The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-02-02 City Council - Full Agenda-1073'4- o 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds BUSINESS MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2016 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-8310 Approval of draft City Council Meeting minutes of January 26, 2016. B. AM-8309 Approval of claim checks #218274 through #218371 dated January 28, 2016 for $778,870.69. C. AM-8297 Authorization for Mayor to sign the Commute Trip Reduction Agreement D. AM-8298 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with David Evans and Associates for the 76th Ave at 212th St. Intersection Improvement Project E. AM-8299 Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair Project for the Wastewater Treatment Plant F. AM-8302 Discussion and potential action on an ordinance amending the 2016 Budget for Carryforward items previously discussed and approved by Council during the 2015 Budget Year. G. AM-8303 Hourly Equipment Rental Rates for External Agencies and the Transportation Benefit District H. AM-8307 Authorization for Mayor to sign park concession agreement with Dog Day Afternoon for an ATM at Richard F. Anway Park I. AM-8314 Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project Contract Award Packet Page 1 of 1075 J. AM-8260 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with BHC Consultants for the Lake Ballinger Sewer Main Study. 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. ACTION ITEMS A. (30 Minutes) Veterans' Plaza update. AM-8293 B. (45 Minutes) Marina Beach Master Plan Approval AM-8292 C. (10 Minutes) Snohomish County ILA Amendment No.2 AM-8300 D. (15 Minutes) Ordinance Reestablishing Citizens Economic Development Commission AM-8312 E. (15 Minutes) Reconsideration of the Mayor's veto of Ordinance No. 4017 - Amending the Critical AM-8305 Areas Regulations contained in Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions, 23.50 Wetlands, 23.60 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, 23.70 Frequently Flooded Areas, 23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas, and 23.90 Fish And Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and amending ECDC Section 19.00.025, A Provision of the Building Code related to Frequently Flooded Areas. F. (30 Minutes) Consideration of the Critical Areas Ordinance AM-8308 6. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 7. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 8. Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(i). 9. Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. �11111 7�I Packet Page 2 of 1075 AM-8310 3. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Consent Submitted By: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subiect Title Approval of draft City Council Meeting minutes of January 26, 2016. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes Attachments Attachment 1 - 01-26-16 Draft Council Meeting minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/28/2016 11:40 AM Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Packet Page 3 of 1075 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 26, 2016 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief T. Dreyer, Police Officer J. Burrell, Police Officer D. Borst, Police Officer Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH ONE EXCEPTION, MOVING ITEM 5K, RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AGENT AND ALTERNATE AGENT TO APPLY FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE FUNDS, TO FOLLOW ITEM 5A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2016 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #218193 THROUGH #218224 AND REISSUED CHECK #218225 DATED JANUARY 20, 2016 FOR $383,596.38 AND CHECKS #218226 THROUGH #218273 DATED JANUARY 21, 2016 FOR $177,972.16. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #62038 THROUGH #62047 AND CHECKS #62053 THROUGH #62054 FOR $499,044.96, BENEFIT CHECKS #62048 THROUGH Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 1075 #62052 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $539,764.98 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2016 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2016 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM TRACY JAY ($1,285.55) D. CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON PROPOSED UPDATE TO ECC 8.50 RELATING TO PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY E. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND REGULATIONS FOR PARKING AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS John Reed, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of Allice of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), relayed their concern about the discussion and possible outcome of the amendments related to reconsideration of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), specifically Chapter 19.00.025 International Building Code, adding item 16.12.4.1 lowest flood elevation and Chapter 21.40.030.d height exceptions Item 1. He requested Council consideration of the following suggested revisions and concerns: 1. Height limit on properties located within the coastal high hazard areas and coastal A flood zones should continue to be bound by the existing height limits of either 30 feet or 35 feet for Harbor Square, as measured using the existing four corners methodology. 2. Whatever footage is established for the ground floor distance above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map currently stated to be two feet in the proposed amendments should be included, not in addition to, total building height controlled by existing methodology. Action taken at December 15, 2015 Council meeting deleting the height exception 21.40.030 effectively accomplishes the combined effect of the first 2 recommendations; however, they are concerned the 2 feet included in the amendments may not be adequate based on observation of the combined effects of high tides and winds seen during king tides which approached the intermediate 2-foot rise anticipated in the next 100 years. This concern is apparently shared by the senior center planners who they understand are planning to allow three feet for the first floor and voluntarily forfeiting one foot of building height. They are also aware that the Corp of Engineers Corp provided guidance in 2015 to Seattle that in 2090, the end of the senior center's design life, the intermediate and high sea level rise might range from 1.6 feet to 3.9 feet. The City should evaluate how using the estimate of two feet in the amendments in light of the Corp of Engineer's guidance might affect the level of liability it is exposed to if sea level rise exceeds two feet and significant property damage and loss of life occurs as a result. He summarized the changes and concerns and the associated potential risks and liabilities should be carefully and completely considered before finalizing the IBC and height exception amendments. Existing building heights and view protection should not be changed in as sensitive an area as the waterfront simply to accommodate the potential hazards to the ground floor of the area in which the building is located. Roger Tucker, Environmental Works, architect for the senior/community center project, presented several slides to illustrate building consideration related to floodplain and sea level rise considerations at the senior center city as well as other potential new buildings along the waterfront. He displayed: 1. Drawing illustrating base case; height limit measured from average existing grade which allows a 2-story building with 11 foot ceilings on the first floor and 10 foot ceilings on the second floor, allowing for mechanical space and structural space in between, noting 11 feet is shy for multipurpose room in a public building. 2. Same building, first floor elevation brought up 2 feet above the flood plain elevation which is 14 feet on the senior center site. He identified area at the top of the building that would be out of conformance, which would require ceiling heights be reduced to 10 feet and 9 feet which is minimal for a large multipurpose room. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 1075 3. Same building, measuring height limit 2 feet above floodplain and 30 foot building, explaining it is virtually the same diagram as Slide 1 where the building is conforming, ceiling heights are adequate. 4. Specific to senior center site, based on sea level rise consultant's recommendation to set the finished floor at 15 feet versus 14 feet. Even with that proposed amendment, some reductions in ceiling height will be required. 5. Photograph of the king tide elevation Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, advised his remarks reflect the input of Phil Lovell, volunteer technical advisor for the project. When considering the CAO, he encouraged the Council to be guided by the latest Comprehensive Plan and the 2004 Best Available Science (BAS) Report. He referenced a section in the Comprehensive Plan regarding sustainability and implementation, Keep in mind a number of important principles when linking sustainability, plans and its implementation. 1) integrate: seek to expand problem solving and solutions beyond traditional or institutional boundaries, 2) innovate: go beyond conventional approaches, be experimental, 3) be adaptive, be flexible. Rigid rules will not always work or result in the most effective solution, and 4) be a leader. He quoted from the 2004 BAS Report, "Consider the following when designing and classifying frequently flooded areas: 1) effect of flooding on human health and safety and on public facilities and services, 2) available documentation including federal, state and the like, and 3) potential effective high tides with strong winds, sea level rise resulting from global climate change." With regard to the new community center, the facilities will be sustainable in all technical aspects to the benefit of current and future generations. It will be built and maintained well beyond the normal 50 year life expectancy of a building like other heavily utilized City building such as Frances Anderson Center, Edmonds Center for the Arts, and City Hall. The original draft CAO recommended accommodation of anticipated applicable federal guidelines, the FEMA FIRM map and provides that any new building in the zone should be elevated a minimum of 2 feet above the revised 100 year floodplain. Thus the first floor elevation of the new senior center would either be 14.0 or 15.0 whichever FEMA zone is adopted and applied by the City based on floodplain at 12 or 13. A November 25 report by a member of their design team, Jeff Parson, a geomorphologist with Herrera Environment, recommends the first floor elevation of the new community center be at elevation 15 in recognition of potential sea level hazards associated with high tides, strong winds and resulting storm surge. A 30-foot building is optimal for a public facility such as this because, 1) program uses, particularly the first floor ballroom and the second floor exercise rooms, dictate higher ceilings to accommodate large, active gatherings, 2) the free -span of the second floor over the large open first floor ballroom requires significant structural steel, deep girders and end beams with no internal columns, and 3) roof structure needs to be sloped higher to the west and lower to the street to provide adequate runoff of rainwater. He, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Lovell are present to answer questions. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, suggested the Council consider returning the CAO to the Planning Board so that a full public process can convene and consider not only the Council amendments but all the changes so that the implications of each can thoroughly reviewed and the public can understand what all the changes mean. Concerns arise with each iteration with regard to the implications of the changes. He noted there are now inconsistencies in the document where changes have been in one place and not in others. He summarized it would be helpful for the Council and the public to have the COA reviewed in a Planning Board format to allow the public and the Planning Board to engage. There are too many details and implications for the Council to take action quickly. 5. STUDY ITEMS A. DIVERSITY COMMISSION 2016 WORK PLAN Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 1075 Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty provided background on the Diversity Commission: • April 2015 — Diversity Commission Ordinance passed by City Council • October 27, 2015 Mayor and City Council appointed total of 9 members: o George Basioli o Tung Bui o Gayle Ketzel o Maria Montalvo o Denise White o Mario Brown, Chair o Ed Dorame, Vice Chair o Adam Khan o Patricia Valle Michele Rastovich was engaged as professional contracted staff to the Diversity Commission Commission met four times since appointment Regular meetings were established as first Wednesday of each month 6:30-7pm in Council Chambers (unless unavailable) Michele Rastovich reviewed accomplishments to date: • Commissioners met three times between the appointment in October 2015 and end of 2015, and once in January 2016, focused on developing the structure that will be crucial to the success of the work of the DC including: o Creating internal operating principles o Electing a chair and vice chair o Establishing regular meetings o Visioning successful work by the Commission by November 2020 o Drafting a preliminary work plan for 2016 Ms. Rastovich reviewed the 2016 Work Plan: Mission Statement o Promote and embrace diversity through action, education, and guidance; foster an understanding that includes, accepts, respects and appreciates each individual member of our community by: o Providing information, education, and communication that facilitates understanding of diversity and to celebrate and respect individual differences; o Recommending to the Mayor and City Council opportunities to promote diversity programs, and providing guidance to ensure an accessible, safe, welcoming and inclusive government and community; and o Supporting, challenging, and guiding government and the community to eliminate and prevent all forms of discrimination. Vice Chair Ed Dorame thanked Mr. Doherty, Ms. Rastovich, and Ms. Cruz for their assistance with the Commission and Mayor Earling and Council for their selections to Commission. It is a very diverse group that will serve the community well. The Commission includes individuals from various ethnic, race, age, gender identity, physical ability, religious beliefs, and socioeconomic backgrounds. He introduced Commissioners Tung Bui and Pat Valle in the audience. He shared a definition of diversity that Ms. Rastovich provided at one of their meetings: "Diversity is recognition of individual differences. These differences can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, physical abilities, nationality, language, religious beliefs and socioeconomic background." Having a good understanding of what diversity means will help them work Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 1075 toward their goal of Edmonds being perceived as safe and welcoming with an inclusive government and community for everyone. Vice Chair Dorame reviewed the 2016 Work Plan: 2016 objectives. o Issues associated with an increasingly diverse community are complex and interrelated. In 2016, the Diversity Commission will focus on increasing our understanding of these issues and of the most pressing challenges currently facing our community. In order to develop long-term strategies, with measurable outcomes, and to fulfill the mission of the Commission, we will first concentrate on building relationships, actively engaging and reaching out to the community and broadening our own perspectives. We will document our learnings with a report to Council by January 2017. Goal 1: Increase the capacity of Commissioners o To ensure that we are well prepared to serve the Council and the community, Commissioners will: ■ Participate in listening forums, or learning opportunities, to develop a common understanding of issues related to diversity. ■ Develop a common understanding of typically used phrases and words like diversity, culture, accessibility, privilege, and inclusion. ■ Increase our awareness of best practices that support diverse communities. ■ Examine current community demographics. ■ Assess community services for underrepresented populations. ■ Identify public policies, both formal and informal, that support diverse communities or create barriers Goal 2: Strive to develop a common community understanding of diversity and related issues o In order to develop a community understanding of local issues associated with diversity, including our challenges and our assets, the Commission will engage and involve the community in the following ways: ■ Coordinate a minimum of four learning opportunities for the Commission, the community, and local leaders to hear from each other regarding current challenges, barriers and existing efforts. These opportunities may include community forums, guest speakers to the regularly scheduled Commission meetings, or facilitated small group dialogues. ■ Develop a community survey, and/or work with existing survey efforts to include diversity questions. ■ Consider key leader interviews Goal 3: Create a public presence for the work of the Commission o To further engage the community in the work of the Commission, the Commission will: ■ Establish a subcommittee to determine how to best utilize the City website, local media and social media. ■ Outreach to underrepresented groups, local business, service clubs, public institutions and the faith community. ■ Build partnerships with existing efforts. ■ Enhance relationships with public leaders and with community leaders. ■ Consider how to create an `eye -popping' event Budget o The budget approved by City Council will be utilized as follows: ■ $6,000 for contracted staff support for Commission ■ $3,000 community engagement, outreach and educational activities to be determined Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 1075 Vice Chair Dorame acknowledged there had been two very unsettling incidences occur in the community in recent months. Through outreach, education and guidance, the Diversity Commission hopes to do its part to make Edmonds a safe, welcoming and inclusive community for everyone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said bravo to the Commission's efforts, noting it is well thought out and their community outreach project is fabulous. She envisioned they would be able to reach out to residents who are not in the inner circle of Edmonds. She is the Diversity Commission's Council liaison and will be attending their meetings. Councilmember Tibbott complimented the team and looked forward to the work they will do. He asked whether the Commission had considered having a presence during other activities and events such as the Arts Festival. Vice Chair Dorame answered the Commission has discussed that briefly such as participating in 4 h of July parade, the Taste of Edmonds, the Business Expo, etc. They will try to partner with other events in the community to make ethnic groups in Edmonds more visible. Councilmember Nelson asked whether the community survey would ask questions of the community as well as invite further dialogue. Vice Chair Dorame answered there have only been preliminary discussions but the hope is to determine demographics and issues in the community and how to address them. He noted a 2015 survey found 83% of the community is white but there are many other ethnic groups in the community. Councilmember Nelson expressed support for including diversity questions in existing surveys. Mr. Doherty commented the Council approved funds in the 2016 budget for a community survey by the National Citizens Survey Organization. That survey includes questions regarding discrimination and a customized question could be added. Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo for the Commission's work, noting they had a very eye popping schedule. She noted the $3,000 for events may not be adequate which is why she supported increasing the City Council contingency fund. Vice Chair Dorame commented he is excited by the Diversity Commission, views it as very good for the community and expects they will do good things. Councilmember Teitzel commented he had an opportunity to attend one of the Commission's meetings; he was very impressed with the commissioners who are very engaged and passionate about the issue. It is a great team and he looked forward to great things. He asked if the Commission had had an opportunity to reach to Diversity Commissions in other communities. Mr. Doherty said he and Ms. Rastovich have looked into some others Diversity Commissions in the area; it is on the work plan to bring back information about best practices. Councilmember Mesaros expressed his thanks and appreciation for the Commission's great start. He foresaw one problem; now they need to do all the things in the work plan. He requested Vice Chair Dorame provide the Council the definition of diversity that he read. Vice Chair Dorame commented what he found interesting about that definition was many people think diversity is just about race; it is actually about many other parts of the culture. Council President Johnson thanked the Diversity Commission for the work they have done. Vice Chair Dorame summarized the Diversity Commission is a great group of people. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ACCEPT THE DIVERSITY COMMISSION'S 2016 WORK PLAN AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. K. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AGENT AND ALTERNATE AGENT TO APPLY FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE FUNDS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 1075 Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless explained as a result of the August windstorm, the City incurred significant direct costs to mitigate damage and clean-up, most borne by the Public Works Department. With the formal federal disaster declaration made in October, the City has the opportunity to apply for federal and state emergency funds which require a resolution by the legislative body designating a disaster coordinator and an assistant disaster coordinator. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1346, DESIGNATING AN AGENT AND ALTERNATE AGENT TO APPLY FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL FOR NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty background provided background: • On June 2, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, creating a Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC), arising from the Citizens' Levy Review Committee, which had been tasked with reviewing the financial situation of the City of Edmonds, and its recommendation to develop a broad vision and long-term strategies to make the City's fiscal situation sustainable without recurring to votes of the public for increased property taxes. o The Council at that time stated that it found "it to be in the public interest to establish an Economic Development Commission in order to take advantage of the large number of highly qualified citizens who are interested in serving their community as it addresses this problem (fiscal sustainability)." • The original EDC was approved with a sunset date of December 31, 2010. • Ordinance 3808, passed on October 5, 2010, the sunset date was extended till December 31, 2011. • Ordinance 3868, passed on December 20, 2011, the sunset date was extended till April 29, 2012. • Ordinance No. 3876, passed on March 20, 2012, the sunset date was established as December 31, 2015. • Over time the mission statement for the EDC, as enshrined in ECC Section 10.75.030 Powers and Duties, was revised slightly to read ultimately as follows: 1. Determining new strategies for economic development within the city of Edmonds 2. Identifying new sources of revenue as a direct result of economic development projects for the consideration of the city council. • At the 2015 City Council Retreat a study subgroup was called for to study and discuss the CEDC, its purpose, usefulness, meeting format, subgroups, and whether to extend the Commission or allow it to sunset. o The subgroup, comprised of Councilmembers Bloom, Mesaros and Petso, met informally in October 2015 to discuss these issues, offering several observations and/or recommendations which were shared with full Council in November. o City Council considered the recommendations and chose to take no action, allowing the EDC to sunset on December 31, 2015, as set out in the corresponding Code provisions. He relayed Mayor Earling's proposal to create a new ECDC, to be established and seated as soon as possible, and in accordance with the code structure of Chapter 10.75 ECC: • Membership o Nine members. Each Councilmember appoints one; Mayor appoints two. o Members must be residents and should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business, economics, real estate, finance, development, education, or other similar fields. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 1075 o Ultimately two-year terms, initially staggered by two- and three-year terms o No term limits o No sunset. Officers, meetings, forum o Commission shall elect Chair and Vice -Chair, with similar duties as in previous code o Quorum is a simple majority of filled positions o Regular meeting days, times and place shall be established to avoid "special meeting" status and extra notice requirements every time o All meetings open to public Powers and duties o Advise and make recommendations to Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate to other boards or commissions of the City, on matters independently generated or specifically referred to it by the Mayor or City Council related to: ■ Strategies, programs or activities intended to generate economic development and consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue o Annual report to Council and Mayor o Commission may work in conjunction with other boards or commissions on proposals, recommendations or projects of common interest, which may be presented to Mayor or Council jointly Mr. Doherty recommended the Council discuss and forward this to the February 2, 2016 Council business meeting for further discussion and approval of a corresponding ordinance establishing an EDC. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for establishing an EDC. She recalled when the EDC first began there was one Councilmember which later changed to two Councilmembers. There were also members who represented the Port and the Planning Board. She asked whether the Commission would include a Councilmember, Port Commissioner and a Planning Board Member. Mr. Doherty answered it would be up to the Council President to determine there would be one or two liaisons; that is not outlined code. He suggested the new EDC determine the most efficient/productive way of involving the Chamber, who was not involved previously, the Port and the Planning Board or others, perhaps via five minute reports at each meeting. The proposal does not anticipate they would be seated as commissioners. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the membership requirements and asked what type of individuals other than non-residents would be excluded from participating. Mr. Doherty recalled comments last year by Councilmembers that there were no qualifications to be a commissioner. He said the inclusion of the language "or other similar fields" made the requirements quite broad. He envisioned candidates' applications would address how they met this expectation. If they did not have that background, they likely would not be appointed by Councilmembers or Mayor Earling. The intent is to encourage people with backgrounds, education or expertise related to the economy or economic development to apply. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether someone who had stayed home raising children for the past five years would be turned down. Mr. Doherty said the selection would be the appointers' choice. He noted someone who stayed home raising children may have a great deal of education in economics or business. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the language "experience in fields such as private and nonprofit business," noting most everyone has some level of experience if they have worked in a private or nonprofit business. She asked whether the intent was administrative experience. Mr. Doherty answered it would be up to the applicant to describe in their application how they met the qualifications. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 1075 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there was no language regarding removing a commissioner who is not working out. Mr. Doherty said that was not currently addressed in the code; a general provision could be added related to boards and commissions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled there was a process for removing based on non-attendance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday there is currently no general provision but if the Council was interested he could draft a chapter regarding the ability to unappoint or remove appointees for all boards and commissions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Councilmember that appointed the person could unappoint them. Mr. Taraday answered the ordinance was silence on that issue; an argument could be made that that is inherent in the authority but it was not clear. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to language in the proposal that the EDC would work on matters specifically referred to it by the Mayor or City Council. Mr. Doherty explained the EDC would work on issues referred by the Mayor and City Council as well as matters they independently generated as a think tank. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled some of things the EDC considered in the past 10 years included casinos, increasing emergency transport fees, and potentially taxing marijuana stores. She pointed out citizens voted against casinos in the past. Mr. Doherty envisioned the Council liaison could report to the Council on issues the Commission was discussing. If the majority of Council disagreed with an issue they were discussing, the liaison could report that to the Commission. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Councilmember liaison was not allowed to vote at Commission meetings. Council President Johnson relayed liaisons have never voted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the liaison was allowed to participate in the meeting. Council President Johnson answered yes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the liaison could state their opinion to the Commission as well as report to the Council. Mr. Doherty acknowledged the difficult for one Councilmember to represent the entire Council. The Council liaison is encouraged to participate at EDC meetings. Councilmember Nelson said he was generally supportive of nimbler, smaller EDC. He referred to the ability to work in conjunction with other boards and commissions and asked if that was unique to the EDC. Mr. Doherty acknowledged it may not be expressly stated for other boards and commissions. The purpose is recognizing issues that affect economy and economic development cross with other boards and commission. For example the Westgate Plan, both the EDC and the Planning Board had roles. There may be other area of the City where both are involved such as the Highway 99 subarea plan; the EDC may want to offer its observations with regard to that plan, hold a joint open house, etc. The intent was to recognize economics and economic development is very broad and can overlap with other areas. