight the most broadly applicable techniques to be used to protect bioretention and rain garden BMPs during construction. Refer to the beginning of this section for construction protection methods that are applicable to all infiltration BMPs, as well as Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 for general site protection measures. In addition to those techniques, the following techniques apply specifically for protection of bioretention and rain garden BMPs during construction: • Excavation: o If machinery must operate in the bioretention area for excavation, use lightweight, low ground -contact pressure equipment and rip the base at completion to scarify soil to a minimum of 12 inches. • Protect bioretention soil mix from compaction during construction o Do not place bioretention soil mix if saturated or during wet periods. o Check for compaction prior to planting. If compaction occurs, aerate the bioretention soil and then proceed to plant. Refer to the detailed bioretention and rain garden BMP information in SWMMWW Volume V, Chapter 7, as well as City of Edmonds Standard Details for general bioretention and rain garden construction criteria. YV Vegetated Roofs The following additional techniques apply for protection of vegetated roof facilities during construction: • Because of their location and complexity, vegetated roofs typically require more planning and coordination effort relative to ground -level landscaping. For new construction, a critical path approach is highly recommended to establish the sequence of tasks for construction of the vegetated roof system. • During construction, it is vitally important that the waterproof membrane be protected once installed. The waterproofing should be tested prior to placement of the growth media and other subsequent vegetated roof materials. Refer to the detailed vegetated roof BMP information in SWMMWW Volume V, for general construction criteria. 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 29 Packet Pg. 284 8.2.e 6.2 OFF -SITE ANALYSES AND DOCUMENTATION All projects subject to Minimum Requirement No. 4 shall submit as part of their Stormwater Site Plan an off -site analysis that assesses the potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges. The following sections detail the analysis and documentation requirements for Category 1 and Category 2 projects. 6.2.1 Category 1 Projects Category 1 projects shall submit a qualitative analysis of potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges for each upstream drainage system entering a site, and each downstream drainage system leaving a site. The upstream analysis shall identify and describe points where water enters the site. Any upstream contributing areas shall be identified and mapped in the project Stormwater Site Plan submittal. The downstream analysis shall extend from the project site to the receiving water, or up to one -quarter mile, whichever is less. In many cases, runoff that leaves a project site will enter the City's MS4 within one -quarter mile. In these instances, the project must evaluate and document downstream conditions up to and including runoff entry into the City's MS4. In addition, the project proponent shall consult with the City to determine whether the MS4 has any existing or anticipated capacity issues downstream of the proposed project. The qualitative analysis shall identify where and how stormwater runoff will leave the proposed development site, and describe conditions downstream of the site including any existing or anticipated future problem areas (e.g., spot flooding, property damage, erosion issues, capacity -limited drainage systems, etc.). The qualitative analysis must be sufficient for the City to evaluate whether the project has adequately identified potential impacts and whether proposed mitigation measures are supported by the analysis. Some "rough" quantitative analyses, which can be based on non -surveyed field data, may be necessary as part of the qualitative analysis to adequately describe or document the extent of observed problem areas. Note that any off -site field visits should be conducted during winter months and after significant precipitation events to identify seasonal issues such as flooding, capacity constraints, or surface seeps or other indicators of near surface groundwater. A quantitative analysis may also be required for any project where the project proponent or the City determines that a more thorough analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system (e.g., where there is evidence of a risk to downstream systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water quality degradation, or other related impacts). A quantitative analysis may include calculations and/or modeling analyses of on -site and off -site water quality, erosion, slope stability, and other drainage -related impacts that may be caused or aggravated by a proposed project. 6.2.2 Category 2 Projects All Category 2 projects shall submit a qualitative analysis of potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges that extend downstream from the site to the receiving water. (If the ultimate discharge point is to Puget Sound via a culvert owned by BNSF Railway, the analysis must be followed through the drainage system all the way to Puget Sound.) A quantitative analysis may also be required for any project deemed to need additional downstream information or where the project engineer or the City determines that a quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system (e.g., where there are known capacity issues or where there is evidence of a risk to downstream 30 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 285 8.2.e systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water quality degradation, or other related impacts). The qualitative analysis must be sufficient for the City to evaluate whether the project has adequately identified potential impacts and whether proposed mitigation measures are supported by the analysis. Some "rough" quantitative analysis, which can be based on non -surveyed field data, may be required at this stage. A downstream analysis of the project for a minimum of one -quarter of a mile is required. The analysis must also extend upstream to a point beyond any backwater effects caused by the project. The analysis must include field -inspection of all existing stormwater drainage systems downstream from the project and a determination of whether the capacity of the drainage system(s) is adequate to handle the existing flows, flows generated by the proposed project, and any overflow. Adequacy will be evaluated based on conveyance capacity, flooding problems, erosion damage or potential, amount of freeboard in channel and pipes, and storage potential within the system. Note that site visits should be conducted during winter months and after significant precipitation events to identify undocumented surface seeps or other indicators of near surface groundwater. See the end of this section for specific topics to be discussed in the qualitative analysis. When deemed necessary by the project engineer or required by the City, a quantitative analysis shall include the qualitative analysis describe above, as well as quantitative calculations and/or modeling analyses of on -site and off -site water quality, erosion, slope stability, and other drainage -related impacts that may be caused or aggravated by a proposed project. Measures for preventing impacts and for not aggravating existing impacts shall also be identified. ("Aggravating existing impacts" means increasing the frequency of occurrence and/or severity of an impact.) The analysis shall document how temporary and permanent flow control and water quality control measures identified in the Stormwater Site Plan will mitigate the potential to create new problems or aggravate existing conditions. In many cases, design of flow control and water quality systems according to the procedures contained in this Addendum and the SWMMWW will be adequate demonstration of mitigation. However, upon review of this analysis and the severity of an existing problem, the City may require more detailed analysis and/or additional mitigation measures. In general, all existing and proposed off -site surface water conveyance systems shall be sized to convey flows without surcharging the City's storm system (or BNSF culverts under the railroad tracks, if applicable). Both the qualitative analysis and the quantitative analyses (when required) shall include descriptions and/or analyses of the following items. The descriptions shall identify existing or potential problem areas, and whether adequate mitigation can be identified (or whether more detailed quantitative analysis is necessary). References to other Stormwater Site Plan sections (e.g., facility sizing, conveyance, attachments and appendices, etc.) are encouraged to reduce plan redundancy, as long as all of the required Stormwater Site Plan issues are clearly presented: • Describe the drainage system between the site and the receiving surface waters. Provide information on pipe sizes, channel characteristics, and drainage structures. Describe emergency services located along the flow path (e.g., fire/police stations, hospitals). Describe environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, etc. • Describe the upstream drainage tributary to the project. Describe any bypass drainage from the project which will not be controlled. • The bulk of the analysis shall focus on highlights of important considerations from the project overview and off -site analysis sections related to the drainage system and potential problems or concerns. Existing and potential impacts to be evaluated and mitigated shall include, but not be limited to: 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 31 Packet Pg. 286 8.2.e O Conveyance system capacity issues. o Flooding or bank overtopping. o Upland erosion impacts, including slope stability and landslide hazards. O Stream channel erosion (at the outfall location and to the downstream limit of analysis). O Violations of surface water quality standards as identified in a Basin Plan or a TMDL/Water Cleanup Plan (e.g., for Lake Ballinger). O For each existing or potential problem, document: the magnitude of damage caused by the problem, the general frequency and duration, current mitigation of the problem (if any), the likely or possible cause of the problem, and whether the project is likely to aggravate the problem or create a new one. • Determine whether the project is within any other critical areas or their buffers as defined in ECDC, and whether any additional requirements apply. • All areas pertinent to the analyses such as site boundaries, study area boundaries, streets and prominent features, downstream flow path, potential/existing problems, etc. shall be keyed to features shown on the project map(s). 6.3 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR DETENTION VAULTS AND PIPES T This section includes design requirements and associated information for detention vaults and detention pipes. The focus of this section is on the use of detention vaults and pipes to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. For other design applications (e.g., to meet Minimum Requirement No. 7), designers must refer to the SWMMWW. For Category 1 and 2 projects that must comply with Minimum Requirement No. 5, the final option that is available for roofs and other hard surfaces under List No. 1 and List No. 2 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5 [d] or [e]) is the use of detention vaults or detention pipes. When using detention vaults or pipes to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 5 using List No. 1 or List No. 2 in the City of Edmonds, the following requirements apply. Note that if the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. The City may waive the requirement to install a detention vault or pipe if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement No. 4, or available City data indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial. Note that this exemption is rare and most similar to the direct discharge exemption in SWMMWW; qualifin g for this exception will require unique site circumstances and may require additional information or calculations from the applicant to demonstrate lack of benefit. It shall not be applied to any site which discharges, direct or indirectly, to a stream, creek, wetland, or floodplain. 32 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 287 8.2.e 6.3.1 Sizing & Design The City has created simplified sizing techniques for detention vaults and pipes for use in complying with Minimum Requirement No. 5. The sizing calculations and requirements presented below are designed to optimize detention facility functions relative to peak flow control as well as runoff "volume managed." Volume managed is a measure of the difference between facility inflow and outflow rates, and is evaluated using continuous simulation hydrologic modeling by comparing inflow and outflow over the entire continuous simulation. Volume managed represents an estimate of the amount of the storm flow that is attenuated (or removed, for facilities that utilize infiltration) by the flow control facility. To comply with Minimum Requirement No. 5, detention vaults or pipes must be installed for any site impervious surfaces totaling greater than or equal to 1,000 square feet that are not managed by other On - Site Stormwater Management BMPs. This includes areas from multiple types of surfaces listed under the list options in Minimum Requirement No. 5. For example, if unmanaged flows from roofs plus driveway areas exceed 1,000 square feet and runoff from both surfaces can be routed to a single vault, a vault shall be installed. In addition, projects may elect to route "managed" flows to the vault if desired (e.g., where runoff from an installed On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs cannot be easily separated from runoff drainage to the vault.) In this scenario, no upsizing of the vault is required for the "managed" areas. Only the unmanaged surfaces need to be included in the sizing calculations below. The City of Edmonds has developed standards specifically for vaults and pipes used to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5 only. See City standard detail SD-651 for detention tank requirements specific to minimum Requirement #5; this detail shall be completed with design information and included with any elan set nr000sina detention under Minimum Reauirement #5. For compliance with Minimum Requirement No. 7, SWMMWW Volume V, Chapter 12 requirements apply. For vaults efTipe-s-with contributing areas greater than or equal to 1,000 square feet the following sizing requirements apply: • Orifice size for- vaults and pi-pes fyms+shall be 0.5 inches • Vault interior bottom area = 2 percent of contributing surface area • Vault minimum active storage depth = 3.0 feet �as�ssrsassa�- -- • ��• 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 33 Packet Pg. 288 8.2.e 6.4 UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROLS With each update to the SWMMWW, the Department of Ecology continues to emphasize the importance of maximizing the use of infiltration for stormwater runoff control. Given the heavy emphasis on infiltration in the SWMMWW, and thus ECDC 18.30 and this Addendum, it is important to be aware of related requirements for Underground Injection Controls (UICs). In certain situations, BMPs that rely on infiltration are classified as UICs and may be regulated by Ecology under the UIC Program (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173 218). For more information on UICs, see the 2006 Eeelegy deetiment titled dui a-mee fe UIC Wells��ge Steat .SWMMWW Volume I, Chapter 4 (UIC Program). *IV 34 6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 289 8.2.e 7 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Stormwater Site Plans are required for all projects subject to Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans (as well as for preparation of a Construction SWPPP, in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 2), as outlined in Chapter 3 and ECDC 18.30.060.C. This chapter summarizes the requirements for submittals of stormwater plans, reports, and other documents for review by the City of Edmonds. As noted in Section 5.1, Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the SWMMWW. However, the City of Edmonds has developed checklists to facilitate compliance with Minimum Requirement No. 1 (and thus project submittal and review). This Addendum includes a summary of core submittal requirements for Category 1 and Category 2 projects as Checklists 1 and 2 in Appendix C. 7.1 CATEGORY 1 STORMWATER SITE PLANS Stormwater Site Plans for Category 1 projects must address Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5 Detailed descriptions of submittal requirements are provided in Appendix C, Checklists 1 through 3. A schematic showing the components of a typical Category 1 project submittal is presented in Figure 7.1. Typical Category 1 Stormwater Site Plan Components Site Development Drawings and Reports and Construction SWPPP Drawings Documentation (i.e., construction drawings) Stormwater Site Plan Report, Supporting Documents, and Calculations Soils Report Construction SWPPP Narrative Establishment of Maintenance Covenant Appendices Figure 7.1. Typical Category 1 Stormwater Site Plan Components. 7.2 CATEGORY 2 STORMWATER SITE PLANS Stormwater Site Plans for Category 2 projects include the full submittal package meeting all minimum requirements. The Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan submittal package includes the following 7. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 35 Packet Pg. 290 8.2.e components: Stormwater Site Plan Report, Site Development Drawings, Soils Report, Construction SWPPP, Operations and Maintenance Manual, Maintenance Covenant, and any plan appendices. A schematic showing the components of a typical Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan submittal package is presented in Figure 7.2. The Construction SWPPP consists of two parts: a narrative report and drawings, which should be included in the plan set with the other Site Development Drawings. Detailed descriptions of submittal requirements are provided in Appendix C, Checklist 2. Typical Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan Components Site Development Drawings Reports and (i.e., construction drawings) Documentation Stormwater Site Plan Report, General Drawings Supporting Documents, and Calculations Construction SWPPP Drawings Soils Report Grading/Earthwork Drawings Construction SWPPP Narrative Plan/Profile Drawings Operation and Maintenance Manual Detail Drawings Establishment of Maintenance Covenant Appendices Figure 7.2. Typical Category 2 Stormwater Site Plan Components. 36 7. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 291 8.2.e Appendix A — On -Site Stormwater Management BMP Infeasibility Criteria Packet Pg. 292 8.2.e U U W_ d O v C d E O R C R L Cu : E L O L O W �L d ci IL m c m E c a� Q L Cu 3 E L O O E W W r_ d E t ci f+ Q E 0 Q Packet Pg. 293 j� �n�oNE 201,?OCTOBER 2021 EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM 8.2.e Appendix B — Methods for Determining Design Infiltration Rates Packet Pg. 294 8.2.e U U W_ d O v C d E O R C R L Cu : E L O L O W �L d ci IL m c m E c a� Q L Cu 3 E L O O E W W r_ d E t ci f+ Q E 0 Q Packet Pg. 295 j� �n�oNE 201,?OCTOBER 2021 EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM 8.2.e Appendix C — Checklists for Various Project Submittal, Review, and Field Procedure Elements Packet Pg. 296 8.2.e U U W_ d O v C d E O R C R L Cu : E L O L O W �L ci IL m c m o: E c a� Q L Cu 3 E L O O E W W r_ d E t ci f+ Q E 0 Q Packet Pg. 297 8.2.e Appendix D — Design Checklists for the Main On -Site Stormwater Management BM Ps j Packet Pg. 298 8.2.e U U W_ d O v C d E O R C R L Cu : E L O L O W �L d ci IL m c m E c a� Q L Cu 3 E L O O E W W r_ d E t ci f+ Q E 0 Q Packet Pg. 299 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendum Summary of Changes 8.2.f # Document Section Direction Summary of Old requirement Summary of New requirement Estimated Impact (Old/new) From Minimal as most revisions were re -organization of existing elements; see Ecology 1 ECDC 18.30 Entirety Ecology Aligned with 2014 SWMMWW Aligned with 2019 SWMMWW Executive Summary and Crosswalk documents for more information. 2 ECDC 18.30 18.30.010 EcologyAligned with previous NPDES permit Appendix 1 g p p pp Aligned with new NPDES permit Appendix 1 g p pp Minimal; City code did not include a couple of the definitions listed in Appendix A but revised/new definitions generally consistent with previous definitions. "Road -related project" definition vague on application "Road -related project" definition revised to clarify that None; added for clarity only. Revised definition is consistent with City staff 3 ECDC 18.30 18.30.010 City Staff to frontage improvements as part of development frontage improvements as part of development project interpretation which was confirmed by Ecology staff. project are not considered road -related projects "Site" definition which does not address relationship "Site" definition updated to clarify that drainage None; added for clarity only. Revised definition is consistent with previous City staff 4 ECDC 18.30 18.30.010 City Staff with separate definition for "project site" requirements are assessed against the "project site", not . interpretation. this definition. 5 ECDC 18.30 18.30.010 Ecology Old Example TDA Delineations figure Updated Example TDA Delineations figure None; revised for clarity only. Makes new standard effective to (1) new projects after Jan. 1, 2022, (2) projects under a previous/older version of drainage code but not under construction yet, and (3) projects approved under the current drainage code which have not started construction 6 ECDC 18.30 18.30.030 Ecology Old dates of applicability for previous code. Updated dates of new code applicability. by 2027. These dates align with specific requirements per the revised NPDES permit; except that new code applies starting January 1, 2022 instead of last acceptable date of July 1, 2022. This is essentially the states way of managing the vesting of drainage requirements. 7 ECDC 18.30 18.30.040 Ecology ,,i Older language referring to "impervious" simplified, Newer language referring to "hard" surfaces, , None; revisions for clarity and constancy only. and rearranged to better match SWMMWW format 18.30.040. "Underground utility project" exemption does not "Underground utility project" exemption clarifies that None; added for clarity only. Revised definition is consistent with previous City staff 8 ECDC 18.30 B.1 City Staff define underground utility project. utilities as part of development do not qualify for this interpretation. partial exemption. New connections for areas over 2,000 to be handled like Closes loop hole which could impact City system, but may limit resident options for 18.30.060. New connections for existing surfaces were addressed anew project, and all surfaces mitigated unless home improvement (non -development) projects. This limits impacts to City system and 9 ECDC 18.30 City Staff case -by -case and allowed applicant to potentially aligns with the intent of SWMMWW better (which seeks to return flows to historic, C.3 connect without mitigation if determine acceptable. applicant can demonstrate previous drainage was forested, conditions), but homeowners seeking to improve their home (without similar impact on City system. development/expansion), may be impacted by this additional burden as well. 18.30.060. Treatment trade/equivalent area text scattered through Explicit language permitting the use of equivalent areas None; revised language form Ecology is consistent with past staff interpretations and 10 ECDC 18.30 C.4 Ecology out document. for stormwater mitigation. the use equivalent areas was already being permitted within Edmonds. Retrofit requirement requires 25% of existing Additional protection for Perrinville Creek but potential additional cost to home owners 11 ECDC 18.30 18.30.060. City Staff unmanaged surfaces to remain on a project site, to be Specific to Perrinville Basin, the value increases form and developers. This provisions not only seeks to limit further impacts from D.S.b.i mitigated per minimum requirement #5 ( LID 25% to 50%. development to the creek, it actually seeks to partially address historic impacts which requirement) for all areas. have already been impressed upon the creek. 18.30.060. Retrofit requirement a bit vague on impact to other Added clarifying text that retrofit is a stand alone None; added for clarity only. Revised definition is consistent with City staff 12 ECDC 18.30 D.S.b.i City Staff requirements. requirement for MR #5 which does not impact other interpretation. thresholds or application of minimum requirements. Projects on Edmonds Way will comply with same drainage standard as rest of City. This 13 ECDC 18.30 18.30.060. City Staff Reduced BMP list and flow standard for Edmonds Way No exception or reduction for Edmonds Way system is known to overflow to Edmonds Marsh which means it no longer has capacity D.S.b.iv basin as direct discharge basin. for further under -mitigated development and contributes to a non -man-made drainage course; both are factors making this basin not eligible to be a direct discharge basin. Page 1 of 3 Versi packet Pg. 300 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendum Summary of Changes 8.2.f # Document Section Direction Summary of Old requirement Summary of New requirement Estimated Impact (Old/new) From New section addressing rare case where projects have expansions under thresholds, but would impact and This is a rare circumstance, and designers would simply route such minor addition areas 14 ECDC 18.30 18.30.060. City Staff N/A - New section existing infiltration systems with surface overflows. Such to a separate drywell/infiltration system in most cases so while this revisions closes a D.S.b.vi cases shall expand the BMP accordingly to not have new loop hole, the actually impacts to project is anticipated to be minimal. impacts. 18.30.060. Direct discharge permitted some exceptions from Explicitly requires the application of the amended soils None; added for clarity only. Revised definition is consistent with previous City staff 14 ECDC 18.30 Ecology D.S.c.i certain BMPs, but vague. BMP even when meeting performance criteria. interpretation. 18.30.060. Full dispersion and full infiltration listed in same bullet in Full infiltration separated as its own bullet, just under None, revise for clarity only. Because all other BMPs are listed individually, full 15 ECDC 18.30 City Staff D.S.d & e list full dispersion. infiltration is often overlooked by designers. Reduces use of perforated pipe connection on SFRs and gains more detention. Perforated pipe connections are a last ditch effort to get infiltration on sites which otherwise have been determined infeasible for full infiltration; because of this staff believe they achieve very little been fit from a stormwater perspective. Often designers 18.30.060. Perforated pipe connection listed as higher priority than Detention tanks listed as higher priority than perforated want to put the perforated pipe connection in risky places to avoid detention. It has 16 ECDC 18.30 City Staff D.S.d & e detention tanks in all LID BMP Lists pipe connections in all LID BMP Lists also been leveraged against a partial exemption for detention for infeasible surfaces collection to avoid a driveway BMP all together. Because Edmonds has the unique code which adds detention tanks to the bottom of the Ecology required BMP list, the City drainage system would be better protected by requiring a detention tanks before perforate pipe connections. Hard surfaces BMP list does not include full infiltration Full infiltration added as equal to permeable pavements None, revise for clarity only. Staff have permitted full infiltration in other BMPs in -lieu 17 ECDC 18.30 18.30.060. City Staff option other than permeable pavements. Permeable and raingardens/bioretention separate as its own bullet of permeable pavements. Because all other BMPs are listed individually, D.S.d & e pavements listed as second priority, and with below full infiltration/permeable pavements. raingardens/bioretention was often overlooked. raingardens/bioretention. 18.30.060. Detention tank language included in exclusions each Detention additional exclusions moved Section 6.3 of None, revise for clarity only. Exception extra/repeated text explanation as was more 18 ECDC 18.30 City Staff D.S.d & e time detention tank was listed. the Edmonds Addendum instead. appropriate in addendum text than in these bulleted lists. "Overflows" section added to clarify City overflow expectations for BMPs meeting MR #5 only. Piped 18.30.060. overflow required unless project infiltrates full 100-year None; added for clarity only. Revised definition is consistent with City staff 19 ECDC 18.30 City Staff None; new section. D.S.f storm. Re -iterates that surface route still needs to be interpretation. controlled if permitted. Provide very rough guidance on extension length expectations. Language regarding untreated discharges to 18.30.060. Language regarding untreated discharges to 20 ECDC 18.30 Ecology groundwater included updated to match latest version None, revision for clarity and consistency only. D.6 groundwater included old references. and references. Flow control exemption text for direct discharges to Puget Sound did not include reference to additional 18.30.060. Additional requirements necessary to qualify for a direct None; added for clarity only. Revised section is consistent with previous City staff 21 ECDC 18.30 City Staff requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance D.7 discharge exemption is now referenced. interpretation. with the associated minimum requirement for the exemption. New section for elevated flow control in Perrinville Creek basin. Language is the same as King County's Better protection of Perrinville Creek; which is significantly impacted by historic upland 22 ECDC 18.30 18.30.060. City Staff Standard flow control for all areas of City Level 3 flow control standard which requires matching development. Larger developments (> 10,000 SF) will have to install larger retention D 7 the 100-year peak in addition to standard flow control systems (increased cost). standards. Page 2 of 3 Versi packet Pg. 301 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendum Summary of Changes 8.2.f # Document Section Direction Summary of Old requirement Summary of New requirement Estimated Impact (Old/new) From References new Ecology section for UIC. New section Limited impact; UICs under this program are under Ecology authority for approval not provides additional guidance and generally states that City. City notifies applicant of need to file UIC notice with Ecology and continues 23 Addendum Section 2.4 Ecology UIC referenced old code section. discharges to UICs must meet the provisions of drainage review per typical application of SWMMWW provisions (namely water quality SWMMWW. treatment). No language supporting the existing internal policy of None; added for clarity only. Revised section is consistent with previous City staff 24 Addendum Section 2.6 City Staff Language added to prohibit the use of CMP pipes. prohibiting the use of CMP pipes. interpretation. Closes loop hole which could impact City system, but may limit resident options for home improvement projects. Previously, this section allowed new connections to the Update to match revisions to 18.30.060.C.3; minimum City system without mitigation for existing surfaces. Section revised to require typical requirements apply to new connection of non- mitigation for all new connections draining more than 2000 SF of hard surfaces, unless 25 Addendum Section City Staff Reflected old 18.30.060.C.3 language development projects over 2,000 SF impervious unless applicant can demonstrate that the City system will not be impacted in any way. This 3.1.2 applicant can demonstrate previous drainage was limits impacts to City system and aligns with the intent of SWMMWW better (which similar impact on City system. seeks to return flows to historic, forested, conditions), but homeowners seeking to improve their home (without development/expansion), may be impacted by this additional burden as well. Language update to include missing departures formNone; Section List of change form SWMWW missing a couple existing added for clarity only. Revised section is consistent with previous City staff 26 Addendum City Staff SWMMWW; none of the referenced code is new, the 3.1.3 differences. interpretation. items were just added to the list for clarity. Projects on Edmonds Way will comply with same drainage standard as rest of City. This Edmonds Way explicitly stated not to be consider a system is known to overflow to Edmonds Marsh which means it no longer has capacity 27 Addendum Section 4.1 City Staff Edmonds Way included as a direct discharge basin direct discharge basin due to overflow to Edmonds for further under -mitigated development and contributes to a non -man-made drainage Marsh. course; both are factors making this basin not eligible to be a direct discharge basin. None; added for clarity only. Revised section is consistent with previous City staff 28 Addendum Section 5.3 City Staff Policy to prohibit CMP not actually in code. Updated language to reflect prohibition of CMP interpretation and extremely rare. Projects on Edmonds Way will comply with same drainage standard as rest of City. This No exception or reduction for Edmonds Way; update system is known to overflow to Edmonds Marsh which means it no longer has capacity 29 Addendum Section 5.5 City Staff Reduced BMP list and flow standard for Edmonds Way. consistent with update to 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv, above. for further under -mitigated development and contributes to a non -man-made drainage course; both are factors making this basin not eligible to be a direct discharge basin. Vague requirements for sites not draining to MS4 but Revised language to make it more clear that pumping to None; added for clarity only. Revised section is consistent with previous City staff 30 Addendum Section 5.5 City Staff pumped to MS4 in post -project conditions. MS4 requires application of all provisions in ECDC 18.30 interpretation and extremely rare. BMP sizing direction tucked within each checklist or Paragraph 7 added to clarify simplified sizing per None; added for clarity only. Revised section is consistent with previous City staff 31 Addendum Section 5.5 City Staff BMP description but never referenced in MR #5 section SWMMWW is allowable but requires piped overflow. interpretation. Detention vault requirements for MR #5 included vague Additional language added to the extra City requirement None; added for clarity only. Revised section is consistent with previous City staff 32 Addendum Section 6.3 City Staff line about City allowing exception to this requirement for detention tank under MR #5 to clarify application of for certain cases. their exception. interpretation. Section Detention tank text updated to reference new standard None; added for clarity only. Revised section and detail are consistent with previous 33 Addendum 6.3.1 City Staff Detention Tank specification provide via text detail for detention tanks/ City staff direction. Page 3 of 3 Versi packet Pg. 302 8.2.g Ecology Executive Summary of the 2019 Revisions & Edmonds Response The Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) provides guidance on the measures necessary to control the quantity and quality of stormwater. Local municipalities use this manual to set stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment projects. Land developers and development engineers use this manual to design permanent stormwater control plans, create construction stormwater pollution prevention plans, and determine stormwater infrastructure. Businesses use this manual to help design their stormwater pollution prevention plans. The greatest use of the SWMMWW has been through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permits. The Municipal Stormwater General Permits for western Washington incorporate and reference the SWMMWW. The Industrial Stormwater General Permit, Construction Stormwater General Permit, Boatyard General Permit, and the Sand and Gravel General Permit reference the SWMMWW. Since 2005, Ecology has reissued or issued for the first time all of these NPDES stormwater permits. The 2019 revisions to the SWMMWW will continue to help permittees comply with these permits. This document is a modified version of the Executive Summary of the 2019 Revisions as provided by the Department of Ecology. Black text represent text from the original Ecology document, while red text indicates text added by City of Edmonds staff. City - added text outlines how the City documents were updated (if needed) to reflect the corresponding Ecology revision. Prepared By: Zachary Richardson, City of Edmonds Stormwater Engineer Updated: June 22, 2021 Types of Revisions Usability Enhancements The focus of the 2019 update was to enhance the usability, which will result in improved implementation of the stormwater permits that rely on this guidance. Enhancements include: • Fully embracing the online user (maintain the interactive online format) • Consolidating repetitive information • Revising text for clarity • Reordering sections for a better flow of concepts References in ECDC checked against SWMMWW crosswalk and updated as needed Several sections updated for clarity per City staff direction as well; see separate Edmonds Summary of Change document for additional information. Packet Pg. 303 8.2.g Significant Changes Ecology also identified the following changes that must be made in order to continue to provide the best guidance available: Continuous Simulation Modeling: Text throughout the SWMMWW has been updated to require continuous simulation models that include: o The ability to directly model BMPs that may be used in LID applications, such as bioretention, permeable pavement, and green roofs. 0 15-minute time steps. o Incorporation of the van Genuchten algorithm to model bioretention. Changes to this section were entirely within referenced sections of SWMMWW; no change within ECDC is needed. 2. Replaced Hard Surfaces Redevelopment Threshold: The Minimum Requirement Thresholds for non -road related commercial or industrial redevelopment projects have been updated to require the project proponent to compare the value of the proposed improvements to the value of the Project Site (the limits of disturbance) improvements, rather than the Site (the entire parcel) improvements. The re -development provisions associated with project valuation were previously removed from ECDC 18.30; no changes within ECDC needed. 3. Equivalent Areas: The Redevelopment Project Thresholds have been updated to allow a project proponent to provide Stormwater Management BMPs for an equivalent area. The equivalent area may be on -site, or off -site if the area drains to the same receiving water and the guidance for in -basin transfers is followed. ECDC 18.30.060.C.4 added to include language from Appendix 1. The new language is consistent with past staff interpretation and is not a new impact in practice. 4. Minimum Requirement 2: The 13 Elements in 1-3.4.2 MR2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) have been updated to incorporate changes that were made to the 2015-2020 Construction Stormwater General Permit. Changes to this section were entirely within referenced sections of SWMMWW; no change within ECDC is needed. 5. Minimum Requirement 5: 1-3.4.5 MR5: On -Site Stormwater Management has been updated to require BMP T5.13: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth when choosing to use the LID Performance Standard to meet Minimum Requirement 5 for Minimum Requirement 1-5 projects. Packet Pg. 304 8.2.g ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c.i added to require BMP T5.13 when meeting performance criteria. The new language is consistent with past staff interpretation and is not a new impact in practice. 6. Minimum Requirement 7: 1-3.4.7 MR7: Flow Control has been updated to ensure that a TDA discharging to a marine waterbody meets all exemption requirements before it can be determined to be Flow Control exempt. Changes to this section were already incorporated into City code in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv; no change within ECDC is needed. 7. Concrete Washout BMPs: BMP C151: Concrete Handling and BMP C154: Concrete Washout Area have been updated to clarify that auxiliary concrete truck components and small concrete handling equipment may be washed into formed areas awaiting concrete pour, while concrete truck drums must be washed either off -site or into a concrete washout area. Changes to this section were entirely within referenced sections of SWMMWW; no change within ECDC is needed. 8. Source Control BMPs: Volume IV (Source Control BMP Library) has been updated with Source Control BMPs for activities not listed in previous versions of the manual. The new activities with Source Control BMPs are: o S434 BMPs for Dock Washing o S441 BMPs for Potable Water Line Flushina, Water Tank Maintenance, and Hydrant Testing o S435 BMPs for Pesticides and an Integrated Pest Management Program o S444 BMPs for the Storage of Dry Pesticides and Fertilizers o S449 BMPs for Nurseries and Greenhouses o S450 BMPs for Irrigation o S445 BMPs for Temporary Fruit Storage o S439 BMPs for In -Water and Over -Water Fueling o S436 BMPs for Color Events o S438 BMPs for Construction Demolition o S440 BMPs for Pet Waste o S442 BMPs for Labeling Storm Drain Inlets On Your Property o S443 BMPs for Fertilizer Application o S446 BMPs for Well, Utility, Directional and Geotechnical Drillini o S447 BMPs for Roof Vents o S451 BMPs for Buildina. Repair. Remodelina. Paintina, and Cnnstructinn o S452 BMPs for Goose Waste Changes to this section were entirely within referenced sections of SWMMWW; no change within ECDC is needed except to update references as needed. Packet Pg. 305 8.2.g 9. Wetlands Guidance: Appendix I-C: Wetland Protection Guidelines and I- 3.4.8 MR8: Wetlands Protection have been updated to require monitoring and modeling of high value wetlands, if the project proponent has legal access to them. The 2014 wetland guidance is retained, but refined, for modeling requirements for lower value wetlands (and high value wetlands that the project proponent does not have legal access to). Changes to this section were entirely within referenced sections of SWMMWW; no change within ECDC is needed. Other Updates Other updates include: Incorporation of UIC Program guidance. See 1-4 UIC Program. Edmonds Addendum Section 2.4 updated with revised reference to new UIC section. Expanded guidance for regional facilities. See Appendix I-D: Regional Facilities Changes to this section were entirely within referenced sections of SWMMWW; no change within ECDC is needed. Guidance for stormwater control transfer programs. See Appendix I-E: Stormwater Control Transfer Program. Changes to this section were entirely within referenced sections of SWMMWW; no change within ECDC is needed. Packet Pg. 306 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Ecology has provided the crosswalk below to help you identify where content has been moved and/or renamed CU between the 2014 and 2019 manuals. Note that during the 2019 update some sections were merged together and/or edited for clarity. Therefore, you may not find the exact language from the 2014 manual in the linked M sections of the 2019 manual indicated below. The links below will lead you to where the updated content is contained in the 2019 manual, providing updated guidance on the topic from the 2014 manual. o Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 2019 SWMMWW Executive Summary Executive Summary of the 2019 Revisions Volume I Content Volume I Acknowledgments Acknowledgments 1-1 - Introduction (no content in this section) 1-1.1 - Objective 1-1.1 About This Manual 1-1.2 - Applicability to Western Washington 1-1.2 Applicability to Western Washington 1-1.3 - Organization of this Manual 1-1.1 About This Manual 1-1.4 - How to Use this Manual 1-1.1 About This Manual 1-1.5 - Development of Best Management Practices 1-1.5 Types of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management .(BMPs) for Stormwater Management 1-1.6 - Relationship of this Manual to Federal, State, 1-2 Relationship of This Manual to Permits, and Local Regulatory Requirements Requirements, and Programs 1-1.7 - Effects of Urbanization 1-1.3 Effects of Urbanization 1-2 - Minimum Requirements for New Development 1-3.1 Introduction to the Minimum and Redevelopment Requirements 1-2.1 - Relationship to Municipal Stormwater 1-2.4 Phase I and Western Washington Phase Permits II Municipal Stormwater Permits 1-2.2 - Exemptions 1-3.2 Exemptions 1-2.3 - Definitions Related to Minimum Requirements Glossary_ I https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTo,P Packet Pg. 307 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW 1-2.4 - Applicability of the Minimum Requirements 1-3.3 Applicability of the Minimum Requirements 1-2.5 - Minimum Requirements 1-3.1 Introduction to the Minimum a Requirements 3 I-2.5.1 -Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation 1-3.4.1 MR1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Ci o of Stormwater Site Plans Plans U 0 1-2.5.2 - Minimum Requirement #2: Construction I-3.4.2 MR2: Construction Stormwater w v Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), o 1-2.5.3 - Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution 1-3.4.3 MR3: Source Control of Pollution E a� c 1-2.5.4 - Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation I-3.4.4 MR4: Preservation of Natural Drainage CU E of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Systems and Outfalls 3 1-2.5.5 - Minimum Requirement #5: On -site 1-3.4.5 MR5: On -Site Stormwater E o Stormwater Management Management y 0 1-2.5.6 - Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff c Treatment 1-3.4.6 MR6: Runoff Treatment x 1-2.5.7 - Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control I-3.4.7 MR7: Flow Control .0 a 1-2.5.8 - Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection 1-3.4.8 MR8: Wetlands Protection 1-2.5.9 - Minimum Requirement #9: Operation c and Maintenance 1-3.4.9 MR9: Operation and Maintenance c N 1 1-2.6 - Optional Guidance 1-3.5 Additional Protective Measures .(Optional) N I-2.7 -Adjustments 1-3.6.1 Adjustments to the MRs 3 I-2.8 -Exceptions/Variances 1-3.6.2 Exceptions/Variances to the MRs o U 1-3 - Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans III-3.1 Introduction to Stormwater Site Plans = r c 1-3.1 - Stormwater Site Plans: Step -by -Step III-3.2 Preparing a Stormwater Site Plan E 111-3.3 Changes to a Previously Approved Ca Q Stormwater Site Plan 1-3.2 - Plans Required After Stormwater Site Plan E Approval and 0 r III-3.4 Final Corrected Plan Submittal I r Q https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTo,P Packet Pg. 308 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 SWMMWW 1-4 - BMP and Facility Selection Process for Permanent (no content in this section) Stormwater Control Plans I-4.1 -Purpose 1-2.2 AKART o M 1-4.2 - BMP and Facility Selection Process III-1 Choosing Your BMPs Go v 0 Volume I References References w a� Appendix I -A: Guidance for Altering the Minimum Requirements through Basin Planning Appendix I-B: Basin Plans E as Appendix I-B: Rainfall Amounts and Statistics Appendix III-C: Rainfall Amounts and Statistics Appendix I-C: Basic Treatment Receiving Waters Appendix III -A: Basic Treatment Receiving Waters 3 Appendix I-D: Guidelines for Wetlands when Managing E Stormwater Appendix I-C: Wetland Protection Guidelines 2 L 0 Appendix I-E: Flow Control -Exempt Surface Waters Appendix I -A: Flow Control Exempt Receiving Waters Appendix I-F: Basins with 40% or more Total I-3.4.7 MR7: Flow Control = Impervious Area as of 1985 2 Appendix I-G: Glossary and Notations Glossary a Volume II Content Volume II Acknowledgments Acknowledgments in r O Acronyms Glossary_ N II-1 - Introduction to Construction Stormwater Pollution CD N Prevention (no content in this section) 3 II-1.1 - Purpose of this Volume Executive Summary of Volume II c`� I 11-1.2 - Content, Organization, and Use of this = Volume 1-1.1 About This Manual E II-1.3 -Thirteen Elements of Construction 1-3.4.2 MR2: Construction Stormwater Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Q a� 11-1.4 - Erosion and Sedimentation Impacts II-1.3 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Impacts z Q https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTocp Packet Pg. 309 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 SWMMWW II-1.1 Soil Erosion as II-1.5 - Erosion and Sedimentation Processes and a II-1.2 Sedimentation M r II-1.6 - Factors Influencing Erosion Potential II-1.1 Soil Erosion w II-2 - Regulatory Requirements 1-2 Relationship of This Manual to Permits, Requirements, and Programs o 11-2.1 - The Construction Stormwater General Permit 1-2.7 Construction Stormwater General Permit E a� II-2.2 -Construction Stormwater Pollution II-2.2 When is a Construction SWPPP f° Prevention Plans Required? 11-2.3 - Water Quality Standards I-2.10 Water Quality Standards E `o 0 II-2.4 -Endangered Species Act 1-2.8 Endangered Species Act U) o II-2.5 - Other Applicable Regulations and Permits I-2.15 Other Requirements as II-3 - Planning II-2 Construction Stormwater Pollution U Prevention Plans (Construction SWPPPs) 11-3.1 - General Guidelines II-2 Construction Stormwater Pollution a Prevention Plans (Construction SWPPPs) II-3.2 -Construction SWPPP Requirements II-2.4 Preparing Construction SWPPPs 11-3.3 - Step -by -Step Procedure II-2.4 Preparing Construction SWPPPs U) r II-4 -Best Management Practices Standards and II-3.1 A Summary of Construction Stormwater O i Specifications BMPs Iq 0 N 11-4.1 - Source Control BMPs II-3.1 A Summary of Construction Stormwater Y BMPs 3 BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation 0 BMP C102: Buffer Zones BMP C102: Buffer Zones = c BMP C103: High Visibility Fence BMP C103: High -Visibility Fence a� E BMP C105: Stabilized Construction Q Entrance/Exit BMP C105: Stabilized Construction Access a� E BMP C106: Wheel Wash BMP C106: Wheel Wash U r r https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTocp Packet Pg. 310 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW BMP C107: Construction Road/Parking Area gMP C107: Construction Road / Parking Area Stabilization Stabilization CU BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent ' Seeding M BMP C121: Mulching BMP C121: Mulching 00 v 0 BMP C122: Nets and Blankets BMP C122: Nets and Blankets w -- a BMP C123: Plastic Covering BMP C123: Plastic Covering a� BMP C124: Sodding BMP C124: Sodding BMP C125: Topsoiing/Composting BMP C125: Topsoiling / Composting CU L BMP C126: Polyacrylamide (PAM) for Soil BMP C126: Polyacrylamide (PAM) for Soil d a 3 Erosion Protection Erosion Protection E 0 BMP C130: Surface Roughening BMP C130: Surface Roughening ,0 BMP C131: Gradient Terraces BMP C131: Gradient Terraces a� x BMP C140: Dust Control BMP C140: Dust Control BMP C150: Materials on Hand BMP C150: Materials on Hand a � BMP C151: Concrete Handling BMP C151: Concrete Handling � BMP C152: Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution gMP C152: Sawcutting and Surfacing Prevention] Pollution Prevention N i BMP C153: Material Delivery, Storage and gMP C153: Material Delivery, Storage, and CD Containment Containment N BMP C154: Concrete Washout Area gMP C154: Concrete Washout Area W 0 L BMP C160: Certified Erosion and Sediment BMP C160: Certified Erosion and Sediment � Control Lead Control Lead x c a� BMP C162: Scheduling BMP C162: Scheduling r II-4.2 - Runoff Conveyance and Treatment BMPs II-3.1 A Summary of Construction Stormwater w Q BMPs a� BMP C200: Interceptor Dike and Swale gMP C200: Interceptor Dike and Swale BMP C201: Grass -Lined Channels BMP C201: Grass -Lined Channels r Q https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTOIP Packet Pg. 311 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW BMP C202: Channel Lining BMP C202: Rip rap Channel Lining BMP C203: Water Bars BMP C203: Water Bars CU �- BMP C204: Pipe Slope Drains BMP C204: Pipe Slope Drains Ci 00 BMP C205: Subsurface Drains BMP C205: Subsurface Drains o � w BMP C206: Level Spreader BMP C206: Level Spreader o BMP C207: Check Dams BMP C207: Check Dams a E BMP C208: Triangular Silt Dike (TSD) a� (Geotextile-Encased Check Dam) BMP C208: Triangular Silt Dike (TSD), L BMP C209: Outlet Protection BMP C209: Outlet Protection d E L BMP C220: Storm Drain Inlet Protection BMP C220: Inlet Protection L BMP C231: Brush Barrier BMP C231: Brush Barrier C L BMP C232: Gravel Filter Berm BMP C232: Gravel Filter Berm = BMP C233: Silt Fence BMP C233: Silt Fence a BMP C234: Vegetated Strip BMP C234: Vegetated Strip BMP C235: Wattles BMP C235: Wattles 3: U) BMP C236: Vegetative Filtration BMP C236: Vegetative Filtration N BMP C240: Sediment Trap BMP C240: Sediment Trap i -le 0 N BMP C241: Temporary Sediment Pond BMP C241: Sediment Pond (Temporary_) 3 BMP C250: Construction Stormwater Chemical BMP C250: Construction Stormwater Treatment Chemical Treatment x BMP C251: Construction Stormwater Filtration BMP C251: Construction Stormwater Filtration E BMP C252: High pH Neutralization Using CO2 BMP C252: Treating and Disposing of High pH Water a BMP C253: pH Control for High pH Water BMP C252: Treating and Disposing of High pH Water Volume II Resource Materials References r r https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTOIP Packet Pg. 312 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 2( 19 SWMMWW Appendix II -A: Recommended Standard Notes for Appendix II -A: Recommended Standard Erosion Control Plans Notes for Construction SWPPP Drawings a Appendix II-B: Background Information on Chemical BMP C250: Construction Stormwater Chemical ' Treatment 0 co Treatment U 0 U Volume III Content w a) 13 Volume III Acknowledgments Acknowledgments 0 c a� III-1 -Introduction (no content in this section) 0 III-1.1 -Purpose of this Volume I-1.5 Types of Best Management Practices CU .