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the qualifications that require members be residents, recalling a previous Councilmember thought this meant a resident of the United States and tried to appoint someone who lived outside Edmonds. He suggested adding "resident of Edmonds." Mr. Doherty answered his presentation was a summary and the code will include that language. Councilmember Teitzel supported the concept of a EDC and looked forward to having it reinstituted. He asked whether there was a statutory requirement that a commissioner must be a resident of Edmonds. For example, could a long time business owner who is a member of the Chamber with extensive business expertise be a commissioner. Mr. Doherty said the current proposal is that commissioners be residents, the Council could decide otherwise. Councilmember Teitzel asked if there was any precedent for having non -Edmonds residents on a commission or board. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out the Architectural Design Board includes non -Edmonds residents. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the language, "the commission may work in conjunction with other board and commissions on proposals," suggesting that language also include other entities in the City Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 1075 such as the Port, Chamber, BID, etc. Mr. Doherty said that bullet is related to other City boards and commissions. Another bullet could be added regarding engaging with other entities, organizations and agencies that are involved in similar issues. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether residents of unincorporated Edmonds could serve on the EDC. Mr. Doherty said under the current proposal they would be excluded. Mayor Earling said the intent was residents who live within the City limits. He wanted the commission comprised of residents within the City limits because it is a smaller group and otherwise it may begin to wander afield. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when she was Council President and a Councilmember attempted to appoint a resident of Seattle, it was a fiasco. The intent was residents of Edmonds who are dedicated to the economic development of Edmonds. Business owners who live outside the City can support the EDC. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding commissioners would have connections with other area of the northwest and the nation and bring those connections to the EDC. They could also invite friends and others outside the City to engage in the EDC's activities. Even a very qualified person who lives in a neighboring city could participate but just not as a board member. He asked whether any skill sets sought such as marketing, economics, etc. Mr. Doherty said those skill sets would fall under the fields of business, economics, finance, etc. The intent was to be as broad as possible, but provide the message that people with education, experience or background in areas and skills sets related to the economy or economic development are the most sought after. Council President Johnson recalled one of questions that has been raised is the appropriate role for the EDC with regard to the City's Strategic Action Plan (SAP). The EDC was very involved in that process and she questioned their role in monitoring and guiding the SAP in the future. Mr. Doherty explained much of the heavy -lifting has been done; the Council approved an updated SAP last April, recognizing that more public process and possibly updates could occur this year. Monitoring is primarily done by staff or leads from other agencies who "own" action items. This is an issue for the Council when the new EDC is in place, to determine whether they want the EDC to take leadership of the SAP. Approximately 20 of the 85 action items are related to economic development; at a minimum it would make sense for the EDC to monitor and take some ownership of those items. In establishing a new EDC with a conduit to Council via the liaison, there will be an ability for the Council to inform the EDC what they would like done rather than including that in the code. Council President Johnson asked how the Council would communicate their desire for the EDC to research a topic such as a new car dealership on Highway 99. Mr. Doherty anticipated via the liaison there would be regular interaction with the Council and if a Councilmember wanted to introduce a topic, referring it to the EDC could be approved by the Council. Mayor Earling said he would like to move this quickly. He anticipated passing the ordinance next week, followed by two weeks for application submittal, give the Council and him one week to make appointments and have the EDC up and running by the end of February. C. PRESENTATION OF THE COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION AGREEMENT City Engineer Rob English explained the City is involved in the Community Trip Reduction (CTR) Program. The grant agreement will provide $2500 to the City for incentives for the program. The City, as an employer of over 100 people, is one three work sites within Edmonds that participate in CTR; the other two are Swedish Hospital and Edmonds Family Medical Clinic. Staff applied for the grant late fall and was awarded the funds. The $1,000 budgeted for the program in 2016 will be used as a match. Staff recommends the grant agreement be approved on next week's Consent Agenda. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 1075 Councilmember Nelson complimented staff on applying for the grant and the goal of a 50% increase in employee ridership. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on the February 2 Consent Agenda. D. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE 76TH AVE AT 212TH ST. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained this project has been in design since 2012 and is nearing 90% design. Staff has been working on the right-of-way acquisition for over a year. The goal is to finish both phases and go out for bid in spring 2016. Before that can be done, additional work needs to be completed. He highlighted tasks in the scope of work of the supplemental agreement: • Provide a $20,000 on -call budget for the appraisers to support the City Attorney during ongoing right-of-way negotiations and potentially mediation with property owners on the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection. The property owners signed a stipulated possession and use agreement which provides the right-of-way to build the project but they have not agreed to the valuation of the properties. • Design plans for property restoration on the four corners of the intersection • Additional work related to utility undergrounding o Temporary traffic signal o Waterline revision o Add streetlights The total cost is $107,550; all the design funds in the design phase have been expended. He was hopeful there may be surplus funds when the right-of-way and construction phases are complete as a result of, 1) final valuation of properties, 2) bid price, and/or 3) potentially not using all of 10% management reserve. He advised a budget amendment may be necessary at the completion of the project. Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for the supplemental agreement. He pointed out the mileage reimbursement rate has been reduced from $0.54 in 2015 to $0.51 in 2016. Councilmember Teitzel observed the narrative states bike lanes will also be added on all approaches extending approximately 300 feet from the intersection. He asked how bicycles will be protected especially from traffic turning right. Mr. English described the lane configuration that will include a right turn lane, a through lane and a left turn lane; he believed the bike lanes will go through the intersection but there is no physical separation. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the bike lanes will be clearly marked. Mr. English answered yes, they will be striped. Councilmember Mesaros commented on bike lane improvements in Seattle, some with separate traffic signals for bikes and dedicated bike lanes that cross the right turn lane. Mr. English commented the Verdant grant will add bike lanes from 220'h to Olympic View Drive. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on the Consent Agenda. E. SECONDARY CLARIFIER NO. 3 STRUCTURAL REPAIR PROJECT FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is authorization to go to bid to repair the secondary clarifier. The costs listed are totals; Edmonds' share of the $429,000 construction cost is about half and the City's partners pay the remainder. He explained there were originally three secondary clarifiers, large concrete tanks buried in the ground. He described how the clarifiers work, separating water from the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 1075 solids. Shortly after the treatment plant was built, the bottom of clarifier #3 began to crack; it has been repaired several times. Two consultants were hired, a geotech and designer to evaluate the situation. They prepared options for repairing the floor and eventually recommended replacing the floor and the structural slab. Brown and Caldwell designed the project and it is ready to go to bid. The construction cost estimate is $845,000 which includes a 10% construction contingency. The actual cost of the project will be determined by the bids. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on the Consent Agenda. F. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2016 BUDGET FOR CARRYFORWARD ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL DURING THE 2015 BUDGET YEAR Finance Director Scott James presented the 2016 Carryforward budget amendment: • 2016 Carryforward Budget Amendment Is For Items Not Completed in 2015 • There are 35 carryforward requests • The carryforward budget amendment will roll the unexpended 2015 budget into the 2016 budget • All these items were previously approved by Council • Three of the carryforwards had some additional budget added: o Court/Council Chambers A/V upgrades project. Council added $20,000 on January 5, 2016 o Frances Anderson Center bandshell replacement not fully completed in 2015. Requesting an additional $80,000 to complete the project as construction cost estimates were $80,000 higher than approved in the 2015 budget o Purchase of Civic Field property which will close in February 2016; Council approved an additional $100,000 on November 20, 2015. • Summary of the 2016 carryfoward budget amendment o Revenues increased $3,805,257 o Expenditures increased $7,754,831 o Change in Beginning Balance +$3,890,579 o Ending Fund Balance decreased $58,995 Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. James to explain in layman's terms why the beginning balance was being changed to add $3.9 million. Mr. James explained when the 2016 budget was built, it was anticipated some projects would be completed in 2015 so the beginning fund balances were lower. Since the funds were not expended, the beginning balance needs to be updated to reflect the unexpended amount. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on the Consent Agenda. G. HOURLY EQUIPMENT RENTAL RATES FOR EXTERNAL AGENCIES AND THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT Finance Director Scott James explained staff occasionally recommends updating the equipment rental rates based on the FEMA equipment rate schedule. The City began using this rate schedule in 2009 and it was last adjusted in 2011. The rate schedule is used to charge external agencies such as renters, the Transportation Benefit District and private contractors. Staff recommends establishing a policy where equipment rates are based on FEMA's rates which will avoid periodically updating equipment rental rates. Councilmember Nelson asked why use the FEMA rental rates. Mr. James said the rate is set by the federal government; a lot of grants the City receives are federal so the federal rate schedule would be acceptable to them. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 1075 It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on the Consent Agenda. H. SNOHOMISH COUNTY ILA AMENDMENT NO.2 Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this is an amendment to the ILA with Snohomish County for the purchase of Civic Field. The City is receiving $500,000 of Conservation Futures funds from Snohomish County to assist with the purchase. One of Snohomish County's requirements is to file and record a conservation easement once the property closes to limit the ability to do any recreational buildings on the easement property. The packet contains a survey that redraws the legal description for Civic Field, concentrating the unvacated streets on the northwest portion of the property. The legal description for the easement is called the parent parcel (identified in green) which would be restricted by deed from development in that area and the area identified in blue would be available for whatever the City wants such as rebuilding the Boys & Girls facility, siting of another facility, etc. Due to her and the City Attorney's concern with language in Section 4 of the draft conservation easement, she recommended they negotiate with Snohomish County and bring the agreement back next week for approval on the Consent Agenda. The language of concern is the use of RCWs to define the conservation easement as no active recreation. In Washington, the RCWs allow active recreation. They want to clarify the language so when development of Civic Field is planned with the community, there is opportunity to have tennis courts, grass athletic fields, etc. on the deed -restrict land. She noted artificial turf would not be allowed in a conservation easement. Councilmember Teitzel observed the grandstands are in the area with the conservation easement and asked if that meant the grandstands could not be rebuild. Ms. Hite responded in accordance with the Recreation Conservation Office, grandstands would be allowed; she was not certain with Snohomish County. Existing uses can remain but she will confirm whether the grandstands could be rebuilt or expanded. She commented the existing grandstands are in bad shape; if there was interest by the community in retaining the grandstands, they would need to be rebuilt. Council President Johnson preferred to schedule the agreement as an action item on the agenda. Ms. Hite said she could make a report on the language change at next week's meeting. She requested the Council take action next week and not forward it to the Consent Agenda due to the timeline to close by February 9. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on the February 2 Consent Agenda. L REVIEW PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite reported there has been an ATM on this site for several years. By code the Parks Department can make decisions on seasonal concessions but year round concessions require Council approval. The proposal is a five year agreement that would expire December 31, 2020. There have been no problems and there have been several compliments about the location. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on the February 2 Consent Agenda. J. FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT CONTRACT AWARD Public Works Director Phil Williams reported this is the result of several years of discussion, design work and grant writing. He requested Council award the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project to Razz Construction. Following this project, there may be a request by the State for City to take over ownership Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 1075 of the fishing pier. The pier is currently owned by the State; $1.3 million of the $1.4 million of available funds are from the State. Edmonds committed approximately $100,000 to the project. The low bid was approximately $1.004 million; approximately $1.26 million is available for construction. The engineer's estimate was $1.248 million. There was a protest of the low bidder's paperwork which staff determined was incorrect and the protest was withdrawn. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the protest of the low bid. Mr. Williams explained one of the bidders, not the low bidder, was hopeful there were defects in the paperwork submitted by the apparent low bidder. The City evaluated whether there were material defects in the submittal and determined there were not. The protest was also not timely. He advised $1.26 million was included in the budget; the request is $1.004 million plus a $100,500 management reserve, bringing the total cost to $1.104 million. There is still $160,000 in the budget in the event the 10% management reserve is not enough. Council President Johnson commented this is a very popular fishing pier and asked the projected closure for the repairs. Mr. Williams commented it will depend on the contractor's sequence of activities. The schedule was designed to occur at the lowest point in the season. Mr. English said the project will occur during March to June. Mr. Williams advised the closure dates will be announced as the start date gets closer. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. L. CONSIDERATION OF THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE Senior Planner Kernen Lien providing background on the CAO update: • Update started in fall 2014 with review of existing code and BAS • Planning Board and City Council review in 2015 • Eight Council amendments at the December 15, 2015 meeting • Two ordinances in Council packet o Exhibit 1: Ordinance with all eight Council amendments o Exhibit 2: Administration recommended ordinance (maintaining Council amendments 5, 6 and 7) Staff recommends Council forward Exhibit 1, 2 or a 3rd ordinance for a decision next week. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, THAT THE COUNCIL REVIEW AMENDMENT BY AMENDMENT. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the motion was reconsideration. Councilmember Mesaros answered no, it was to review the amendments in consideration of the Mayor's letter and his indication he would be forced to veto the ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the motion is not to reconsider but rather to review the ordinance created by the administration without any legislative direction. She asked whether that was appropriate under Roberts Rules of Order. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said under Roberts Rules, reconsideration only occurs at the same meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis commented those rule have been bent before. Mr. Taraday clarified this is technically not reconsideration because reconsideration must occur at the same meeting. There have been instances in the past where the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance; the City Attorney prepared the ordinance and amendments were made to the ordinance before Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 1075 adoption by the City Council. In this instance, the Council has more or less that same opportunity; two ordinances have been prepared, 1) Council requested and 2) Mayor's request. He assured there was nothing procedurally improper about discussing the eight amendments one by one if the Council wished. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled with Highway 99, the amendments were driven by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas who was not present at the meeting where direction was given. She expressed concern the public has not had an opportunity to weigh in on the ordinance in Exhibit 2. Mr. Taraday explained although the GMA requires robust public participation in development of the CAO, he did not read the GMA to require that every amendment requires another public hearing; that would be beyond robust to burdensome. The two versions of the ordinance in the packet are the same from a public hearing standpoint because a public hearing has not been held on either Exhibit 1 or 2. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled one if not two public hearings were held on Exhibit 1. Mr. Taraday said public hearings were held on the original staff recommendation at the Planning Board but eight Council amendments were made at the last meeting of 2015 and no public hearing has been held. He clarified he did not think a public hearing was required but one ordinance would not be preferable over the other due to having held a public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her concern with the process. The Council directed the City Attorney to return with an ordinance that was passed by a majority of the Council present on December 15, 2015. Along with that ordinance, the packet includes another ordinance because the administration didn't like what the Council passed. She asked whether it was normal to draft an ordinance because the administration dislikes what the Council passed. Mr. Taraday did not recall being asked to do it before; however, if the Council does not like that ordinance, the Council will not adopt it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified her issue was not with the content of the ordinance. The legislative branch determines the laws, ordinances, zoning and rules; the administrative branch determines how to implement that and the two shall not cross. Council should not tell staff what to do and administration should not tell the Council what to do. Having the administration request preparation of another ordinance because they did not like what the Council approved flies in the face of the Council's job. Mr. Taraday disagreed, assuring the Council's legislative authority had not been usurped in any way. The City Council has the ability to do exactly what it directed be done on December 15, 2015, have staff prepare an ordinance and that ordinance is in the packet and the Council can adopt it if they choose. One of the concerns is the City is past the deadline for adoption of the CAO by about six months. Given the potential of a veto, it made more sense to streamline the process and include two versions of an ordinance in the packet so if the Council wanted to avoid a veto, it could simply approve the "veto -free" version of the ordinance instead of adopting the ordinance the Council asked for on December 15, having the ordinance vetoed and going back through the process. From his perspective, the goal was to adopt the CAO as soon as possible given that the deadline has been missed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas disagreed, pointing out because there are new Councilmembers, if there are changes to the COA, it should be a new process and not a pieced together process. Mr. Taraday said while the Council President sets the agenda, the administration assembles the packet. In Edmonds and in most cities it is pretty common for the executive to propose legislation. Obviously the executive cannot adopt legislation but he/she does not lose the ability to propose legislation which is essentially what has been done with the second version of the ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the Council President sets agenda. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining it was completely within the Council President's discretion to determine at which meeting this item is on the agenda. But the Council President does not determine which attachments will be included in the packet; that has always been done by staff. Generally staff defers to what they know the Council has asked for. He paraphrased Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' objection that staff should not be allowed Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 1075 to include things in the packet that the Council has not asked for. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not say that. Mr. Taraday summarized he was not aware of any restriction on what staff included in the packet. Councilmember Mesaros recalled the Council has made changes to an ordinance it directed the City Attorney to prepare. The Mayor has made it clear to the Council that if they approve the first ordinance, he will veto it. Rather than create conflict he preferred to review the amendments individually in an effort to reach common agreement instead of going through the veto process. Councilmember Teitzel commented he was not on the Council on December 15, 2015 when this issue was considered. He has reviewed a lot of material and new facts have arisen that compel a different decision on some of the amendments. In good conscience he could not vote in favor of the CAO as amended in December. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON, TO PASS ORDINANCE NO. 4017, THE ORDINANCE OF DECEMBER 15, 2015 WITH COUNCIL AMENDMENTS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Mayor Earling asked Mr. Taraday how soon he could get the ordinance to him. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance is in the packet as Exhibit 1; he can sign it, not sign it or veto it as soon as tomorrow. Mayor Earling said he will need to make a decision relatively soon as he will be out of town tomorrow and Thursday. 6. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Snohomish County Health District approved a clean air zone; prohibiting smoking or vaping within 25 feet of entryways, doors and windows. Councilmember Teitzel reported the Historic Preservation Commission voted at its last meeting to add the North Sound Church building at 4t' & Bell to the local register. A recognition event is being planned. Councilmember Teitzel reported the Port of Edmonds meeting included a presentation from John Monroe, Economic Alliance of Snohomish County, who described the work they are doing and advocacy in Lynnwood on behalf of cities in Snohomish County as well as development of programs to attract businesses to Snohomish County. The Port meeting included discussion about non -working street lights on Admiral Way; the Port energized the street lights this week although the issue of who pays for the electricity remains. The Port reported they have only 60 available slips The public is encouraged to attend the Seattle Boat Show January 29 — February 6 where Port will have a booth. Councilmember Mesaros reported he was unable attend the SNOCOM meeting but ACOP Don Anderson attended in his place. Chief Compaan is also a SNOCOM board member so the City was well represented at the meeting. He will attend his first Public Facilities District Board meeting on Thursday. Councilmember Tibbott reported the Tree Board meeting selected officers, made a few plans for events and discussed how to engage a consultant. He encouraged interested residents to apply for the vacancies Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 16 Packet Page 19 of 1075 on the Tree Board. He will attend the Affordable Housing Alliance meeting next month; he has received several letters from residents interested in affordable housing issues and was interest in hearing from others. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he has been in Olympia the last couple days; he met with 6-7 legislators on Friday along with AWC's Government Affairs Director. He was in Olympia this morning for breakfast with the governor and 20 other leaders from Snohomish County. He will be in Olympia for the next two days, returning on Friday. Mayor Earling invited Councilmembers to a signing at Civic Field on February 3. He reported on plans to form a task force in the next week regarding pedestrian safety and auto conflicts. Mayor Earling reported elections were held for the Community Transit Board; the Mayor of Mukilteo and a Councilmember from Arlington were elected and the remaining seated members were reappointed. Sound Transit 3 is progressing; the City submitted its letter as have several other subareas. It is hoped a draft alignment will be identified for further staff analysis in March. That will be followed by further refinement and hopefully a ballot measure this fall. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Johnson reported five Edmonds Councilmembers attended the last Snohomish County Cities meeting where the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County made a presentation. Council President Johnson thanked everyone who participated in discussions, wrote letters and testified regarding the CAO. By its action tonight, the Council decided to adopt the recommendations made at the December 15, 2015 meeting and Mayor Earling intends to veto the ordinance. The Council will then begin the review again. She commented this was a necessary step to bridge between the 2015 Council decision and the 2016 new Council makeup. Although it may seem torturous to some, Councilmembers want to respect the comments and contributions from everyone who has worked on the CAO for the past two years. The CAO is a very complex ordinance and the Council wants to ensure the ordinance will serve the City well in the future. Councilmember Tibbott thanked City staff for their response to a lot of questions this week and requested the questions and answers be included in the packet to assist the public. Although he is new to the City Council, the topic of the CAO is not new to him due to the work he did while on the Planning Board. He also took additional time to read the information the Council provided. Based on that, he thought the Council could have discussed the amendments tonight. He looked forward to a robust discussion and encouraged the public to get involved as the issues are complex and multilayered. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported at the South County Cities dinner she was reelected as the alternate to the PSRC Executive Board, to the Snohomish County Law and Justice Council and to the Snohomish County Transportation Coalition that looks at transportation choices for those with disabilities. Councilmember Nelson reminded of tomorrow's Waterfront Access Study Open house from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Edmonds Library. Councilmember Buckshnis commended the Task Force for the materials they have produced and their transparency. She reported she was selected by WRIA 8 to be on their funding committee which considers and awards grants. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 17 Packet Page 20 of 1075 9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 10. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2016 Page 18 Packet Page 21 of 1075 AM-8309 3. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Scott James Submitted By: Nori Jacobson Department: Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subiect Title Approval of claim checks #218274 through #218371 dated January 28, 2016 for $778,870.69. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Year: 2016 Revenue: Expenditure: 778,870.69 Fiscal Impact: Claims $778,870.69 Fiscal Impact Attachments Claim cks 01-28-16 Proiect Numbers 01-28-16 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Finance Scott James City Clerk Scott Passey Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Date 01/28/2016 11:45 AM 01/28/2016 11:46 AM 01/28/2016 12:06 PM 01/28/2016 02:46 PM Started On: 01/28/2016 09:49 AM Packet Page 22 of 1075 Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Packet Page 23 of 1075 vchlist 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218274 1/28/2016 070090 AADVANCED PRODUCTS LLC 20041789 INV#20041789 - EDMONDS PD COUNTER ASSAULT FOGGER PEPI 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 801.00 20041791 INV#20041791 - EDMONDS PD COUNTER ASSAULT FOGGER PEPI 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 66.75 Total: 867.75 218275 1/28/2016 075470 ACCELA INC INV-ACC17340 LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,350.00 Total: 1,350.00 218276 1/28/2016 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000014134 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 489.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 46.46 Total: 535.46 218277 1/28/2016 065568 ALLWATER INC 012216036 WWTP-DRINKING WATER WATER SERVICE (PLUS RENTAL/Sl 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.90 Total: 10.90 218278 1/28/2016 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-154991 TRAFFIC - BARRIER MARKERS, QL Traffic - Barrier Markers, Quick 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,207.15 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 114.23 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 125.53 Total: 1,446.91 218279 1/28/2016 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 21002 MEMORIAL FIR TREE PLATES Page: 1 Packet Page 24 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218279 1/28/2016 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING (Continued) MEMORIAL FIR TREE PLATES 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 90.84 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 8.63 Tota I : 99.47 218280 1/28/2016 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4101046QA WATER WATCH PAGER FEES WATER WATCH PAGER FEES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.83 Total: 43.83 218281 1/28/2016 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ATP6 WWTP-MONTHLY NPDES TESTS MONTHLY NPDES TESTING 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 175.00 Total: 175.00 218282 1/28/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988418891 WWTP-UNIFORMS. MATS AND TO\ UNIFORMS 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 MATS & TOWELS 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 76.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.29 1988418892 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.08 1988422990 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.06 Page: 2 Packet Page 25 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 218282 1/28/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 218283 1/28/2016 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 1988422991 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 11.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.14 Total: 176.30 80735 UNIT E105PO - VEHICLE GRAPHIC; Unit E105PO - Vehicle Graphics 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,065.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 101.18 Page: 3 Packet Page 26 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218283 1/28/2016 001795 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS (Continued) Total: 1,166.18 218284 1/28/2016 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 41972 ROUGH BOX-REVIS ROUGH BOX-REVIS 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 460.00 Total: 460.00 218285 1/28/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 5376 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 617 GAL FLEET AUTO PROPANE 617 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 582.31 5425 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 675.7 GAL FLEET AUTO PROPANE 675.7 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 639.60 Total: 1,221.91 218286 1/28/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR 17765 INV#17765 - EDMONDS PD - BICKLI L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.00 EMBROIDER NAME ON S/S SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00 UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.00 DUTY JACKET W/ LINER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 375.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 56.53 S/S TRADITIONAL UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.00 Total: 651.53 218287 1/28/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 15684309 CONTRACT CHARGE FOR COUNCI Monthly contract charge for Council 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 27.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 2.66 15684312 CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE Page: 4 Packet Page 27 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 218287 1/28/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36 15684313 PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CC PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CC 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74 15684314 CITY CLERKS RECEPTION COPIER RECEPTION DESK COPIER LEASE 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91 15684317 P & REC PRINTER IRC10301F CONI P & REC PRINTER IRC10301F COW 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65 15693870 INV#15693870 - EDMONDS PD CONT CHG #IR6255 FOR 1/2016 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 151.87 B/W METER USAGE 12/1-12/31/15 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 45.07 CONT CHG #IR33251 FOR 1/2016 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 60.70 COLOR METER USAGE 12/1-12/31/' 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 97.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 62.86 B/W METER USAGE 12/1-12/31/15 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 19.92 COLOR METER USAGE 12/1-12/31/' 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 109.28 CONT CHG #IRC5240A FOR 1/2016 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 160.00 B/W METER USAGE 12/1-12/31/15 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 17.65 Page: 5 Packet Page 28 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218287 1/28/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 15693875 PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC10301F PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC10301F 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 36.16 15709504 WWTP-COPIER RENTAL Monthly Copier Rental 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 Total: 1,714.91 218288 1/28/2016 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC BQK6906 STARTECH 3FT DUPLEX FIBER PA1 Startech 3ft Duplex MM Fiber Patch 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 57.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 5.48 Total: 63.12 218289 1/28/2016 071443 CED - KENT 2340-642675 FS 16 - SUPPLIES FS 16 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 141.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.41 2340-642711 LIBRARY - SUPPLIES Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.72 Total: 185.99 218290 1/28/2016 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 46462865 INV#46462865 ACCT#7898305185 -I FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 65.58 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 0.66 Total: 66.24 218291 1/28/2016 066580 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO 500019425-1 E1CA.EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRIC Page: 6 Packet Page 29 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218291 1/28/2016 066580 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO (Continued) E1 CA.Edmonds School District - Title 112.000.68.595.20.61.00 985.36 Total: 985.36 218292 1/28/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 12022 CR ON #12022 FOR 9/10 2015-LYNN CR 1 DAY @$95 FOR CROSS -9/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -95.00 S CR 6 DAYS 10/26-10/31/15 -LESHEF 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -153.75 12022 INV#12022 CUST#47 - EDMONDS P PRISONER R&B FOR NOV 2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 870.00 Total: 621.25 218293 1/28/2016 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TF WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TF 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 16.64 Total: 16.64 218294 1/28/2016 004867 COOPER, JACK F 8 LEOFF 1 CLAIM REIMBURSEMEN LEOFF 1 Claim Reimbursemen 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 1,437.50 Total: 1,437.50 218295 1/28/2016 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 32510 SEWER - E1 PUMPS (REPLACEMEI Sewer - E1 Pumps (Replacement Pui 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 3,540.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 336.30 Total: 3,876.30 218296 1/28/2016 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3308332 FISHING PIER - PIER REHAB AD Fishing Pier - Pier Rehab Ad 016.000.66.518.30.49.00 546.00 Tota I : 546.00 Page: 7 Packet Page 30 of 1075 vchlist 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 8 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218297 1/28/2016 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 187706 FAC - ANNUAL CERT 2016 FAC - Annual Cert 2016 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 141.60 MCH - Annual Cert 2016 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 129.00 Museum - Annual Cert 2016 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 129.00 187709 PW - ANNUAL CERT 3/1/16-3/1/17 PW - Annual Cert 3/1/16-3/1/17 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 129.00 Total: 528.60 218298 1/28/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3628 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 01/12/2011 01/12/16 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 240.90 16-3629 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 01/19/2011 01/19/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE: 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 273.90 Total: 514.80 218299 1/28/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 0001056873 PM: FUEL FILT WRENCH PM: FUEL FILT WRENCH 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.14 Total: 13.13 218300 1/28/2016 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E1613010 PRE -EMPLOYMENT TESTING (PD) Pre -employment testing (PD) 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 172.00 E1613082 PRE -EMPLOYMENT TESTING (PD) Pre -employment testing (PD) 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 269.00 E1650749 PRE -EMPLOYMENT TESTING (PD) Pre -employment testing (PD) 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 55.00 Page: 8 Packet Page 31 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218300 1/28/2016 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC (Continued) E1653727 PRE -EMPLOYMENT TESTING (PD) Pre -employment testing (PD) 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 206.00 E1658311 PRE -EMPLOYMENT TESTING (PD) Pre -employment testing (PD) 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 195.00 Total: 897.00 218301 1/28/2016 067345 EDMONDS TOWING 0130137 UNIT 06 - TOWING Unit 06 - Towing 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 95.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.00 Total: 104.00 218302 1/28/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.17 3-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 310.75 3-07490 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 83.80 3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.17 3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 44.71 3-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 87.35 3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R Page: 9 Packet Page 32 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218302 1/28/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.17 3-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.17 3-38565 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 41.17 6-01127 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20f WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20f 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 169.16 6-01130 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9< WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9< 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63 6-01140 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 501 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 501 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 1,107.49 Total: 2,034.74 218303 1/28/2016 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 145069/145070 RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEME Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - Fet 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 14.44 Total: 166.44 218304 1/28/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR27101 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-01 Maintenance for printers 12/21/15 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 343.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 32.68 AR28672 MK5532 CITY CLERK OVERAGE CITY CLERKS COPIER OVERAGE C 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 22.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 2.14 Page: 10 Packet Page 33 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218304 1/28/2016 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINE: (Continued) Total: 401.28 218305 1/28/2016 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 ES REF # 94513310 7 Q4-15 Unemployment Insurance 001.000.39.517.78.23.00 471.46 Total: 471.46 218306 1/28/2016 065789 ESTES, KEN 6 LEOFF 1 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT LEOFF 1 Claim Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 2,274.61 Total: 2,274.61 218307 1/28/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH676228 LEGAL NOTICE- PLN2015-0062 LEGAL NOTICE- PLN2015-0062 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 58.48 EDH677440 E4GB.AD FOR NOISE VARIANCE E4GB.Ad for Noise Variance 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 80.84 EDH677713 LEGAL NOTICE- PLN2015-0058 LEGAL NOTICE- PLN2015-0058 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 73.96 EDH677719 LEGAL NOTICE- CITY APPLICATION LEGAL NOTICE- CITY APPLICATION 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 55.04 EDH678373 INV#EDH678373 ACCT#14126500 - UNCLAIMED PROPERTYAD 01/18/1 001.000.41.521.10.41.40 20.64 Total: 288.96 218308 1/28/2016 069042 EVERETT HYDRAULICS INC 0000022778 UNIT 46 - REPAIRS Unit 46 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,426.11 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 131.20 Total: 1,557.31 218309 1/28/2016 073133 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA 31151 WATER SYSTEM - MEMBERSHIP AP Page: 11 Packet Page 34 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218309 1/28/2016 073133 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA (Continued) Water System - Membership Annual [ 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 350.00 Water System - Membership Annual [ 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 350.00 Total: 700.00 218310 1/28/2016 075393 FITCH & ASSOCIATES LLC 16-8133-03 FIRE & EMS PROJECT - PROF SVC Consultant Professional Services - 001.000.39.513.40.41.00 15,750.00 Consultant Travel Expenses 12/1-3/1! 001.000.39.513.40.41.00 3,353.95 Total: 19,103.95 218311 1/28/2016 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 30.87 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 161.33 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 299.62 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.71 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.59 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 46.64 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 86.62 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 66.88 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALj Page: 12 Packet Page 35 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218311 1/28/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) FRANCESANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.82 Total: 878.08 218312 1/28/2016 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 004690616 1NV#004690616 ACCT#1 00 1074529- NAVY TURTLE NECK SHIRTS-DAW! 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 54.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 5.17 004705535 1NV#004705535 ACCT#1 00 1074529- ELITE UNIVERSAL RADIO HOLDER 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 182.85 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 17.55 004728376 1NV#004728376 ACCT#1 00 1074529- PATROL READY BLACK BAGS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 99.98 5.11 WOMENS BOOTS-JENSEN 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 129.99 PEERLESS MODEL 700C HANDCUF 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 89.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 18.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.35 Total: 610.22 218313 1/28/2016 012199 GRAINGER 9936208785 PM: SCREWDRIVER, HEX KEY, BIT PM: SCREWDRIVER, HEX KEY, BIT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 218.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.80 Total: 239.54 218314 1/28/2016 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 4 LEOFF 1 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT Page: 13 Packet Page 36 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218314 1/28/2016 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN (Continued) LEOFF 1 Claim Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,258.80 Total: 1,258.80 218315 1/28/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2060019 PM: MASON LINE, STRNR BSKT, TV PM: MASON LINE, STRNR BSKT, TV 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.07 3021712 PM: RAKES, AVANTI PRO SET, MAT PM: RAKES, AVANTI PRO SET, MAT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 95.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.10 4023360 PM: FIR, PLIERS, HAND WARMER, PM: FIR, PLIERS, HAND WARMER, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 426.67 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.53 40648 PM: FIR, REBAR, STAKE, NAILS, WI PM: FIR, REBAR, STAKE, NAILS, WI 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 183.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.42 8010761 PM: HOOK, LOPPER, PRUNER FOR PM: HOOK, LOPPER, PRUNER FOR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 100.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.51 9011219 PM:COMPRESSOR FOR SEED MAC PM:COMPRESSOR FOR SEED MAC 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 183.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 17.46 Page: 14 Packet Page 37 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218315 1/28/2016 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) Total: 1,107.52 218316 1/28/2016 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 606841-1 PM: POWER STRIPPER PAINT GAS PM: POWER STRIPPER PAINT GAS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 144.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.71 Total: 158.08 218317 1/28/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2702107 WWTP-OFFICE FURNISHINGS Alera Eon Series Chair (Lab) 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 494.10 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 46.94 2716750 WWTP-OFFICE FURNISHINGS Return of Lorell Mesh Chair (Lab) 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 -404.06 2729454 WWTP-OFFICE SUPPLIES Return of Dymo LabelWriter Multipurr 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 -41.98 2729459 WWTP-OFFICE SUPPLIES Returned 1-Dymo LabelWriter Price l 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 -28.74 2738963 POST IT NOTE PADS Post it helsinki Recycled Note pads 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.90 2739511 TONER CARTRIDGE (RETURNED) Toner cartridge (returned) 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -167.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -15.96 2739808 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES CATALOG ENVELOPES AND REMO' 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 66.26 Page: 15 Packet Page 38 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218317 1/28/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.30 2743718 WWTP-OFFICE SUPPLIES & OPER, HAND SANITIZER AND INDUSTRIAL 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 55.09 ENVELOPES AND ADDRESS LABEL 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 63.08 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 5.24 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 5.98 2743751 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 62.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 5.96 2745590 WWTP-OFFICE & OPERATING SUP BRAWNY INDUSTRIAL TOWELS 6-1 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 146.10 EPSON PREMIUM PHOTO PAPER 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 35.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 13.88 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 3.42 2745810 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 23.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 2.27 2746479 FILE STORAGE BOXES Business Source File Storage Boxes 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 72.58 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 16 Packet Page 39 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218317 1/28/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 6.90 Total: 468.36 218318 1/28/2016 071634 INTEGRATELECOM 13581871 C/A768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 907.51 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.39 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.39 Total: 924.29 218319 1/28/2016 006048 L N CURTIS & SONS 2132016-00 INV#2132016-00 CUST #13574 - EDI DELTA BALLISTIC WARRIOR HELMI 001.000.41.521.23.35.00 828.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.23.35.00 78.66 Total: 906.66 218320 1/28/2016 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER February 2016 FEBRUARY 2016 CIGNA PREMIUM, February 2016 Cigna Premiums 811.000.231.550 11,341.76 Total: 11,341.76 218321 1/28/2016 061900 MARC 0569893-IN WWTP-SUPPLIES. MECHANICAL BREAK -A -WAY PENETRATING OIL; 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 233.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 13.52 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 23.43 Total: 269.95 218322 1/28/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 47111125 WWTP-SUPPLIES. MECHANICAL HIGH PRESSURE STAINLESS STEE Page: 17 Packet Page 40 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218322 1/28/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 246.70 47126375 WWTP- OPERATING SUPPLIES 1-ALKALINE BATTERIES (24 PACK) 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 16.74 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 6.31 47448534 WWTP-SUPPLIES MECHANICAL Trolley for Strut Channel; 2- stainless 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 498.34 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 84.75 47666488 WWTP-SUPPLIES. MECHANICAL Fiberglass ladder and 2- telescopic 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 1,002.79 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 98.49 47786603 WWTP-SUPPLIES. MECHANICAL Steel Angles, steel wire rope, steel 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 312.36 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 58.39 Total: 2,324.87 218323 1/28/2016 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1605-10 WATER SUPPLY OPERATION EVAL Water Supply Operation Evaluation 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 325.00 15-1695-6-A ESJA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/15 ESJA.Underpaid Invoice 15-1695-6-A 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 2,000.00 Total: 2,325.00 218324 1/28/2016 073076 MY ALARM CENTER 6641935 MUSEUM - ALARM MONITORING 1/ Museum - Alarm Monitoring 1/1-6/30/ 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 215.40 Page: 18 Packet Page 41 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218324 1/28/2016 073076 073076 MYALARM CENTER (Continued) Total: 215.40 218325 1/28/2016 068025 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION 108393558 WOTS PENS WOTS PENS 117.100.64.573.20.41.40 304.86 Total: 304.86 218326 1/28/2016 024001 NC MACHINERY MVCS0255384 UNIT 9 - KEYS Unit 9 - Keys 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 106.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.84 Total: 124.90 218327 1/28/2016 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0572344-IN UNIT 138 - SUPPLIES Unit 138 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 74.78 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.10 Total: 81.88 218328 1/28/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1505942 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 2-1507293 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 2,938.85 2-1509159 CIVIC CENTER 6TH & EDMONDS H, CIVIC CENTER 6TH & EDMONDS H, 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 2-1509880 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCK[ 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 Total: 3,280.40 Page: 19 Packet Page 42 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218329 1/28/2016 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 615 12-10-15 HISTORIC PRIES MINUTES 12/10/15 Historic Pres minutes 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 153.00 000 00 621 1/20/16 ADB MEETING NOTES 1/20/16 ADB MEETING NOTES 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 175.00 Total: 328.00 218330 1/28/2016 070306 OBERG, WILLIAM 7 LEOFF 1 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT LEOFF 1 Claim Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,338.80 Total: 1,338.80 218331 1/28/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 762346 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 24.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.32 766021 PM: BINDERS PM: BINDERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 77.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.37 784960 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 29.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.82 Total: 144.27 218332 1/28/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 210200 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 210211 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 Page: 20 Packet Page 43 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218332 1/28/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS (Continued) 210222 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 210234 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 Total: 480.00 218333 1/28/2016 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP 20979436 WWTP-SUPPLIES MECHANICAL MINI LEVER 1/4 TON HOIST- 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 114.76 Total: 114.76 218334 1/28/2016 074931 PEAK CMS LLC 13271 ANNUAL MAINTENACE - P&L WARF Annual Maintenance (Parts & Labor 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 6,059.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 575.61 Total: 6,634.71 218335 1/28/2016 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-48 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 12/31/15 E7AC.Services thru 12/31/15 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 1,107.42 Total: 1,107.42 218336 1/28/2016 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 349151 WELLNESS COMMITTEE SPONSOF Wellness committee sponsored fruit 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 83.50 Total: 83.50 218337 1/28/2016 071983 PICKLEBALL STUFF LLC 18837 BALLS FOR WINTER/SPRING LEAC BALLS FOR WINTER/SPRING LEAC 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 46.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 4.41 Page: 21 Packet Page 44 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218337 1/28/2016 071983 071983 PICKLEBALL STUFF LLC (Continued) Total: 50.86 218338 1/28/2016 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-JA16 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE -- 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.27 Total: 786.87 218339 1/28/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 1458438 PS - SUPPLIES PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.85 1495857 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 188.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.91 1516351 WWTP-SUPPLIES. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES-ELECTRICAL:- 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 58.41 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 5.55 1523840 STREET - POLARIS SUPPLIES Street - Polaris Supplies 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 216.08 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 20.53 1533782 LIBRARY - SUPPLIES Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.37 1533812 PLAZA ROOM RETURNS Plaza Room Returns Page: 22 Packet Page 45 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218339 1/28/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -29.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -2.85 1542101 LIBRARY - SUPPLIES Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.37 1549942 WWTP-SUPPLIES. ELECTRICAL ILS SK-8 CU MEC (R)8STR-12 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 47.08 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 4.47 1550472 WWTP-SUPPLIES. ELECTRICAL 200-conduit 3/4 galvanized steel 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 302.64 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 28.75 Total: 898.47 218340 1/28/2016 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES 20826 LEGO MINECRAFT 20826 LEGO MINECRAFT INSTRUC 20826 LEGO MINECRAFT INSTRUC 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 400.00 Total: 400.00 218341 1/28/2016 075432 POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES IF-1222566 INV#IF-1222566 - JENSEN - EDMON AXIIIA BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 896.