(BMPs) for Stormwater Management a� r III-1.2 - Content and Organization of this Volume I-1.1 About This Manual 3 E L III-1.3 - How to Use this Volume I-1.1 About This Manual in L C III-2 - Hydrologic Analysis III-2.1 An Overview of Hydrologic Analysis �L III-2.1 - Minimum Computational Standards III-2.1 An Overview of Hydrologic Analysis = III-2.2 - Western Washington Hydrology Model III-2.2 Continuous Simulation Models a III-2.3 - Single Event Hydrograph Method III-2.3 Single Event Hydrograph Method III-2.4 - Closed Depression Analysis III-2.5 Closed Depression Analysis III-3 -Flow Control Design various individual BMPs within Volume V N 1 III-3.1 -Roof Downspout Controls V-4.1 Introduction to Roof Downspout BMPs -le N III-3.1.1 - Downspout Full Infiltration Systems (BMP T5.10A) BMP T5.10A: Downspout Full Infiltration 3 0 L III-3.1.2 - Downspout Dispersion Systems (BMP U T5.10B) BMP T5.1013: Downspout Dispersion Systems = r c a� III-3.1.3 - Perforated Stub Out Connections BMP T5.10C: Perforated Stub -out E (BMP T5.10C) Connections w a III-3.2 -Detention Facilities V-12.1 Introduction to Detention BMPs III-3.2.1 -Detention Ponds BMP DA : Detention Ponds r r Q III-3.2.2 - Detention Tanks BMP D.2: Detention Tanks https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTo,P Packet Pg. 313 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 SWMMWW III-3.2.3 - Detention Vaults BMP D.3: Detention Vaults as III-3.2.4 -Control Structures V-12.2 Control Structure Design III-3.2.5 - Other Detention Options V-12.3 Other Detention Design Options Ci r III-3.3 - Infiltration Facilities for Flow Control and for o Treatment (no content in this section) U w m III-3.3.1 -Purpose V-5.1 Introduction to Infiltration BMPs a� III-3.3.2 -Description V-5.1 Introduction to Infiltration BMPs III-3.3.3 -Applications V-5.1 Introduction to Infiltration BMPs L III-3.3.4 - Steps for the Design of Infiltration d 3 Facilities - Simplified Approach V-5.2 Infiltration BMP Design Steps 0 III-3.3.5 - Site Characterization Criteria V-5.5 Site Characterization Criteria for Infiltration 0 III-3.3.6 - Design Saturated Hydraulic V-5.4 Determining the Design Infiltration Rate � Conductivity - Guidelines and Criteria of the Native Soils = III-3.3.7 - Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) V-5.6 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) a V-5.2 Infiltration BMP Design Steps III-3.3.8 - Steps for Designing Infiltration and Facilities - Detailed Approach a) V-5.4 Determining the Design Infiltration Rate of c the Native Soils N r III-3.3.9 - General Design, Maintenance, and V-5.3 General Design Criteria for Infiltration O Y Construction Criteria for Infiltration Facilities BMPs 3 III-3.3.10 -Infiltration Basins BMP T7.10: Infiltration Basins U I III-3.3.11 -Infiltration Trenches BMP T7.20: Infiltration Trenches = c a� III-3.4 - Stormwater-related Site Procedures and BMP T7.30: Bioretention Design Guidance for Bioretention and Permeable and Q Pavement BMP T5.15: Permeable Pavements as E Volume III References References o r r Q Volume III Resource Materials References https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTocp Packet Pg. 314 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW Appendix III -A: Isopluvial Maps for Design Storms Appendix III-B: Isopluvial Maps for Design Storms Appendix III-B: Western Washington Hydrology Model - CU Q. Information, Assumptions, and Computation Steps III-2.2 Continuous Simulation Models ' 0 M Appendix III-C: Washington State Department of Ecology co Low Impact Development Flow Modeling Guidance various individual BMPs within Volume V a w aD 0 Volume IV Content c aD Volume IV Acknowledgments Acknowledgments a, 0 IV-1 -Introduction (no content in this section) c CU L d IV-1.1 -Purpose of this Volume 111-1.1 Choosing Your Source Control BMPs CU E IV-1.2 - Content and Organization of this Volume I-1.1 About This Manual in L C IV-1.3 - How to Use this Volume III-1.1 Choosing Your Source Control BMPs L IV-1.4 -Operational and Structural Source Control 1-1.5 Types of Best Management Practices = BMPs for Stormwater Management .(BMPs) IV-1.5 - Treatment BMPs for Specific Pollutant a Sources Executive Summary of Volume IV IV-1.6 - Distinction between Applicable BMPs and Recommended BMPs III-1.1 Choosing Your Source Control BMPs 0 N IV-1.7 - Regulatory Requirements Affecting 1-2 Relationship of This Manual to Permits, 1 Stormwater Pollutant Control Requirements, and Programs N IV-2 - Selection of Operational and Structural Source 3 Control BMPs III-1.1 Choosing Your Source Control BMPs o 0 U IV-2.1 - Applicable (Mandatory) Operational Source IV-1 Source Control BMPs Applicable to All = Control BMPs Sites = m E IV-2.2 - Pollutant Source -Specific BMPs III-1.1 Choosing Your Source Control BMPs a w a S401 BMPs for the Building, Repair, and S401 BMPs for the Buildingip Re air, and Maintenance of Boats and Ships Maintenance of Boats and Ships D S402 BMPs for Commercial Animal Handling S402 BMPs for Commercial Animal Handling Q Areas Areas I https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTocP Packet Pg. 315 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW S403 BMPs for Commercial Composting S403 BMPs for Commercial Composting S404 BMPs for Commercial Printing Operations S404 BMPs for Commercial Printing Q Operations 3 S405 BMPs for Deicing and Anti -Icing S405 BMPs for Deicing and Anti -Icing o Operations - Airports and Streets Operations for Airports v 0 S406 BMPs for Streets/Highways S406 BMPs for Streets and Highways w -- a S407 BMPs for Dust Control at Disturbed Land U S407 BMPs for Dust Control at Disturbed Land Areas and Unpaved Roadways and °' E Areas and Unpaved Roadways and Parking Lots Parking Lots c S408 BMPs for Dust Control at Manufacturing S408 BMPs for Dust Control at Manufacturing Areas Areas 3 S409 BMPs for Fueling at Dedicated Stations S409 BMPs for Fueling At Dedicated Stations o S410 BMPs for Illicit Connections to Storm S410 BMPs for Correcting Illicit Discharges to '0 Drains Storm Drains L CU S411 BMPs for Landscaping and S411 BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn / 2 Lawn/Vegetation Management Vegetation Management a S412 BMPs for Loading and Unloading Areas S412 BMPs for Loading and Unloading Areas for Liquid or Solid Material for Liquid or Solid Material S413 BMPs for Log Sorting and Handling S413 BMPs for Log Sorting and Handling S414 BMPs for Maintenance and Repair of S414 BMPs for Maintenance and Repair of 0 N and Equipment Vehicles and Equipment leVehicles 0 N S415 BMPs for Maintenance of Public and S415 BMPs for Maintenance of Public and ii Private Utility Corridors and Facilities Private Utility Corridors and Facilities N 0 S416 BMPs for Maintenance of Roadside S416 BMPs for Maintenance of Roadside L Ditches Ditches = r c as S417 BMPs for Maintenance of Stormwater S417 BMPs for Maintenance of Stormwater E Drainage and Treatment Systems Drainage and Treatment Systems .2 S418 BMPs for Manufacturing Activities - S418 BMPs for Manufacturing Activities - a Outside Outside S419 BMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles and S419 BMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles r Q Heavy Equipment and Heavy Equipment ittps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTo,P Packet Pg. 316 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 2( 19 SWMMWW S420 BMPs for Painting/Finishing/Coating of S420 BMPs for Painting/Finishing/Coating of Vehicles/Boats/Buildings/Equipment Vehicles/Boats/Buildings/Equipment CU a S421 BMPs for Parking and Storage of Vehicles S421 BMPs for Parking and Storage of M and Equipment Vehicles and Equipment co U S422 BMPs for Railroad Yards S422 BMPs for Railroad Yards w S423 BMPs for Recyclers and Scrap Yards S423 BMPs for Recyclers and Scrap Yards o S424 BMPs for Roof/Building Drains at S424 BMPs for Roof / Building Drains at E Manufacturing and Commercial Buildings Manufacturing and Commercial Buildings a) S425 BMPs for Soil Erosion and Sediment S425 BMPs for Soil Erosion and Sediment CU a Control at Industrial Sites Control at Industrial Sites r 3 S426 BMPs for Spills of Oil and Hazardous S426 BMPs for Spills of Oil and Hazardous o Substances Substances y 0 S427 BMPs for Storage of Liquid, Food Waste, S427 BMPs for Storage of Liquid, Food M or Dangerous Waste Containers Waste, or Dangerous Waste Containers S428 BMPs for Storage of Liquids in Permanent S428 BMPs for Storage of Liquids in a Aboveground Tanks Permanent Aboveground Tanks -- S429 BMPs for Storage or Transfer (Outside) of S429 BMPs for Storage or Transfer (Outside). Solid Raw Materials, Byproducts, or Finished of Solid Raw Materials, Byproducts, or Products Finished Products 0 S430 BMPs for Urban Streets S430 BMPs for Urban Streets N S431 BMPs for Washing and Steam Cleaning S431 BMPs for Washing and Steam Cleaning Y Vehicles/Equipment/Building Structures Vehicles / Equipment / Building Structures 3 S432 BMPs for Wood Treatment Areas S432 BMPs for Wood Treatment Areas 0 U I S433 BMPs for Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs, and S433 BMPs for Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs, and Fountains Fountains Volume IV References References r a Appendix IV -A: Urban Land Uses and Pollutant Appendix IV -A: Urban Land Uses and Generating Sources Pollutant Generating Sources 0 Appendix IV-B: Stormwater Pollutants and Their Adverse 1-1.4 Stormwater Pollutants and Their r Q Impact Adverse Impact ittps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTo,P Packet Pg. 317 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW Appendix IV-C: Recycling/Disposal of Vehicle Outdated / deleted. References to this Fluids/Other Wastes appendix are now referred to Ecology's hazardous waste site. CU a Appendix IV-D: Regulatory Requirements That Impact I-2 Relationship of This Manual to Permits, Stormwater Programs g Requirements, and Programs o U Appendix IV-E: NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permits 1-2 Relationship of This Manual to Permits, o Requirements, and Programs w Appendix IV-F: Example of an Integrated Pest S435 BMPs for Pesticides and an Integrated o Management Program Pest Management Program aD Appendix IV-G: Recommendations for Management of Appendix IV-B: Management of Street Waste Street Wastes Solids and Liquids CU Volume IV Resource Materials - Management of Street? Wastes References E L C v/ Volume V Content L 0 c Volume V Acknowledgments Acknowledgments V-1 -Introduction (no content in this section) .0 a V-1.1 - Purpose of this Volume Executive Summary of Volume V V-1.2 - Content and Organization of this Volume Executive Summary of Volume V V-1.3 -How to Use this Volume Executive Summary of Volume V 0 N V-1.4 - Runoff Treatment Facilities various BMP group introductions within i Volume V 0 V-2 -Treatment Facility Selection Process 111-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs Y V-2.1 - Step -by -Step Selection Process for N Treatment Facilities 111-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs i V-2.2 -Other Treatment Facility Selection Factors III-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs a E V-3 - Treatment Facility Menus 111-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs a r w V-3.1 - Guide to Applying Menus 111-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs Q aD V-3.2 - Oil Control Menu III-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs E r V-3.3 - Phosphorus Treatment Menu III-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs r Q https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTo,P Packet Pg. 318 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW V-3.4 - Enhanced Treatment Menu III-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs a� V-3.5 -Basic Treatment Menu III-1.2 Choosing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs V-4 - General Requirements for Stormwater Facilities V-1 General BMP Design00 Ci V-4.1 - Design Volume and Flow III-2.6 Sizing Your Runoff Treatment BMPs o U W V-4.2 - Sequence of Facilities V-1.1 Sequence of Runoff Treatment and Detention BMPs 0 V-4.3 - Setbacks, Slopes, and Embankments V-1.2 Setbacks, Slopes, and Embankments a E V-4.4 -Facility Liners V-1.3 Liners and Geotextiles a� R V-4.5 - Hydraulic Structures V-1.4 Hydraulic Structures r V-4.6 - Maintenance Standards for Drainage E Facilities Appendix VA BMP Maintenance Tables o L V-5 - On -Site Stormwater Management (no content in this section) 0 L V-5.1 -Purpose I-1.5 Types of Best Management Practices .(BMPs) for Stormwater Management V-5.2 -Application BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion a V-5.3 - Best Management Practices for On -Site Stormwater Management various individual BMPs within Volume V V-5.3.1 - On -Site Stormwater Management I-3.4.5 MR5: On -Site Stormwater BMPs Management N i BMP T5.10A: Downspout Full Infiltration BMP T5.10A: Downspout Full Infiltration o N BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion Systems BMP T5.1013: Downspout Dispersion Systems y 0 L BMP T5.10C: Perforated Stub -out BMP T5.10C: Perforated Stub -out � Connections Connections c a� BMP T5.11: Concentrated Flow Dispersion BMP T5.11: Concentrated Flow Dispersion r BMP T5.12: Sheet Flow Dispersion BMP T5.12: Sheet Flow Dispersion w Q a BMP T5.13: Post -Construction Soil Quality BMP T5.13: Post -Construction Soil Quality_ E and Depth and Depth r a BMP T5.14A: Rain Gardens BMP T5.14: Rain Gardens I https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/20l9SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTocP Packet Pg. 319 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW BMP T5.14B: Bioretention BMP T7.30: Bioretention a� BMP T5.15: Permeable Pavements BMP T5.15: Permeable Pavements CU �- BMP T5.16: Tree Retention and Tree M Planting BMP T5.16: Tree Retention and Tree Planting U BMP T5.17: Vegetated Roofs BMP T5.17: Vegetated Roofs w -- a BMP T5.18: Reverse Slope Sidewalks BMP T5.18: Reverse Slope Sidewalks r- W BMP T5.19: Minimal Excavation Foundations BMP T5.19: Minimal Excavation Foundations BMP T5.20: Rainwater Harvesting BMP T5.20: Rainwater HarvestingCU L BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion d E L V-5.3.2 -Site Design BMPs V-2.1 Introduction to Site Design BMPs in L BMP T5.40: Preserving Native Vegetation BMP T5.40: Preserving Native Vegetation 0 L BMP T5.41: Better Site Design BMP T5.41: Better Site Design = V-6 -Pretreatment (no content in this section) a V-6.1 - Purpose V-9.1 Introduction to Pretreatment BMPs V-6.2 -Application V-9.1 Introduction to Pretreatment BMPs V-6.3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs) for c Pretreatment V-9.1 Introduction to Pretreatment BMPs N i BMP T6.10: Presettling Basin BMP T6.10: Presettling Basin CD N V-7 - Infiltration and Bioretention Treatment Facilities (no content in this section) N 0 L V-7.1 -Purpose V-5.1 Introduction to Infiltration BMPs i x V-7.2 -General Considerations V-5.1 Introduction to Infiltration BMPs E V-7.3 - Applications V-5.1 Introduction to Infiltration BMPs w a V-7.4 - Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Infiltration and Bioretention Treatment V-5.1 Introduction to Infiltration BMPs E t BMP T7.10: Infiltration Basins BMP T7.10: Infiltration Basins Q https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTo,P Packet Pg. 320 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW BMP T7.20: Infiltration Trenches BMP T7.20: Infiltration Trenches a� BMP T7.30: Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Q. Boxes BMP T7.30: Bioretention ' 0 M BMP T7.40: Compost -Amended Vegetated Filter BMP T7.40: Compost -Amended Vegetated co o Strips (CAVFS) Filter Strips (CAVES) w V-8 -Filtration Treatment Facilities V-6.1 Introduction to Filtration BMPs o V-8.1 - Purpose V-6.1 Introduction to Filtration BMPs E a� V-8.2 -Description V-6.1 Introduction to Filtration BMPs CU V-8.3 -Performance Objectives V-6.1 Introduction to Filtration BMPs r CU 3 V-8.4 - Applications and Limitations V-6.1 Introduction to Filtration BMPs E 0 V-8.5 - Best Management Practices (BMPs) for c Sand Filtration (no content in this section) c L BMP T8.10: Basic Sand Filter Basin BMP T8.10: Basic Sand Filter Basin = BMP T8.11: Large Sand Filter Basin BMP T8.11: Large Sand Filter Basin a BMP T8.20: Sand Filter Vault BMP T8.20: Sand Filter Vault BMP T8.30: Linear Sand Filter BMP T8.30: Linear Sand Filter BMP T8.40: Media Filter Drain (previously referred o to as the Ecology Embankment) BMP T8.40: Media Filter Drain N v 0 V-9 -Biofiltration Treatment Facilities V-7.1 Introduction to Biofiltration BMPs Y V-9.1 -Purpose V-7.1 Introduction to Biofiltration BMPs 0 L V-9.2 - Applications V-7.1 Introduction to Biofiltration BMPs x V-9.3 -Site Suitability V-7.1 Introduction to Biofiltration BMPs r a E V-9.4 - Best Management Practices V-7.1 Introduction to Biofiltration BMPs w a BMP T9.10: Basic Biofiltration Swale BMP T9.10: Basic Biofiltration Swale a E BMP T9.20: Wet Biofiltration Swale BMP T9.20: Wet Biofiltration Swale r r Q BMP T9.30: Continuous Inflow Biofiltration Swale BMP T9.30: Continuous Inflow Biofiltration Swale https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTOIP Packet Pg. 321 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW BMP T9.40: Basic Filter Strip BMP T9.40: Vegetated Filter Strip V-10 -Wetpool Facilities V-8.1 Introduction to Wetpool BMPs CU V-10.1 -Purpose V-8.1 Introduction to Wetpool BMPs Ci co V-10.2 - Application V-8.1 Introduction to Wetpool BMPs o � w V-10.3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Wetpool Facilities V-8.1 Introduction to Wetpool BMPs 0 (D BMP T10.10: Wetponds -Basic and Large BMP T10.10: Wetponds - Basic and Large BMP T10.20: Wetvaults BMP T10.20: WetvaultsCU L BMP T10.30: Stormwater Treatment Wetlands BMP T10.30: Stormwater Treatment CU Wetlands 3 E L BMP T10.40: Combined Detention and Wetpool BMP T10.40: Combined Detention and in Facilities Wetpool Facilities ,o V-11 -Oil and Water Separators V-13.1 Introduction to Oil and Water L Separator BMPs V-11.1 - Purpose of Oil and Water Separators V-13.1 Introduction to Oil and Water Separator BMPs V-11.2 - Description V-13.1 Introduction to Oil and Water a Separator BMPs V-11.3 - Performance Objectives V-13.1 Introduction to Oil and Water Separator BMPs V-11.4 - Applications/Limitations V-13.1 Introduction to Oil and Water cn Separator BMPs o V-11.5 - Site Suitability V-13.1 Introduction to Oil and Water N Separator BMPs � V-11.6 - Design Criteria - General Considerations V-13.1 Introduction to Oil and Water CD N Separator BMPs Y V-11.7 - Oil and Water Separator BMPs V-13.1 Introduction to Oil and Water 3 Separator BMPs o L BMP T11.10: API (Baffle type) Separator Bay BMP T11.10: API (Baffle type) Separator x BMP T11.11: Coalescing Plate (CP) Separator Bay BMP T11.11: Coalescing Plate (CP) Separator V-12 - Emerging Technologies (no content in this section) r w a V-12.1 - Background V-10.1 Introduction to Manufactured Treatment Devices as BMPs V-12.2 -Ecology Role in Evaluating Emerging V-10.3 Approval Process for Manufactured Technologies Treatment Devices Q https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTOIP Packet Pg. 322 5/11/2021 Crosswalk: 2014 - 2019 SWMMWW Dept. of 8.2.h Location of Content within the 2014 SWMMWW Location of Content within the 20 19 SWMMWW V-12.3 - Evaluation of Emerging Technologies V-10.3 Approval Process for Manufactured Treatment Devices V-12.4 - Assessing Levels of Development of V-10.2 Use Level Designations of CU Q. Emerging Technologies Manufactured Treatment Devices 3 o M V-12.5 -Emerging Technologies for Stormwater V-10.3 Approval Process for Manufactured 00 o Treatment and Control Options Treatment Devices w Volume V References References o Appendix V-A: Basic Treatment Receiving Waters Appendix 111-A: Basic Treatment Receiving Waters E a� Appendix V-B: Recommended Modifications to ASTM D 2434 When Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity for BMP T7.30: Bioretention CU Bioretention Soil Mixes? 3 Appendix V-C: Geotextile Specifications V-1.3.4 Geotextile Specifications o Appendix V-D: Turbulence and Short -Circuiting Factor BMP T11.10: API (Baffle type) Separator ° a� c Appendix V-E: Recommended Newly Planted Tree CU Species for Flow Control Credit BMP T5.16: Tree Retention and Tree Planting = Washington State Department of Ecology 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2019 SWMMWW) Publication No.19-10-021 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Topics/Crosswalk2014-2019.htm%3FTocP Packet Pg. 323 2022 Stormwater Management Code (ECDC 18,30) Update Presented by Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer 3L.x 4a Packet Pg. 324 Stormwater NPDES Permit requires our development 0 M CO U N U W a p code to meet or exceed Ecology's standards designed tj protect surface water from being impacted by development • In 2019 Ecology issued Storm Water Management Manu 0 I 0 for Western Washington (SWMMWW) `� L Why Changes in ECDC are required by July, 2022 update? ' We are on track to be in compliance by January 1, 2022 a • Ecology's changes are mostly organizational O • These changes are summarized in the Executive Summary of the 2019 Revisions and Crosswalk: 2014-; 2019 SWMMWW. . , y.: d a Packet Pg. 325 0 M 00 U U • Drainage mitigation is required when projects excee( certain thresholds of new plus replaced hard surface, and/or clearing limits.- • Two categories of project L • Category 1 between 2,000 and 5,000 SF hard surface • LID mitigation (MR #5) required for all project in this o category - coDrainage • Aimed at low flow events that cause erosion, not larg flows. Review 101,9 � -- � Category 2 larger than 5,000 SF hard surfaces _ - a' • Flow control (MR #7) over 10,000 SF (or 0.15 cfs increase o 100-year flow) = • Match flow duration of 2-year through 50-year storm historic conditions Z • Water Quality (MR #6) over 5,000 pollution generating h 0 surfaces (including all vehicle areas) • Treat the 2-year flow ("first flush")4ad E a a Packet Pg. 326 0 M CO U U w -- O O ai 3• _ m L • Looking at 52 recently reviewed SFR applications: o • 24 utilized dispersion or infiltration -based BMPs, CO a Drainage 22 were caught with Edmonds detention requirements (otherwise exempt from ECY requirements) Review 101 • 1 direct discharge & 5 perforated pipes • ' ' a 0 - N d L IL d r r a Packet Pg. 327 • Most changes are u dates to match Ecology reorganization and/or to provide clarity where w have experienced commonly missed or misinterpreted information by manual users & j designers. • See 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendurr Summary of Changes What's• Direction from Ecology = Ecology prescribed/required i _ Direction from City= =City proposed clarification Changing? reorganization, or u date without substantial change/impact • Direction from City = City proposed change wit potential impacts • Department of Commerce and SEPA approval required prior to formal Council adoption. Packet Pg. 328 0 M co • Old: Current code allows for connection of existing hai surfaces on case -by -case basis with a focus on W maintaining City pipe capacity. Change 1. New: revision to require new connections of E proposed q , existing hard surfaces to be treated like new hard New surfaces requiring full drainage mitigation. L connections of This is specific to new connections; where residents have an existing connection, they are permitted to replace the o ex i st i n hard connection in -kind without additional mitigation requireme y g Rationale. These new connections of existing surface _ surfaces are still new or altered impacts to the City's system an Gs any surface water they drain to; they should be mitigated as new impacts. O Potential Impacts: affects a very small number of applicants. For the handful that would b J. impacted, this could potentially be the most -costly change proposed this year. Full drainag design and BMP implementation for these sized projects can cost between $6,000 and $20, a However, the impacts of allowing every pre -drainage -code residence or business to connec our system would result in a continuation of the negative impacts from historic unmitigated E development and detrimental to our ability to manage the capacity of our systems _ _ a y.: d E a Packet Pg. 329 0 M • Old: Current code recognizes the Edmonds Way basin z a partial direct discharge basin with reduced requiremer for LID (MR #5) and flow control (MR #7) o Change #2: 0New: City proposes revisions to remove all exemptions for the Edmonds Way basin, resulting in equal applicat n Removing of drainage code requirements to the Edmonds Way basin. Edmonds Wayas • Rationale. The Edmonds Way drainage pipe (WSDOT) i. 0 a direct known to overflow to the Edmonds Marsh under cert L conditions; since this demonstrates a capacity issue a L discharge basin. now discharges to a non -manmade water body, the direct discharge exemption should no longer apply. v Potential Impacts: This change removes a discount which previously existed in one specifi basin within Edmonds and brings projects within Edmonds Way to be equal in cost to other N projects through in the City. The additional cost is generally limited to increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and BMP implementation. Larger projects which trigger full flow control (MR #7) will have the most E significant cost increases. Small SFR projects can expect between $500 and $2000 cost a increase, but larger (15,000 SF) commercial/multifamily projects could see increases of, $20,000 to $50,000 - a Packet Pg. 330 0 M U • Old: Current code applies the drainage code uniformly to all . W areas of City, including the Perrinville Creek Basin. O • New: City proposed revisions to increase the retrofit Chan a #3 : fli grequirement for LID and increase the flow control standard ncreasi ng within the Perrinville Creek basin (only). • Retrofit (applies to existing unmitigated surfaces to remain): 25% _> o R protection of Flow control: Match 50-year peak => Match 100-year peak (ie. King County Level 3 Standard) Perrinville L • Rationale: The Perrinville basin has been greatly affected by 2,;t Creek. development and needs enhanced protections. The change h flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and 1 retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abu s on the creek. Potential Impacts: Both changes result in additional cost that is generally limited to increase in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and q i P implementation. The flow control component will only impact larger projects with minimal- a impacts on large project budgets; estimated to add between $12,000 and $16,000 for a larg (15,000 SF) commercial development. The retrofit requirement has the potential to impac homeowners who are expanding existing homes, but minimally; estimated to add $400 to a t $600 for a SFR project which keeps most of the existing home (2,500 SF). Y• t V R a+ a+ Q Packet Pg. 331 0 M co • Old: Current code adopted the Ecology BMP list for MR o 5 and then added an Edmonds -specific detention BMP tc W the end of the list, making its priority less than that of. o Change #4perforated pipe connection.E • New. Staff propose revisions to elevate the Edmonds - Detention specific detention BMP to be considered before a perforated pipe connection. over • Rationale : Perforated pipe connections are only usedpreferred 3.E Perforated Pipes when infiltration has been found infeasible for very specific reasons, and when broad infiltration is infeasi o perforated pipes usually will not work very well either and they may well get proposed in undesirable locatior where instability and failure could result. Our model ' comparisons have shown detention to provide a significantly better outcomes.W. o M r_ Potential Impacts: Neary all projects within Edmonds over 2,000 SF of impervious would h N to provide stormwater detention, at a minimum. Additional cost is generally limited to increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage de and BMP implementation. Detention systems, as compared to a perforated pipe system, mz add between $500 and $4,000 for a larger SFR project (5,500 SF). �Am E a Packet Pg. 332 What Comes Next? `-s • SEPA review underway (-60-days) • Department of Commerce review underway (60-days) • This public hearing • Held now to avoid conflicts with budgeting process • Brought back for formal approval pending Commerc SEPA approval. • Questions/concerns: Zachary.Richardson@edmondswa.gov Packet Pg. 333 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Highway 99 Gateway Signs Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Rob English Background/History On March 2, 2021, the City Council approved the Agreement with HBB for the design of the Gateway Signs. On August 10, 2021, the Parks & Public Works Committee reviewed this item. On August 24, 2021, staff presented this item to the City Council for review and discussion. Staff Recommendation Authorization to develop conceptual designs for three sign options on the north end and three sign options on the south end of Highway 99. Narrative On August 24, 2021, staff presented three sign options each for the proposed gateway signs at the north and south city limits on Highway 99. The options were developed based on a public survey in August, comments from the Highway 99 Gateway sign task force and a community workshop. At the conclusion of the meeting, City Council requested staff to seek more public input on the survey. A second press release was issued in late August along with a posting on the City Facebook site requesting additional public feedback on the survey. The survey closed on September 15th, and the City received 328 additional survey responses. The previous survey responses, plus the new responses are summarized in Attachment 2. Background: The design of the Gateway Signs on the north and south end of the corridor are being completed by HBB. The proposed locations on both ends of the corridor have been identified. In order to complete conceptual alternatives for both locations (next step as part of the design phase), different architectural sign types, lettering style, messages, lighting, and landscaping types need to be considered. These topics were discussed during a Task Force meeting on July 19, 2021 and Community Workshop on August 4cn 2021. Following the Community Workshop, a survey was made available on the City website, project website and Uptown Market to obtain public input about the preferred sign options. Upon further evaluation of survey results and based on comments from the Task Force, three sign options on the north end and Packet Pg. 334 8.3 three sign options on south end were generated. The next step in the design process is the development and evaluation of conceptual alternatives. The design of Gateway Signs will be incorporated into the plans and specifications for the Highway 99 Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 2. The project is anticipated to begin construction in Spring 2022. Attachments: Attachment 1- Presentation Attachment 2 - Survey Results Packet Pg. 335 8.3.a 1 11 il I 66M oll 10 on VITIN&I Le 1 �. $ V iunrli Prp..,;F, Mlylooff,ll LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I I EWA) latimnn A Packet Pg. 336 8.3.a AGENDA ► Present preliminary sign and gateway concepts and survey feedback Discussion DESIRED OUTCOME Get feedback in order to begin design of sign and gateway concept alternatives, Packet Pg. 337 ANALYSIS / / / 41 I I I I , i I a� I I I I f 1 1 1 1 � � 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ! Project Locauun 13 g r ✓� i AL NORTH LOCATION I NORTH A �'. �Ya lei �4 • ' "" x Packet Pg. 339 47% preferred South Sign A; Vertical (was 40%) 52% preferred South Sign B; Horizontal EN C d E (was 60%) a Packet Pg. 340 SURVEY FEEDBACK Pon I AW p, WELCO M, do IP rM Example Vertical Configure r « Is . SURVEY FEEDBACK Example Horizontal Configure ANALYSIS - NORTH I I I I I I 0i NORTH LOCATION , e I I I I I I I I TH STREET SW I I I I 1 I r r 1 ' 5 1 I 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J I ! 1 Sign Locauun .s4 • Y i� I 208TH STREET SW • P ` I • r NORTH LOCATION F 212TH STREET SW it. U t ]MOP� f_ look em 216TH STREET SW � Gnr�c�1P WEST SIDE OF ROAD 40 usEu veNi .- D"-.... of isY=-..w-----a+-=a�...-'0H•----ON•---.w.....w.-..-o"-----w-----mv-"•!�E ----TM-O"---.1'_a•...r,-�---•-N-orr..___rv_of----^'�`---.iv_a«... -n'-ar ----iv-af---n'-5+--x�^ rv#---.v-oµ---��-. --.�...--rr-ac..-.�nsr__.av-a*..--iv..af_.. �v_af...,rv_ar....'+f�er�-"- -• �• �-'� i ------------------------------- 75'Zob f0 a� . N. ...M----'. ......y .1 Y x....,y.....,M,.....M----_K-..--M-____,K...-_-____M..---y,__--- ............... .x...--M--_-_' .. __y,_____M•___N,____-M•-•_•,R_•_-.K-....N..-_- ... _.M_____ __________n____•,1�,..___-____•,`,-.... N.--.. HWY 99 SOUTHBOUND — 3 w .11 GOV, NORTH C — — C a PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN c HWY 99 NORTHBOUND Q 4� IVY'S AXOLOTLS Packet Pg. 344 IVFY FEEDBACK Which NORTH Gateway sian tvoe do you ores ----------- 25% preferred North Sign A: Vertical 21% preferred North Sign C; Vertical 32% preferred North Sign B: Vertical r a --} i r _ Z2% preferred North Sign D: Horizontal Packet Pg. 345 Welcome to Edmonds 7U% preferred (was ss%) Welcome to 2% preferred Other? 4% preferred "Scenic Edmonds" "Welcome" in many languages "Its an Edmonds kind of day" Welcome to Uptown Edmonds Edmonds "kind" or "artistic" "beautiful" 6% preferred Edmonds 1%% preferred a Packet Pg. 346 SURVEY FEEDBACK .1 I1 " g d W N T W N 01 4 ?r • • What should the letter style 6122161116 A T E' A Center for the Arts' PAC Anderson Center Wade James Theatre` ` Edmonds Cemetery Yost Park • Museumcw �,6;„ North Gateway Character... Cn Simple Visual Clutter Modern _ Kindness signs ulticultural Linking E Cn Sea Heaiir- Commercia a, Communities Travel Cars o o Mountains w Industrial South Gateway Character... Mountains = �Qmn,ercid •y M ulticu tural %I-1101 District o a. Business Too Many Signs Fundamental Industria Transitioning a Busy n ernation a � E Welcoming CU Cl- 55% Natural Elements 34% Modern 32%Sustainability 27% Sculptural Art 26% Light 26% Color Other Suggestions... Welcoming 240r, Culture 23% Future & Vision 22% Contemporary 180/ Traditional 150/e History Solar powered lighting Integrative to environment, make Native history noise when rained on Inclusive Mountains and Sound Vibrant 0 L Q a Packet Pg. 348 Should the north & south match each other? 71% they should match each other 21% they should each be unique Should they match other Edmonds signs? 51% prefer similar elements to other signs but overall should be unique 22% prefer similar to Welcome to Downtown Edmonds sign 22% prefer similar to Edmonds Wayfinding signs a Packet Pg. 349 SURVEY FEEDBACK Traditional Gateway Chard L; Ld I L .y � yea:.- +• . ,�•,.. is;. ■ - _ yM1" �- �- FZ '� _ !' a Y S' ,y- - s-"'�ir,�-'�.:F'�m ,+�;. ''i�.. -F:' r.� s n �K `'��i •r �"�,'?.' r, I p -Ar , y. j, t . - _..,►yS ter_ li,..��' y T r ., -'t. 711111 �._ ...* East Jordaninry rr w��l w�f 4 i _+ IAMf 711 i i 1 r i.xpi��` � �y�1i 'T;{' f � �,'.'•!�.'t�i`ii.+4,'�P•'�`P..•-�;'- , :�;.n_•t 4�-' reS-l�'�,�r`..:-3§``f3�f:� _ - ■ / i • i i # - . r .. r . ■ ! � ■ i'+ . • a ■rrr + .i, 1 ri.*+ . -+rr. . Rta r■ii■Katy+• +•� *.i#r•■■r-,/i..:■..+/rrrr#i4�fJ4#ffra r#ii■R■■r•••r!• •+•r••rir#iarii#■wwwfrf� i■•#iii••r..-RR.••sr.+rrtri#■■■rwwrrr it -;r•rrt!#i4+ri■• •■Rf. .■RRiiiiiii##r## .*i#■.*iri riRili.,..ri•i•iFMirrrrfii�irr##� wr#iat■.■#�i irtrii#iiiiRiifiisiiiiiiiir.� .si.■i•.fli#iiRiliiiiriiiiii#iar• •r+ • r • . f • f • * / • • ■ a . + • • . . . a •4rt#ai+•Rlr,.R i i i ! ! i r • -i ++r.•. .•#'►ter ri -aw.E...rrR•+••+r.*4wr. +•rt•i i•r sr++* . a r r r i r • . r / i a • # 1 • rh+• .rarR : ■ . , . i r r'� rra#!/■■i.si+•rrisrrRi!!lF.r• ••rri•#• -+a4rswrr/.r#iirr .Yi•R•�R■■a■#w1 -y-r+-rrr+#�►��-s?'iiJi `lv-N i+�}k+�r a-ti'i+�i"'r�+4�+74 ra .rrr• •irr r7R■Rica+•ra.rr•R.i+ri �+a� ;i ra rlr+••-■!*■sri!#i�rir#rrR#�irii itrrrrRY*■■■s■. +a/RR#■rsr•R.rtiwiri/� -+aarrrwrrrr•rri •{R■. ■•+r*rr.i#iiri•i ..+,..■••■■■s■rrlrR#i+•#•rt.r�i#a#+r r•, . - •rrrrar Rr•*••r.•iiii■■•i•. •riiir.•. ......... +w•/■.r..Fli■rr■.r+r� ••Yrt....r•rRt■■i!*r'#**./a.•■■ri.i.r..r.r.� ■■.•. .r•#!R■r •rr• ■++iir.r*r+■i•r•r•i{►� r■rar rFs•r+r s■ir-./r,+-■!■+.#•w••ir•r-■+■!■ r■ a r r a■■■ . r■ a* i r+r .. r R a r r- r*!• i•.* r i !I rr+. .trip#arrr - •+rrr+•//r •r*F*i• . +f ri... .■!. .ir. ...,semi •arsHiriirrr r�+ ir•ar rr. a•i /#•rFa. -.. ■ai. - +sr•aar+•srr'■...- +iii**4■ a .','.•*rr ■ r#, r#iRW ■r. ••fiiif•• +r■ar•r .-■�....... rf irriri R...r+r� .•■■ r' '. i #rrr ■ i■ r■ r r a a r a a f y i r r r r# r.■■ r •r•:.sr+a*Yiifilr i#aa#■■■awsfrr■fiifir*#*{ r-raraarwr#rr#trim R##a■■i*wsibs i riirirlr ■„■.is.*w.rr.r*rriif*go rsya■+•#**rirrriirl 55% Natural Elements 0 34% Modern 32% Sustainability N C 3 d V CD CD M 3 Packet Pg. 351 SURVEY FEEDBACK � F II PSG r i 11. za :I AF sir rrt�I �1•,�����r;.'�, LIL Yo Sriilntiiral art 26% 1 inht 26°/a r. r Contemporary Gateway Chard L; Ld I, [ •y� ti: 4, '•. 3iscussion SOUTH Gateway Alternd South Sign A: Size &Shape: Vertical South Sign B: Size &Shape: iybrid Vertical /Horizontal 1w 7 i 0 E a d E a Packet Pg. 353 JISCUSSIC 8.3.a ... ar i North Sign A: Size & Shape; Vertical with architectural element at back of sidewalk North Sign B: Size &Shape: Vertical 2 0 E Q d E a Packet Pg. 354 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 Q1 Which SOUTH Gateway sign type do you prefer? Answered:383 Skipped:5 Vertical Horizontal N C U) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 3 as c� ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES rn Vertical 47.78% 183 Horizontal 52.22% 200 LM TOTAL 383 = N 7 N d d 7 U) N a+ C d !_ t V R a+ a E a 1 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 355 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b Q2 Which NORTH Gateway sign type do you prefer? Answered:382 Skipped:6 Vertical sign at back of.. Vertical sign in median Hori sign at Vertic in media zonta back.. aL sign 7r I n wi... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Vertical sign at back of sidewalk Vertical sign in median Horizontal sign at back of sidewalk Vertical sign in median with architectural element at back of sidewalk TOTAL RESPONSES 21.47% 24.61% 21.99% 31.94% N C cv 3 as c� t9 rn 3 T 2 N a+ 82 W 94 84 N 122 m 382 v cv .r r a E a 2 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 356 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b Q3 What should the gateway signs say? Answered:382 Skipped:6 Edmonds Welcome t� Edmond Welcome to Uptown Edmonds Welcome to Edmonds Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Edmonds 16.75% Welcome to Edmonds 70.16% Welcome to Uptown Edmonds 6.28% Welcome to Edmonds 2.36% Other (please specify) 4.45% TOTAL # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 ED! (second line) monds 2 Welcome to Edmonds Uptown 3 We wasted our taxpayers money 4 It's a Edmonds kind of day! Welcome 5 Edmonds International District 6 Welcome to Edmonds 7 City of Edmonds 8 It's an Edmonds kind of day 9 It's an Edmonds kind of day 10 Edmonds in large font and the neighborhood in smaller font (downtown, west gate, seaview, etc.) 11 Edmonds DATE 9/1/2021 11:59 AM 8/31/2021 8:33 AM 8/31/2021 4:47 AM 8/30/2021 9:15 AM 8/29/2021 8:30 AM 8/28/2021 8:09 PM 8/28/2021 6:16 PM 8/28/2021 9:19 AM 8/27/2021 6:29 PM 8/27/2021 5:04 PM 8/27/2021 4:54 PM N C cv 3 as c� t9 o� R 3 T x N 64 N m 268 W, m 24 3 U) 9 N a+ 17 m E 382 U R .r r a c E t v r Q 3 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 357 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 12 13 14 15 16 17 Edmonds for a day or a lifetime 8/27/2021 4:48 PM South: "welcome" in our many primary languages: English, the Chinese languages, Korean, 8/8/2021 8:47 PM Spanish, Russian), International District; North: Welcome to Edmonds too many signs already... 8/6/2021 4:22 PM Nothing, these signs are a waste of money 8/5/2021 10:23 AM Scenic Edmonds 8/5/2021 9:25 AM edmonds 8/4/2021 12:18 PM a 4 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 358 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b Q4 If you selected 'Welcome to Edmonds' above what would you put in the blank space? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Answered:25 Skipped:363 RESPONSES DATE Wonderful 9/13/2021 7:48 PM International District 9/4/2021 6:39 PM Beautiful 9/3/2021 2:04 AM Destination 9/1/2021 9:29 PM Don't need to mess with 'Welcome to..." The "ED!" motif is getting as recognizable as the 9/1/2021 11:59 AM apple for New York. ON 8/31/2021 4:47 AM Evergreen 8/30/2021 11:52 AM Scenery, sunset or mountains. (we are waterfront) FYI West Seattle made a new sign recently. 8/30/2021 9:15 AM It looks great. Nothing... Just Welcome to Edmonds or perhaps The City of ..... 8/29/2021 9:40 AM Water ferry / city logo image 8/29/2021 9:38 AM Water mountains ferry beach birds In general nature 8/29/2021 7:52 AM Mountains with water & ferry 8/29/2021 7:09 AM Friendly 8/28/2021 10:44 PM Add Established #### (year of establishment) 8/28/2021 8:09 PM City of 8/28/2021 6:16 PM Picturesque 8/28/2021 3:49 PM Nothing EDMONDS is EDMONDS ...Be careful your entitled ways are showing the up hill as 8/28/2021 3:03 PM YOU so fondly named it won't like this, SO since they are going to K your butts I suggest ya don't insult them any more. South Edmonds 8/27/2021 9:24 PM Shoreline scene. 8/27/2021 7:00 PM Homeless free!!. I wish.... 8/27/2021 6:45 PM It's an Edmonds kind of Day! 8/27/2021 4:48 PM Year established 8/27/2021 3:46 PM Scenic artwork ie ferry/water/trees 8/27/2021 3:38 PM Artistic 8/8/2021 9:29 PM Kind 8/6/2021 11:47 PM Q 5 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 359 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b Script ANSWER CHOICES Sans -Serif Script TOTAL Q5 What should the letter style be? Answered:356 Skippe, 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 62.36% 37.64% N c U) cv 3 a� c� C9 222 134 aM 356 = N 3 N m m N N C d E t V cC Q r.+ C N E t t� r r Q 6/23 Packet Pg. 360 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q6 What is one word or phrase that you would use to describe the character of the corridor near the NORTH gateway location? Answered:140 Skipped:248 RESPONSES DATE Diversity 9/14/2021 1:17 PM Beautiful 9/14/2021 12:51 AM Commercial 9/12/2021 11:02 AM Stripmall 9/8/2021 10:37 PM It should look like the sign coming down 104 to 5th Ave. 9/6/2021 9:40 PM Medical 9/4/2021 4:43 PM Corridor to food, health, and transportation 9/4/2021 1:29 PM Commercial? 9/3/2021 2:57 PM The 99 corridor doesn't have great character but Edmonds does. I think we should reflect the 9/3/2021 11:05 AM overall feel of Edmonds. My words would be: community, nature, family Education due to Edmonds Woodway and edcc 9/3/2021 2:09 AM Commercial, use design that embraces the higher density of the 99 corridor. 9/2/2021 2:16 PM Business District 9/1/2021 9:31 PM North Edmonds 9/1/2021 8:53 PM I see no need I think Welcome to Edmonds for both. If you get to fancy with these like brass 9/1/2021 6:41 PM and glass etc like at the pier it will be destroyed. If it is bright in color and pretty simple it will be noticed buy not bothered with and easier to fix if it is spray painted the first night. I hope all of this is done with by the time we get to it but I have my doubts about that so. Just one should say Ferry Access the South end one and maybe what Woodway and Grocery its tough. The North should have below the Welcome to Edmonds Edmonds Bowl Shopping Dining and Beach Front maybe Event centers etc. Keep it simple. This city needs zoning laws. My neighbors make loud noise 24/7 and the city won't do 9/1/2021 12:34 PM anything about it. ED! Gateway to art and fun or come to play 9/1/2021 12:03 PM Welcome 9/1/2021 8:28 AM Busy 8/31/2021 8:56 PM Homey 8/31/2021 6:58 PM Concrete 8/31/2021 9:54 AM Automotive 8/31/2021 8:39 AM Cluttered 8/31/2021 8:37 AM Don't know 8/31/2021 7:42 AM Strip mall 8/31/2021 7:21 AM I would like consistency rather than creating the potential for divisiveness. 8/31/2021 6:59 AM Trashy 8/31/2021 4:49 AM multicultural 8/30/2021 11:46 PM Q 7/23 Packet Pg. 361 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 It's fine 8/30/2021 9:34 PM Auto row 8/30/2021 8:23 PM Vibrant 8/30/2021 4:37 PM Edmonds North 8/30/20214:03 PM The great Northwest 8/30/2021 3:56 PM Good Food 8/30/2021 3:20 PM Business Corridor and Methamphetamine 8/30/2021 9:53 AM economic engine 8/30/2021 9:48 AM Welcome, the vibe is glad you are here 8/30/2021 9:22 AM Cold looking, not inviting 8/30/2021 9:09 AM Ugly 8/30/2021 9:07 AM industrial 8/30/2021 7:33 AM to Medical 8/29/2021 8:19 PM 3 Beautiful 8/29/2021 6:45 PM C9 Industrial 8/29/2021 5:54 PM a) cluttered 8/29/2021 5:44 PM c�v 3 Gateway to Puget Sound 8/29/2021 4:18 PM 2M 2 Dynamic 8/29/2021 2:06 PM business 8/29/2021 1:48 PM WELCOME to Beautiful Edmonds 8/29/2021 1:38 PM Beautiful 8/29/2021 1:35 PM Up Town 8/29/2021 11:43 AM fn commercial 8/29/2021 11:08 AM N Neighborhood 8/29/2021 10:25 AM E this is a tough one ... there isn't much to say about 99 that is good. Maybe 8/29/2021 9:44 AM c� restaurants... Seagulls? Arts? Q Vibrant ("Commercial" seems more accurate but not what we're looking for. Same for "Endless 8/29/2021 9:43 AM car lots", even though that's what you see.) E Welcoming 8/29/2021 9:41 AM Uptown Edmonds 8/29/2021 9:39 AM Q Characterless 8/29/2021 9:06 AM Welcome 8/29/2021 8:51 AM Wrong 8/29/2021 8:31 AM commercial 8/29/2021 7:53 AM Oh 8/29/2021 7:36 AM businesses 8/29/2021 7:33 AM North 8/29/2021 7:20 AM Messy power lines 8/29/2021 7:17 AM corridor 8/29/2021 6:54 AM 8/23 Packet Pg. 362 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 Leave blank 8/29/2021 6:05 AM Bustling 8/28/2021 11:17 PM unpleasant, dodgey 8/28/2021 10:34 PM Car dealership 8/28/2021 10:28 PM Health 8/28/2021 9:26 PM Experience 8/28/2021 9:16 PM Benign 8/28/2021 8:13 PM contemporary but indicative of Edmonds, i.e., with waves indicated 8/28/2021 7:15 PM North 8/28/2021 7:02 PM Doing business 8/28/2021 6:26 PM Gritty 8/28/2021 5:40 PM N c Welcoming 8/28/2021 5:34 PM to Busy 8/28/2021 4:41 PM 3 Commercial 8/28/2021 3:40 PM Downtown Edmonds Square Dining Shopping Marina Beach Access multiple locations Parks 8/28/2021 3:31 PM Underwater Diving Park Dog Park Multiple Event Centers Public Library Police Station City a' Government You really want me to go on? I am getting embarrased for ya BOWL ... I see now 3 why you are getting more crime then I had expected so far down there. Now THIS is why... Your bubble is a problem and a problem you selfishly made for yourself. We above 9th had nothing to do wit this I am proud to say that we are obviously much less selfish. _ Automotive (lots of dealerships) 8/28/2021 2:47 PM N = 3 North 8/28/2021 2:42 PM N contemporary 8/28/2021 2:16 PM Unique 8/28/2021 9:52 AM N Homeless 8/28/2021 9:42 AM C� Health 8/28/2021 9:39 AM m E Diverse 8/28/2021 9:21 AM v c� International 8/28/2021 9:07 AM Q Friendly 8/28/2021 8:22 AM as Eye catching 8/28/2021 7:32 AM t Sunny 8/28/2021 7:09 AM +� Q I have a word, but it's not something you'd want to emphasize.: ) 8/28/2021 12:01 AM Business 8/27/2021 11:44 PM Coastal 8/27/2021 11:11 PM Bleak 8/27/2021 10:13 PM North 8/27/2021 9:25 PM Pavement 8/27/2021 7:34 PM Artistic 8/27/2021 7:24 PM Commercial 8/27/2021 7:01 PM Ugly 8/27/2021 6:46 PM 9 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 363 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 100 It's an Edmonds kind of day 8/27/2021 6:30 PM 101 Diversity 8/27/2021 6:27 PM 102 Studious 8/27/2021 5:50 PM 103 Edmonds: gateway to the sound. 8/27/2021 5:17 PM 104 Business 8/27/2021 5:09 PM 105 Neighborhoods 8/27/2021 5:08 PM 106 Businesses 8/27/2021 5:01 PM 107 Commercial 8/27/2021 4:10 PM 108 Majestic 8/27/2021 4:04 PM 109 Unpleasant 8/27/2021 3:49 PM 110 North 8/27/2021 3:37 PM N c 111 Car lots 8/27/2021 3:27 PM to 112 Dirty 8/27/2021 3:22 PM 3 113 Business 8/27/2021 1:56 PM t9 114 Multicultural 8/11/2021 11:43 PM rn 115 multi cultural food and shops should be highlighted and promoted 8/10/2021 10:59 AM 3 116 Too many car dealerships! 8/8/2021 9:32 PM 117 All are here/ all are welcomed 8/8/2021 9:02 PM = N 118 Commercial 8/7/2021 7:25 PM 3 119 Business linking communities 8/7/2021 8:39 AM 120 Kindness 8/6/2021 11:50 PM m s' 121 too many signs 8/6/2021 4:23 PM U) 122 homeless person pushing grocery cart. 8/6/2021 2:37 PM c� 123 traffic r c 8/6/2021 6:44 AM m E 124 Not sure where it is 8/5/2021 5:00 PM R 125 grassy .r 8/5/2021 2:45 PM Q 126 undefined ... where does the road lead? Edmonds? Mountlake Terrace? 8/5/2021 11:14 AM 127 Welcoming 8/5/2021 11:13 AM t v 128 Travel 8/5/2021 10:52 AM Q 129 Already too much distraction 8/5/2021 10:26 AM 130 Health 8/5/2021 9:36 AM 131 Sea and Mountains 8/5/2021 9:27 AM 132 Commercial 8/5/2021 8:53 AM 133 Commercial 8/5/2021 8:49 AM 134 visual clutter 8/5/2021 8:28 AM 135 Modern 8/5/2021 6:44 AM 136 Industrial 8/5/2021 6:38 AM 137 CARS! 8/5/2021 6:24 AM 10 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 364 138 simple 139 Innovative 140 ed Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8/5/2021 6:03 AM 8/4/2021 11:23 PM 8/4/2021 12:18 PM 11 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 365 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Q7 What is one word or phrase that you would use to describe the character of the corridor near the SOUTH gateway location? Answered:145 Skipped:243 RESPONSES DATE Diversity 9/14/2021 1:17 PM Bold 9/14/2021 12:51 AM Mixed 9/12/2021 11:02 AM Thoroughfare 9/8/2021 10:37 PM It should look like the sign coming down 104 to 5th Ave. 9/6/2021 9:40 PM Community! International! 9/4/2021 6:41 PM International flavor 9/4/2021 4:43 PM Corridor to food, health, and transportation 9/4/2021 1:29 PM busy 9/3/2021 11:53 AM See comment for North. Community, nature, family 9/3/2021 11:05 AM Shopping due to all the shopping centers in that area (Safeway, Costco, Ect) 9/3/2021 2:09 AM Commercial, use design that embraces the higher density of the 99 corridor. 9/2/2021 2:16 PM Gateway to Puget Sound 9/1/2021 9:31 PM South Edmonds 9/1/2021 8:53 PM see above 9/1/2021 6:41 PM This city needs zoning laws. My neighbors make loud noise 24/7 and the city won't do 9/1/2021 12:34 PM anything about it. Don't miss ED! This town is fun and the signs should be too.... 9/1/2021 12:03 PM Welcome 9/1/2021 8:28 AM Sketchy 8/31/2021 8:56 PM Welcoming 8/31/2021 6:58 PM County line 8/31/2021 6:52 PM Open 8/31/2021 9:54 AM Shopping 8/31/2021 8:39 AM Shoreline 8/31/2021 8:37 AM Don't know 8/31/2021 7:42 AM Strip malls 8/31/2021 7:21 AM I would like consistency in the message. This area of the highway 99 corridor is known for 8/31/2021 6:59 AM poverty, drug use, and crime. I would like to flip that narrative, but a pithy saying on the sign will be more of a joke than a marketing tool. Keep the edmonds brand consistent so it is all part of Edmonds, not just the Bowl and waterfront area. Hookers 8/31/2021 4:49 AM commercial 8/30/2021 11:46 PM Q 12/23 Packet Pg. 366 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 Needs work 8/30/2021 9:34 PM Motel row 8/30/2021 8:23 PM International 8/30/20214:37 PM Downtown Edmonds Waterfront 8/30/2021 4:03 PM Business 8/30/2021 3:20 PM International district and methamphetamine 8/30/2021 9:53 AM we're not Shoreline 8/30/2021 9:48 AM Welcome, the vibe is glad you are here 8/30/2021 9:22 AM Some parts disheveled looking, needs clean up and fixing up 8/30/2021 9:09 AM uglier 8/30/2021 9:07 AM busy 8/30/2021 7:33 AM N c Run-down 8/29/2021 8:19 PM to Beautiful 8/29/2021 6:45 PM cv 3 Residential 8/29/2021 5:54 PM t9 potential 8/29/2021 5:44 PM rn Crossroads of South Snohomish County or South Snohomish County Crossroads (So-Sno-Co- 8/29/2021 4:18 PM Cro-Ro) Dynamic 8/29/2021 2:06 PM international 8/29/2021 1:48 PM .r Welcome to Beautiful Edmonds 8/29/2021 1:38 PM 3 (n Beautiful 8/29/2021 1:35 PM m South Edmonds 8/29/2021 11:43 AM 3 U) commercial 8/29/2021 11:08 AM N Ferry 8/29/2021 10:25 AM c m Same thing ... 