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.80 Total: 901.80 218342 1/28/2016 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 217571 PW- RETURN ALPINE PROD POST/ PW- Return Alpine Prod Postage 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 13.52 Page: 23 Packet Page 46 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218342 1/28/2016 071811 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR (Continued) Total: 13.52 218343 1/28/2016 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 3870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,651.63 Total: 2,651.63 218344 1/28/2016 029800 PRINZ, DANIEL 5 LEOFF 1 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT LEOFF 1 Claim Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,115.29 Tota I : 1,115.29 218345 1/28/2016 075511 PROMAG ENVIRO SYSTEMS LTD 564478 WWTP-REPAIR & MAINTENANCE/ LMI Metering Pump B Series, AutoPri 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2,321.20 Total: 2,321.20 218346 1/28/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 51.11 Total: 51.11 218347 1/28/2016 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000161180 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-OSTLUND MARKER/INSCRIPTION-OSTLUND 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 537.00 00000161181 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-HEI SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-HEI 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00 00000161182 VET FOUNDATION-HOLMES VET FOUNDATION-HOLMES 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 113.00 00000161183 BASE W/O VASE-WILSON BASE W/O VASE-WILSON 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 233.00 Total: 988.00 218348 1/28/2016 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 1601002 STREET - CEDAR ST TOPOGRAPHI Page: 24 Packet Page 47 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218348 1/28/2016 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC (Continued) Street - Cedar St Topographic / Right 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 2,802.03 Total: 2,802.03 218349 1/28/2016 031600 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERINGS 1-014930 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER - 50% Green Resource Center - 50% Depos 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 5,975.42 Total: 5,975.42 218350 1/28/2016 075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC E7AC.Pmt 8 E7AC.PMT 8 THRU 12/31/15 E7AC.Pmt 8 thru 12/31/15 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 368,258.37 E2AD.Pmt 8 thru 12/31/15 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 96,468.05 Total: 464,726.42 218351 1/28/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0195461-IN UNIT EQ96PO - PARTS Unit EQ96PO - Parts 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 2,065.50 Total: 2,065.50 218352 1/28/2016 060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/27868545 FLEET - DEWALT DRIVERS (2) Fleet - Dewalt Drivers (2) 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 248.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 23.59 Total: 271.95 218353 1/28/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 15.73 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 49.99 2004-6859-3 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / Page: 25 Packet Page 48 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218353 1/28/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 369.79 2004-9314-6 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.98 2005-9295-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.10 2006-3860-9 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 437.37 2006-7801-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.10 2007-1403-8 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 58.28 2007-3984-5 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 18.91 2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 81.74 2011-9708-4 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 40.41 2012-3682-5 FISHING PIER FISHING PIER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 455.27 2015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,585.21 2015-7289-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 51.60 Page: 26 Packet Page 49 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 218353 1/28/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 31.09 2017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 70.19 2017-8264-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.10 2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 29.32 2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 95.13 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 361.49 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 361.49 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 361.49 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 361.49 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 361.50 2022-5062-7 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.54 2022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 71.04 2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 , CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 , 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,075.84 2023-8937-5 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I Page: 27 Packet Page 50 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218353 1/28/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 9.13 2024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,305.53 2026-2041-5 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.54 2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 19.85 2030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10( WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10( 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 25,236.16 Total: 40,027.40 218354 1/28/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2943 INV#2015-2943 - EDMONDS PD - N( 222.17 HOUSING DAYS @ $84 -11/2 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 18,662.28 36.17 BOOKINGS @ $115-11/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 4,159.55 39.5 MED/PREM @ $48.5-11/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,915.75 21.83 MENTAL HEALTH @ $117-11/2 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,554.11 10 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50-11/201 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,155.00 2015-2964 INV#2015-2964 - EDMONDSD PD - ( 331.5 HOUSING DAYS @ $84 - 12/21 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 27,846.00 52.33 BOOKING @ $115 - 12/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 6,017.95 75.5 MED/PREM @ $48.5 - 12/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 3,661.75 73.5 MENTAL HEALTH @ $117 -12/2 Page: 28 Packet Page 51 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218354 1/28/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE (Continued) 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 8,599.50 13.25 VIDEO COURT @ $115.5 - 12/ 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,530.38 Total: 76,102.27 218355 1/28/2016 037075 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE I-VR-4 2015 VOTER REGISTRATION DISTF 2015 Voter Registration - District 001.000.39.514.90.51.00 59,914.98 Total: 59,914.98 218356 1/28/2016 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 58789 INV#58789 - EDMONDS PD LOCKER MAGNET-JENSEN 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.50 MAGMATE PLATES - JENSEN 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.00 LOCKER MAGNET - PAULSON 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.50 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.69 Total: 19.44 218357 1/28/2016 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 418764 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 71.52 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.86 Tota I : 90.57 218358 1/28/2016 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 100967 JOB ADVERTISING Job Advertising 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 500.00 Page: 29 Packet Page 52 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218358 1/28/2016 066056 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES (Continued) Total: 500.00 218359 1/28/2016 070774 ULINE INC 73733319 INV#73733319 CUST#2634605 - EDI 10X13 KRAFT ENVELOPES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 144.00 6X9 KRAFT ENVELOPES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 280.00 10.5X16 JIFFY PADDED MAILERS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 54.00 6X10 JIFFY PADDED MAILERS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 59.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 50.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 55.80 Total: 642.90 218360 1/28/2016 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 134174938-001 PM: GENIE RENTAL PLAZA TREE PM: GENIE RENTAL PLAZA TREE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,319.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 125.35 Tota I : 1,444.77 218361 1/28/2016 073990 VALLEY ELECTRIC 0000063431 BILLING # 2 WAYFINDING SIGNS M BILLING # 2 WAYFINDING SIGNS 127.000.64.542.64.41.00 6,300.00 BILLING # 2 WAYFINDING SIGNS 123.000.64.542.64.41.00 2,022.29 BILLING # 2 WAYFINDING SIGNS 125.000.64.542.64.41.00 398.20 RETAINAGE PMT # 2 125.000.223.400 -398.20 Total: 8,322.29 218362 1/28/2016 065269 VALLEY FREIGHTLINER INC 2260070024 UNIT 47 - SUPPLIES Page: 30 Packet Page 53 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218362 1/28/2016 065269 VALLEY FREIGHTLINER INC (Continued) Unit 47 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.32 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.46 Total: 16.78 218363 1/28/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9758791628 C/A671247844-00001 Cell Service -Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 18.43 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 93.35 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 83.41 Cell Service -Parks Discovery Prograr 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 18.43 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 47.56 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 233.46 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.100.41.521.21.42.00 146.00 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.96 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 17.96 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 17.95 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 70.44 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 76.41 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 17.48 Total: 859.84 Page: 31 Packet Page 54 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 218364 1/28/2016 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 218365 1/28/2016 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 218366 1/28/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 218367 1/28/2016 071104 WIPPEL, TERESA Invoice 55008 527960 6928 6936 1601010 218368 1/28/2016 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION ARBANASIN EXAM LIC PO # Description/Account INV#55008 - EDMONDS PD TOW '02 FORD WINDSTAR #WSU3E 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Total FAC MAINT - SEATCOVERS, TOWEI Fac Maint - Seatcovers, Towels, TT, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total ENVELOPES envelopes- dev sere 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 P&R:REGULAR ENVELOPES P&R:REGULAR ENVELOPES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 Total P&R MONTHLY ADS ON 3 SITES P&R MONTHLY ADS ON 3 SITES 001.000.64.571.22.41.40 Total ARBANASIN PUBLIC OPERATOR E) ARBANASIN PUBLIC OPERATOR E: 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 ARBANASIN PUBLIC OPERATOR LI 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 Total Amount 166.00 15.77 181.77 232.92 22.13 255.05 492.75 120.50 11.45 624.70 2,400.00 2,400.00 25.00 33.00 58.00 Page: 32 Packet Page 55 of 1075 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 01/28/2016 9:15:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218369 1/28/2016 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION HILL EXAM LIC HILL PUBLIC OPERATOR EXAM FEE HILL PUBLIC OPERATOR EXAM FEE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 25.00 HILL PUBLIC OPERATOR LICENSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.00 Total: 58.00 218370 1/28/2016 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1060 JAN-16 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 17,430.00 Total: 17,430.00 218371 1/28/2016 068180 ZERO WASTE WASHINGTON 2016 Membership ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 206- S FISH Annual Membership 206- S Fisher 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 75.00 Total: 75.00 98 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 778,870.69 98 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 778,870.69 Page: 33 Packet Page 56 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 190th PI SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STIR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STIR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E21FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E31FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 ESFA STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 ESCA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 ESCC STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 ESAB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 ESCB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 ESGA WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 ESJA STIR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 57 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1J13 STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 ESLA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA STR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 ESFC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 ESDB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 58 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 EKA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 ESGB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E31FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 59 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E21FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E91FB STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 ESFB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 60 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STM EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support tertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs E17A Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming e W at 212th St S Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades Storm Contribution to Transportation Protects STM E1 FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) MMM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Re GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program,& WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood Edmonds G rge Stu WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain Transportation Plan Update� STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III WTR E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair c399 5th Ave Overlay Project IF STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail h Talbot Rc1111L' age Improveme STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration Svstem IW80 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Stud STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 61 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STM E21FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th PI SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC EKA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E41FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 62 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title SWR E4GA ' c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project. SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E41-11A c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR ir E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4J113 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades E4MA City Spray Par FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab Trackside Warning Syste STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming 2015 Overlay Progra WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays AmdW2015 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E51FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) SWR E5GA c469 WWTP E51-11A c481 WTR E5J113 c482 FAC E5LA c476 solo STIR E6DA c245 c256 General E6MA c238 W 265 STIR E7AC i005 - Infiltration Faci 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects Lake Ballinger Trunk Se Study WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) me eservoir Re -coati AN UDarades - Council Chambers Standard Details U 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project SR99 Enhancement Program Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements WShell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 63 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08) SWR IAK c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E81VIA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR EFGA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Desig PM E91VIA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 64 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WTR E3J13 c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM EBMB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR EBGA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR EBGD c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR EOIA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support FAC EOLA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STM EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs WtR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM E1 FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM E1 FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 65 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STIR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General ElEA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program STIR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STIR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC EKA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project STIR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM EYA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM EYE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STIR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STIR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 66 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STIR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STIR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STIR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FF c428 190th PI SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E41FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STIR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E51FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 67 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STM E7FG m013 NPDES UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 68 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 ESLA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 EKA FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E41-A FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 ESDB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STM 190th PI SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 ESFA STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 ESFC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 69 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 ESFB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 ESCA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 ESAB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 70 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Protect Title STIR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements Project Accounting Number c265 Engineering Project Number E7AA Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 71 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STIR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB STIR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STIR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STIR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STIR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 ESCC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 ESGA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) c390 E2GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 ESCB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 ESJA Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 72 of 1075 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3J13 WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 1/27/2016 Packet Page 73 of 1075 AM-8297 3. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Department: Engineering Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign the Commute Trip Reduction Agreement Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the agreement. Previous Council Action On January 26, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the February 2nd consent agenda for approval. Narrative The City is involved in the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program. The goal of the program is to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles (SOV) and provide incentives to the participating employees. An employee is eligible by using an alternate mode of transportation (such as carpooling, biking, walking, riding the bus) to commute to work at least eight days a month. The City will again be participating in 2016 and incentives will consist in a start-up incentive ($25 gift card after the employee's first month of participation) and monthly raffles. The total amount of the incentives in 2016 will be $3,500, with $1,000 from City funds and $2,500 from Community Transit funds (through recently secured grant). In 2015, the City funded $1,000 in this program. Attachments CTR Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator) Robert English 01/27/2016 01:31 PM Public Works Phil Williams 01/27/2016 03:40 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 01/27/2016 03:53 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/27/2016 04:02 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/28/2016 09:19 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 01/27/2016 08:17 AM Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Packet Page 74 of 1075 AGREEMENT FOR CHOICE CONNECTIONS PROJECT GRANT BETWEEN COMMUNITY TRANSIT AND CITY OF EDMONDS This Choice Connections Project Grant Agreement (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is made and entered into by and between COMMUNITY TRANSIT and CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter "GRANT RECIPIENT"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, COMMUNITY TRANSIT and GRANT RECIPIENT share a desire to provide a comprehensive Commute Trip Reduction Program that will reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) commute trips and improve the mobility of GRANT RECIPIENT employees; and WHEREAS, the 1991 Washington State Legislature enacted the Transportation Demand Management Act, which was codified in RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.551; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Demand Management ACT requires major employers to offer to their employees commute option programs; and WHEREAS, the GRANT RECIPIENT, in response to COMMUNITY TRANSIT'S request for Choice Connections Project Grant applications, submitted an application for consideration of funding; and WHEREAS, COMMUNITY TRANSIT, has selected the GRANT RECIPIENT'S project as meeting the purpose and criteria of the Choice Connections Project Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances, and promises hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of this contract and scope of work are defined in Attachment A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. SECTION 2.0 AGREEMENT PERIOD The GRANT RECIPIENT will commence work on or after January 1, 2016 and complete work required by this Agreement no later than December 31, 2016. SECTION 3.0 DIRECTION AND CONTROL The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to perform the services as stated in this AGREEMENT as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee or servant of COMMUNITY TRANSIT. The parties agree that the GRANT RECIPIENT is not entitled to any benefits or rights enjoyed by employees of COMMUNITY TRANSIT. The GRANT RECIPIENT specifically has the right to direct and control the GRANT RECIPIENT'S own activities in providing the agreed upon services in accordance with Attachment A of this AGREEMENT. COMMUNITY TRANSIT shall only have the right to ensure performance. Packet Page 75 of 1075 SECTION 4.0 FUNDING PROVISION 4.1 COMMUNITY TRANSIT will reimburse the GRANT RECIPIENT for services provided as described in Attachment A for proof of payment. Payment will be made within 30 days of receipt of a properly executed and approved invoice from the GRANT RECIPIENT. 4.2 The GRANT RECIPIENT shall submit properly executed invoices at quarterly intervals showing work supported by a quarterly report, Attachment B, detailing work performed. Quarterly reports and invoices will be due April 14, 2016, July 14, 2016, October 14, 2016 and January 14, 2017. 4.3 The GRANT RECIPIENT shall only be paid for expenses incurred accomplishing the tasks described in Attachment A. Completed proof of payments for each expense must be attached to the Choice Connections Project Grant Quarterly Report. 4.4 The GRANT RECIPIENT will only be reimbursed for receipts and/or invoices of expenditures for this project up to a maximum of $2,500, even if those expenses exceed this maximum. SECTION 5.0 OWNERSHIP COMMUNITY TRANSIT and the GRANT RECIPIENT shall jointly own all reports, data and documents produced in performance of this work. SECTION 6.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT The COMMUNITY TRANSIT project manager shall be the Transportation Demand Management Division of the Customer Relations Department. The GRANT RECIPIENT project manager shall be Mr. Bertrand Hauss. SECTION 7.0 AGREEMENT MODIFICATION Modifications within the Scope of Work as described in Attachment A must be in writing, signed and agreed to by COMMUNITY TRANSIT and GRANT RECIPIENT. SECTION 8.0 REVIEW/APPROVAL Upon submittal of any report or other information required by the Scope of Work to be performed, COMMUNITY TRANSIT may, following review, accept or reject such work or request modifications or additions as deemed appropriate. Payment for such work shall not be made until COMMUNITY TRANSIT's project manager accepts the work. SECTION 9.0 AUDITS, INSPECTIONS AND RECORD RETENTION COMMUNITY TRANSIT or its designee may, at reasonable times, inspect the books and records of the GRANT RECIPIENT as they relate to performance under this Agreement. For audit purposes, the GRANT RECIPIENT shall keep all records required by this Agreement for six (6) years after termination of this Agreement. SECTION 10.0 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations in performing the work under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as altering or diminishing the rights or responsibilities of the parties as granted or imposed by State law. Venue of any suit between the parties Packet Page 76 of 1075 arising out of this AGREEMENT shall be the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington. SECTION 11.0 HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION GRANT RECIPIENT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless COMMUNITY TRANSIT from all suits, claims, costs, damages or expenses arising out of the negligence of GRANT RECIPIENT. Likewise, COMMUNITY TRANSIT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless GRANT RECIPIENT from all suits, claims, costs, damages or expenses arising out of the actions of COMMUNITY TRANSIT. In the case of negligence of both COMMUNITY TRANSIT and GRANT RECIPIENT, any damages allowed shall be levied in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to each party. Each party to this agreement will be responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of its own employees, officers, or agents in the performance of the Agreement. It is further agreed that each party to this Agreement will be responsible for injuries to its own employees that occur in the employee's course of employment and during the performance of this agreement under Title 51 Industrial Insurance Laws of the State of Washington. Neither party will be considered the agent of the other and neither party assumes any responsibility to the other party for the consequences of any act or omission of any person, firm, or corporation not a party to this Agreement. SECTION 12.0 AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS Either party may request changes to this agreement, including changes in the Scope of Work. Such changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated as written amendments to the AGREEMENT. No variation or alteration of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the parties hereto. SECTION 13.0 SPECIAL PROVISION COMMUNITY TRANSIT'S or the GRANT RECIPIENT'S failure to insist upon the strict performance of any provision of this AGREEMENT, or to exercise any right based upon breach thereof, or the acceptance of any performance during such breach, shall not constitute a waiver of any right under this AGREEMENT. SECTION 14.0 TERMINATION COMMUNITY TRANSIT or GRANT RECIPIENT may terminate this AGREEEMENT in whole or in part, whenever: 14.1 COMMUNITY TRANSIT or GRANT RECIPIENT has breached the AGREEMENT, and after fourteen (14) days written notice, has failed to correct any of the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT; 14.2 A request to terminate in whole or in part has been made in writing by COMMUNITY TRANSIT or GRANT RECIPIENT; or 14.3 COMMUNITY TRANSIT determines that the continuation of the project would not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds. 14.4 If this AGREEMENT is terminated prior to fulfillment of the terms stated herein, the GRANT RECIPIENT shall be reimbursed only for actual and eligible expenses incurred under this AGREEMENT prior to the date of termination, and only to the extent of appropriate funds. Packet Page 77 of 1075 In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written below. COMMUNITY TRANSIT Bv: Name: Bob Throckmorton Title: Director of Customer Relations Date: CITY OF EDMONDS By: Name: Dave Earling Title: Mayor Date: By: Name: Scott Passey Title: City Clerk Date: Packet Page 78 of 1075 ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF WORK CTR PROJECT NAME ..........................................City of Edmonds CTR Incentives Program PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In order to increase the number of city employees participating in the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program, the city will provide incentives to active participants. An employee becomes eligible in the CTR program by using an alternative to driving alone at least eight days a month. Once an employee has completed the first month of participation, they are provided with a start- up incentive. Monthly, every eligible employee is entered into a monthly prize drawing. Finally at the end of the year, a drawing will be held for the ten employees with the highest annual participation. The incentives available include gas cards or bus/vanpool vouchers. • Participants must use a commute alternative at least eight days every month to be eligible for the monthly incentive drawing. • Participants that use a commute alternative to get to work at least eight days per month in the first month will receive a $25 start-up incentive. • Participants that meet the minimum requirement will be entered into a monthly drawing for a chance to win one of five $25 incentives. • At the end of the year, the ten participants with the highest annual participation will be in a drawing to receive one of five $100 incentives. • Project will have a transportation fair during 2016 to help employees find an alternative to driving alone. • Emails will be sent monthly to advertise the program and announce the monthly winners. • Posters and brochures will be placed strategically throughout the city's buildings in high employee traffic areas. PROJECT TIMELINE: January 1, 2016 January 1 — 31, 2016 January 2016 TBD February 1, 2016 April 14, 2016 July 14, 2016 October 14, 2016 December 2016 January 14, 2017 Launch project Marketing program Program begins Transportation Fair Monthly prize drawings begin First quarterly report due Second quarterly report due Third quarterly report due Annual award Final report due TRIP REDUCTION POTENTIAL: With the addition of these incentives, the City of Edmonds plans to show a 50% increase in the number of ridesharing employees. A ridesharing employee will be an employee using any alternative to driving alone to the worksite. At the time of grant award, the city has 20 active rideshare participants. By end of program they will have 30 participating on a regular basis. Packet Page 79 of 1075 TRACKING TOOLS: This program will track the number of ridesharing employees. It will include new participants and those that continue in the program. Participants will track their commute behavior using RideshareOnline.com's calendar function. The program manager will track users and the positive effects the program is having on the environment. MARKETING EFFORTS: The program will be promoted through emails to all employees. Brochures will be posted in frequently used common rooms of different City buildings. A transportation event will be held at City Hall during 2016 to provide additional awareness about the program. The ETC will also remind employees of the program in various face-to-face conversations, such as office visits in the department. REQUIREMENTS OF PROJECT: 1) To educate and encourage employees to find an alternative to driving alone to their worksite. 