99 is unattractive ... Parks? Seagulls, 8/29/2021 9:44 AM E I'd still go with "Vibrant". All the other adjectives I associate with downtown Edmonds - 8/29/2021 9:43 AM r exciting, enticing, enchanting - seem incongruous posted next to a car lot and an overpass. Q Inviting 8/29/2021 9:41 AM y E Uptown Edmonds 8/29/2021 9:39 AM v Burg 8/29/2021 9:06 AM Q Welcome 8/29/2021 8:51 AM Lake 8/29/2021 8:37 AM Visible 8/29/2021 8:31 AM expansive 8/29/2021 7:53 AM M 8/29/2021 7:36 AM costco/businesses 8/29/2021 7:33 AM South 8/29/2021 7:20 AM Crime 8/29/2021 7:17 AM crossroad 8/29/2021 6:54 AM 13 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 367 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 67 Leave blank 8/29/2021 6:05 AM 68 Innovative 8/28/2021 11:17 PM 69 keep driving 8/28/2021 10:34 PM 70 Nothing 8/28/2021 10:28 PM 71 Decaying 8/28/2021 9:26 PM 72 Experience 8/28/2021 9:16 PM 73 Charachterless 8/28/2021 8:13 PM 74 contemporary but indicative of Edmonds, i.e., with waves indicated 8/28/2021 7:15 PM 75 South 8/28/2021 7:02 PM 76 Going home 8/28/2021 6:26 PM 77 Gritty 8/28/2021 5:40 PM N c 78 Welcoming 8/28/2021 5:34 PM to 79 Ghetto 8/28/2021 4:41 PM cv 3 80 Commercial 8/28/2021 3:40 PM t9 81 Well ... This one says WELCOME TO EDMONDS Edmonds Ferry Grocery Services Gas 8/28/2021 3:31 PM Stations Firdale Shopping Area 82 International (as in district with lots of Asian stores and eateries). 8/28/2021 2:47 PM 83 South 8/28/2021 2:42 PM i7r 84 contemporary 8/28/2021 2:16 PM 85 Posh 8/28/2021 9:52 AM 86 Cars 8/28/2021 9:42 AM m 87 Auto 8/28/2021 9:39 AM 3 U) 88 A boring freeway 8/28/2021 9:21 AM N 89 International 8/28/2021 9:07 AM c m 90 Outdated 8/28/2021 8:22 AM E t 91 colorful 8/28/2021 7:32 AM r a 92 Sunny 8/28/2021 7:09 AM }; c 93 Culturally diverse 8/28/2021 12:01 AM E t 94 Transition 8/27/2021 11:44 PM r Q 95 Pathway to Heaven 8/27/2021 11:11 PM 96 Garbage 8/27/2021 10:28 PM 97 Curvy 8/27/2021 10:13 PM 98 South 8/27/2021 9:25 PM 99 Welcoming 8/27/2021 7:34 PM 100 Artistic 8/27/2021 7:24 PM 101 Commercial 8/27/2021 7:01 PM 102 Business end 8/27/2021 6:46 PM 103 It's an Edmonds kind of day 8/27/2021 6:30 PM 104 Diversity 8/27/2021 6:27 PM 14 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 368 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b 105 Enterprising 8/27/2021 5:50 PM 106 Edmonds: gateway to the sound. 8/27/2021 5:17 PM 107 Highway 8/27/2021 5:09 PM 108 Downtown gateway 8/27/2021 5:08 PM 109 Evergreen 8/27/2021 5:01 PM 110 Rejuvenation 8/27/2021 4:56 PM 111 Commercial 8/27/2021 4:10 PM 112 Beautiful 8/27/2021 4:04 PM 113 Ugly 8/27/2021 3:49 PM 114 kindness, care 8/27/2021 3:47 PM 115 Not sure 8/27/2021 3:40 PM 116 South 8/27/2021 3:37 PM 117 traffic exchange 8/27/2021 3:27 PM 118 Also dirty 8/27/2021 3:22 PM 119 mobile 8/27/2021 1:56 PM 120 Multicultural 8/11/2021 11:43 PM 121 needs development 8/10/2021 10:59 AM 122 Connection to Shoreline, journey to the city (ie Seattle) 8/8/2021 9:32 PM 123 More neutral like the rest of our gateway signage- Let people know "you are here in Edmonds!" 8/8/2021 9:02 PM Professional, business district 124 Welcoming 8/7/2021 7:25 PM 125 Passport to a good life or passport to something... that particular spot feels like you're 8/7/2021 8:39 AM transitioning 126 Kindness 8/6/2021 11:50 PM 127 too many signs 8/6/2021 4:23 PM 128 homeless person pushing grocery cart. 8/6/2021 2:37 PM 129 view 8/6/2021 6:44 AM 130 scary 8/5/2021 5:00 PM 131 Commercial/industrial 8/5/2021 2:45 PM 132 undefined .. where does the road lead? Downton /ferry /shopping /library ???? 8/5/2021 11:14 AM 133 Welcoming 8/5/2021 11:13 AM 134 Errands 8/5/2021 10:52 AM 135 Don't look at the sign, look at the guy in front of you! 8/5/2021 10:26 AM 136 International 8/5/2021 9:36 AM 137 Sea and Mountains 8/5/2021 9:27 AM 138 Cresting a hill 8/5/2021 8:53 AM 139 Busy 8/5/2021 8:49 AM 140 grass 8/5/2021 8:28 AM 141 Installation 8/5/2021 6:44 AM Q 15/23 Packet Pg. 369 142 143 144 145 PAVEMENT! simple Fundamental ed Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8/5/2021 6:24 AM 8/5/2021 6:03 AM 8/4/2021 11:23 PM 8/4/2021 12:18 PM 16 / 23 Packet Pg. 370 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 Q8 Thinking about the character of the Highway 99 corridor and Edmonds overall, what are some elements that should be inspiration for the gateway signs? Check all that apply: Su Futu col SCI Answered:313 Skipped:7c Modern Ot ■ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 17 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 371 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Modern 34.19% Sustainability 31.63% Future & Vision 23.32% Traditional 17.57% Natural Elements 54.63% History 15.02% Contemporary 22.04% Sculptural Art 27.16% Culture 23.64% Light 25.88% Color 25.56% Total Respondents: 313 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 Reference to waterfront 2 It should look like the sign coming down 104 to 5th Ave. 3 Food and walkability 4 Consistent will other new sign's elements 5 Waste of money 6 international/Asian 7 Picture of the ferry like on the old Welcome to Edmonds sign 8 Youthful 9 1 voted for vertical so we would not have to clean up graffiti all the time 10 Please let it be warm and inviting, not just a modern sign. Edmonds has warmth and character and the sign should represent that too!! that westgate sign is info only, not a welcoming vibe. The boundary signs should Set the tone of the city when entering Edmonds 11 wayfinding, uncluttered 12 Blue 13 Blue and white, maybe purple too, seem to be sign colors used to represent Edmonds 14 Community 15 Strength 16 Mid century elements 17 Easy to read 18 Micro park with bench 19 Something that really welcomes people. There's a perception that Edmonds is all cranky rich white people. 20 International cultural influence DATE 9/14/2021 1:17 PM 9/6/2021 9:40 PM 9/1/2021 12:03 PM 8/31/2021 6:59 AM 8/31/2021 4:49 AM 8/30/2021 11:46 PM 8/30/2021 4:55 PM 8/30/2021 3:20 PM 8/30/2021 3:20 PM 8/30/2021 9:22 AM 8/29/2021 5:44 PM 8/29/2021 1:38 PM 8/29/2021 10:25 AM 8/29/2021 9:23 AM 8/29/2021 9:06 AM 8/29/2021 8:51 AM 8/28/2021 10:28 PM 8/28/2021 6:26 PM 8/28/2021 12:01 AM 8/10/2021 10:59 AM 107 99 73 55 171 47 69 85 74 81 80 c� t9 rn rn 3 _T 2 N 7 m m s' Cn N c m E .c R .r r a c a� E t r Q 18/23 Packet Pg. 372 21 22 23 24 25 26 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 too many signs 8/6/2021 4:23 PM integrative to environment / useful in some way / make noise when rained on? 8/5/2021 10:30 AM Traffic, Distraction 8/5/2021 10:26 AM Inclusive 8/5/2021 8:49 AM simplicity. speed of travel is 35-45 mph and there are many distractions. 8/5/2021 8:28 AM Solar powered lighting; native history; mountains and Sound 8/5/2021 8:20 AM a 19 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 373 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b Q9 Should the gateway signs at the north and south match each other or have unique design elements? Answered:328 Skipped:60 Theyshoul match each. They should b uniqu Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES They should match each other 70.73% They should be unique 21.04% Other (please specify) 8.23% TOTAL # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 They should complement each other - does not need to match completely 2 no preference 3 They should also match our other signs. 4 no opinion 5 Match in feel but could have one vertical and one horizontal. I like the signs at Westgate. 6 They should compliment each other even if don't match 7 Deleted 8 Have similar elements but be unique 9 Same font 10 Unique, but complementary 11 They should be similiar, but don't have to match exactly. 12 They should look the same shape wise and then of course change letter to describe what is at the end of the street... Other wise I would go with tall Vertical for all of it. That way it can actually be seen by drivers so they have time to make the Left turn they will be making since they will likely enter from 220th. If you use those low ones accident could occur as they look for the sign. Trucks and Cars will block that lower horizontal sign. 13 Should have common elements so the various signs around Edmonds are recognized as DATE 9/14/2021 1:17 PM 9/7/2021 7:20 PM 9/6/2021 9:40 PM 9/3/2021 11:53 AM 9/3/2021 11:05 AM 9/1/2021 9:31 PM 8/31/2021 4:49 AM 8/29/2021 11:20 AM 8/29/2021 9:41 AM 8/29/2021 8:37 AM 8/29/2021 7:53 AM 8/28/2021 3:31 PM 8/28/2021 9:39 AM N C Cl) cv 3 a� ca t9 rn O� R 3 _LM 2 232 N a+ 69 m 27 m 328 Cn N c m E t v R .r r a c a� E t U 2 r Q 20 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 374 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b having a common theme/style 14 whatever idea is best. 8/28/2021 12:01 AM 15 Consistent theme 8/27/2021 11:44 PM 16 Same style and color but not necessarily exactly the same 8/27/2021 6:46 PM 17 1 think having them coordinate would be nice. They can look somewhat individual but have 8/27/2021 5:50 PM elements that tie them in together. 18 Similar elements but look different 8/27/2021 5:32 PM 19 Match but have their own character. Same lettering and overall design, but referential to the 8/27/2021 5:08 PM area they're in. 20 Tbd 8/8/2021 9:32 PM 21 Vertical work much better at north end; to tie together but still take advantage of the site, south 8/8/2021 9:02 PM end should be a hybrid with horizontal base and vertical element at one side that mimics the one to the north 22 They could match but each have a sculptural element on top like the flower basket poles 8/7/2021 9:55 AM downtown 23 too many signs 8/6/2021 4:23 PM 24 They should be similar 8/5/2021 9:03 PM 25 related thematically and close cousins. not two completely separate or two identical 8/5/2021 10:30 AM 26 They should match in not being there at all 8/5/2021 10:26 AM 27 Similar in style, coordinating 8/5/2021 6:44 AM a 21/23 Packet Pg. 375 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b Q10 Thinking of the other signs around Edmonds below, should the Highway 99 gateway signs match these other signs or should they be unique? (see example photos below) Answered:329 Skipped:59 They should b similar to t.. They should b similar to t.. They should have element... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES They should be similar to the Welcome to Downtown Edmonds sign They should be similar to the Edmonds wayfinding signs They should have elements that are similar to other signs in Edmonds but overall should be unique Other (please specify) TOTAL # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 more contemporary yet traditional, colorful for visual notice 2 Edmonds has a whole new look now! I think going too rustic is a mistake. I think it should be colorful and verticle so it will be seen by all lanes of traffic. safer that way.. No last minute jerk overs... I would myself use a lot of colors and use them on the n and s vertical signs I suggest Green a bright green but not grass green, and maybe hum ... a butter yellow bright but not cold, and how about purple a bit lighter than some but not pastel. You could throw an Aqua blue/green and a blue that works with those. I like those colors... Then they can be used throughout our town up and down as smaller like little lollipop signs round in those colors for specific lead in directions etc. get it? 3 'Welcome to" sign is boring ... Wayfinder more graphically interesting 4 Throw the idea out... 5 They should represent a changing, more youthful and diverse Edmonds 6 The Five corners element is a great way to create a cohesive look for entry points into RESPONSE 22.19% 21.58% 50.46% 5.78% DATE 9/3/2021 1:33 PM 9/1/2021 6:41 PM 9/1/2021 12:03 PM 8/31/2021 4:49 AM 8/30/2021 3:20 PM 8/30/2021 9:53 AM S N C cv 3 as t9 rn rn 3 t _T 2 N 7 d 73 cn 71 r c m 166 E t U 19 r a 329 a� E t U is r Q 22 / 23 1 Packet Pg. 376 Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1 8.3.b 7 N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Edmonds. The international district has distinct signage, downtown has distinct signage, and that is nice. The north south corridors.can tie into Edmonds in a consistent fashion, and allow our small enclaves to keep their unique characteristics. If a decent design to bridge the two signs is possible I'm all for it. I really like the tree and water references in the downtown edmonds sign if other elements can't make it. A green vertical strip and blue horizontal in whatever style would be enough for me. Bolder and stronger than any existing, with art elements of Wayfinding make all official edmonds signs match - make A statement about the cities need to unite not fight unique to cooridor continuity is your goal or it will be too gaudy. Something daring, original and artistic would reflect the art -focus The signs should be similar, and the other ones updated to match the new signs A small sign on a 4x4 is all I think is required. too many signs Modern Like the Miami Beach sign, but with waves rather than circles As little to read as possible, Hwy 99 already too distracting incorporate 1-2 design elements from wayfinding signs, but no need to make signs similar. 8/29/2021 10:25 AM 8/29/2021 9:06 AM 8/29/2021 6:54 AM 8/28/2021 10:34 PM 8/28/2021 3:31 PM 8/28/2021 12:01 AM 8/27/2021 5:17 PM 8/27/2021 3:37 PM 8/6/2021 4:23 PM 8/5/2021 5:21 PM 8/5/2021 3:47 PM 8/5/2021 10:26 AM 8/5/2021 8:28 AM a 23/23 Packet Pg. 377 8.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Council vote to return meetings to virtual platform in lieu of in -person meetings Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History Due to the COVD-19 pandemic, the Edmonds City Council began meeting virtually in March of 2020 following Governor Jay Inslee's emergency proclamation "Stay Home, Stay Healthy." After more than 15 months Washington state lifted most COVID-19 restrictions as of June 30. The City Council resumed in - person meetings in Council chambers on July 20. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative A fifth wave of increasing COVID-19 transmission has been underway since approximately July 1, 2021. In the last 12 weeks, the rate of COVID cases per 100,000 went from a low of 67 to a high of 475 - please see charts below. With the health and safety of all residents in mind, the Council is asked to consider returning to a virtual meeting format instead of in -person in Council Chambers. This decision can be reviewed in a month to determine if we want to continue in the virtual format or resume in -person meetings. Case Count Last Change from (cumulative since Jan. Updated: 9/13/21 2020) 2:48 p.m. 9/20/21 Confirmed 51,473 (+)1455 Probable 5,840 (+) 14 Deaths 698 (+)16" Packet Pg. 378 8.4 SNOHOMISH COUNTY COVID-19 CASE RATE PER 100,000 FOR 2-WEEK ROLLING PERIOD (UPDATED MONDAYS) 450 452 f54 4 432 426 400 405 368 380 550 35 337 300 306 295 ]S3 n 250 253 4W 2 200 08 190 180 193 195 8 U ]50 129 2�28 3i30 352 `�' 139 100 96 105 5 102 106 111 114 107 78 75 74 9877 79 50 49 9 144 38 2so 9 2 757 19 0 Attachments: Sno HD Mask Directive 8 10 21 Slides on Mask Directive SHD Packet Pg. 379 8.4.a SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT WWW.SNOHD.ORG Local Health Officer Directive for Wearing of Masks in Public Indoor Spaces Snohomish Health District August 10, 2021 Whereas the novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19 has led to over 45,000 reported cases, 2,143 hospitalizations, and 639 deaths in Snohomish County since January 2020; and Whereas Snohomish County remains under a state of emergency declared by the Health Officer, the County Executive, the Governor, and the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; and Whereas a fifth wave of increasing COVID-19 transmission has been underway since approximately July 1, 2021, leading to a 365% increase in weekly reported cases over the past six weeks, arriving at a 14-day case rate of 279 per 100,000 residents; and Whereas this case rate is above the threshold for "high transmission" as defined by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and Whereas vaccination against COVID-19 in Snohomish County has been underway since December 2020 and 54% of the population is now fully vaccinated; and Whereas approximately 230,000 Snohomish County residents >_12 years of age remain unvaccinated despite widespread availability of vaccine for several months; and Whereas approximately 125,000 Snohomish County children <12 years of age remain unvaccinated due to their ineligibility for vaccination at this time; and Whereas severely immunosuppressed individuals in the community have a reduced response to vaccine and remain vulnerable to severe disease due to COVID-19; and Whereas SARS-CoV-2 spreads from person to person primarily through inhalation of air carrying very small droplets and aerosol particles that contain infectious virus; and Whereas the more transmissible delta strain of SARS-CoV-2 now accounts for virtually all transmission occurring in Snohomish County; and Whereas the rates of severe disease, hospitalization, and death due to COVID-19 were approximately 10 times higher among unvaccinated than among vaccinated persons in Snohomish County during the month of July 2021; and 3020 Rucker Avenue ■ Everett, WA 98201-3900 ■ tel: 425.339.5210 ■ fax: 425.339.5263 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 380 8.4.a Face Covering Directive Snohomish Health District August 10, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Whereas occasional breakthrough infections do occur among fully vaccinated individuals, accounting for approximately 15% of Snohomish County cases in July 2021; and Whereas use of well fitting, multi -layer cloth face coverings or medical procedure masks has been demonstrated to reduce generation of virus -transmitting aerosols from contagious individuals; and Whereas use of well fitting, multi -layer cloth face coverings or medical procedure masks also has been demonstrated to reduce inhalation of virus -transmitting aerosols by the wearer; and Whereas the CDC recommends all persons in high transmission communities like Snohomish County wear masks when present in public indoor spaces —regardless of vaccination status; and Whereas the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's most recent COVID-19 Results Briefing for Washington State on August 5, 2021, projected that rapid adoption of universal masking coverage could prevent 1,500 cumulative excess deaths due to COVID-19 between now and December 1, 2021, in Washington State; and Whereas on July 26, 2021, the Local Health Officer joined other regional counties' health officers in recommending masking in public indoor spaces; and Whereas reported cases and hospitalizations continue to increase; and Whereas Snohomish County's hospital intensive care units collectively are operating at >_90% maximum capacity with little additional reserve to absorb a greater surge of COVID-19 hospitalizations; and Whereas Washington State law, RCW 70.05.070(2), (3), requires and empowers the Local Health Officer to take such action as is necessary to maintain health and to control and prevent the spread of any contagious or infectious diseases within the jurisdiction; and Whereas state regulation, WAC 246-100-036, requires the Local Health Officer, when necessary, to institute disease control measures as he, she, or they deem necessary based on his, her, or their professional judgment, current standards of practice, and the best available medical and scientific information; Therefore, based upon the preceding, the Local Health Officer hereby finds that: Use of face masks for everyone >_5 years of age within indoor public spaces is reasonable and necessary in Snohomish County to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission until the Snohomish Health District confirms that the COVID-19 risk to Snohomish County residents is substantially reduced based on considerations that include but may not be limited to: COVID-19 disease rates declining to low levels of community transmission as defined by the CDC; Packet Pg. 381 8.4.a Face Covering Directive Snohomish Health District August 10, 2021 Page 3 of 3 COVID-19 hospitalizations and death rates stabilizing at low levels; a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine being authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in children 5 years through 11 years of age. EFFECTIVE Thursday, August 12, 2021, at 6:00 a.m., as the Local Health Officer I hereby direct as follows: Everyone >_5 years of age in Snohomish County must wear a face covering within indoor public spaces. Children age two, three, or four years old, while exempt from this official directive, are recommended to wear a face covering with the assistance and close supervision of an adult in accordance with the current Order of the Secretary of Health. Everyone in correctional facilities, homeless shelters, schools, childcare, public transportation, and health care settings, including doctor's offices, long-term care, and hospitals, must also wear a well -fitted mask in accord with state requirements already in place. This DIRECTIVE applies to indoor spaces that are open to the public, including retail, grocery stores, government buildings, and other businesses and places where members of the public can enter freely; it does not apply to indoor non-public spaces, including businesses, offices, and other places of employment with limited access. Employers should continue to follow current guidance and requirements from the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries on worker safety. This DIRECTIVE also does not apply to outdoor spaces. Please follow current Washington State Department of Health guidance and directives on the use of masks outdoors. I strongly urge all people in Snohomish County to voluntarily comply with this DIRECTIVE, and likewise direct all businesses that are open to the public, including grocery and other retail establishments, to continue implementing policies and practices to ensure that their customers and employees wear face masks in order to protect the health of their customers, workers, and the community. This DIRECTIVE will remain in effect until the Snohomish Health District confirms that COVID-19 disease rates decline to low levels of transmission as defined by the CDC or until this directive is otherwise rescinded. ( Vt A tA4August 10, 2021 Christopher Spitters, MD, MPH Date Health Officer Packet Pg. 382 Snohomish Health District Mask Directie Data Points: • A fifth wave of increasing COVID-19 transmission has been underway since July leading to a 365%increase in weekly reported cases over the past six weeks, arriving at a 14-day case rate of 279 per 100,000 residents • In Snohomish County 54% of the population is now fully vaccinated • 230,000 Snohomish County residents >_12 years of age remain unvaccinated of EDM w Packet Pg. 383 8.4.b • 1251000 Snohomish County children <12 years of age remain unvaccinated due to their ineligibility • Breakthrough infections do occur among fully vaccinated individuals, accounting for approximately 15% of Snohomish County cases in July 2021 • Snohomish County's hospital intensive care units collectively are operating at >_90% maximum capacity COVID-19 CASES REPORTED IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY BY DATE (UPDATED WEEKLY) 20M 53 500 0 2058 1--u- 13 345 �8 104 4 .I ���1191,1111111I N R O CONCONC C n m u7 to � n W m 0 1310 116D .996 10a 91 gg 7 31 G5 6a 495 �3 51 L? 4° i i _ o o_ R rev rev m rev � yr u7 w L n n ■ Antigen ■ RCR ■ Other Grand Total 8.4.b 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2021 Outside Boards and Committee Reports Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History Outside Boards and Committee Reports will be added to the end of the Council meeting packet for the last meeting of the month. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council is asked to review the attached committee reports/minutes from Councilmembers Buckshnis, Olson, and Distelhorst. Attachments: WRIAB_SRC_FINAL Draft Meeting summary_071521 Port of ED 8-30-21 Minutes PS P_07_29_21_Su m m a ryAwa iti ngApp rova I AFFordable Housing Alliance 6-23-21 Minutes Packet Pg. 386 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes Zoom Video Conference II July 15, 2021 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 Tom Agnew City of Bothell 4) CM Bruce Dodds City of Clyde Hill 5) CM Victoria Hunt City of Issaquah 6) CM Neal Black City of Kirkland 7) CM Adam Morgan City of Mill Creek 8) CM Vanessa Kritzer City of Redmond 9) CM Ted Frantz Town of Hunts Point 10) CM Carl Scandella Town of Yarrow Point 11) Corinne Helmer Cedar River Council 12) Larry Franks Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (F.I.S.H) 13) Kirstin Haugen King Conservation District 14) Noel Gilbrough Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group 15) Tor Bell Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust 16) Katie McGillvray U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 17) Hank Myers Washington Policy Center 18) Cleo Neculae Washington State Department of Ecology 19) Terry Lavender Water Tenders Alternates Present 20) CM Laura Johnson City of Edmonds 21) Mike Mactutis City of Kent 22) CM Lorri Bodi City of Lake Forest Park 23) David Bain Sno-King Watershed Council 24) Sarah Heerhartz Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group 25) Miles Penk Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife Other Attendees 26) Cheryl Paston City of Bellevue 27) Christi Cox City of Bothell 28) Allen Quynn City of Issaquah 29) Rachel Konrady City of Kirkland 30) Mike Todd City of Mill Creek 31) Peter Holte City of Redmond 32) Kristina Lowthian City of Renton 33) Toby Coenen City of Sammamish 34) Stephanie Sullivan City of Sammamish 35) Toby Thaler City of Seattle 36) Carol Volk City of Seattle 37) Patricia Wangen Beach Naturalist 38) Larry Reymann Environmental Science Center 39) Jim Loring Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (F.I.S.H) 40) David St. John King County 41) Joan Lee King County 42) Jim Bower King County 43) Judy Blanco King County 44) Ingrid Lundin King County 45) Mike Murphy King County 0 Q. a� a� a� E E 0 U c 0 m m O N r ti 0 I 0 E E 0 c a� a� R 0 J Q z I U w 0 I Q c m E U M r r Q Packet Pg. 387 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes Zoom Video Conference II July 15, 2021 2:00 — 4:15p.m. 46) Mike Burger Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 47) Jim Adams National Park Service 48) Elizabeth Mooney People for an Environmentally Responsible Kenmore 49) Angela Harris Port of Edmonds Commissioner 50) Alexandra Doty Puget Sound Partnership 51) Rob Plotnikoff Snohomish County 52) Jeff Jensen University of Washington Bothell 53) Lily Cason University of Washington Bothell 54) Tara Wilson Washington State Department of Natural Resources 55) Whitney Neugebauer Whale Scout 56) Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager 57) Lauren Urgenson WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator 58) Jason Wilkinson WRIA 8 Project Coordinator 59) Carla Nelson WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator 1) Call to Order / Introductions Councilmember (CM) John Stokes (Chair) called the July Salmon Recovery Council (the "SRC," or "Council") meeting to order at 2:02 pm. Chair Stokes welcomed everyone and conducted introductions. 11) Public Comment— No public comment. III) Consent Agenda — The SRC Meeting Minutes from May 20, 2021 were discussed. Action: The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the May 20, 2021 meeting minutes. IV) Updates & Announcements Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz (Jason M-K), WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager, highlighted the following updates Puget Sound regional update; Lake Washington Ship Canal roundtable to develop goals and solutions to address elevated temperature and low dissolved oxygen; PUGET SOS bill to establish a Puget Sound Recovery National Program Office in the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee allocation of $50M annually for five years to advance recovery and implementation of priority actions; Increased pinniped predation at Ballard Locks. WRIA 8 will remain in communication with WDFW and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to track and support efforts to address increase in pinniped predation at the Locks. Updates Discussion: • Mike Burger (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe) announced that a meeting is taking place to discuss possible actions to address pinniped predation. • Larry Franks (F.I.S.H) asked when will the viewing window be open at Ballard Locks. Katie McGillvray (Army Corps of Engineers) stated that the window is currently open to the public, and she will keep the SRC apprised of the celebration to mark its official opening. • Jeff Jensen (UW Bothell) asked for more information on the sockeye and tagging methods on fish being trapped and taken to the Cedar River. Mike Burger (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe) said that trapped sockeye are not clipped, or wire tagged. They are otolith-marked at Cedar River Hatchery. He continued that there are differences in run times and he will continue to monitor the runs. V) King County Conservation Futures Tax (CFT)/ Park Levy (PL) Advisory Committee 2022 Funding Recommendations — Terry Lavender, Chair, King County CFT/PL Advisory Committee Chair, John Stokes introduced Terry Lavender to present the Conservation Futures Advisory Committee's 2022 funding recommendations related to WRIA 8. Terry noted that this is the third year that CFT has been implementing the Land Conservation Initiative (LCI) in the form of a match waiver program to fund natural infrastructure that targets the most under -served areas. The Advisory Committee received $52M in requests, with 40% of the $45M recommended for funding containing a strong salmon recovery nexus. Terry provided Packet Pg. 388 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes Zoom Video Conference II July 15, 2021 2:00 — 4:15p.m. details on three CFT recommended restoration projects: Piper's Crest; East Fork Issaquah Creek; Middle Bear and Cottage Lake Creeks which included highlights from King County Executive, Dow Constantine's visit to Bear Creek in May. Terry concluded the presentation by providing an overview of a series of marine nearshore projects, including an update on Frog Holler at Camp Sealth; Vashon-Neill Point/Morningside Farm and the Vashon Island marine shoreline projects that total $4.8M. Discussion: Jason M-K said he appreciates the strong connection between WRIA 8 salmon recovery priorities and CFT projects. CM Vanessa Krizter (City of Redmond) was pleased to learn more about the Bear and Cottage Creek investments. VI) 2022 WRIA 8 Management Committee Recommended Budget and Work Plan —Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz The WRIA 8 Management Committee (MC) met on June 7 to discuss two proposed ILA cost share budget options. Proposed option A included increasing the ILA cost share by Consumer Price Index for Wages (CPI-W) 2.5%, which would increase the total WRIA 8 ILA cost share by—$16,138. Proposed option B does not include a cost share increase in 2022. Jason M-K presented the Management Committee's recommendation to approve option A - increasing the ILA cost share by 2.5% per the 2022 proposed budget and work plan and thanked the Management Committee members for their time, engagement, and budget recommendation. Discussion: • Chair Stokes said he appreciates WRIA 8 staff's suggestion to idenitfy programs or projects to fund using the $387,442 carry forward balance. He also noted the importance of the SRC supporting the cost share increase, as it demonstrates confidence and approval of the organization and its goal. • CM Vanessa Krizter (City of Redmond) agreed with proposed option A and the show of confidence to invest more in this great work. CM Krizter asked when WRIA 8 staff would come back to the Council with suggestions to spend the carry forward balance. Jason explained how this information will be provided over the course of several SRC meetings in installments throughout this year and 2022. • CM Adam Morgan (City of Mill Creek) asked for more details on the ILA cost share table to provide this information to City of Mill Creek's Council. Jason M-K explained that the cost share formula is updated every three years which calculates the population, assessed land value, and land area. Jason noted the cost share table was provided as part of the meeting packet. Action: The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the 2022 budget and staff work plan as proposed by the Management Committee. VII) 2021 Salmon Recovery Funding Board Grant Round Funding Recommendations — Jason Wilkinson, WRIA 8 Projects and Funding Coordinator Jason explained how the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grant program funds habitat restoration, protection, acquisition, and monitoring efforts. He gave details how the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) administers the statewide program using federal and state dollars and noted that State legislature increased funding for the SRFB program this year, which modestly increased WRIA 8's allocated amount to—$435,000, which is the largest amount since 2010. He explained how the funding recommendations are developed by the WRIA 8 Project Subcommittee, and this year the subcommittee recommended to allocate the full balance of grant funding in support the City of Issaquah's Lower Issaquah Creek Restoration project. The other two projects were lower priority and/or had some additional design questions that needed to be addressed. One of the projects - Bear Creek Restoration at Friendly Village (Phase 3 design) — received some funding through WRIA 8's King County Flood Control District's (FCD) Cooperative Watershed Management (CWM) grant round to help better refine the project scope and answer some critical feasibility questions. Jason concluded by noting that although monitoring projects are eligible for SRFB funds, WRIA 8 has made habitat restoration and land acquisition the priority focus of these grant funds. Packet Pg. 389 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes Zoom Video Conference II July 15, 2021 2:00 — 4:15p.m. Discussion: CM Vanessa Kritzer (City of Redmond) explained that she hoped the project sponsor for the Bear Creek at Friendly Village project could resolve the design/feasibility issues and understands the recommendation. Jason Wilkinson stated that the project was awarded funds for some conceptual design tasks through a CWM grant. Chair Stokes asked if the SRC can consider applying carry forward funds to support the Bear Creek at Friendly Village? Jason M-K replied that the project is at a stage where it could be considered to receive some of those funds through a potential project development small grant round WRIA 8 staff are considering, but allocations would need to be no more than $25K. Jason Wilkinson added that WRIA 8 can work with project sponsors to develop a scope to fit within such a funding cap. CM Ted Frantz (Town of Hunts Point) sought to clarify if there will be a larger pool of grant funds next year with the addition of Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) funds. Jason Wilkinson stated that WRIA 8 expects its full $1.4M allocation from PSAR next year. That amount is part of the recently passed biennial budget and provides an opportunity to entertain larger projects. Action: The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the 2021 Salmon Recovery Funding Board Recommendation as presented. Vill) Salish Sea Marine Survival Project Findings — Michael Schmidt, Long Live the Kings Michael reviewed the scope of the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project findings from 7+ years of data collection. He provided the caveat that this work is still on -going, but he wanted to provide a snapshot of where Chinook, coho, and steelhead juvenile survival rates currently stand. He noted there is a 10X decline in juvenile survival rates since the studies began in the early 1980s. He then explained how declining trends through the 80s and 90s received no real rebound compared to coastal population. The Synthesis of Findings report documents the juvenile survival issue by describing the multiple pathways of impacts to salmon, each factor's interrelationships with other factors, and the results of comprehensive ecosystem modelling. Discussion: • Jason M-K expressed how interesting these findings are and was glad to see the data is being considered in regional management considerations. • CM Carl Scandella (Town of Yarrow Point) asked how the data could be used to support recovery of Puget Sound salmon population, and if there was any insight on the mathematical techniques used to better understand what is on the horizon to bolster the declining populations. Michael replied noting a caveat is necessary to understand that a correlation today may not be relevant tomorrow. He continued to explain how the ecosystem models are used to assess strategies in predicting patterns and outcomes. He reminded the SRC that these processes are imperfect. Data sets are focused on salmon, but salmon interact with their entire ecosystem and the data provided correlational work and the hope is that a broader spectrum of aspects can be viewed and deemed helpful. • CM Ted Frantz asked if their studies provided insight into whether seals could thrive from a modified diet to reduce their predation on salmon. Michael answered that there are some signs of seals responding to other fish coming into the ecosystem. However, seals are opportunistic feeders. He noted how there are some thoughts to relocate seal populations rather than get them to eat something else. • Chair Stokes commented that the data is interesting but with so many caveats there it's difficult to know how to change the course of the decline of salmon. He asked if their data could provide more clarity to inform management actions. Michael commented that recommendations are in place to push for more diversity of salmon populations, reinforcing importance on estuary restoration, the need for additional resolution on the Snohomish River to lower the level of contaminants at wastewater facilities. He added they are currently developing implementation strategies for steelhead. So, Michael suggested, these data sets do support actions; however, the recovery process takes time. Jason M-K noted that there are Packet Pg. 390 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes Zoom Video Conference II July 15, 2021 2:00 — 4:15p.m. discussions with watersheds and the Puget Sound region about how to use this information to inform recovery actions. • Corinne Helmer (Cedar River Council) asked if the timing for the release of hatchery fish could be adjusted to reduce predation? Corinne also asked for additional insight on the audio deterrents for pinniped predation, and if there were any other methods that could be helpful. • David Bain (Sno-King Council) asked about how kelp and eel grass abundance and status of beach -spawning forage fish populations affect salmon, and . Michael commented that more work was done with eelgrass and kelp in the Strait of Georgia as opposed to Central Puget Sound. However, emerging findings indicate that eelgrass is less of a concern from a habitat perspective, but kelp is a concern. But, the relationship between kelp and salmon isn't well understood. • CM Victoria Hunt (City of Issaquah) added that having specific actions and best practices related to the project's findings would be very useful for local governments to consider in local codes and model ordinances. IX) "Mystery Nerka" in North Lake Washington Streams — Jeff Jensen, PhD, University of Washington Bothell Mark Phillips introduced Dr. Jeff Jensen and thanked him for his work to reestablish kokanee populations and establish a citizen salmon watcher program. Dr. Jensen began by providing an overview of his 2017 discovery of a kokanee-like fish while following fall salmon runs in tributary streams to the Sammamish River. These smaller fish found predominantly in Lake Washington and Sammamish and were originally thought to be hybrids or from stock kokanee and sockeye introduced to the basin. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) conducted some genetic work on these fish, which was compared to more than 60 populations of kokanee throughout the Northwest. The genetic data indicated these "mystery" fish were genetically distinct, with a very limited spawning distribution. Jeff concluded by sharing next steps to further document the origins of these fish, including continuing to comparing genetics of "mystery nerka" with native kokanee; conducting otolith microchemistry; continuing North Lake Washington Salmon Watcher program. The long-term goal is to re-establish native kokanee in previously occupied streams by stocking remote site incubators in several streams beginning in 2023. Ditrustinn- • Whitney Neugebauer (Whale Scout) asked for a list of streams that would be the best fit for kokanee reintroduction? Dr. Jensen stated that McAleer Creek and Lion Creek were highest on his list. Also, would consider May Creek and Swamp Creek. Horse Creek in Bothell is also a possibility. She also asked about the likelihood for kokanee to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Dr. Jensen explained that there was an attempt to list Lake Sammamish kokanee under the ESA, but the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful and is very challenging. • Larry Reymann noted he was on site when a kokanee was documented in May Creek. He commented on his interest in anglers that are catching kokanee on the south end of Lake Washington. He is interested in whether kokanee could potentially use May Creek. Dr. Jensen stated he will get GPS coordinates of where anglers are catching what fish. He encouraged Mr. Reymann or anyone to become a Salmon Watcher on May Creek. • CM Carl Scandella (Town of Yarrow Point) asked what Dr. Jensen hoped to learn from the high-level DNA sequencing — trying to establish a family tree or evolutionary relationships? Dr. Jensen stated that species levels is not as interesting biologically, but it is harder and harder to distinguish populations the further you try to slit them. The genetic work allows a lot more sensitivity to recognize genetically distinct populations and to establish that they are native to the basin. • Jason M-K commented on management implications and how this work will be important to WRIA 8 recovery work. IX) Next Meeting: Chair Stokes noted the next SRC meeting is September 16, 2021, 2:00 — 4:15 pm, via Zoom. Meeting Adjourned at 4:36 pm. U) V_ 0 Q. a� as a� 0 U c 0 m m N O Packet Pg. 391 L/UL.UJDlylI CIIVCIUPt! ILI. VVGC'#J! O-/1MI / ---+ I rU-000D- I 1+MULJ IMUOF 10 9.1.b _ ORT OF EDMONDS PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING (Via Zoom) Au st 30, 2021 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Angela Harris, President Bob McChesney, Executive Director David Preston, Vice President Brandon Baker, Marina Manager Steve Johnston, Secretary Tina Drennan, Finance Manager Bruce Faires Jim Orvis OTHERS PRESENT Vivian Olson, Edmonds City Council Bradford Cattle, Port Attorney CALL TO ORDER Vice President Preston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. President Harris chaired the remainder of the meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. CONSENT AGENDA COMMISSIONER FAIRES MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9, 2021 MEETING MINUTES, AS AMENDED SUBMITTED. C. APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $698,516.19 COMMISSIONER ORVIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. McChesney read the following public comment (received via email from Eileen Kelliher) into the record: 'Ijust wanted to put in my two cents as you guide the upcoming project (which I am delighted that you are doing). The wooden walkway has been a lovely surface to walk on for me and my aging body. It even was super helpful post back surgery. I am hoping that the new material would similarly have a "give" to it and not be hard concrete. The concept of glass blocks to get sunlight on the water is fabulous, but would not be veryforgiving in terms of impact. Feel free to contact me if you have any comments. I love walking on the waterfront; and even though I'm not in your taxing district, I would totally vote myself'in to support this vital engine to Edmonds' economy and major, major source of charm. " 2 Packet Pg. 392 uuuuJIIJ.II mlvt7lupC IL/. VV4C'#J10-MM 11-'# 1 rV-ouoo- I'4CULJ I moor IJ 9.1.b Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commended the Port staff for the great service they provide at the launcher. He also reported that, under a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) "Adopt -a -Highway" restoration program, a group of volunteers has been working to remove invasive bittersweet nightshade and blackberry along Highway 104. The plants had grown into the fence bordering the highway, blocking and altering water flow into the Edmonds Marsh and preventing fish passage. The fence was removed, as well. There have been nine events, with over 50 different volunteers. Shellebarger Creek now flows openly to the culverts. On the other side of the marsh, the water is now pooling and moving into the marsh as it is supposed to. Commissioner Preston asked the likelihood of the nightshade growing back. Mr. Scordino acknowledged that it would grow back and would have to be removed every year just to keep the areas where the water flows open. The hope is that improved water flow and deeper water channels will eventually prevent its growth. Commissioner Faires asked if anything could be done, short of manual labor, that would slow or stop the nightshades' growth. Mr. Scordino explained that the plant grows as a vine and cannot be controlled with herbicides. All they can do is try and control it in the areas where it is creating problems and hope that the native plants will prevent it from taking over. Charles Malmgren, Edmonds, inquired if the Port received the comments he submitted via email earlier in the day, and Mr. McChesney answered no. Mr. Mulmgren said he is a sports fisherman and currently has a boat in the Port's Dry Storage Facility. The rules and fees imposed on Dry Storage tenants have forced him to reevaluate his tenancy. His costs have increased and his access to fishing has decreased. With no positive changes in sight and the prospect of higher costs to come, he can afford, but cannot justify, year-round tenancy. He said he would tow his boat home in September. Mr. Mulmgren voiced concern that the Dry Storage Facility is littered with pinch points, where tenants and staff cannot socially distance. On his last visit on August 27`h, he was the only tenant wearing a face covering and keeping a safe distance. He wished his best to the Port staff who work hard to make Dry Storage pleasant, safe and convenient. PRESENTATION BY JENNIFER LEACH — EDMONDS MARSH BUFFER RESTORATION PLAN rn Mr. McChesney introduced Jennifer Leach, Program Coordinator for the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and a� Cultural Services Department, specializing in environmental education and outreach. He advised that she focuses on managing the Beach Ranger Program and Puget Sound Bird Fest and coordinating stewardship activities in the City's 2 parks. She particularly enjoys mentoring her young staff and building community through volunteerism. She has an M.S. degree in ecology from the University of Washington, with a focus on invasive species and restoration ecology. M Prior to joining the City, she worked as an environmental consultant and a non-profit program manager. ao Jennifer Leach, Program Coordinator, City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department, explained that wetlands on the landscape are incredibly valuable and function to buffer natural areas (such as the marsh) from adjacent inputs like trash and pollution. She provided pictures showing how many of the marsh's buffers are very narrow and not well vegetated and pointed out that buffers trap pollutants, infiltrate water that carries toxins, and provide valuable habitat for wildlife. She advised that wetland buffers are highly regulated and prescribed by federal, state and local regulations. The Edmonds Marsh has a designated 110-foot buffer, and a wetland delineation was done to identify the exact boundaries of the marsh and where the buffer area begins. She pointed out that most of the buffer area on the east and north sides of the marsh is highly developed, without a lot of vegetation. The buffer area on the south and west sides of the marsh is much more intact in terms of vegetative cover. Ms. Leach explained that the property within the buffer area around the marsh is under multiple ownership (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF), Unocal, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Port of Edmonds), which makes it necessary to coordinate a broad, cohesive effort. Ms. Leach noted that there are a lot of invasive species growing in the marsh, and there are three types of treatment: ■ Biological. Introducing another organism to feed on or otherwise impact a particular target invasive. • Mechanical. Removing the invasive material by hand, cutting, mowing and digging out the roots. ■ Chemical. Using an herbicide or pesticide to kill the target invasive. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Port Commission August 30, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 393 UUUU1D1 II CI IVCIL)PV IV. UUGC'}J/O-MM/ /--11rU-OUJO' 1.+FU //MJor 1,3 9.1.b Ms. Leach shared past and current efforts to control the most common invasive species and restore the marsh and its buffers: • Purple loosestrife used to be a real problem throughout the marsh. About 15 years ago, a representative from the Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control Board introduced a certain type of beetle into the marsh as a biological control, and the number of purple loosestrife has declined as a result of the treatment. • There are small pockets of Japanese knotweed in the marsh, and it is very difficult to control. Mechanical control almost never works, and they are now using stem injections, which involves injecting an herbicide into the plant so it goes down into its roots. ■ There are large rhizomes underground that are very difficult to get rid of by pulling. These are usually chemically treated. • Bittersweet nightshade is well established along the WSDOT corridor and some other parts of the marsh. If mechanical control is used, it must be timed right and applied with a licensed applicator. Volunteers are currently working to remove this species in certain areas to improve water flow. • Volunteers are also working to remove a large blackberry patch between the Harbor Square Athletic Club and Highway 104. The blackberry is well established, and the only way to get it out is via chemical application or mechanical treatment. • Thick blackberries used to be located on the northern side of the marsh, near the viewing platform. In 2015 Earthcorp removed them and other invasive species and planted a dense community of native vegetation that has now grown to the point that very little maintenance is needed and there is now a dense barrier between the marsh and the litter and pollution influx that comes from that path. The original intent was for Earthcorp to work west from that point. However, the work had to stop until a wetland delineation and restoration plan was in place as required by the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. • Sound Salmon Solutions has been doing quite a bit of restoration in the southwest area of the marsh. They also provide environmental education at the fish hatchery. • A group of volunteers led by Joe Scordino has also been doing a lot of restoration work along the WSDOT corridor. Ms. Leach cautioned that it was important that the Marsh Restoration Plan was applicable to all areas of the marsh. This allows volunteers to do restoration work within the marsh based on the recommendations and guidelines outlined in the plan. It was also important that the plan was flexible enough to allow work to be done progressively as the opportunities, number of volunteers and financial resources come available. The plan can be implemented by multiple N groups over multiple years. c Ms. Leach said the priority focus of the plan was on stormwater infiltration and enhancing wildlife habitat. It was important to consider both the wildlife that uses the native plants in the marsh buffer and the animals in the marsh, itself. In addition to providing audio and visual screening from the urban activities, it was also important to provide viewing corridors through the buffer areas. The marsh is a favorite birding-watching destination, and it was important that the plan specify that view corridors should be preserved. Ms. Leach reviewed that the wetland delineation included all of the areas of the marsh that the City had access to, which includes all of Port, WSDOT and City property. It did not include the Unocal property. During the field investigation, the consultants made very detailed notes about the condition of the marsh buffer. Based on the conditions they saw on the ground, the buffer was divided into five different areas. Each of the areas are described in the Marsh Restoration Plan, as well as considerations and specific recommendations for planting and restoration. She encouraged the Commissioners to read through the plan to learn more about the current conditions in each of the areas, to gain a better understanding of the visions for restoration and for guidance on how to manage all of the invasive species found in the marsh and its buffer. Ms. Leach thanked the Port for being so cooperative and supportive throughout the process of developing the plan. She also thanked the Port for being strong advocates for restoration and making