2) Provide expanded program elements including incentives for program participants. 3) Incentives will be provided to new and existing program participants. BUDGET: Grant Amount: (You may exceed this amount only at your own expense) ................................. $2,500 Packet Page 80 of 1075 ATTACHMENT B QUARTERLY REPORT Choice Connections Project Grant Quarterly Report ETC Name: Company: Phone: Fax: Email: CEO Name: Use this form to describe the CTR activities at your worksite for Month -Month 201X. This information will be used during the project review process. Please submit this form and attachments by Month, Date, 201X to: Debbie Anderson, Community Transit debbie.anderson@commtrans.org or Fax: 425-438-6136 Grant recipients must answer the questions below about your grant project activities. Feel free to use additional pages as necessary and attach examples. 1. Describe, in detail, your grant -funded activities during the past three months, including promotions, special events, information distribution, management involvement/support and results you achieved including data responding to your project stated goals. List each goal and the year to date results. 2. Describe the grant activities you will accomplish for the next three months including promotions, special events, training, management involvement, and program improvements. 3. Attach copies of your promotional pieces and your tracking forms. 4. Provide all grant -funded expenses incurred during this quarter on the invoice form provided. Attach your receipts or proofs of eligibility for reimbursement. Packet Page 81 of 1075 Choice Connections Project Grant Expenditures 1st Quarter Categories Amount Quantity Total Amount Year to Date Approved Grant Amount Each Amount Grant Amount Remaining Required Activities: a. Start up $1,000 Incentive b. Monthly Drawing $1, 000 Incentive c. Annual Drawing $500 Incentive d. Other Expenses (Specify in Summary Below) Subtotal: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 Employer Match: a.Staff Hours b. Other Expenses (Specify in Summary Below) Subtotal: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Project Total: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Amount of Funds Requested For 1st Quarter Please state amount requested for reimbursement as set forth in the Choice Connections Grant Project Agreement. Reimbursement amount may not exceed the total grant funds encumbered for vour project. Categories Amount Each Quantity Total Amount to be Reimbursement Request Paid This Quarter Amount a. Start Up Incentive b. Monthly Drawing Incentive c. Annual Drawing Incentives d. Other Expenses (Specify in Summary Below) Total: $0.00 $0.00 Packet Page 82 of 1075 AM-8298 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Type: Action Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Information 3. A Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with David Evans and Associates for the 76th Ave at 212th St. Intersection Improvement Project Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Previous Council Action On November 25, 2014, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #5 with David Evans & Associates for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvement project. On January 26, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the February 2nd consent agenda for approval. Narrative 76th Ave at 212th Street is one of the busiest signalized intersections in the City and is served by two federally classified minor arterial streets. The intersection experiences long queues during peak commute and school hours due to the limited capacity of the intersection. Both approaches of 76th Ave have two shared lanes with no dedicated left turn lane. The left turn volumes are very high, and are timed independently by split phasing signal timing. The proposed improvement will provide dedicated left turn lanes on 76th Ave and concurrent turning movements during the protected left turn phase. This project will increase the capacity and improve intersection signal operation, traffic flow, vehicle delay, and air quality by reducing vehicle emissions. Various utility upgrades and overhead utility conversions are being incorporated in the project. Bike lanes will also be added on all approaches, extending approximately 300' from the intersection. The supplement adds the following design tasks: • Survey: additional survey is needed on the SW corner of the intersection between the Edmonds-Woodway High School Building and the proposed roadway / utility improvements; • Underground Utility Conversion: the completion of the Joint Utility Trench (JUT) is taking more iterations than first anticipated due to the amount of buried utility pipes and conduits within the intersection; • Potholing plan revisions: an update is needed due to recent changes regarding the location of several proposed utility lines; • Temporary Traffic Signal Plan: this system is needed during the construction phase in order to Packet Page 83 of 1075 complete the underground utility conversion and the installation of the utility lines; • Illumination Analysis and Plan: new light poles are needed to compensate for the existing utility poles with luminaires being removed as part of the underground utility conversion; • Property Restoration Plans and Details: parking lot restoration will be needed on the NW, NE, and SE corners (Burger King, Grease Monkey, and Dairy Queen parcels); • Right -of -Way plans, parcel exhibits, legal descriptions, and negotiations: as part of the underground utility conversion, (2) PUD easements are needed on the High School Property. • Mediations with the City's condemnation proceedings for four parcels on the NW and NE corners of the intersection (Burger King, Romeo's, Grease Monkey, and Car Wash). A federal grant (through Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality / CMAQ program) for $940,397 was secured to complete the design and ROW phases (with a 13.5% local match in the amount of $146,700). The design fee for Supplement #7 is $102,600. Grant funds awarded to the design phase have been expended. There is an approximate shortfall of $150,000 that may require a future budget amendment depending on the final cost of the right of way and construction phases. This will not be known until the project is completed in late 2016 or the first quarter of 2017. The design and ROW phases are scheduled to be completed in Spring 2016. A construction grant was secured in Fall 2014, in the amount of $3,020,000 (with 13.5% local match from Street Funds and Utility Funds 421 / 422 / 423). Construction is scheduled to begin in early summer 2016. Attachments David Evans & Associates - Supplemental Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator) Robert English 01/28/2016 03:12 PM Public Works Phil Williams 01/28/2016 03:13 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 01/28/2016 03:14 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/28/2016 04:20 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/28/2016 04:40 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 01/27/2016 08:20 AM Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Packet Page 84 of 1075 AdIft _ on State Supplemental Agreement p p g Organization and Address David Evans and Associates, Inc. Number 7 415 - 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 Original Agreement Number DEA Project # COED0000-0004 Phone: (425) 519-6500 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date 1 City ProiectNo. ElCA/c368 1/27/2016 12/31/2016 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvement $ 641,355.00 Description of Work Supplement #7 provides additional design and consulting services for the joint utility trench, the waterline, a temporary traffic signal system, an illumination system, survey, a parcel exhibit and legal description, acquisition of an easement for PUD, and mediation associated with condemnation proceedings for four (4) parcels located at the northwest and northeast quadrants of the intersection. The Local Agency of the City of Edmonds desires to supplement the agreement entered into with David Evans and Associates, Inc. and executed on 2/23/2012 and identified as Agreement No. E1CA/c368 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: Sera the attached "F'xhihit A - I " fhr,tlie Sr_ohe. of Wark 11 Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read. 111 Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: See the attached "Exhibit F. ," and » for the fee estirrinte- as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By. � By. Consultant i ature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Date Packet Page 85 of 1075 Exhibit A-1 761h Avenue W and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvements Project SCOPE OF SERVICES Supplement No. 7 Prepared for: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 - 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005-3518 (425) 519-6500 January 27, 2016 Packet Page 86 of 1075 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description.......................................................................................................1 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL .................................. 1 SECTION 5.0 SURVEY.......................................................................................................... 2 5.5 Topographic Survey.....................................................................................................2 SECTION 8.0 UTILITY COORDINATION............................................................................... 2 8.4 Utility Design for Overhead to Underground Conversion...............................................2 8.5 Utility Potholing/Relocations.........................................................................................2 SECTION 9.0 PS&E DESIGN................................................................................................ 2 9.3 Final Design (90% Completion Level)...........................................................................2 9.4 Final Design (100% Completion Level).........................................................................3 SECTION 10.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION SUPPORT SERVICES ................................. 3 10.1 Right -of -Way Plan / Parcel Exhibits / Legal Descriptions..............................................3 10.2 R/W Subconsultant Management.................................................................................3 SECTION 12.0 WATERLINE DESIGN..................................................................................... 4 12.1 Waterline Design (90% Completion).............................................................................4 P:IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement 7 - Temp Signal, Water, JUTIExhibit A-1_DEA Scope_76th 212th_2016-01-27.docx City of Edmonds i Scope of Services, Supp. No. 7 761h Ave. W and 212`h St. SW Project January 27, 2016 Packet Page 87 of 1075 City of Edmonds 761" Avenue W and 212t" Street SW Intersection Improvements Project SCOPE OF SERVICES Supplement No. 7 Section 1.0 Project Description Introduction Supplement No. 7 modifies the original agreement dated February 23, 2012 with the following revisions. 1.1 Project Description The work included within this supplemental Scope of Services is to provide additional design and consulting services to the City of Edmonds (CITY) for the 76th Avenue W and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvements Project (PROJECT). The additional design and consulting services to be provided by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (CONSULTANT) are associated with providing added revisions to the alignment of the joint utility trench (JUT), revising the proposed waterline to accommodate the revised JUT, design of a temporary traffic signal system, analysis and design of a permanent illumination system to address removal of existing utility poles with luminaires, survey, preparation of one (1) parcel exhibit and legal description to describe the area of new permanent easement for two (2) locations for Snohomish County PUD that will accommodate the conversion of overhead to underground power, acquisition of the PUD easement as part of the City's agreement with the utility, and mediation associated with condemnation proceedings for four (4) parcels located at the northwest and northeast quadrants of the intersection. Section 2.0 Project Management and Quality Control The CONSULTANT shall provide additional Project Management and Quality Control services which correspond to the services described in the following sections of this supplemental Scope of Services as required for the completion of the PROJECT. This supplemental Scope of Services also removes and/or considers complete elements of work included within the original Scope of Services and subsequent supplements that are no longer requested and/or are considered complete by the CITY. The work for these tasks is outlined in the Scope of Services from the following sections: Section 3.0 Conceptual Design Plans and Report (Original Agreement), Section 4.0 Community Involvement (Supplement No. 2), and Section 6.0 Preliminary Design (Supplement No. 2). Remaining balances of the aforementioned individual tasks will be added to the balance for Section 9.0 PS&E Design and reflect a reallocation of corresponding hours for these interrelated tasks. P:IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement 7 - Temp City of Edmonds 76t' Ave. W and 212' St. SW Project Water, XnExhibitA-1_DEAScope _76th 212th_2016-01-27.docx Scope of Services, Supp. No. 7 January 27, 2016 Packet Page 88 of 1075 Section 5.0 Survey 5.5 Topographic Survey The CONSULTANT shall provide additional topographic survey between east and north sides of the Edmonds-Woodway High School building and the proposed roadway and utility improvements at the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The added survey will be incorporated into an updated base map to be used for the design of the project. Section 8.0 Utility Coordination 8.4 Utility Design for Overhead to Underground Conversion The CONSULTANT shall provide additional consulting services for the overhead to underground utility conversion not originally anticipated during the development of Supplement No. 5. The number of design iterations of the joint utility trench (JUT) required to reach a consensus with the utility providers developed between October 2015 and January 2016 was greater than originally estimated for submitting and updating one version. 8.5 Utility Potholing/Relocations The CONSULTANT shall revise the previously completed potholing plans based upon the revised JUT and waterline alignments to be used by the potholing vendor, Applied Professional Services, Inc. (APS) to perform potholing services. Section 9.0 PS&E Design 9.3 Final Design (90% Completion Level) Temporary Traffic Signal Plan The CONSULTANT shall prepare the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) documents to include a temporary traffic signal plan. The timber pole and span wire traffic signal system is anticipated to connect to the existing traffic signal controller and be in operation for a significant majority of the duration of the project's construction. Installation of a temporary traffic signal system is required to implement the proposed overhead to underground utility conversion in concert with the other proposed improvements such as the waterline and storm sewer systems. Illumination Analysis and Plan The CONSULTANT shall prepare an illumination analysis for the area beyond the immediate intersection area to include the legs of the intersection that will no longer be illuminated by luminaires mounted onto Snohomish County PUD utility poles. The existing utility poles will be removed as part of the overhead to underground utility conversion. It is anticipated that approximately a light pole on three (3) of the four legs of the intersection will be required to compensate for the removal of the existing overhead electrical system. An illumination analysis using the AGi32 modeling software will be used to develop a lighting plan that meets required light levels for the intersection and its approaches. P:IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement 7 - Temp City of Edmonds 76t' Ave. W and 212' St. SW Project Water, XnExhibitA-1_DEAScope _76th 212th_2016-01-27.docx Scope of Services, Supp. No. 7 January 27, 2016 Packet Page 89 of 1075 Property Restoration Plans and Details The CONSULTANT shall prepare property restoration plans and details for the areas in which parking lot restoration has been included in City's Improvement Permit that was initially prepared October 2014. The areas in need of more detailed restoration include specific limits of the paved areas for the parcels commonly referred to as Burger King, Dairy Queen, and Grease Monkey. 9.4 Final Design (100% Completion Level) The CONSULTANT shall prepare the following in accordance with the CITY's and WSDOT's review comments from the 90% completion level of the tasks described above: • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY and WSDOT review comments from the 90% design plan set and coordination meeting — 100% Completion submittal • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY and WSDOT review comments from the 90% design specifications set and coordination meeting — 100% Completion submittal • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY review comments from the 90% design cost estimate and coordination meeting — 100% Completion submittal Section 10.0 Right -of -Way Acquisition Support Services 10.1 Right -of -Way Plan / Parcel Exhibits / Legal Descriptions 10.1.1 Right -of -Way Plan The CONSULTANT shall updated the right-of-way plan to include the two (2) easements on the Edmonds School District parcel for the Snohomish County PUD incorporated into the project as part of the overhead to underground utility conversion. 10.1.2 Parcel Exhibits The CONSULTANT shall prepare a parcel exhibit the two (2) easements on the Edmonds School District parcel for the Snohomish County PUD incorporated into the project as part of the overhead to underground utility conversion. 10.1.3 Legal Descriptions The CONSULTANT shall provide a description of the permanent easement acquisitions on the Edmonds School District parcel for the Snohomish County PUD incorporated into the project as part of the overhead to underground utility conversion. The CONSULTANT will include area calculations and dimensions with the parcel descriptions. 10.2 R/W Subconsultant Management 10.2.1 R/W Subconsultant Management and Administration The CONSULTANT shall manage and coordinate the work of UFS consistent with an executed subconsultant agreement and associated scope of work as attached to and made part of this scope of services as identified in Exhibit A-1.2 (dated 1-07-16). This work is principally associated with: • Negotiations for and acquisition of a new permanent easement from the Edmonds School District parcel (Edmonds Woodway High School) as part of the City's agreement with the Snohomish County PUD for overhead to underground utility conversion within the intersection, that includes: P:IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement 7 - Temp Signal, Water, XnExhibitA-1_DEA Scope_76th 212th_2016-01-27.docx City of Edmonds 3 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 7 76t' Ave. W and 212' St. SW Project January 27, 2016 Packet Page 90 of 1075 o Preparation & Administration for additional easement on EWHS o New Appraisal Review for additional easement on EWHS o Acquisition and parcel close out for additional easement on EWHS o Right of Way Certification preparation for additional easement on EWHS • Mediation associated with the City's condemnation proceedings for four (4) parcels located at the northwest and northeast quadrants of the intersection commonly referred to as: Burger King, Romio's, Grease Monkey, and Car Wash. 10.2.2 Design Support for R/W Acquisition Services The CONSULTANT shall provide design support to the subconsultant UFS during the period it is providing acquisition services. It is anticipated that discussions with the affected parcel owners will require specific exhibits and that as part of the negotiations there will be specific requests for design modifications to be incorporated into the PROJECT. 10.2.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control The subconsultant UFS shall be responsible for its own QA/QC review of deliverables by a designated QA/QC staff member of the subconsultant team. The review will cover documents, exhibits, and other pertinent information on an ongoing basis. The program entails the periodic review of work products, design, and assumptions, as well as concepts and presentation of product format; and assures that the overall project objectives are being fulfilled. Section 12.0 Waterline Design 12.1 Waterline Design (90% Completion) The CONSULTANT shall revise the previously completed 90% Plans and Details for the replacement water main to be compatible with the JUT associated with the overhead to underground utility conversion and to address the City's request to keep all valves outside of the intersection area for ease of operations and maintenance. P:IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement 7 - Temp City of Edmonds 76t' Ave. W and 212' St. SW Project 4 Water, XnExhibitA-1_DEAScope _76th 212th_2016-01-27.docx Scope of Services, Supp. No. 7 January 27, 2016 Packet Page 91 of 1075 Exhibit "E" Summary of Payments Basic Suppl. #1 Suppl. #2 Suppl. #3 Suppl. #4 Suppl. #5 Suppl. #6 Suppl. #7 Total Agreement Date Mod. Date Mod. Direct Salary Cost $17,768 $61,974 $4,971 $25,874 $15,398 $26,377 $152,362 Overhead (including Payroll $32,774 $114,318 $9,169 $47,727 $28,404 $48,655 $281,047 Additives) Direct Non -Salary $2,367 $27,012 $6,459 $67,714 $21,300 $20,130 $144,982 Cost Fixed Fee $5,010 $17,477 $1,401 $7,296 $4,342 $7,438 $42,964 Management $22,000 ($22,000) $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 Reserve Fund Total $57,919 n/a $242,781 $0 $168,611 $69,444 n/a $102,600 $641,355 MANAGEMENT RESERVE RELEASES The following management reserve releases have been issued and are now incorporated as part of the contract. MRR #1 - Suppl. i 8/9/2013 $ 22,000.00 Air Quality Report, PFE, Stormwater Report, PS&E docs Management Reserve Budget: $ 42,000.00 Management Reserve Balance: $ 20,000.00 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Packet Page 92 of 1075 Exhibit E-1: Consultant Fee Determination - Fixed Fee 76th Ave W and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvement Project City of Edmonds Supplement No. 7 David Evans and Associates, Inc. Classification Direct Rate Hours Cost 1 Project Manager (PMGR) $ 64.00 116 $7,424 2 Managing Professional Engr/QC (MGPE) $ 64.00 17 $1,088 3 Professional Engineer (PFEN) $ 48.00 217 $10,416 4 Sr. CADD Technician (SCAD) $ 39.50 125 $4,938 5 Survey Manager (SVYM) $ 61.00 5 $305 6 Survey Technician (SVTE) $ 32.00 16 $512 7 Party Chief (PCHF) $ 35.50 10 $355 8 Instrument Person (INST) $ 24.00 10 $240 9 Sr. Landscape Designer $ 35.60 10 $356 10 Administrative Assistant (ADMA) $ 30.00 18 $540 11 Exec. Administrator (EXAD) $ 33.90 6 $203 Total Hours 550 Salary Cost $26,377 Overhead Cost @ 184.46% of Direct Labor $48,655 Net Fee @ 28.20% of Direct Labor $7,438 Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost $56,093 Direct Expenses Unit Each No. Cost Mileage miles @ $0.54 /mile 240 $130 Subtotal $130 David Evans and Associates Total $82,600 Subconsultants: Costs Universal Field Services - Right -of -Way Support (Neg/Acq) $20,000 Subconsultant Totals $20,000 Total Costs - Supplement No. 7 $102,600 Management Reserve Fund $0 Total Contract Amount $102,600 Page 1 of 2 Printed: 1 /27/2016 P:\c\COED00000004\OOOOCON\003OContract\Supplement 7 - Temp Signal, Water, JUT\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget_76th & 212th 2016-01-27.xls — Packet Page 93 of 1075 Exhibit E-1: Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet 76th Ave W and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvement Project City of Edmonds Supplement No. 7 David Evans and Associates, Inc. 10 11 W � Qx 5 c m N LLj a d o w w a) c to '3 r- r? d c 0 '(.1 ii U c o p v N Q o m m d 0 uJ d m c d y a a 0 � EL co_ t tl >C c c U m � g H ic > d ' a CZ a Work 0) c m 'D w cap Q a) 2 a) 2 > E 0 Element # Work Element a 2 w a s in Cn cn a- c C`n Q Q w DEA DEA Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total $ hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs 2.0 Proj. Management and Quality Control 2.1 Project Management and File Management 40 8 4 52 $9,178 Work Element 2.0 Total 40 8 4 52 $9,178 3.0 Conceptual Design Plans and Report -6 -20 -2 -4.71 -33 -$4,891 ork Element 3.0 Total -6 -4.71 -33 '-$4,891 4.0 Community Involvement -2 -14 -2.68 -19 -$2,381 Work Element 4.0 Total -2.68 -19 '-$2,381 5.0 Survey 1 1 1 3 10 10 10 36 $3,907 1w Work Element 5.0 Total 1 36 $3,907 6.0 Preliminary Design -7 -2.15 -9 -$1,252 Work Element 6.0 Total -7 -2.15 -9 -$1,252 8.0 Utility Coordination 8.4 Utility Design for Overhead to Underground Conversion 8.4.1 Joint Utility Trench Coordination Meetings, Prep and Notes 8 2 2 12 $2,148 8.4.2 Joint Utility Trench Design Coordination 8 8 $1,601 8.4.3 Joint Utility Trench Plan and Sections 12 2 24 12 50 $7,885 8.5 Utility Potholing/Relocations 2 2 8 12 $1,688 Work Element 8.0 Total 30 2 28 22 , 82 $13,322 9.0 PS&E Design 9.3 Final Design (Reallocation of Completed Prelim. Work) 8 27 16 9.54 61 $8,524 9.3.2 90% Temporary Traffic Signal System 6 2 36 24 1 69 $10,061 9.3.3 90% Corridor Illumination System 2 1 16 4 1 24 $3,589 9.3.4 90% Property Restoration Plans and Details 12 2 36 24 6 1 81 $11,930 9.4 Construction Documents (100% Completion Level) 9.4.2 100% Temporary Traffic Signal System 2 1 28 16 1 48 $6,872 9.4.3 100% Corridor Illumination System 1 6 2 1 10 $1,441 9.4.3 100% Property Restoration Plans and Details 8 1 20 16 4 1 50 $7,317 Work Element 9.0 Total 39 7 10 15.54 343 $ 10.0 Right -of -Way Acquisition Services 10.1 Right -of -Way Plan/Parcel Exhibits/Legal Descr/Survey Staking 10.1.1 Right -of -Way Plan 1 2 1 $624 10.1.2 Parcel Exhibits 1 1 1 1 5 $1,165 10.1.3 Legal Descriptions 1 1 1 $385 10.2 Subconsultant Management 10.2.1 Subconsultant Management and Administration 6 2 2 $1,600 10.2.2 Design Support for R/W Acquisition Services 2 3 2 1 $1,191 Work Element 10.0 Total 10 2 6 $4,9 12.0 Waterline Design 12.1 Waterline Design (90% Completion Revised for JUT) 4 8 40 12 $9,886 otal 4 8 Direct Expenses 1 $130 PROJECT WORK ELEMENTS TOTALS 1116 17 217 125 s 16 10 10 10 18 6 sso $82,600 Q Page 2 of 2 P:\c\COED00000004\OOOOCON\003OContmct\Supplement 7 - Temp Signal, Water, JUT\EAiibit E-1_DEA Budget_76th & 212th_2016-01-27.As Packet Page Pdno�'di 8/27/2016 AM-8299 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Submitted For: Pamela Randolph Department: Wastewater Treatment Plant Committee: Submitted By: Pamela Randolph Type: Forward to Consent Information Subiect Title Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair Project for the Wastewater Treatment Plant 3. E. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the advertisement for the Invitation to Bid on the Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair. Previous Council Action January 26,2016, the engineers estimate was presented to Council and the request to advertise the Invitation to Bid forwarded the request to Consent Agenda. The City Council has approved the 2016 Capital Improvement budget for the WWTP. The clarifier project was included in the requested allocation and listed as a significant impact for 2016. Narrative The wastewater plant has 3 secondary clarifiers. Approximately 5 years after installation, Clarifier #3 had noticeable cracking in the topping layer. It was repaired. A few years later the problem reappeared and was again repaired. Approximately 3 years ago the problem appeared again. We now know that simple topping repairs are not addressing the underlying issue. To determine the best course of action we began an investigation which included removal of topping to assess the condition of the structural slab, we evaluated engineering options and completed the predesign report with Tetra Tech, we evaluated the ground water and soil conditions with HWA Geosciences, Inc. The failure has been attributed to higher than expected ground water forces, concrete shrinkage and the original structural design of the floor slab. At this point we moved forward with final design and specification development to replace the entire clarifier floor with engineering consultant Brown and Caldwell. The project includes removal and re -pouring of the clarifier floor, resurfacing the weir overflow interface, coating of concrete (protecting interior walls) and the coating of all steel in the tank. The clarifier would in essence be restored to new condition (the collection mechanism itself is not included). Brown and Caldwell's engineering estimate for the project is $$845,763 (-10% to +15% accuracy). The cost of the repairs would be shared by our Wastewater Treatment Plant partners. The City of Edmonds would be responsible for approximately $429,538. Clarifiers #1 and #2 do not appear to be affected by the same forces and conditions as clarifier #3. Attachments Clarifier #3 Structual Repair Engineers Estimate Packet Page 95 of 1075 Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Pamela Randolph Final Approval Date: 01/27/2016 Form Review Reviewed By Date Scott Passey 01/27/2016 11:25 AM Dave Earling 01/27/2016 12:55 PM Scott Passey 01/27/2016 02:35 PM Started On: 01/27/2016 08:30 AM Packet Page 96 of 1075 Brown AND . Caldwell ' Date: January 20, 2016 To: Patricia Tam, Seattle From: Breeze Walter, Cincinnati Reviewed by: Dan Goodburn, Parker Project No.: 148594.003 Subject: Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair 90-Percent Design Completion Basis of Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Memorandum The Basis of Estimate Report and supporting estimate reports for the subject project are attached. Please call me if you have questions or need additional information. Enclosures (3): 1. Basis of Estimate Report 2. Summary Estimate 3. Detailed Estimate Packet Page 97 of 1075 M 0 1 Basis of Estimate Report Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Repair Introduction Brown and Caldwell (BC) is pleased to present this opinion of probable construction cost (estimate) prepared for the secondary clarifier No. 3 Structural repair, Edmond, WA. Summary This Basis of Estimate contains the following information: • Scope of work • Background of this estimate • Class of estimate • Estimating methodology • Direct cost development • Indirect cost development • Bidding assumptions • Estimating assumptions • Estimating exclusions • Allowances for known but undefined work • Contractor and other estimate markups Scope of Work Summary of estimated cost consist of the following scope: 1. Remove the 2" topping slab, 6" slab on grade, and 6" of structural fill and replace with 6" of gravel, 12" thick slab on grade and a 2" topping slab. 2. New PSV valves in the slab on grade 3. Recoat the clarifier and all equipment 4. Patch and fix existing concrete walls 5. Allowance for dewatering 6. Allowance for rental crane for possible remove of clarifier equipment Background of this Estimate In a previously submitted 10-percent estimate dated October 21, 2015, BC's estimating team presented an estimate of probable cost based on documents furnished to the Estimating and Scheduling Group (ESG), and on the overall market conditions at that time. As a result of refinements in the project, the size and scope of features in this project have changed. These changes are reflected in the current estimate. Brown A --Caldwell BOE City of Edmonds R3 90.docx Packet Page 98 of 1075 1 Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair January 20, 2016 The attached estimate of probable construction cost is based on documents dated December 17, 2015, received by the ESG. These documents are described as 90 percent complete based on the current project progression, additional or updated scope and/or quantities, and ongoing discussions with the project team. Further information can be found in the detailed estimate reports. Class of Estimate In accordance with the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE) criteria, this is a Class 1 estimate. A Class 1 estimate is defined as a Baseline Check Estimate or Final Control Estimate. Typically, engineering is from 50 to 100 percent complete. Class 1 Estimates are used to compare against received bids, evaluate change order requests and for construction claim evaluations and dispute resolution. Expected accuracy for Class 1 estimates typically range from -10 to +15 percent, depending on the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. In unusual circumstances, ranges could exceed those shown. Estimating Methodology This estimate was prepared using quantity take -offs, vendor quotes and equipment pricing furnished either by the project team or by the estimator. The estimate includes direct labor costs and anticipated productivity adjustments to labor, and equipment. Where possible, estimates for work anticipated to be performed by specialty subcontractors have been identified. Construction labor crew and equipment hours were calculated from production rates contained in documents and electronic databases published by R.S. Means, Mechanical Contractors Association (MCA), National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), and Rental Rate Blue Book for Construction Equipment (Blue Book). This estimate was prepared using BC's estimating system, which consists of a Windows -based commercial estimating software engine using BC's material and labor database, historical project data, the latest vendor and material cost information, and other costs specific to the project locale. Direct Cost Development Costs associated with the General Provisions and the Special Provisions of the construction documents, which are collectively referred to as Contractor General Conditions (CGC), were based on the estimator's interpretation of the contract documents. The estimates for CGCs are divided into two groups: a time -related group (e.g., field personnel), and non -time -related group (e.g., bonds and insurance). Labor burdens such as health and welfare, vacation, union benefits, payroll taxes, and workers compensation insurance are included in the labor rates. No trade discounts were considered. Indirect Cost Development Local sales tax has been applied to material and equipment rentals. A percentage allowance for contractor's home office expense has been included in the overall rate markups. The rate is standard for this type of heavy construction and is based on typical percentages outlined in Means Heavy Construction Cost Data. The contractor's cost for builders risk, general liability and vehicle insurance has been included in this estimate. Based on historical data, this is typically two to four percent of the overall construction contract amount. These indirect costs have been included in this estimate as a percentage of the gross cost, and are added after the net markups have been applied to the appropriate items. Brown —Caldwell BOE city of Edmonds R3 90.docx Packet Page 99 of 1075 Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair January 20, 2016 Bidding Assumptions The following bidding assumptions were considered in the development of this estimate. 1. Bidders must hold a valid, current Contractor's credentials, applicable to the type of project. 2. Bidders will develop estimates with a competitive approach to material pricing and labor productivity, and will not include allowances for changes, extra work, unforeseen conditions or any other unplanned costs. 3. Estimated costs are based on a minimum of four bidders. Actual bid prices may increase for fewer bidders or decrease for a greater number of bidders. 4. Bidders will account for General Provisions and Special Provisions of the contract documents and will perform all work except that which will be performed by traditional specialty subcontractors as identified here: — Coating Systems Estimating Assumptions As the design progresses through different completion stages, it is customary for the estimator to make assumptions to account for details that may not be evident from the documents. The following assumptions were used in the development of this estimate. 1. Contractor performs the work during normal daylight hours, nominally 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, in an 8-hour shift. No allowance has been made for additional shift work or weekend work. 2. Contractor has complete access for lay -down areas and mobile equipment. 3. Equipment rental rates are based on verifiable pricing from the local project area rental yards, Blue Book rates and/or rates contained in the estimating database. 4. Contractor markup is based on conventionally accepted values that have been adjusted for project -area economic factors. 5. Major equipment costs are based on both vendor supplied price quotes obtained by the project design team and/or estimators, and on historical pricing of like equipment. 6. Process equipment vendor training using vendors' standard Operations and Maintenance (0&M) material, is included in the purchase price of major equipment items where so stated in that quotation. 7. Bulk material quantities are based on manual quantity take -offs. 8. There is sufficient electrical power to feed the specified equipment. The local power company will supply power and transformers suitable for this facility. 9. Soils are of adequate nature to support the structures. No piles have been included in this estimate. Estimating Exclusions The following estimating exclusions were assumed in the development of this estimate. 1. Hazardous materials remediation and/or disposal. 2. 0&M costs for the project with the exception of the vendor supplied 0&M manuals. 3. Utility agency costs for incoming power modifications. 4. Permits beyond those normally needed for the type of project and project conditions. Brown A-- Caldwell BOE city of Edmonds R3 90.docx Packet Page 100 of 1075 Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair January 20, 2016 Allowances for Known but Undefined Work The following allowances were made in the development of this estimate. 1. Dewatering Allowance 2. Concrete patching Allowance 3. Allowance for rental crane for possible removal and reinstalling clarifier equipment Contractor and Other Estimate Markups Contractor markup is based on conventionally accepted values which have been adjusted for project -area economic factors. Estimate markups are shown in Table 1. Net Cost Markups Labor (employer payroll burden) Materials and process equipment Equipment (construction -related) Subcontractor Sales Tax (State and local for materials and construction equipment rentals, etc.) Material Shipping and Handling Gross Cost Markups Contractor General Conditions Start-up, Training and 0&M Construction Contingency Builders Risk, Liability and Auto Insurance Performance and Payment Bonds Escalation to Midpoint of Construction 10 8 8 5 9.5 2 12 2 10 2 1.5 1.78 Labor Markup The labor rates used in the estimate were derived chiefly from the latest published State Prevailing Wage Rates. These include base rate paid to the laborer plus fringes. A labor burden factor is applied to these such that the final rates include all employer paid taxes. These taxes are FICA (which covers social security plus Medicare), Workers Comp (which varies based on state, employer experience and history) and unemployment insurance. The result is fully loaded labor rates. In addition to the fully loaded labor rate, an overhead and profit markup is applied at the back end of the estimate. This covers payroll and accounting, estimator's wages, home office rent, advertising and owner profit. Materials and Process Equipment Markup This markup consists of the additional cost to the contractor beyond the raw dollar amount for material and process equipment. This includes shop drawing preparation, submittal and/or re -submittal cost, purchasing Brown —Caldwell BOE City of Edmonds R3 90.docx Packet Page 101 of 1075 4 Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair January 20, 2016 and scheduling materials and equipment, accounting charges including invoicing and payment, inspection of received goods, receiving, storage, overhead and profit. Equipment (Construction) Markup This markup consists of the costs associated with operating the construction equipment used in the project. Most GCs will rent rather than own the equipment and then charge each project for its equipment cost. The equipment rental cost does not include fuel, delivery and pick-up charges, additional insurance requirements on rental equipment, accounting costs related to home office receiving invoices and payment. However, the crew rates used in the estimate do account for the equipment rental cost. Occasionally, larger contractors will have some or all of the equipment needed for the job, but in order to recoup their initial purchasing cost they will charge the project an internal rate for equipment use which is similar to the rental cost of equipment. The GC will apply an overhead and profit percentage to each individual piece of equipment whether rented or owned. Subcontractor Markup This markup consists of the GC's costs for subcontractors who perform work on the site. This includes costs associated with shop drawings, review of subcontractor's submittals, scheduling of subcontractor work, inspections, processing of payment requests, home office accounting, and overhead and profit on subcontracts. Sales Tax (Materials, Process Equipment and Construction Equipment) This is the tax that the contractor must pay according to state and local tax laws. The percentage is applied to both the material and equipment the GC purchases as well as the cost for rental equipment. The percentage is based on the local rates in place at the time the estimate was prepared. Contractor Startup, Training, and 0&M Manuals This cost markup is often confused with either vendor startup or owner startup. It is the cost the GC incurs on the project beyond the vendor startup and owner startup costs. The GC generally will have project personnel assigned to facilitate the installation, testing, startup and 0&M Manual preparation for equipment that is put into operation by either the vendor or owner. These project personnel often include an electrician, pipe fitter or millwright, and/or I&E technician. These personnel are not included in the basic crew makeup to install the equipment but are there to assist and trouble shoot the startup and proper running of the equipment. The GC also incurs a cost for startup for such things as consumables (oil, fuel, filters, etc.), startup drawings and schedules, startup meetings and coordination with the plant personnel in other areas of the plant operation. Builders Risk, Liability, and Vehicle Insurance This percentage comprises all three items. There are many factors which make up this percentage, including the contractor's track record for claims in each of the categories. Another factor affecting insurance rates has been a dramatic price increase across the country over the past several years due to domestic and foreign influences. Consequently, in the construction industry we have observed a range of 0.5 to 1 percent for Builders Risk Insurance, 1 to 1.25 percent for General Liability Insurance, and 0.85 to 1 percent for Vehicle Insurance. Many factors affect each area of insurance, including project complexity and contractor's requirements and history. Instead of using numbers from a select few contractors, we believe it is more prudent to use a combined 2 percent to better reflect the general costs across the country. Consequently, the actual cost could be higher or lower based on the bidder, region, insurance climate, and on the contractor's insurability at the time the project is bid. Brown —Caldwell BOE city of Edmonds R3 90.docx Packet Page 102 of 1075 Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structural Repair January 20, 2016 Material Shipping and Handling This can range from 2 to 6 percent, and is based on the type of project, material makeup of the project, and the region and location of the project. Material shipping and handling covers delivery costs from vendors, unloading costs (and in some instances loading and shipment back to vendors for rebuilt equipment), site paper work, and inspection of materials prior to unloading at the project site. BC typically adjusts this percentage by the amount of materials and whether vendors have included shipping costs in the quotes that were used to prepare the estimate. This cost also includes the GC's cost to obtain local supplies; e.g., oil, gaskets and bolts that may be missing from the equipment or materials shipped. Escalation to Midpoint for Labor, Materials and Subcontractors In addition to contingency, it is customary for projects that will be built over several years to include an escalation to midpoint of anticipated construction to account for the future escalation of labor, material and equipment costs beyond values at the time the estimate is prepared. For this project, the anticipated rate of escalation is 4 percent per annum. The estimated construction time for this project is 6 months, exclusive of unusual weather or site conditions delays. Construction is anticipated to start March 2016 and complete September 2016. The escalation factors used in this estimate are calculated from the date the estimate is finalized to the anticipated midpoint of construction at approximately 2.3 months from the date of this estimate. Undesigned/undeveloped Contingency The contingency factor covers unforeseen conditions, area economic factors, and general project complexity. This contingency is used to account for those factors that cannot be addressed in each of the labor and/or material installation costs. Based on industry standards, completeness of the project documents, project complexity, the current design stage and area factors, construction contingency can range from 10 to 50 percent. Performance and Payment Bonds Based on historical and industry data, this can range from 0.75 to 3 percent of the project total. There are several contributing factors including such items as size of the project, regional costs, contractor's historical record on similar projects, complexity and current bonding limits. BC uses 1.5 percent for bonds, which we have determined to be reasonable for most heavy construction projects. Brown A-- Caldwell BOE city of Edmonds R3 90.docx Packet Page 103 of 1075 Brown AND Estimate Summary Report 1/20/2016 1:58 PM Caldwell Project Number: 148594-003 Estimate Issue Number: 3 Bid Date: 1/20/2016 Estimator: Breeze Walter Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structral Estimator BC Project Manager BC Office Estimate Issue No. QA/QC Reviewer QA/QC Review Date BC Estimate Number Notes Breeze Walter Patricia Tam Seattle 3 Dan Goodburn 01 /5/2016 148594-003 PROCESS LOCATION/AREA INDEX 01 Demolition 02 New Construction Packet Page 104 of 1075 Page 1 Brown AND Caldwell 01 Totals 01 Demolition 02225 Selective Demolition - SOG and Topping 02999 Locate Underslab Piping 02999 Crane Rental 31240 Dewatering Systems 31315 Excavation and Backfill 01 Demolition 02 New Construction 03330 12" Slab 03330 Topping Slab 03900 Patching Concrete 05999 Coating Equipment 09912 Tank & Launder Coating 22051 Pressure Relief Valves 31999 Geotextile Fabric 02 New Construction 01 Totals Estimate Summary Report Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structral Estimate Breakdown it 1/20/2016 1:58 PM Project Number: Estimate Issue Number: Bid Date: Estimator: Gross Total Cost w/Markups 207,271 524 148,567 112,861 18,378 487,601 150,927 22,369 20,015 78,760 74,741 9,408 1,942 358,162 845,763 148594-003 3 1 /20/2016 Breeze Walter Packet Page 105 of 1075 Page 2 Estimate Detail Report 112012016 1:57 PM Brown AND • Project Number: 148594-003 Estimate Issue: 3 Caldwell • Due Date: 1/20/2016 1 Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structral Repair Estimator: Breeze Walter Estimator Breeze Walter BC Project Manager Patricia Tam BC Office Seattle Estimate Issue No. 3 QA/QC Reviewer Dan Goodburn QA/QC Review Date 01/5/2016 Notes PROCESS LOCATION/AREA INDEX 01 Demolition 02 New Construction Page 1 Brown AND Caldwell Estimate Detail Report Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structral Repair Phase Item Estimate Breakdown Quantity 01 Totals 01 Demolition 02225 Selective Demolition - SOG and Topping 01-54-33.40 0990 Rent air tool, 12 lb chipping hammer 15.0 day 02-41-19.16 1250 Selective demolition, cutout, concrete, slab on grade, 5,655.0 sf bar reinforced, to 6" thick, 8-16 S.F., excludes loading and disposal 02-41-19.19 0300 Dump charges, typical urban city, rubbish only, 136.1 ton includes tipping fees only 02-41-19.23 0800 Rubbish handling, dumpster, 30 C.Y., 10 ton 2.0 week capacity, weekly rental, includes one dump per week, cost to be added to demolition cost. 02-41-19.23 3080 Rubbish handling, loading & trucking, machine 104.7 cy loading truck, includes 2 mile haul, cost to be added to demolition cost. 02-41-19.25 0420 Sawcutting, concrete slabs, each additional inch of 1,080.0 If depth over 3" Selective Demolition - SOG and Topping 7,062.0 sf 02999 Locate Underslab Piping 01-45-23.50 8000 X-ray concrete slabs 2.0 ea Locate Underslab Piping 1.0 LS 02999 Crane Rental 01-54-33.60 1200 Rent crawler mounted, lattice boom crane, 100 ton, 60.0 day 60' boom 01-54-36.50 2300 Mobilization or demobilization, crane, 2.0 ea crawler -mounted, over 75 ton Crane Rental 1.0 LS 31240 Dewatering Systems 01-54-33.70 0300 Rent 8" diam wellpoint discharge pipe 300.0 day 01-54-33.70 0500 Rent wellpoint header pipe, 6" diameter, 400 gpm 100.0 day 01-54-33.70 1100 Rent wellpoint 15' long w/fittings & riser pipe 1-1/2" 90.0 day or 2" diameter 01-54-33.70 1300 Rent wellpoint pump, diesel, 30 HP, 6" suction 90.0 day 31-23-19.40 0110 Wellpoints, single stage system, 0.75 labor hours per 100.0 hdr LF, installation and removal 31-23-19.40 0410 Wellpoints, pump operation, 4 @ 6 hour shifts, per 30.0 day 24 hour day Dewatering Systems 30.0 day 31315 Excavation and Backfill 31-05-16.10 0100 Aggregate for earthwork, bank run gravel, spread 104.7 Icy with 200 H.P. dozer, includes load at pit and haul, 2 miles round trip, excludes compaction 31-23-23.17 0600 Fill, gravel fill, compacted, under floor slabs, 6" deep 5,655.0 sf 31-23-23.18 0400 Hauling, excavated or borrow material, loose cubic 588.8 Icy yards, 1 mile round trip, 2.2 loads/hour, 12 C.Y. truck, highway haulers, excludes loading Excavation and Backfill 588.8 cy 01 Demolition 112012016 1:57 PM Project Number: 148594-003 Estimate Issue: 3 Due Date: 1/20/2016 Estimator: Breeze Walter Labor Material Sub Equip Other Total Net Total Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Amount 2,260.44 47.45 2,307.89 /day 34,618 15.07 - 1.58 16.65 /sf 94,165 - 59.54 - 59.54 /ton 8,105 - 689.85 - 689.85 /week 1,380 16.36 - 6.59 22.95 /cy 2,403 0.36 0.05 - 0.17 0.58 /If 621 17.17 1.35 1.49 20.01 /sf 141,293 185.64 - 185.64 /ea 371 371.28 371.28 /LS 371 - - 1,667.00 1,667.00 /day 100,020 741.47 751.27 1,492.74 /ea 2,985 1,482.94 101,522.53 103,005.47 /LS 103,005 - 0.40 0.40 /day 120 0.40 0.40 /day 40 3.00 3.00 /day 270 - 228.00 228.00 /day 20,520 41.95 - 41.95 /hdr 4,195 1,744.53 - - 1,744.53 /day 52,336 1,884.37 698.33 2,582.70 /day 77,481 3.04 22.40 4.71 30.15 /Icy 3,157 0.33 0.56 0.02 0.91 /sf 5,117 2.84 - 3.92 6.76 /Icy 3,978 4.93 20.81 /cy 6.53 9.35 12,252 334,403 02 New Construction 03330 12" Slab Packet Page 107 of 1075 Page 2 Brown AND Caldwell Estimate Detail Report Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structral Repair 112012016 1:57 PM Project Number: 148594-003 Estimate Issue: 3 Due Date: 1/20/2016 Estimator: Breeze Walter Labor Material Sub Equip Other Total Net Phase Item Estimate Breakdown Quantity Total Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Amount 03330 12" Slab 03-15-13.50 1300 Waterstop,Hydrophilic, ribbed type, split, 3/8" thick x 470.0 If 4.23 4.56 8.80 /If 4,135 6" wide 03-15-13.50 5250 Waterstop, fittings, rubber, flat, dumbbell or center 23.0 ea 11.01 49.50 60.50 lea 1,392 bulb, field union, 3/8" thick x 9" wide 03-21-10.60 0600 Reinforcing steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, 15.7 ton 1,118.04 1,031.00 - 2,149.04 /ton 33,757 A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories 03-21-10.60 2005 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to 15.7 ton 44.10 - 7.51 51.61 /ton 811 above - slabs 03-21-10.60 2215 Reinforcing in place, crane cost for handling, add to 15.7 ton 47.94 - 8.17 56.10 /ton 881 above, slabs 03-21-10.60 2430 Reinforcing steel, in place, dowels, deformed, 2' 540.0 ea 3.57 1.65 - 5.22 /ea 2,819 long, #6, A615, grade 60 03-31-05.35 0405 Concrete, ready mix, regular weight, slabs/mats, 219.9 cy - 120.23 - 120.23 /cy 26,441 5000 psi 03-31-05.70 4650 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, 219.9 cy 20.74 - 4.31 25.05 /cy 5,510 over 6" thick, includes vibrating, excludes material 03-35-29.30 0250 Concrete finishing, floors, monolithic, machine trowel 5,655.0 sf 0.90 - 0.03 0.93 /sf 5,264 finish 03-35-29.30 2350 Concrete finishing, floor, hardener, non-metallic, 5,655.0 sf 0.73 0.34 1.07 /sf 6,059 medium service, 0.75 psf, add 03-39-13.50 0300 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 56.6 csf 9.45 11.76 21.21 /csf 1,199 03-82-16.10 0700 Concrete impact drilling, for anchors, to 4" d, 1" dia, 540.0 ea 13.76 0.17 13.93 lea 7,523 in concrete or brick walls and floors, includes bit cost, layout and set up time, excl anchor 03-82-16.10 0750 Cncn impct drlln,for anchr,1 "dia,cncrt brick walls and 1,080.0 ea 2.90 0.04 - 2.94 /ea 3,172 flrs,inclds bit cost,layout and set time,excl anchor,for each addtnl inch depth same hole,add 31-22-16.10 1100 Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 628.3 sy 0.99 0.72 1.71 /sy 1,074 12" Slab 209.4 cy 232.46 236.50 8.68 477.63 /cy 100,037 03330 Topping Slab 03-31-05.35 0305 Concrete, ready mix, regular weight, slabs/mats, 45.8 cy - 113.85 - 113.85 /cy 5,211 4000 psi 03-31-05.70 4350 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, 45.8 cy 29.51 - 6.14 35.65 /cy 1,632 up to 6" thick, includes vibrating, excludes material 03-35-29.30 0250 Concrete finishing, floors, monolithic, machine trowel 7,062.0 sf 0.90 - 0.03 0.93 /sf 6,574 finish 03-39-13.50 0300 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 70.6 csf 9.45 11.76 21.21 /csf 1,498 Topping Slab 1,177.0 cy 7.12 5.13 0.42 12.67 /cy 14,914 03900 Patching Concrete 03-01-30.62 2150 Patching concrete, walls, epoxy grout, 1/2" deep, 500.0 sf 10.97 15.41 - 26.38 /sf 13,189 including chipping, cleaning and epoxy grout Patching Concrete 500.0 sf 10.97 15.41 26.38 /sf 13,189 05999 Coating Equipment 05-01-10.51 6270 Metal cleaning, steel surface treatment, 12.0 lb sand 8,500.0 sf 1.87 1.80 0.33 4.01 /sf 34,062 per S.F., near white blast, existing coat badly pitted, nodules (SSPC-SP10) 09-91-06.41 BC-0021 Coatings & paints, B & C coating system E-2 (Epoxy, 8,500.0 sgft 0.56 1.56 - 2.12 /sgft 17,991 metal tanks, structures) Coating Equipment 8,500.0 sf 2.43 3.36 0.33 6.12 /sf 52,053 Packet Page 108 of 1075 Page 3 Brown AND Caldwell Estimate Detail Report Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structral Repair Phase Item Estimate Breakdown Quantity Labor Material Sub Equip Other Total Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit 09912 Tank & Launder Coating 04-01-30.20 0840 Cleaning, high pressure wash, heavy soil, biological 7,500.0 sf 2.24 0.33 and mineral staining, paint, water and chemical, excludes scaffolding 09-91-06.41 BC-0086 Coatings & paints, B & C coating system EC-1 7,500.0 sqft 1.27 2.44 (Hybrid Polyurethane, conc, masonry) Tank & Launder Coating 7,500.0 sqft 3.52 2.77 22051 Pressure Relief Valves 22-05-23.20 6040 Valves, relief, pressure, poppet type,6" 16.0 ea 189.19 200.00 Pressure Relief Valves 16.0 EA 189.19 200.00 31999 Geotextile Fabric 31-32-19.16 1510 Geosynthetic soil stabilization, geotextile fabric, 628.3 sy 0.37 1.63 woven, heavy duty, 600 lb. tensile strength Geotextile Fabric 5,655.0 sf 0.04 0.18 02 New Construction 01 Totals 1/20/2016 1:57 PM Project Number: 148594-003 Estimate Issue: 3 Due Date: 1/20/2016 Estimator: Breeze Walter Total Net Amount 0.36 2.93 /sf 21,986 - 3.71 /sgft 27,823 0.36 6.64 /sqft 49,809 - 389.19 lea 6,227 389.19 /EA 6,227 2.01 /sy 1,262 0.22 /sf 1,262 237,492 571,895 Packet Page 109 of 1075 Page Brown AND Caldwell ' Estimate Detail Report Edmonds Secondary Clarifier No. 3 Structral Repair Estimate Totals Labor 4,849 hrs 295,950 Material 131,862 Subcontract 371 Equipment 7,523 hrs 143,712 Other 571,895 571,895 Labor Mark-up 10.000 % 29,595 Material Mark-up 8.000 % 10,549 Subcontractor Mark-up 5.000 % 19 Construction Equipment Mark-up 8.000 % 11,497 Other - Process Equip Mark-up 8.000 51,659 623,554 Material Shipping & Handling 2.000 % 2,637 Material Sales Tax 9.500 % 12,527 Net Markups 15,164 638,718 Contractor General Conditions 12.000 % 76,646 76,646 715,365 Start -Up, Training, O&M 2.000 % 14,307 14,307 729,672 Undesign/Undevelop Contingency 10.000 % 72,967 72,967 802,639 Bldg Risk, Liability Auto Ins 2.000 % 16,053 16,053 818,692 Contractor Bonds & Insurance 1.500 % 12,280 12,280 830,972 Escalation to Midpoint (ALL) 1.780 % 14,791 Gross Markups 14,791 845,763 1/20/2016 1:57 PM Project Number: 148594-003 Estimate Issue: 3 Due Date: 1/20/2016 Estimator: Breeze Walter Packet Page 110 of 1075 Page 5 AM-8302 3. F. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Scott James Submitted By: Debra Sharp Department: Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action on an ordinance amending the 2016 Budget for Carryforward items previously discussed and approved by Council during the 2015 Budget Year. Recommendation Council Motion: Approve Ordinance No.XXXX amending the 2016 Budget for 2015 Carryforward items not completed in 2015. Previous Council Action Council heard staff s presentation and discussed the Carryforward Amendment during the January 26th, 2016 Council meeting. Narrative Staff prepared 35 decision package requests to present Council for their review and approval to carryforward unexpended project budgets that were previously approved by Council in 2015. Background: During the development and approval of the 2016 Budget, staff included estimated budget amounts for projects that were underway. As the 2015 Budget Year came to a close, actual project expenditures were able to be determined. Tonight's Budget Amendment proposal will roll the unexpended 2015 Project Budgets into the 2016 Budget. Staff Presentation to Council: Each Decision Package includes budgeted amounts that Council approved during the 2015 Budget Year. Since each item was already discussed and approved by Council, staff will be prepared to answer questions regarding the Carryfoward Budget requests. There are three requests where Council has approved additional funding but not through a formal budget amendment. The three amendments are the Court/Council Chambers AN Upgrade Project, the Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Project and the Civic Field Acquisition. Attachments Packet Page 111 of 1075 2016 Carryforward Budget Amendment Inbox Reviewed By Finance Scott James City Clerk Scott Passey Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Form Started By: Debra Sharp Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Form Review Date O1/28/2016 09:30 AM O1/28/2016 09:31 AM O1/28/2016 10:31 AM O1/28/2016 11:08 AM Started On: 01/27/2016 01:35 PM Packet Page 112 of 1075 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4014 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 2016 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. 4014 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2016 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F adopted herein by reference. 