it easy for allowing restoration work to be done on Port property. She concluded that restoration of the marsh is very important to many in the community, and a lot has already been accomplished by volunteers. She provided pictures to illustrate the types of work that is being done by volunteer work parties, noting that there is a work party at some park in Edmonds almost every weekend, MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Port Commission August 30, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 394 L/UUU1D1 1I CIIVCIUPt! IU. UU4C'4Jl O-M I /-}IrV-OU:JD-1VCJLI/MUOr 10 9.1.b and there are a lot of opportunities for new stewards. She invited interested individuals to contact her for more information. Commissioner Harris suggested the Port could help to educate the public about work party opportunities via social media. Ms. Leach agreed that would be fantastic. She asked if the Port would be interested in promoting volunteerism throughout the City, or if the Port is specifically interested in volunteer opportunities that have a nexus to the marsh and the Port. Commissioner Harris answered that while the Port tries to promote across the City, her thought was specifically directed towards work parties related to marsh restoration. Ms. Leach said she anticipates there will be regular work parties now that the Marsh Restoration Plan is finished. However, the pandemic has made it more difficult to organize the events, which require compliance with the City and State rules. Commissioner Harris said she would contact Ms. Leach to share her ideas for highlighting marsh restoration events throughout the year. Ms. Leach suggested that an article in the Port's newsletter regarding the Marsh Restoration Plan would be helpful and could provide links to the Edmonds Stewards site, as well as other groups who organize work parties at the marsh. Mr. Scordino noted that the volunteer work effort is limited under the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Hydraulics Permit. Work in the wetland must conclude by September 15`n, which means there will only be three more work parties this year. Commissioner Preston asked when they will be able to move from marsh restoration to marsh maintenance. Ms. Leach said she doesn't anticipate reaching that point for a long time. It takes a long time for a plant community to become established. She shared an example of an area where invasive species were removed and native species were planted in 2005. For the first three to five years, volunteers consistently weeded the area and replaced plants that had died. When doing restorations in natural areas, about 50% of the plantings die. After five years, the native plants start to spread and fill in the space. The eventual goal is for the plantings to become dense and established enough so that very little maintenance is needed going forward. She cautioned that, when pulling invasive species, it is important to be realistic about the ability to maintain the area once it is cleared and replanted. Commissioner Faires asked if there are any plans in place for a specific effort relative to marsh restoration and reclamation next spring or summer to follow up on what has been done so far. Ms. Leach said the City would continue to work with Edmonds Stewards to restore the northern border of the marsh. They will also work with Sound Salmon Solutions on restoration projects in the southwest border of the marsh. She will be meeting on site with the Edmonds N a� Stewards coordinator this week to talk about the next steps. Commissioner Faires suggested that, if the Port uses its newsletter or mailer to advertise volunteer opportunities, they should clearly delineate what volunteers are needed for and when. Ms. Leach responded that she could provide more specific information to the Port once the Edmonds 2 Stewards establish a schedule for their work parties going forward. Mr. Scordino added that his group has a 4-year N agreement with WSDOT under the "Adopt -a -Highway" program, but the hydraulics permit only allows them to work M in the wetland from June 15`n to September 15`n each year. They plan to start again in June of 2022. Commissioner ao Faires suggested that Mr. Scordino communicate his group's 2022 plans to the Port so the events can be announced w in the Port's various communications media. Ms. Leach asked Mr. Scordino if anyone from WSDOT's noxious weed team has worked with him on the best way to control nightshade. Mr. Scordino answered no. They have just given his group approval to do what they can. Ms. Leach suggested that Mr. Scordino refer to the Marsh Restoration Plan, which includes several pages on techniques for controlling nightshade. HARBOR SQUARE PROPERTY HVAC REPLACEMENT CONTRACT NO.2021-375 AS COMPLETE Mr. McChesney reviewed that the Commission was briefed on maintenance issues and the need to replace aging HVAC units on a few buildings at Harbor Square. Twelve units were scheduled for replacement in the 2021 budget and $120,000 was allocated. The project was put out to bid on March 191n for units on Buildings 2 and 5, and the Commission directed staff to enter into a contract with the low bidder, DK Systems, Inc. for $156,050 on April 16`n One unit was removed from the scope upon pre -construction inspection, and this lowered the final cost by $8,411.03. The project was substantially completed on August 1311 and the final inspection was done on August 261n. Staff worked with the contractor to minimize disruption to tenants during installation. He recommended the Commission accept the contract with DK Systems, Inc. in the amount $147,638.97 plus sales tax for the Harbor Square Property HVAC Replacement Contract 2021-375 as complete. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Port Commission August 30, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 395 UUUUJIIY.II CI IVCIUPtC IU. UVLC4Jl O-MMI (-Y I rV-0VUO-I4C0U/ MUOF IJ 9.1.b Commissioner Preston asked how many more HVAC units need to be replaced at Harbor Square, and Mr. McChesney answered that there are just a few more to replace. He cautioned that the new HVAC units require a lot of maintenance, and the replacement schedule for them is a lot faster than for the units that were placed on the buildings in the 1980s. COMMISSIONER PRESTON MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT CONTRACT 2021-375 WITH DK SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $147,638.97 PLUS SALES TAX FOR THE HARBOR SQUARE PROPERTY HVAC REPLACEMENT 2021 CONTRACT AS COMPLETE. COMMISSIONER ORVIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2022 BUDGET— BASELINE CONDITIONS Ms. Drennan announced that staff has started working on the 2022 Preliminary Budget. She reviewed that the Commission approves the budget on an annual basis, and the budget is a plan that identifies resources for operations and capital projects, communicates the sources of revenue and costs of services, and allows the Commission and staff to review and prioritize repairs, improvements and other projects. She reminded them that the actual results may differ from the budget due to changed facilities or equipment conditions, changed priorities and changed economic environment. Facilities or equipment may break unexpectedly, and funds may need to be reallocated to pay for the fixes. Ms. Drennan recalled that the Port implemented the Cash Flow Schedule in 2012 as a method of determining moorage and dry storage rates and planning for future large capital expenditures, such as replacing major marina structures. The Cash Flow Model estimates future cash and investments based upon projected revenues and expenses and known major capital improvements. The Cash Flow Model is the basis for the budget, and the Commission recommended a moorage and dry storage rate increase of Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 1 % in April 2013. The Finance Committee recently reaffirmed that recommendation on August 1 Ith. CPI for All Urban Consumers, All Items in the Seattle - Tacoma -Bellevue Area was 5.5% as of June 30, 2021. This calculates to a moorage and dry storage rate increase of 6.5%. This same CPI number is also used for Port revenue increases and staff wage increases. Ms. Drennan observed that, as proposed, moorage rate increases range from about $15 per month for the smaller slips to $90 per month for the larger slips. For Dry Storage, the average rate increases range from $16 to $24 per month. rn a� There is a 25% difference between peak and off-season rates for Dry Storage. c Commissioner Faires reminded the public and tenants that, while this increase may seem large relative to previous years, it is important to keep in mind that CPI has been particularly low for the past several years. If the rate increases over the past five years are averaged with the 2022 increases, the average increase would still be relatively low. CO Commissioner Preston pointed out that, over the past 10 years, CPI has increased by 21.3% or an average of 2.13% per year. If they add 1%, as has been the Port's policy, the average rate increase is 3.13%. The 10-year average rate increase (including the proposed rate increase for 2022) is about 2.13%. He suggested that, rather than a 6.5% increase in 2022, the Port could consider a rolling -average rate increase. He pointed out that the CPI increase was only 3.4% in April and 1.7% in February. Commissioner Orvis cautioned that the rolling average didn't apply in previous years, so the rate increases were lower. Given the reality of marina maintenance, the rate increases were significantly less than the increases in maintenance costs. He noted that some marinas have deteriorated to the point that they cannot survive because they have artificially held down rates rather than applying realistic rate increases over time. Based on the Port's long-range program, the CPI plus 1 % program is less than the ideal amount needed to care for the marina, and the Port has compensated by being very careful with costs and using its own work force rather than contractors. In order to continue to maintain the marina, the Port will need to charge rates that will support the required maintenance levels. He reminded them that the cost of replacing the breakwater is much higher than anticipated when the initial long-range plan was done. Commissioner Johnston added that the marina and dry storage infrastructure is also aging and requires more maintenance. Commissioner Faires said he would support the proposed 6.5% rate increase. He observed that Port staff has done a great job of underrunning expenses and overrunning revenue each year, and the intent is that this will continue to improve. He agreed that the maintenance costs of an aging facility will increase. However, rather than predicating the future on disaster, he wants to focus on continuous improvement. He expressed his belief that a yearly increase of CPI plus 1 % would suffice until expenses no longer decrease and revenues no longer increase per budget. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Port Commission August 30, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 396 L/UUU,D1Y1I CIIVWUP" IU. UUGC'TJl O-MM! l-41 rV-oUJD-I'FCJV/Moor IJ 9.1.b 2022 BUDGET — PROPERTY TAXES Ms. Drennan advised that this item was placed on the agenda so the Commissioners could discuss property taxes and provide guidance for the 2022 Budget. She reported that the Finance Committee met on August I I" and reviewed the funding options for the Administration/Maintenance Building and the North Portwalk and Seawall Projects. To pay for the public portion of the North Portwalk and Seawall Project, the Finance Committee recommends increasing the property tax to the maximum of $600,000, which is a $200,000 increase. Ms. Drennan reviewed that the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 53.36.020 limits the Port's property tax to $0.45 per thousand of property value, and Washington State Initiative 747, which was passed in 2001, caps the property tax increase to 1% per year plus new construction. Since 2001, the Port has chosen to levy at less than the maximum regular property tax levy and bank the difference between the two, which allows the Port to step up to the banked amount at some point in the future. Ms. Drennan advised that the 2021 Property Tax Levy is $400,000, and the Port's banked capacity is about $194,000. Estimated new construction is about $1,200, which gives a maximum 2021 levy of about $594,938. Using an estimated 1 % increase, the estimate 2022 maximum tax levy would be $600,887. If the Commission agrees, staffs intent would be to increase the tax levy to the maximum. Ms. Drennan referred to the Tax Levy History (Page 3), which shows the Port's taxable assessed value, actual tax levy amount and actual tax levy rate (millage rate) from 1990 to projected 2022. The millage rate for 2021 was approximately $.061. The 2022 property tax valuation is based on the Snohomish County Assessor's Office preliminary values for 2022. If the 2022 tax levy is $600,000, the millage rate would be approximately $0.08. Commissioner Faires said that, at this time, he does not support the increase in property taxes from $400,000 to $600,000. He said he would like the staff and Finance Committee to show how the increased tax levy is justified. N Commissioner Orvis said the Finance Committee is recommending that the additional $200,000 go into the Capital Budget reserve because of the foreseeable cost of the North Portwalk and Breakwater Project. In years past, $200,000 of the tax levy was allocated to Harbor Square, which has now been paid off. Although the Port has significant U) revenues on hand, the anticipated total cost for the North Portwalk and Breakwater Project, in addition to the Administration/Maintenance Building, will exceed what is currently in reserves. Increasing the tax levy to $600,000 would allow the Port to allocate $400,000 into the capital reserve. Next, Ms. Drennan referred to the three figures on Page 4 and advised that Figure 1 shows the Edmonds Port District Assessed Value from 1990 to 2022. Figure 2 shows the Port of Edmonds Tax Levy Amount from 1990 to 2022, and Figure 3 shows the Port of Edmonds Tax Levy Rate from 1990 to 2022. Page 5 outlines the proposed programs to be supported by property taxes in 2022. As proposed, $50,000 would be allocated to the launcher, $400,000 to the North Portwalk and Seawall Project, $140,000 to Commissioner costs, and $10,000 to public records requests tools and training. Ms. Drennan reviewed the graph on Page 6, which shows property taxes compared to CPI increases and 1 % increases from 2013 to 2021, and. Page 7 shows the value of property taxes in 2008 dollars, and Page 8 shows a sample of what a tax bill might look like for a Port District resident, specifically noting the estimated tax increase based on property value. The figures on Pages 9 and 10 illustrate the total property tax history from 2016 to 2021 for $800,000, $1 million, and $1.4 million homes in the Port District, the Port property taxes for those same three homes, and the total property taxes for an $800,000 home vs. the Port property taxes for that same home. Commissioner Johnston said it is important to point out that the actual tax levy amount hasn't changed since 2008. The Port has some large capital expenses coming up, and the proposed increase is a small price for tax payers to pay to achieve what is proposed for their benefit. Mr. McChesney reminded the Commissioners that the current budget discussions are intended for the Commission to provide guidance to staff. Actual decisions won't be made until the budget is voted on by the Commissioners in late October or early November. Commissioner Preston observed that 25 of the tax levy rates over the past 32 years were higher than what the Finance Committee is proposing. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Port Commission August 30, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 397 L/UI:U0Ily11 r-i m:nupt; 1U. UUGC'io t O-MM! / -'4 I rU-000D- 1'FCJL/ l MUOr 10 9.1.b 2022 BUDGET — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM EXPENSE BUDGET Ms. Drennan referred to the Economic Development and Tourism Expense spreadsheet, which shows the actual results for 2017-2020, projected results for 2021 and the proposed budget for 2022. She noted that activity was reduced in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic and its associated restrictions. She reviewed that the spreadsheet shows the different economic development and tourism expense items and where they are located in the budget and financial statements. She reminded them that the Port participates in economic development and tourism through the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County (EASC), Destination Port of Edmonds (DPE), Sea Jazz, the Edmonds Arts Festival and the Edmonds Bird Fest. The Port also invites guests to the Port through advertising in publications and through the Seattle Boat Show. The Port promotes tourism through participation in the Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA). Ms. Drennan referred to the budget that was attached to the Staff Report, which was proposed by staff and reviewed by the Finance Committee. However, since the Finance Committee's review, the Seattle Boat Show budget was increased from $6,000 to $8,000 to fund updates to the backdrop/display. As proposed, a total of $57,900 would be allocated as follows: $5,000 for the EASC membership, $5,000 for DPOE, $3,000 for Sea Jazz, $2,500 for the Edmonds Arts Festival, $1,000 for Bird Fest, $5,000 for other economic development opportunities, $5,000 for tourism and marketing, $5,000 for marina advertising, $3,000 for Port event advertising, $8,000 for Seattle Boat Show, $4,000 for the leasehold tax from the boat show promotion, $4,000 for Family Day at the Port, $3,000 for a holiday event at the marina, $200 for the scarecrow context, $200 for Canva Pro, $1,000 that is unallocated, $500 for WTA membership, and $2,500 for promotional hosting. Commissioner Orvis thanked Ms. Drennan for her preparation work on the budget. She has laid the information out in a format that is simple for everyone to understand. It definitely makes the Commission's decision -making process simpler and cleaner. The other Commissioner concurred. CITY OF EDMONDS REPORT Council Member Olson commented that the marsh restoration work parties have done great work. They will meet again on September 2"d and September 9`h, and then wrap up their work for the year on September I 1 `h. It is physical � and dirty work, but she finds it very fun. She encouraged others to participate. c EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. McChesney announced that the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project is at 60% design, which is a major milestone. Staff will be reviewing the documents over the next few weeks before submitting the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA) and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application. The project is currently on schedule, but they don't have any idea how long the JARPA process will take. Mr. McChesney reported that the design work has been completed for the new Administration/Maintenance Building, and building permit applications will be submitted to the City of Edmonds by mid -September. In the meantime, the architect will be invited to provide an update to the staff and Commission pertaining to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) initiative and the potential of going from LEED Silver to LEED Gold certification. Mr. McChesney announced that paving work at Harbor Square will start next week. The project will include 7,600 square feet of paving outside the Channel Marker space, as well as about 170 lineal feet of curb replacement. The job should be completed in one or two days. Commissioner Faires asked if information relative to the new Administration/Maintenance Building would be available for the Commission's September 13`h meeting. Mr. McChesney said that is the goal, but nothing has been scheduled yet. Commissioner Faires asked that the information be presented to the Commission prior to submitting the JARPA and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit applications. Mr. McChesney agreed to make that happen. Commissioner Johnston asked if the LEED consultant would be able to provide good information and guidance to help the Port Commission and staff assess the project's progress and make the best decision about whether to pursue LEED Gold or LEED Silver certification. Mr. McChesney said that is the point of the mid -point review with the MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Port Commission August 30, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 398 VUUUJIIJ.II CIIVCIUYU IU. UUGC'fJ!O-MMI /--i I rU-OUJD- 14CJL/ l MJOr IJ 9.1.b architect and LEED consultant. Commissioner Johnston asked if staff has any information, at this point, that would suggest that LEED Gold certification would be more difficult to achieve. Mr. McChesney answered that he doesn't have that information yet. Commissioner Johnston cautioned that, based on a recent news article in THE SEA TTLE TIMES, solar panels will be much more difficult and/or costly to obtain. Mr. McChesney said the project is moving forward as if the solar panels will be available at some cost, but they won't know what that cost will be until the specifications are finalized and the project goes out to bid. The roof system will be designed to carry that load if and when the solar panels become available. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Faires reported on his attendance at the last Edmonds Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting. The meeting that was held to investigate waterfront opportunities was discussed at length, specifically the potential of having tour boats stop in Edmonds. The City's Economic Development Director has contacted a few tour boat operators, and there appears to be some interest in pursuing these opportunities. There was also considerable discussion about the Parking and Shuttle Committee's work, and it was reported that because 2020 and 2021 are not good years to use as baselines, they will wait until 2022 to conduct the parking needs survey. A preliminary study was done on a potential parking garage in downtown Edmonds, and it was found to not be particularly viable. Commissioner Harris referenced an article in THE EDMONDS BEACON about cruise ships that contained a lot of misinformation. She cautioned that they need to be careful about how the discussions are being framed in order to avoid misinformation and commentary that is not based on fact. Commissioner Orvis reported that he participated in the Washington Public Port Association's (WPPAs) roundtable discussion on grant funding. There is a lot of grant money available, and the Port should be looking for potential opportunities, particularly as it pursues the larger projects that are being planned. Commissioner Orvis commented to Port Attorney Cattle that Jordan Stephens from the Anderson Hunter Law Group N made an excellent presentation on "employment law" at the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County's (EASCs) Coffee Chat. Commissioner Johnston agreed that her presentation was well done. Commissioner Orvis noted that 0 people have asked her to repeat and even expand her presentation. Commissioner Preston added that Ms. Stephens' U) presentation received rave reviews, and it is likely she will be invited to provide ongoing training relative to employment law. He suggested it would be helpful for the Port Commission to receive refresher training on the Open Public Meetings Act. 2 Commissioner Orvis announced that the WPPA's Legislative Committee will meet on September 2151 and October 25`h to prepare for the upcoming legislative session. The meetings will be held in the conference room at the Port of Kalama and will be available on line, as well as in person. Commissioner Orvis advised that House Bill 1091 required the Department of Ecology (DOE) to convene a stakeholder meeting to discuss improvements to the Environmental Policy Act, but the meeting was never held. This is a WPPA priority, and they are looking for people to sit on the stakeholders committee as WPPA representatives. Commissioner Orvis reported that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Army Corps of Engineers are still in disagreement and no permits are being issued for projects. The NMFS is supposed to be processing a batch of biological opinions, but the Corps controls the permits. Representatives Kilmer and Beutler have put out a bipartisan letter to the Biden Administration, asking them to give some attention to the matter. Neither agency has any accountability for what happens and permit approval could be held up for years. He suggested that the Port should work with the WPPA as soon as possible to prepare a letter to Senators Cantwell and Murray, as well as the state representatives, stressing how important it is that this issue get resolved. Commissioner Johnston reported that he attended the August 11 `h Finance Committee meeting, as well as the 60% design meeting for the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project on August 13`h. He also attended the WPPA Grant preparation meeting, where it was reported that there is a lot of money available. Unfortunately, the presentation focused on money that probably won't be widely available to ports. The focus was more on communities and big transportation projects. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Port Commission August 30, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 399 LJUUUJIIYII CI IVU1UPC IL/. VVGC4J! O-F1M! /-N I rU-OUJO- 1'iCUL I -%UOr 10 9.1.b Commissioner Johnston reported that he and Commissioner Harris attended the EASC's Summer Social on August 26' at the Echo Falls Golf Course. It was fun, and they were able to make connections with an outfit that is providing interpretive signage for the Port of Everett. This might be another option as they get closer to the finishing details on the North Portwalk Project. Lastly, he announced that he would attend the WPPA's Environmental Committee meeting on September 171n Commissioner Preston referred to the EDC's parking survey, which was referenced earlier by Commissioner Faires. He commented that a survey should be a scientific data processing system, and the City's recent "surveys" have been more like questionnaires. He suggested the City should make this distinction clear. With the questionnaire format, the same person could enter data 25 times, swaying the information without the City knowing that. Commissioner Preston said he attended the Taste of Edmonds, as well as the Patron's Party at the Edmonds Arts Festival. The car show is coming up on September 12cn Commissioners Preston commented that the WPPA's Covid 19 meeting was insightful with a lot of different perspectives. He reported that he also attended the Downtown Edmonds Merchant's Association (DEMA) meeting on August 12' where it was reported that the City might start charging for the service of collecting dues for the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED). It was also reported that there is S 11 million of rescue money to be allocated n grants over the next four years. It was brought up that this funding could possibly help with trolley purchase. Commissioner Preston said he received a call from a police officer friend who used to be on the dive team, asking if the Port had any concerns about potential future incidents after the airplane went down near the marina. He responded that the Port didn't have any concerns going forward, as the plane went down outside of the breakwater. He noted that Police Chief Bennett has indicated an interest in reinstituting the dive team, but equipment upgrades will be needed. Commissioner Orvis said he has heard that some ports and public agencies are having problems with hybrid meetings (in -person and Zoom), and the Port needs to make sure that all required procedures are being followed. The real challenge has been providing opportunities for the public to speak. While the Port has done well, other agencies are O struggling. Port Attorney Cattle agreed with Commissioner Preston that an Open Public Meetings Act primer is an excellent idea. Ms. Stephens is very knowledgeable and could provide this training at a future meeting. He said he, Mr. McChesney, Ms. Drennan, Ms. Michaud and Commissioner Harris are focused on making sure that the hybrid meetings are being N operated correctly. CO Commissioner Harris reported that she was asked to participate on the City's 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan Committee. An update to the plan is currently in progress. She wasn't able to attend the group session, and the City's consultant has agreed to have a one-on-one conversation with her. In an effort to present the Commission's collective feedback, she asked that the Commissioners share their thoughts on a list of questions that were presented at the group session. She said she would forward the list of questions to Mr. McChesney to disseminate to the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT The Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0—styd by: '►5'°JSHlikton Port Commission Secretary MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Port Commission August 30, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 400 9.1.c PUGETSOUND 6,40PARTNERSHIP Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Summary July 29, 2021— 9:30 a.m. — 3:30 p.m. Virtual Zoom Meeting ATTENDEES Representing BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE WA Policy Center BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE WA Forest Protection Association CITIES COUNTIES ENVIRONMENT League of Women's Voters ENVIRONMENT WA Environmental Council FEDERALEPA FEDERAL NOAA TRIBAL Lummi Nation TRIBAL Makah Tribe TRIBAL Nisqually Tribe TRIBAL Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission TRIBAL Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe TRIBAL Puyallup Tribe TRIBAL Skokomish Tribe TRIBAL Swinomish & Sauk-Suiattle TRIBAL Tulalip Tribe STATE Department of Agriculture STATE Ecology STATE Puget Sound Conservation Districts STATE WDFW STATE WSCC STATE PSP WATERSHEDS Counties WATERSHEDS Puyallup/Chambers WRIA 10 & 12 WATERSHEDS Nooksack WATERSHEDS Nisqually WRIA 11 WATERSHEDS South Sound WRIA 13 & 14 WATERSHEDS West Sound WRIA 15 WATERSHEDS Hood Canal Coordinating Council WRIA 16 &17 WATERSHEDS San Juan WRIA 2 WATERSHEDS Skagit WRIA 3 & 4 WATERSHEDS Stillaguamish WRIA 5 WATERSHEDS Island WRIA 6 In Attendance Todd Myers Jason Callahan Chance Berthiaume Brynn Brady Ann Aagaard Mindy Roberts Peter Murchie Elizabeth Babcock Victor Johnson Stephanie Martin David Troutt Randy Lumper, Cecelia Gobin Paul McCollum Russ Ladley Dave Herrera Amy Trainer Morgan Ruff Evan Sheffels Tom Buroker, Colin Hume Bill Blake Julie Watson, Jay Krienitz Ron Shultz Laura Blackmore, Larry Epstein Brynn Brady Tom Kantz, Lisa Spurrier John Thompson Chris Ellings, Ashley Von Essen Tye Menser, Amy Hatch-Winecka Tom Ostrom, Kathy Peters Scott Brewer, Alicia Olivas Sam Whitridge Richard Brocksmith Kit Crump Janet St. Clair, Dawn Spilsbury Pucci Packet Pg. 401 9.1.c Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary, July 29, 2021 Page 2 of 8 WATERSHEDS Snohomish WRIA 7 WATERSHEDS Lake WA/Cedar/Sammamish WRIA 8 WATERSHEDS Green/Duwamish WRIA 9 Absent BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE Skagit Dairy Farmer ENVIRONMENT Long Live the Kings FEDERAL USDA/NRCS FEDERAL USACOE RECREATIONAL FISHING TRIBAL Point No Point Treaty Council TRIBAL Stillaguamish Tribe TRIBAL Suquamish Tribe STATE WDNR WATERSHEDS NOPLE Dungeness & Elwha WRIA 18 & 19 WELCOME AND COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING SUMMARY Keith Binkley, Gretchen Glaub, Elissa Ostergaard Diane Buckshnis, Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz Matt Goehring Jason VanderKooy Jacques White Nick Vira, Joe Williams Laura Boerner Ryley Fee Cynthia Rossi Jason Griffith Rob Purser Alex Smith Hansi Hals, Mary Ellen Winborn • Diane Buckshnis MOTIONED to approve the May 27, 2021 SRC meeting summary as presented. Bill Blake SECONDED the motion and the SRC members in attendance APPROVED the meeting summary. CHAIR'S REPORT • David Troutt discussed the contradictory signals we often get from the ecosystem — we haven't had rain here for over a month, but are hearing from our partners on the Coast that they have fishable numbers of sockeye in Lake Quinault for the first time in years, and the Bristol Bay sockeye run this year is one of the largest on record. And we've also heard that our Southern Residents are back, feeding, and frolicking in the San Juans. We have a lot of work to do, but it's nice to see good things like these happening too as we go along. DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Amber Moore provided an update on staffing —the Partnership is currently recruiting for two Ecosystem Recovery Coordinator positions, and interviewing for an Environmental Planner to replace Don Gourlie, who will be assuming the position of Legislative Policy Director when Jeff Parsons retires in September. • The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework was just released, and the Senate is currently debating it. • Additional budget proposals/numbers are currently coming in and updates will be provided. While there's a long way to go before appropriations are final, there are some really promising numbers in there that would represent significant increases to investments in Puget Sound. SRC members Packet Pg. 402 9.1.c Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary, July 29, 2021 Page 3 of 8 expressed appreciation to our federal delegation, for listening to our needs and championing critical funding for PCSRF, the Puget Sound Geographic Program, and many others. PSAR POLICY MANUAL • Kit Crump MOTIONED to approve the PSAR Policy Manual as written. Ron Shultz SECONDED the motion and the SRC members in attendance APPROVED the motion with no opposition or abstentions. 2022_2026 ACTION AGENDA UPDATE Briefing Memo, Presentation Presenters: Dan Stonington, Don Gourlie and Kaitlin Harris, PSP Highlights: • The Planning Team discussed how the regional chapter update and Action Agenda update strategies are coordinated and connected and explained the process to simplify strategies from 150 to 26. • Additional details from the presentation including the strategy development process and proposed content for phase 4 can be found in the attached presentation. Discussion: • Council members asked about the process for course corrections, and accountability for not hitting targets. The Planning Team explained that we are working to build out our accountability functions in coming years, including through forums with our Leadership Council and other avenues. • Some members are interested in a conversation on how to align local forest practices work with Action Agenda content development. The Planning Team welcomes this coordination and wants to incorporate local recommendations into regional strategies. Brynn Brady offered to convene the Coastal Counties Caucus to assist with this conversation. • Thanks to Partnership staff for truly responding to public comments and shifting content in response to them! Decision/Next Steps: • The Partnership's Planning Team will engage the SRC and other boards in development of actions and policy recommendations that help implement the 2022-26 Action Agenda's strategies, once the Leadership Council approves them on September 1. REGIONAL CHAPTER UPDATE Briefing Memo, Presentation Presenters: Amber Moore, PSP Highlights: • This is a continuation of the presentations on draft strategies in the Regional Chapter Update. Today the focus is water quality. • Amber provided a brief presentation on the water quality strategies, then SRC members and attendees were divided into breakout groups to elicit more engagement and feedback on strategies. Discussion: • Breakout group facilitators shared highlights of their discussions. • Notes from breakout groups can be viewed here. Decision/Next Steps: Packet Pg. 403 9.1.c Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary, July 29, 2021 Page 4 of 8 • Partnership staff and the Regional Chapter Update Advisory Group will take the SRC's feedback into account when finalizing the water quality strategies and actions, and Amber will present draft marine survival strategies and actions for feedback from the SRC in September. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Briefing Memo Presenters: Jay Manning, Leadership Council Highlights: • Jay Manning provided an update on initial plans for salmon -related budget and policy priorities in the upcoming legislative session. • Jay noted that the Legislature has been focused on climate in recent years, but now that carbon - focused policies have passed, there is a potential opening to focus on salmon. • The evolution of Project Olga was briefly explained. It began a few years ago by bringing together representatives of tribes, advocacy groups, and state and federal agencies to develop legislative priorities and strategy. • The Governor asked his staff to develop a statewide salmon recovery package this year, and we need to get input to this process by early September regarding budget and legislative proposals. • The hope is to develop an aggressive game changing package for the next few years, such as a dedicated funding source for Puget Sound and salmon recovery. • We need to be strategic about things we can get done in the Legislature, with clear, concrete proposals. Discussion: • Members discussed investigating public private partnerships, as there is a lot of potential money in that realm. • There is an interest in future GMA updates to include requirements for considering salmon issues. Though the Net Ecological Gain bill did not pass, some members would like to see it again in the 2022 session. Others noted significant improvements needing to be made in future iterations of legislation related to Net Ecological Gain. • "Bold Actions" should be used when considering priorities to recommend for a statewide salmon package. • We need to ensure we have capacity and prioritize what we need to get done. We should consider options and projects that have multiple benefits (e.g. shovel ready, feasibility, etc.) • HB 1382, which passed this session, allows an expedited state permit review process for fish recovery projects. There's still work to do with the feds on expediting fed permitting processes. • The SRC and development community need to address the cost of what has been lost. We need to make space for innovative programs, and tackle issues on private lands too (not just public). What are some ideas for incentives for developers? —we need to think about this, as the development community could offer ideas for innovative approaches. • Council members discussed the recent Heat Dome. They noted and discussed the increased water temperatures and changing temperature regimes. They also noted potential mitigation such as riparian policy to address shade, and increased stream flows. Next Steps: Packet Pg. 404 9.1.c Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary, July 29, 2021 Page S of 8 • Members expressed support for a strategic conversation on priorities and concepts to pursue for 2022 and beyond legislative sessions. o Interested members should contact Amber Moore. Bill Blake will assist with next steps. • Bill provided a reminder that the Partnership is limited in what they can do in terms of lobbying, meaning that SRC members need to take initiative if they want to see action in this realm. FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE RAILROAD Briefing Memo, Presentation Presenters: Paul Schlenger, ESA; Todd Zackey, Tulalip Tribes; Jennifer Griffiths, WDFW Highlights: • The project currently underway restores habitat at stream mouths impacted by the railroad and is funded through the Habitat SIL-Near Term Actions (NTA). • Details on the project process from convening an advisory group and data collection, to developing and applying a prioritization framework and restoration planning are included in the attached presentation and memo. • One noteworthy success of this project so far is the participation of BNSF. Paul presented on how the project team secured BNSF's participation. • One of the most prominent single stressors to the Puget Sound shoreline is the railroad. The railroad runs along the shoreline for fifty-two miles with an additional 21 miles of line within 200 feet of the shoreline. • Presenters noted that BNSF has been a great partner so far. BNSF is willing to work with project teams, but they have expectations and care about public perception. • Phase 2 of the project will include several deliverables including programmatic restoration guidance for stream crossings along railroads. Discussion: • Members discussed the importance of restoring critical habitats and impacts on Chinook recovery • During a recent tour of a WRIA 8 project, Senator Cantwell noted the importance of keeping key legislators who can help with funding engaged, at the table and involved. • Council members recognized the need for private/public partnerships. WDFW DUCKABUSH RESTORATION PROPOSAL Briefing Memo, Presentation Presenters: Theresa Mitchell and Seth Ballhorn, WDFW Highlights: • Theresa reviewed the history of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) program, the funding model/pathway and the SRC's role in the program. • The subject of this presentation, Duckabush restoration project, is currently in the preconstruction design and engineering phase. Additional details can be found in the linked presentation. • They are currently in the design phase and expect it to take one more year to complete this phase. Design phase funding is fully in hand. The subsequent construction phase will be a 3-year process. • Presenters provided details on the State capitol request and noted that most of the cost is for the highway. US 101 must be relocated before the old highway can be removed. For this phase, funding must be in hand before the relocation contract can move forward. Packet Pg. 405 9.1.c Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary, July 29, 2021 Page 6of8 • Three estuarine sites received Congressional authorization in 2016: Duckabush, North Fork Skagit, and Nooksack, although federal authorization does not imply a project is ready for advancement. Discussion: • Council members discussed water treatment options and presenters noted the new design will meet modern standards. The current design does not include any water treatment or bioswales. • It was pointed out that this is possibly the largest one-time influx of funds Puget Sound has received for salmon recovery. The Duckabush connection to Puget Sound Chinook recovery is huge. • A letter of support from the Council to the Legislature was suggested. Next Steps: • Chair David Troutt asked Theresa and Scott (the presenters) to draft a letter for the SRC to review and consider sending in support of the project. • David also noted the good timing for a strong statement from the SRC, in context of increasing federal support and the maintenance of strong state -level support for salmon recovery. POINT NO POINT ESTUARY RESTORATION—POC DESIGNATION Presentation Presenters: West Sound Partners Lead Entity Highlights: • The purpose of this presentation was to gain SRC support for the project. The project was designated as a "Project of Concern" by the SRFB technical review panel. West Sound Partners Lead Entity took this opportunity to brief the Council on the situation and request a letter of support for the appeal process. • Sarah Heerhartz explained the goals and objective of the proposed project, including potential ecological benefits and its cultural significance. Specifically, the project aims to restore 32 acres of coastal marsh near a Kitsap County park at Point No Point. • Tom Ostrom noted that the "project of concern" comment focuses on the question of community support for the project. Sarah pointed out that the project has support from Kitsap County, and all landowners involved. Discussion: • Members asked for clarification on details such as funding and funders, and landowner concerns. • General support for the project was expressed. Decision: • Council members agreed to a recommendation that the SRC support West Sound Partners Lead Entity in their appeal. The Executive Committee will draft a letter on behalf of the SRC. • David Troutt suggested the SRC testify, providing both a letter and in person support for the project 2023-2025 PSAR LARGE CAPITAL PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Briefing Memo, Presentation Presenters: David Troutt, Chair and Carrie Byron, PSP Highlights: • This is a continuation of ongoing SRC discussions on piloting a more focused approach to PSAR funding. Packet Pg. 406 9.1.c Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary, July 29, 2021 Page 7 of 8 • The SRC is asked to provide as much specific feedback (and consensus, if possible) about prioritization in order to inform the drafting on the PSAR Large Cap Request for Proposals (RFP), which will be presented to the SRC in September and voted on in November. • The Executive Committee recommendation is to focus on populations at highest risk, and populations closest to attaining recovery goals —or "bookends" of a salmon recovery trajectory. Discussion: • Members discussed the purpose of PSAR funding, and to what extent it should focus on Chinook or all Puget Sound Salmon, including Hood Canal summer chum. • Hood Canal summer chum is the one species that we, as the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region, are not responsible for. Some SRC members noted that it's nonetheless important to message that we support the recovery of all salmon species. • Several members discussed Item B (the proposal to focus on population(s) at the highest risk of extinction, and/or watersheds where population status is limiting harvest), and noted the following: o Summer chum population status is constraining to tribal fisheries. o Need to make sure we are talking with co -managers and federal regulators on the status of populations and that we're working from an accurate list, supported by science. o Concerns about uncertainty of success resulting from putting money into smaller populations were expressed. o We should consider our long-term priorities, and projects that meet multiple priorities or provide the most benefits for the most fish. o We need to get more groups such as recreational fisheries involved, and this sort of focus could help us with those efforts. o Focusing on a population(s) closest to recovery could provide us with a notable success, namely a delisted salmon population. • Some members also expressed support for option A— since a focus on habitat priorities could benefit multiple populations — and suggested that differing point levels could be awarded to each of several options. • Members also expressed strong support for priority populations to be utilized as a scoring criterion, rather than an eligibility criterion. Summary/Next Steps: • Most of the Council conversation was about option B. Some support was expressed for option C, and less for option A. • Carrie will prioritize writing the draft RFP around option B, but with consideration of projects that have the most benefits to the most populations. • The X-Boards Diversity/Equity/Inclusion group could assist with some of the multi -benefits criteria • Carrie will bring a draft RFP package for SRC review in September, with a final vote taking place in November. "MEGA -PROJECT" LIST DEVELOPMENT Briefing Memo, Presentation Presenters: Ahren Stroming and Carrie Byron, PSP Highlights: Packet Pg. 407 9.1.c Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary, July 29, 2021 Page 8 of 8 • Ahren explained that this is topic is follow-up from the March retreat when SRC members proposed the idea of creating and advocating for a "mega projects" list. • Ahren presented a list of initial questions or things to think about over the course of this discussion. This list can be found in the attached memo and presentation. • Council members were invited to comment on vetting criteria for the list of projects and on a funding strategy for those projects. • Carrie presented a draft list of the currently proposed projects; please see the attached memo or presentation for more details. Discussion: • Council members discussed the proposed list and criteria. Some highlights of the discussion are listed below. • The economic implication of failure is not addressed. The Ballard Locks are an example, as they are very important from an economic standpoint and their failure would be catastrophic. • How many salmon do we expect from each project? This should feature prominently in the criteria • We should have a team to look at projects and develop lists for potential funders. Overall, this should be a portfolio of projects ready to go. Next Steps: • Members proposed that we create a subcommittee to work on technical language and marketing • Ultimately, this subcommittee could create draft criteria and finalize a project list for full SRC consideration. Volunteers include: Jay Krienitz, David Troutt, Richard Brocksmith, Chris Ellings, Kit Crump, Chance Berthiaume. WRAP-UP AND ADJOURN Chair David Troutt adjourned the meeting at 3:26 P.M. Packet Pg. 408 9.1.d Arlington A Edmonds -AEverett -A Granite Falls -AHousing Authority of Snohomish County A uA ALake Stevens ALynn wood AMarysville AMill Creek AMountlake Terrace 17 Alliance for AMukilteo ASnohomish -Snohomish County AStanwood AWoodway A Housing Affordability Alliance for Housing Affordability Joint Board Wednesday, June 23, 2021 Via Zoom 4:30PM — 5:46PM Meeting Minutes Participating: Patricia Love City of Stanwood Mike Hopson City of Arlington Glen Pickus City of Snohomish Becky McCrary City of Everett Kelly Richards City of Marysville Jennifer Gregerson City of Mukilteo Kyoko Matsumoto -Wright City of Mountlake Terrace Luke Distelhorst City of Edmonds Liz Vogeli City of Everett Amber Piona Snohomish County PDS Linda Redmon City of Snohomish Kristen Holdsworth City of Lynnwood Megan Dunn Snohomish County Erin Murray City of Mountlake Terrace Stephanie Vignal City of Mill Creek Sabrina Gassaway City of Lake Stevens Jackie Anderson Snohomish County HSD Robei Broadous Snohomish County HSD Kate Tourtellot City of Marysville Brent Kirk City of Granite Falls Mike Todd City of Mill Creek Tom Rogers City of Mill Creek Rebekah Park City of Snohomish Aisha Sial City of Monroe Rebekah Park City of Snohomish Brooke Emris City of Snohomish Mark Smith HCESC 1. Call to Order and Introductions Meeting called to order at 4:30PM by Jennifer Gregerson. 2. Approval of Minutes Linda Redmon motioned, Kelly Richards seconded, approval of the 3-24-21 meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Budget Report Program manager summarized the quarterly budget report, which shows AHA with a healthy reserve fund. No discussion. 2 Packet Pg. 409 Arlington AEdmonds AEverett AGranite Falls AHousing Authority of Snohomish Coun y AHA -Lake Stevens -Lynnwood -Marysville -Mill Creek -Mountlake Terrace Alliance for AMukilteo -Snohomish -Snohomish County -Stanwood AWoodway A Housing Affordability 4. FY23 Budget & Work Plan Program manager presented the draft FY23 Budget & Work Plan. Discussion focused on pending work for Comprehensive Plan updates and whether the work plan was reflective of AHA's expected contribution to that work. Further discussion around organizing and scheduling work in an organized manner so as to not overwhelm AHA, and also deliver a timely product to members. Program Manager was directed to reach out to cities to conduct preemptive outreach on expected work, and coordinate with Snohomish County on work already or soon to be done. Work Plan to be re - discussed at Autumn meeting. Budget discussion focused on approach to small jurisdiction contributions (frozen at 0% increase for 2 years). Program Manager to prepare and distribute budget scenarios relating to small jurisdictions to AHA members prior to Autumn meeting, where FY23 budget will be discussed. S. Urban3 Project Program Manager summarized the work that has just begun on the Urban3 project. Lake Stevens shared brief overview of their individual contract and scope of work with Urban3 for city -specific tasks Program Manager reminded cities that outreach to Urban3 at this stage for individual contacts is appropriate, if desired. Also re -distributed scope of work and example products produced by Urban3. N N 6. HAP Update / Conclusion Members discussed the outcomes of their housing action plans. Comments ranged from very grueling M and challenging, to miraculous that things went as well as they did. Ongoing monitoring and N involvement in the HAPs was discussed as a potential role for AHA in an ongoing capacity. N 7. Comprehensive Plan Preparation Largely covered under the FY23 work plan discussion. Program Manager to conduct preparatory work to get ready for Comprehensive Plan information and writing requests. 8. Next Meeting Next meeting will be held via Zoom on September 22, 2021 at 4:30PM. 9. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned by Jennifer Gregerson at 5:46PM. Packet Pg. 410