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 I Packet Page 113 of 1075 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: 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, DAVE EARLING 2 Packet Page 114 of 1075 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, 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 ORDINANCE NO. 4014 AS A RESULT EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of ,2016. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Page 115 of 1075 EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (January 2016) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2016 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2016 ENDING FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 6,436,320 39,266,670 40,691,280 5,011,710 009 LEOFF-MEDI CAL INS. RESERVE 538,960 278,770 279,480 538,250 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 951,820 6,660 - 958,480 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 4,680,340 28,110 800,000 3,908,450 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 56,020 - - 56,020 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 970 5,000 5,400 570 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 229,850 2,005,000 2,175,000 59,850 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 27,530 153,000 76,030 104,500 111 STREET FUND 516,350 1,760,500 1,712,370 564,480 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/I MP ROVE 242,450 8,026,497 8,039,592 229,355 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 438,050 102,410 181,380 359,080 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,900 110 - 18,010 120 HOTEL/MOTELTAX REVENUE FUND 131,670 82,150 149,650 64,170 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 59,430 21,390 26,880 53,940 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 16,000 5,550 3,000 18,550 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 82,780 27,530 31,500 78,810 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,174,702 1,108,000 2,008,632 274,070 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 1,978,970 1,102,000 2,480,320 600,650 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 255,550 46,900 44,950 257,500 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 38,360 280 - 38,640 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 121,770 177,260 210,370 88,660 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,286,050 2,537,240 2,760,770 1,062,520 136 PARKSTRUSTFUND 151,640 630 - 152,270 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 882,510 19,880 - 902,390 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 1,510 12,010 12,500 1,020 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 682,500 682,500 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL - 14,400 14,400 - 213 LI D GUARANTY FUND 101,810 14,400 - 116,210 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 677,380 677,380 - 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 949,540 949,540 - 421 WATER 20,256,697 8,443,460 12,713,757 15,986,400 422 STORM 13,624,010 4,131,780 7,609,700 10,146,090 423 SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT 50,898,580 12,645,240 17,741,300 45,802,520 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 842,940 1,989,900 1,990,920 841,920 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 7,099,240 1,579,570 1,955,820 6,722,990 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 196,490 64,840 59,610 201,720 Totals 113,337,269 87,966,557 106,084,031 95,219,795 Packet Page 116 of 1075 EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (January 2016) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 4014 12/18/2015 ORD. NO. January 2016 2016 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 39,266,670 $ - $ 39,266,670 009 Leoff-MedlcalIns. Reserve 278,770 278,770 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 6,660 6,660 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 28,110 28,110 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,000 - 5,000 016 Building Maintenance 1,680,000 325,000 2,005,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 153,000 - 153,000 111 Street Fund 1,760,500 - 1,760,500 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 5,290,850 2,735,647 8,026,497 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 102,410 - 102,410 118 Memorial Street Tree 110 110 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 82,150 82,150 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 21,390 21,390 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 5,550 5,550 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 27,530 27,530 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,108,000 1,108,000 126 Special Capital Fund 1,102,000 1,102,000 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,900 46,900 129 Special Projects Fund 280 280 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 177,260 177,260 132 Parks Construction 2,037,240 500,000 2,537,240 136 Parks Trust Fund 630 - 630 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd 19,880 19,880 138 Sister City Commission 12,010 12,010 139 Transportation Benefit District 682,500 682,500 211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 14,400 213 Lid Guaranty Fund 14,400 14,400 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 677,380 677,380 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 - 949,540 421 Water 8,429,970 13,490 8,443,460 422 Storm 4,131,780 - 4,131,780 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 12,414,120 231,120 12,645,240 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,989,900 - 1,989,900 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,579,570 1,579,570 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 64,840 64,840 Totals $ 84,161,300 $ 3,805,257 $ 87,966,557 Packet Page 117 of 1075 EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendments by Expenditure (January 2016) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 4014 12/18/2015 ORD. NO. 0 January 2016 2016 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 39,733,780 $ 957,500 $ 40,691,280 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 279,480 - 279,480 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 800,000 800,000 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,400 - 5,400 016 Building Maintenance 1,754,000 421,000 2,175,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 76,030 - 76,030 111 Street Fund 1,712,370 - 1,712,370 112 Combined StreetConst/Improve 5,311,460 2,728,132 8,039,592 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 181,380 - 181,380 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 149,650 149,650 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 26,880 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 31,500 - 31,500 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,523,650 484,982 2,008,632 126 Special Capital Fund 1,934,390 545,930 2,480,320 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 44,950 - 44,950 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 210,370 - 210,370 132 Parks Construction 2,100,000 660,770 2,760,770 138 Sister City Commission 12,500 - 12,500 139 Transportation Benefit District 682,500 682,500 211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 14,400 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 677,380 677,380 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 - 949,540 421 Water 12,323,960 389,797 12,713,757 422 Storm 6,612,170 997,530 7,609,700 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 17,172,110 569,190 17,741,300 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,990,920 - 1,990,920 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,955,820 1,955,820 617 1 Firemen's Pension Fund 59,610 59,610 Totals $ 98,329,200 1 $ 7,754,831 $ 106,084,031 Packet Page 118 of 1075 EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 957,500 - 957,500 016 96,000 325,000 421,000 - 112 - 2,735,647 2,728,132 7,515 125 404,982 - 484,982 (80,000) 126 545,930 - 545,930 132 160,770 500,000 660,770 - 421 389,797 13,490 389,797 13,490 422 997,530 - 997,530 - 423 338,070 231,120 569,190 Total Change 3,890,579 3,805,257 7,754,831 (58,995) Packet Page 119 of 1075 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Summary (January 2016) Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg# Description General Fund Carryforwards General Fund 001 000 64 571 21 41 00 Professional Services 27,600 11 12 13 P&R Prof. Services CTR Program Prisoner Care General Fund 001 000 39 517 90 49 00 Commuter Grant 1,000 General Fund 001 000 39 523 60 51 00 Intergovernmental 87,580 General Fund 001 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 116,180 Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg# Project List Building Maintenance Carryforwards General Fund 001 000 39 597 19 55 16 Interfund Transfer 315,000 14 15 16 ESCO III ESCO IV AV Upgrade General Fund 001 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 315,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 518 30 48 00 Repair & Maintenance 40,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 518 30 48 00 Repair & Maintenance 166,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 518 30 48 00 Repair & Maintenance 215,000 Building Maintenance 016 0001 1 397 1 19 1 001 1 00 11nterfundTransfer 315,000 Building Maintenance 016 1 000 337 07 000 1 00 jUtility Incentives 10,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 308 30 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 6,000 �—j Fund BARS Category Debit Page Project List Parks and Recreation Carryforwards REET2 125 1 000 64 576 80 41 00 Professional Services 2,150 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FACBandshell Sea rview Park Roof Yost Park Spa Marina Beach Dayton Street Plaza City Park Spray Park Civic Center Field REET2 125 000 64 576 80 48 00 Repair & Maintenance 20,000 REET 2 125 000 64 594 75 65 00 Construction 271,960 REET2 125 000 64 594 75 65 90 Constto Other Funds 160,872 REET2 125 000 308 30 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 374,982 REET2 125 000 64 1 508 1 30 00 1 00 lEnding Fund Balance 1 80,000 REET 1 126 1 000 64 594 76 61 91 Land to Other Fund 492,180 REET1 1261 000 308 30 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 492,180 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 61 00 Land 992,180 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 61 91 Land from Other Fund 492,180 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 65 00 Construction 321,642 Parks Construction 132 0001 64 1 594 1 75 1 65 1 90 1 Const from Other Funds 160,872 Parks Construction 132 0001 1 337 1 10 000 00 Grant 500,000 Parks Construction 1 132 1 0001 1 308 1 30 1 000 1 00 113eginning Fund Balance 160,770 Packet Page 120 of 1075 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Summary (January 2016) Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg# Project List Engineering Carryforwards (Street Projects) General Fund 001 1 000 39 597 42 55 12 Interfund Transfer 512,830 24 25 26 27 28 1 29 30 31 228th STSW Hwy 99 Enhancement 238th Walkway 220th ST Overlay 3rd Ave ADA Ramps 2015 Overlay Trackside Warning Verdant Bicycle Imp General Fund 0011 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 512,830 Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 313,790 Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 41 10 Interfund Services 203,730 Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 65 00 Construction 2,682,840 Street Construction 112 000 68 1 595 1 20 61 1 00 lIntangible Rights to Land 80,000 Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 41 91 Prof Sry from Other Fund 35,392 Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 65 91 Const from Other Funds 435,898 Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Sry from Funds 80,938 Street Construction 112 000 333 14 210 00 Grant 17,S15 Street Construction 112 000 333 20 205 08 Grant 1,149,896 Street Construction 112 000 1 333 1 20 205 13 Grant 177,000 Street Construction 112 000 333 20 205 1 17 Grant 161,250 Street Construction 112 000 334 03 600 04 Grant 146,970 Street Construction 112 000 334 03 800 00 Grant 433,006 Street Construction 112 000 337 10 00 00 Local Gov't Grant 137,180 Street Construction 112 000 397 95 001 00 Interfund Transfer 512,830 Street Construction 112 000 1 308 1 30 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 0 Street Construction 112 000 68 508 30 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 7,515 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 41 90 Prof Sry to Other Funds 7,500 REET 1 1261 000 68 595 33 65 90 Const to Other Funds 40,000 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Sry to Funds 6,250 REET1 126 000 308 30 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 53,750 REET 2 125 000 68 1 595 1 33 41 90 Prof Sry to Other Funds 3,333 REET 2 125 000 68 595 33 65 901 Const to Other Funds 25,362 REET 2 125 000 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Sry to Funds 1,305 REET2 1251 000 308 30 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 30,000 Water UtiIity 421 200 74 594 34 41 90 Prof Sry to Other Funds 387 Water Utility 421 200 74 594 34 65 90 Const to Other Funds 3,421 Water Uti I ity 421 200 74 1 5941 34 41 19 Interfund Sry to Funds 119 Water Utility 421 200 308 30 000 00 lBeginning Fund Balance 3,927 Stormwater Utility 422 200 72 594 31 41 90 1 Prof Sry to Other Funds 23,953 Stormwater Utility 422 200 72 594 31 65 90 Const to Other Funds 365,180 Stormwater Utility 422 200 72 594 31 41 19 Interfund Sry to Funds 73,197 Stormwater Utility 4221 200 308 30 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 462,330 Sewer Uti I i ty 423 200 75 1 5941 35 41 90 Prof Sry to Other Funds 219 Sewer Uti I i ty 423 200 75 594 35 65 90 Const to Other Funds 1,935 Sewer Utility 423 200 75 594 35 1 41 1 19 lInterfund Sry to Funds 67 Sewer Utility 423 200 308 30 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 2,221 Packet Page 121 of 1075 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Summary (January 2016) Fund Engineering Carr Water Utility Water Utility Stormwater Uti I i Stormwater Uti I i Sewer Utility Sewer Uti I i ty Fund Engineering Carr General Fund General Fund Water Utility Water Utility Water Utility Water Utility Water Utility Water Utilitv Stormwater Uti Ii Stormwater Uti I i Stormwater Uti I i Stormwater Uti I i Stormwater Uti Ii Fund Engineering Carr Sewer Uti I i ty Sewer Uti I i ty Sewer Uti I i ty Sewer Uti I i tv BARS ds (Utility Fund BARS BARS BARS Fund BARS Wastewater Treatment Plant W WTP 423 W WTP 423 W WTP 423 W WTP 423 W WTP 423 W WTP 423 W WTP 423 s Category Debit Professional Services 8,200 Beginning Fund Balance Professional Services 8,200 Beginning Fund Balance Professional Services 8,200 Beginning Fund Balance Category Debit Hydrant Costs 13,490 Beginning Fund Balance Hydrant Revenue Ending Fund Balance 13,490 Professional Services 236,500 Interfund Services 10,000 Construction 131,170 Beginning Fund Balance Category Debit Interfund Services 63,000 Professional Services 272,000 Intangible Rights to Land 25,000 Construction 167,000 Beginning Fund Balance Category Debit Professional Services 84,000 Interfund Services 24,470 Construction 101,800 Beginning Fund Balance Category Debit Construction 231,120 Edmonds Transfer In Mountlake Terrace Olympic View Water Ronald Sewer District Transfer from Bond 117,379 Beginning Fund Balance 10 it Pg# Project List 32 IStandards Detail 8,200 8,200 8,200 Credit Pg# Project List 33 12015 WLReplacement 13,4901 34 12016 WL Replacement 13,490 1 35 12016 WLComp Plan 377,670 ;redit Pg# Project List 36 37 38 39 Perrinville Creek Storm System Video City-wide Drainage StmWtr Code Update 527,000 :redit Pg# Project List 40 41 42 �2015 SS Replacement 2016 SS Replacement LS#1 Meter & Flow 210.270 L 43 Phase Energy Prj 117,379 43 Control Syst Upgrade 53,560 43 Phase 5 Energy Prj 38,253 21,928 117,379 Packet Page 122 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: This carryforward is for professional services for projects still in process from 2015. More specifically, we are currently working with consultants to complete park maintenance plans and park design plans. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Admin Title: Professional Services Carryforward Preparer: CCruz for Carrie Hite Department Account Number: 00 1.000.64.571.21.4 1.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Action 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks Budget Amendment Type? Carrytorward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Des cri ion[sI Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Carryforward for professional services 38,600 27,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $38,600 $27,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $66,200 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 001.000.308.00.000.00 27,600 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fnding Cash $27,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 11 Packet Page 123 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: The CTR Program Incentives that have been earned in 2015 will be paid in early 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Engineering Title: CTR Program Preparers lBertrandHauss Department Account Number: n/a Strategic Plan Task Action Item: n/a Budget Amendment Type? Carrytorward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill InItem Des cri ion[sI Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Commuter Grant 001.000.39.517.90.49.00 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $2,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 001.000.308.00.000.00 1,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fndin Cash $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Packet Page 124 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: Request to carryforward $87,580 from 2015 budget line 001.000.39.523.60.51 to the same line in the 2016 budget to cover November, December 2015 incarceration costs from the Snohomish County Jail and Lynnwood Jail. Those facilities were unable to invoice us for these two months in 2015 by the deadline date in spite of our best efforts. They cited personnel and new RMS system issues as their reason for not invoicing us in time. Department: Non -Departmental Fund GINII2AL Division: Title: Prisoner Care Intergovernmental Name: Preparer: ACOP Don Anderson Department Account Number: 001.000.39.523.60.51 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: NA Budget Amendment Type? I Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: NA What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Car rward $87,580,from 2015 to 2016 524,810 87,580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $524,810 $87,580 $0 $0 $o $0 Total Expenses 1 $612,390 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 001.000.308.00.000.00 87,580 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $87,580 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Packet Page 125 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: ESCO III Project: work yet to be completed and billed against the contract for energy efficiency improvements across many of the City buildings Department: Public Works Nand Name: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Division: Facilities Maintenance Title: ESCO M Preparer: Jim Stevens Department Account Number: 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 2a(6) Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Remaining Project Work ESCO III 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expe nses 1 $40,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 016.000.308.30.000.00 30,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 016.000.337.07.000.00 10,000 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $40,000 $0 $0 $0 I$0 14 Packet Page 126 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: ESCO IV Project: work yet to be completed and billed against the contract for energy efficiency improvements at the Library (Plaza Room) and the Frances Anderson Center Department: Public Works Fund Name: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Division: Facilities Maintenance Title: ESCO IV Preparer: Jim Stevens Department Account Number: 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 2a(6) Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Des crI ions] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Project Work ESCO IV 0 166,000 0 0 0 0 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 0 001.000.39.597.19.55.16 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $266,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total nses 1 $266,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 001.000.308.00.000.00 100,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Ca onward 016.000.308.30.000.00 66,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 016.000.39 7.19. 001. 00 100,000 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $266,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 15 Packet Page 127 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: Court/Council Chambers A/V Upgrades Project: The physical work to upgrade this equipment and associated furnishings in Chambers will be fully performed. City Council added an additional $20,000 when the item was before them on January 5th, 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Division: Facilities Maintenance Title: Court/Council Chambers A/V Upgrades Project Preparer: Jim Stevens Department Account Number: 016.000.66.594.19.64.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: January 5th, 2016 What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item DescrI Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 016.000.66.594.19.64.00 Equipment 0 215,000 0 0 0 0 001.000.39.597.19.55.16 Transfer 0 215,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $430,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $430,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 001.000.308.00.000.00 215,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 016.000.397.19.001.00 215,000 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $430,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 Packet Page 128 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: This carryforward is for the Frances Anderson Center Bandshell replacement project that has not been fully completed in 2015. In addition to this, we are requesting an additional $80,000 expenditure authority from year end fund balance. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: PARKACQ/ 1WROVEMENT Division: Parks Title: Frances Anderson Center Bands hell Carryforward Preparer: CCruz for Carrie Hite Department Account Number: 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Action 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item DescrI Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ca rryfonward or p ro'ects 0 81,870 0 0 0 0 Additional budget authority 0 80,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $161,870 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Espenses 1 $161,870 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Ca onward 125.000.308.30.000.00 81,870 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 125.000.64.508.30.00.00 80,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $161,870 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 Packet Page 129 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: This carryforward is for the replacement of the restroom roof at Seaview Park that has not been completed in 2015. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: PARKACQ/ 1WROVEMENT Division: Parks Title: Seaview Park Roof Carryforward Preparer: CCruz for Carrie Hite Department Account Number: 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: I Action 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward Ifpreviously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Carryforward.for repairs and maintenance 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $20,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 125.000.308.30.000.00 20,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fnding Cash $20,000 $0 $0 $0 I$0 I Packet Page 130 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: This carryforward is for the replacement of the spa at Yost Park which has not been completed in 2015. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: PARKACQ/ PMROVEMENT Division: Parks Title: Yost Park Spa Replacement Carryforward Preparer: CCruz for Carrie I4ite Department Account Number: 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Action 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward Ifpreviously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Carryforward.for construction for spa replacement 50,000 110,090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $50,000 $110,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $160,090 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 125.000.308.30.000.00 110,090 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fnding Cash $110,090 $0 $0 $0 I$0 19 Packet Page 131 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: This carryforward is for the Marina Beach Master Plan project which has not been completed in 2015. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: PARKACQ/ 1WROVEMENT Division: Parks Title: Marina Beach Master Plan Carryforward Preparer: CCruz for Carrie Ilite Department Account Number: 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Action 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward Ifpreviously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Carryforward for professional services 70,000 2,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $70,000 $2,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $72,150 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 125.000.308.30.000.00 2,150 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fnding Cash $2,150 $0 $0 $0 I$0 20 Packet Page 132 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: This carryforward is for the Dayton Street Plaza project which has not been completed in 2015. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: PARKACQ/ INIPROVEMENT Division: Parks Title: Dayton Street Plaza Carryforward Preparer: CCruz for Carrie Ilite Department Account Number: 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Action 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward Ifpreviously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Carryforward.for construction projects 0 160,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $160,770 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $160,770 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 132.000.308.30.000.00 160,770 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fnding Cash $160,770 $0 $0 $0 I$0 21 Packet Page 133 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: This carryforward is for the City Park Spray and Play Revitalization project. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: PARKACQ/ 1WROVEME NT Division: Parks Title: City Park Spray and Play Carryforward Preparer: CCruz for Carrie Me Department Account Number: 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Action 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item DescrI Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Carryforward.for Construction Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 0 160,872 0 0 0 0 Construction Projectsfirom Other Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 132.000.64.594.76.65.91 0 160,872 0 0 0 0 Construction Projects to Other Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 125.000.64.594.75.65.90 0 160,872 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $160,872 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Espenses 1 $160,872 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 125.000.308.30.000.00 160,872 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $160,872 $0 $0 $0 $0 22 Packet Page 134 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: This carryforward is for the purchase of the Civic Field property which will close in February, 2016. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: PARKACQ/ 1WROVEMEhNT Division: Parks Title: Civic Center Field Property Acquisition Preparer: CCruz for Carrie Hite Department Account Number: 132.000.64.594.76.61.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Action 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks Budget Amendment Type? I Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 11/10/2015 and11/20/2015 What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item DescrI Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Carryforward.for purchase o land 0 0 0 0 0 0 132.000.64.594.76.61.00 0 992,180 0 0 0 0 LandfiromOtherFund 0 0 0 0 0 0 132.000.64.594.76.61.91 0 492,180 0 0 0 0 Land to Other Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 126.000.64.594.76.61.91 0 492,180 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $992,180 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total nses 1 $992,180 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and En(fing Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 126.000.308.30.000.00 492,180 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 132.000.337.10.000.00 500,000 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and En(Ung Cash $992,180 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Packet Page 135 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: Constrution will continue in 2016 and 2015 unspent construction expenditures/revenue are being moved to 2016 to match the progress made through the end of last year. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: 228th ST SW Corridor Improvement Project Preparer: Jaime Hawkins Department Account Number: E7AC/i005 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Capital Fill In Item Des cri ion[sI Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Pro esional Services 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 105,077 152,920 0 0 0 0 Sta Time 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 42,000 47,000 0 0 0 0 Construction 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 300,000 1,351,100 0 0 0 0 Intangible Ri hts to Land 112.000.68.595.20.61.00 80,000 0 0 1 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.91 ProfServ.from otherfinds 606 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.91 Const Pro' omother nds 5,356 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.19 Interfund sery.from otherfinds 186 0 0 0 0 421.200.74.594.34.41.90 Water Pro Sery to other funds 387 0 0 0 0 421.200.74.594.34.65.90 Water Const to otherfunds 3,421 0 0 0 0 421.200.74.594.34.41.19 Water lnter nd sery to other funds 119 0 0 0 0 423.200.75.594.35.41.90 Sewer Pro Sery to otherfunds 219 0 0 0 0 423.200.75.594.35.65.90 Sewer Const to otherfunds 1,935 0 0 0 0 423.200.75.594.35.41.19 SewerInterfiind sery to otherfunds 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $447,077 1 $1,631,020 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Total Expenses 1 $2,078,097 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cash: Car onward 421.000.308.00.000.00 3,927 0 0 0 0 —Ending Cash: Carryforward 423.000.308.00.000.00 2,221 0 0 0 0 —Ending Grants/Contributions 112.000.333.20.205.08 1,149,896 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 112.000.334.03.800.00 433,006 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 01 01 01 01 0 Other 112.000.337.10.000.00 41,970 1 01 0 I 0 I0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $1,631,020 1 $0 I $0 1 $0 $0 24 Packet Page 136 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: Construction will continue in 2016 and 2015 unspent construction expenditures/revenue are being moved to 2016 to match the progress made through the end of last year. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: Hwy-99 Enhancement Project (Phase M) Preparer: Jaime Hawkins Department Account Number: E2AD/c405 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: I N/A Budget Amendment Type? If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Carryforward One -Time Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Professional Services 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 9,000 23,000 0 0 0 0 Staff Time 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 2,000 9,000 0 0 0 0 Construction Contract 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 30,000 175,000 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.91 ProfServ.from otherfinds 0 3,333 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.91 Const Projfrom other nds 0 25,362 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.19 Interfund serv,from otherfunds 1,305 0 0 0 0 125.000.68.595.33.41.90 REET 2 Pro Sery to other fiinds 3,333 0 0 0 0 125.000.68.595.33.65.90 REET 2 Const to otherfunds 25,362 0 0 0 0 125.000.68.595.33.41.19 REET 2 Interfund Sery to otherfunds 1,305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $41,000 $207,000 $0 $0 SO $0 Total Expenses 1 $248,000 1 $0 I $0 1 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 125.000.308.30.000.00 30,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 112.000.333.20.205.13 177,000 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 1 0 01 01 01 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $207,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 25 Packet Page 137 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: 238th Walkay from 100th Ave to 104th Construction is ongoing and will be completed in Spring, 2016 Department: Public Works Fund Name: STRFEI' CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: 238th Walkay from 100th Ave to 104th Preparer: Ryan Hague Department Account Number: F3DB/c423 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill InItem Descr1 ion[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Professional 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 20,000 34,580 0 0 0 0 Contract 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 118,140 527,190 0 0 0 0 City Staff 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 10,000 105,670 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.91 ProfServ.from otherfinds 0 23,953 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.91 ConstPro' omother nds 0 365,180 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.19 Interfund sery om otherfinds 73,197 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.41.90 Storm Pro Sery to otherfiinds 23,953 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.65.90 Storm Const Pro'to otherfinds 365,180 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.41.19. Interfund Sery to otherfunds 73,197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $148,140 $667,440 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total ESqvnses 1 $815,580 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 422.000.308.00.000.00 462,330 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 112.000.334.03.600.04 146,970 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 112.000.337.10.000.00 58,140 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $667,440 $o $o $o $o 26 Packet Page 138 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: Striping and ADA ramp construction activities will continue into 2016. Contract was suspended November 2015 due to seasonal weather. Remaining project funds to be carried over. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET Division: Engineering Title: 220th Owrlay from 84th to 76th Avenues Preparer: Ed Sibrel Department Account Number: MCD / c462 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Fill In Item Descri ion[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 112.000.68.595.33.41.10Inter nd Services 15,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Professional Services 15,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 Construction 160,000 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.91 ProfServ,from otherfunds 7,500 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.91 Const Proifiromother nds 40,000 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.19 Interfundserv,from otherfun 6,250 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.41.90 REET I Pro sery to otherfu 7,500 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.65.90 BEET I Const Pro'to otherj 1 40,000 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.59 .33.41.19REET 1 Inte nd Serytooth 6,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $30,000 $215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total nses 1 $245,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Continents 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 126.000.308.30.000.00 53,750 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 112.000.333.20.205.17 161,250 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 27 Packet Page 139 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: ADA Ramp Upgrades Along 3rd Ave S Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREE',I' CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: ADA Ramp Upgrades Along 3rd Ave S Preparer: Ryan Hague Department Account Number: E3DF1c426 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward Ifpreviously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Professional 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contract 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Staff112.000.68.595.33.41.10 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $10,000 $0 SO $0 $0 Total Fxpenses 1 $10,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Fnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 112.000.68.508.30.00.00 7,515 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryf6rward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 112.000.333.14.210.00 17,515 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 -13 Packet Page 140 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: 2015 Overlay Program Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: 2015 Overlay Program Preparer: Ryan Hague Department Account Number: E5CA/c463 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 107,640 469,550 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer 001.000.39.597.42.55.12 0 469,550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $107,640 $939,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpenses 1 $1,046,740 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 001.000.308.00.000.00 469,550 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 112.000.397.95.001.00 469,550 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $939,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 29 Packet Page 141 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: The design progress on this project has been slowed due to additional coordination effort with BNSF. The remaining design funds from 2015 will be carry forward to 2016. In 2015, $50,000 was budgeted for this project. Since only $6,721 was spent during the year, the remaining amount needs to be carried over to 2016. Department: Public Works Pond Name: GINII2AL Division: Fngineering Title: Trackside Warning System Preparer: Bertrand Hauss Department Account Number: F5AA/c470 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 5c.1 Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description [sI Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 112.000.68.595.33.4 1.10 Interfund Services 5,000 2,660 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Professional Services 0 40,620 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 Construction 295,000 0 0 0 0 0 001.000.39.597.42.55.12 Interfund Transfer 0 43,280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $300,000 $86,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $386,560 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 001.000.308.00.000.00 43,280 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 112.000.397.95.001.00 43,280 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fhding Cash $86,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 30 Packet Page 142 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: The design phase on this project will continue into 2016. The remaining balance of design funds and grant revenue from 2015 will be carry forward to 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET' Division: Fngineering Title: Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements Preparer: Bertrand Haus s Department Account Number: E5AD/c474 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 4a.13 Budget Amendment Type? TarryForward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 Interfund Services 22,000 4,400 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Professional Services 131,000 32,670 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 Construction 473,840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $626,840 $37,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $663,910 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 112.000.337.10.000.00 37,070 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fnding Cash $37,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 31 Packet Page 143 of 1075 EXHIBIT "P: Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: The Engineering Division is updating the City's Standard Details. The 2015 budget for this project was $75,000, split equally between the water, storm and sewer utilities. The remaining unspent balance of $24,600 will be carry forward to the 2016 budget. Department: Public Works Fund Name: WATER Division: Engineering Title: Standard Details Update Preparer: Rob English Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward Ifpreviously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Professional Services 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0 8,200 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0 8,200 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0 8,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $24,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $24,600 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 421.000.308.00.000.00 8,200 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 422.000.308.00.000.00 8,200 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 423.000.308.00.000.00 8,200 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $24,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 32 Packet Page 144 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: 2015 WL Replacement: Various rain delays, slower contractor construction progress and unforeseen pavement conditions on SR 524 resulted in extending the contract date further into 2016 and less work being done in 2015. Department: Public Works Fund Name: Division: Fngineering Title: 2015 WL Replacement Preparer: Mchele (Mke) De Lilla Department Account Number: F4JB/c440 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 20,000 90,000 0 0 0 0 Interfund Services 421.200.74.534.34.41.10 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 Construction 421.200.74.594.34.65.00 460,000 131,170 0 0 0 0 Hydrant Costs 001.000.39.522.20.41.10 13,490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $490,000 $244,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $734,660 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and En(fing Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 001.000.308.00.000.00 13,490 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Ca onward 421.200.308.30.000.00 231,170 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 421.000.74.508.00.00.00 13,490 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 421.000.343.40.300.00 13,490 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and En(Ung Cash $244,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 33 Packet Page 145 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: 2016 WL Repl.: Design phase expenditure rate was not as fast as estimated, so remaining 2015 funds are being moved to 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: WATER Division: Fngineering Title: 2016 WL Replacement Preparer: Michele (Nlike) De Lilla Department Account Number: E5JA/c468 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? I Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill in item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 184,300 114,500 0 0 0 0 Inter nd Services 37,000 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 1,829,700 0 0 0 0 0 Inter and Transfer 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $2,052,000 $114,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $2,166,500 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 421.200.308.30.000.00 114,500 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Endin Cash $114,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 34 Packet Page 146 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: 2016 WL Comp Plan: Study funds not expended as quickly are expected. Remaining 2015 funds moved to 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: Division: Engineering Title: 2016 WL Comp Plan Preparer: Mchele (Mke) De Lilla Department Account Number: F4JC/c460 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In ItemDescription[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 421.200.74.534.34.41.00 97,570 32,000 0 0 0 0 Interfund Services 18,920 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $116,490 $32,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $148,490 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Fnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Ca onward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Ca onward 421.200.308.30.000.00 32,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $32,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 35 Packet Page 147 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: Design efforts took longer to resolve than anticipated. The design is now complete and will go out for bid early 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STORM Division: Fngineering Title: PerrinAlle Creek High Flow Mgmt Projects Preparer: Ed Sibrel Department Account Number: FAFB / c434 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? Farr; Forward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 422.200.75.531.31.41.10 Interfund Services 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.531.31.41.00 Professional Services 0 31,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.65.00 Construction 0 107,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $145,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $145,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 422.200.308.30.000.00 145,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue andFndin Cash $145,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 36 Packet Page 148 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: The Public Works Operations Division experimented with performing video inspection of stormwater pipe in 2015, using City staff and equipment. The video inspection program will continue in 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STORM Division: Engineering Title: Storm System Video Assessment Preparer: Rob English Department Account Number: F4FF/c459 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Descri ion[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 422.200.75.531.31.41. 10 Interfund Services 15,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.531.31.41.00 Professional Services 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $15,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $215,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Fn(fing Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Ca onward 422.200.308.30.000.00 200,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Ca onward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 37 Packet Page 149 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: The 216th Drainge improvement project completed design in 2015. The project is scheduled for construction in 2016 and $66,000 will be carry forward for this project in 2016. An easement agreement with a property owner on 183rd Pl SW was executed in 2015, but the owner did not complete the specified work. The work is expected to be completed in 2016 and will include a $25,000 payment to the owner. Department: Public Works Fund Division: Engineering STORM Title: City-wide Drainage Improvements Name: Preparer: Rob English Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item DescrI Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 422.200.75.531.31.41.10 Interfund Services 8,700 6,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.531.31.41.00 Professional Services 60,500 0 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.61.11 Intangible Rights to Land 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.65.00 Construction 88,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.597.73.55.17 Art Fund 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $158,000 $91,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total nses 1 $249,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 422.200.308.30.000.00 91,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $91,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Packet Page 150 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: Decision Package No. 42, approved with the 2015 budget had $82,500 for updating the stormwater code and $50,000 to revise the development code to incorporate Low Impact Development principles and best management practices. The stormwater code update spent half the alloted funding in 2015 and will spend the remaining balance in 2016. The $50,000 will be spent in 2016 as work continues on the Development Code update. Department: Public Works Fund STORM Division: Fngineering Title: Stormwater Code update Name: Preparer: Rob Fnglish Department Account Number: F5FB/c467 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 422.200.75.531.31.41.10 Interfund Services 0 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.531.31.41.00 Professional Services 132,500 91,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $132,500 $91,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpe nses 1 $223,500 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 422.200.308.30.000.00 91,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Fnding Cash $91,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 39 Packet Page 151 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: 2015 SS Repl: Various rain day delays and the addition of days so that construction on 5th Ave S would not affect businessed during Holiday shopping season resulted in extending the contract date into 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: 7EWER/ TREATMENT PLANT Division: Engineering Title: 2015 SS Replacement Preparer: Michele (Mke) De Lilla Department Account Number: E4GA/c441 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 Interfund Services 423.2 00.75.53 5.35.4 1.10 2,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 Construction 423.200.75.594.35.65.00 20,000 101,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $22,000 $141,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total nses 1 $163,800 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Ca onward 423.200.308.30.000.00 141,800 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $141,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 40 Packet Page 152 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: 2016 SS Replacement Project: Design phase expenditures not being used as fast as predicted, so funds not expended in 2015 are being moved to 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Division: Engineering Title: 2016 SS Repl Project Preparer: Michele (Mike) De Lilla Department Account Number: E5GA/c469 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Descri ion[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 160,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 Interfund Services 423.200.75.535.35.41.10 35,400 4,470 0 0 0 0 Construction 423.200.75.594.35.65.00 1,711,704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $1,907,104 $54,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total nses 1 $1,961,574 1 $0 I $0 1 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 423.200.308.30.000.00 54,470 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $54,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 41 Packet Page 153 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: Carryforward Item Item Description: LS#1 Metering and Flow Study: Study funds not expended as quickly as predicted. Unexpended funds from 2015 moved to 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: SEWER/ TREATMENT PLANT Division: Engineering Title: LS#1 Metering and Flow Study Preparer: Michele (Mike) De Lilla Department Account Number: E4GC/c461 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? Carryforward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 110,000 14,000 0 0 0 0 Interfund Services 423.000.75.594.35.41.13 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $120,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total nses I $134,000 I $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and En(fing Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Ca onward 423.200.308.30.000.00 14,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 42 Packet Page 154 of 1075 EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (January 2016) Budget Amendment for: CarryforwardItem Item Description: The Phase 4 Energy project installation of the baffle walls and diffusers was delayed in 2015 due to project impacts and weather concerns. All equipment and materials have been purchases and will be installed in 2016. The guarenteed contract amount will not be effected however the Carryforward is required to cover the installation and project wrap up. The control system upgrade control strategies and work with SSI expert was held up due to an inability to agree on scope. The issues are being resolwedand we should be able to move forward early in 2016. The Phase 5 energy work predesign was completed and the energy services proposal will be delivered by the end of Feb. 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Division: Wastewater Treatment Title: Phase 4 Energy Energy Work Preparer: Pamela Randolph De rtment Account Number: 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? Carr forward If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Descri ion[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Phase 4 Energy Project C457 project budget 139,000 0 0 0 0 Control System Upgrade C412 project budget 71,340 0 0 0 0 Phase 5 Energy C431 project budget 20,780 0 0 0 0 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 construction projects contracted 2,781,000 0 0 0 0 0 423.200.76.597.39.55.22 Transferfirom Bond Proceeds 0 117,379 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $2,781,000 $348,499 $0 $0 $0 1 $0 Total Expenses 1 $3,129,499 1 $0 I $0 1 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Carryforward 423.200.308.30.000.00 117,379 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds 423.100.397.38.423.22 117,379 0 0 0 0 Mountlake Terrace 423.100.374.07.010.00 53,560 0 0 0 0 Olympic View Water & Sewer 423.100.374.07.020.00 38,253 0 0 0 0 Ronald Sewer District 423.100.374.07.030.00 21,928 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $348,499 $0 $0 $0 $0 43 Packet Page 155 of 1075 AM-8303 3. G. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Scott James Submitted By: Debra Sharp Department: Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subiect Title Hourly Equipment Rental Rates for External Agencies and the Transportation Benefit District Recommendation Council approve that staff can annually update the Equipment Rental Hourly Rates for External Agencies and the Transportation Benefit District based on the FEMA rates. Previous Council Action Council heard staff s presentation and discussed the updated hourly equipment rates during the January 26th, 2016 Council meeting. The Council last updated the hourly equipment rental rates back in 2009 and 2011 based on the FEMA rates. Narrative There are occasions when the City is required to use City equipment for projects that will be reimbursed by an outside agency. When the City is reimbursed by a governmental agency, for example grant reimbursement, the City historically used rates set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). When a private contractor is to reimburse the City, the rates are set at twice the amount of the FEMA rates. The City also uses the governmental agency rate when charging city vehicle usage to the Transportation Benefit District (TBD). The FEMA rates were recently updated. Staff is requesting Council approval to update the Equipment Rental Hourly Rates for reimbursement by external agencies. Staff also requests that Council set a policy where the rates can be updated automatically when the FEMA rates change. The City's external rates were last updated in February of 2011. Attached is a copy of the 2016 Hourly Rental Rate schedule. Attachments 2016 Hourly Rental Rates Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 01/28/2016 09:30 AM Packet Page 156 of 1075 City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Debra Sharp Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Scott Passey Dave Earling Scott Passey O1/28/2016 09:31 AM O1/28/2016 10:31 AM O1/28/2016 11:08 AM Started On: 01/27/2016 01:47 PM Packet Page 157 of 1075 CITY OF EDMONDS 2016 HOURLY RENTAL RATES Intergovernmental Contractor UNIT # DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates 2 2005 Ford F-250 8802 $26.00 $52.00 3 1995 Case Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y. 8572 $37.00 $74.00 4 2009 Toyota Forklift 8300 $13.50 $27.00 5 1997 Chevrolet Step Van 8745 $22.06 $44.12 6 2008 Ford F250 8802 $26.00 $52.00 7 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 8 2002 Ford Tractor Mower 8381 $19.00 $38.00 9 2002 CAT Loader 2 c.y. 8392 $34.50 $69.00 10 2015 Isuzu NPR Flatbed 8700 $24.50 $49.00 11 2001 International Dump Truck 8721 $56.50 $113.00 (3) Snow Plow addition 8452 $11.75 $23.50 Sand spreader 8457 $7.90 $15.80 12 2011 Nissan Leaf 8750 $7.25 $14.50 13 2008 W acker - Asphalt Roller 8222 $25.00 $50.00 14 2009 International Dump truck 8721 $56.50 $113.00 Snow Plow addition 8452 $11.75 $23.50 Sand spreader 8457 $7.90 $15.80 15 2010 Toyota Prius 8750 $7.25 $14.50 16 2011 Ford F-150 8801 $19.45 $38.90 17 2011 Nissan Leaf 8750 $7.25 $14.50 18 1995 Ford Tractor Loader 8391 $24.25 $48.50 19 2014 New Holland Tractor/Mower 50" 8195 $53.00 $106.00 1 /2 20 1995 Freightliner Dump Truck 8 c.y. 8720 $42.25 $84.50 21 1995 GMC Dump Truck 8 c.y. 8720 $42.25 $84.50 Asphalt Box 8581 $21.25 $42.50 22 2000 International Dump Truck 8 c.y. 8720 $42.25 $84.50 Snow Plow addition 8452 $11.75 $23.50 Sand spreader 8457 $7.90 $15.80 23 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8804 $29.75 $59.50 24 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8804 $29.75 $59.50 25 2006 Ford F-450 Utility 8804 $29.75 $59.50 27 2010 Toyota Prius 8750 $7.25 $14.50 28 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 2500 8801 $19.45 $38.90 29 2004 Chevrolet Colorado 8801 $19.45 $38.90 30 1999 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 31 1996 Volvo Vactor 8714 $86.50 $173.00 32 2012 Ford F-450 Flatbed 8804 $29.75 $59.50 33 2001 Grimmer Air Compressor 175 CFM 8013 $20.00 $40.00 34 2008 Ford Escape 8750 $7.25 $14.50 35 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8804 $29.75 $59.50 36 2006 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 Packet Page 158 of 1075 Intergovernmental Contractor UNIT # DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates 37 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8804 $29.75 $59.50 38 2014 Ford F-450 Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 39 1996 Ford Pickup F 250 8802 $26.00 $52.00 40 Workhorse Step Van 8801 $19.45 $38.90 41 2000 Utility Trailer 8711 $3.00 $6.00 42 2015 Ford Transit 3500 Van 8801 $19.45 $38.90 43 2002 Ford F-450 8804 $29.75 $59.50 44 2011 Toyota Prius 8750 $7.25 $14.50 45 2002 Trailer 8711 $3.00 $6.00 46 1997 Isuzu Paint Stripper 8445 $79.50 $159.00 47 2015 Frieghtliner Vactor 8714 $86.50 $173.00 48 2006 Ford Escape 8750 $7.50 $15.00 49 2012 Ford Transit 8050 $7.50 $15.00 50 2005 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 51 2005 Ford F-450 Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 52 2010 TNT Trailer 8711 $3.00 $6.00 53 2010 Eagle Trailer 8711 $3.00 $6.00 54 2012 Ford F-450 Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 57 2007 Cat Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y. 8572 $37.00 $74.00 58 1999 Dodge Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 59 2005 Interstate Trailer 8600 $10.25 $20.50 61 1980 Gorman Rupp Pump 8474 $9.70 $19.40 62 2009 Chevrolet Kodiak Cues TV Truck 8745 8713 $66.50 $133.00 63 1993 CAT Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y./ 8572 $37.00 $74.00 65 2014 Ford F-550 3 Yard Dump 8804 $29.75 $59.50 66 2012 Elgin Street Sweeper 8158 $83.00 $166.00 67 1993 Butler Asphalt Trailer 8711 $3.00 $6.00 68 2014 Ford F-450 Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 69 1994 Water Mower Trailer 8711 $3.00 $6.00 72 1998 Magnum Utility Trailer 8711 $3.00 $6.00 74 2007 Towmaster Trailer 8600 $11.25 $22.50 76 2008 Zipper Asphalt Grinder 8635 $24.75 $49.50 78 1996 Walton Trailer 8600 $10.25 $20.50 79 1992 GMC Step Van 8801 $19.75 $39.50 80 2000 Grimmer Air Compressor 175 CFM 8013 $24.00 $48.00 81 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 82 1976 Huber Min. M-700 Grader 8330 $40.50 $81.00 83 1985 Hitchman Trailer & Generator 8312 $20.00 $40.00 85 1999 Whiteman Cement Mixer 8410 $3.60 $7.20 86 1999 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 88 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 89 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 90 1999 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 91 2002 Ford Mower 8195 $53.00 $106.00 1/2 92 1986 Multiquip Pump 8474 $9.70 $19.40 Packet Page 159 of 1075 Intergovernmental Contractor UNIT # DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates 93 2008 Ford F-250 8801 $19.45 $38.90 94 2000 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 95 2007 Workhorse Step Van 8745 $22.06 $44.12 97 2008 Ford F450 8700 $24.25 $48.50 98 2007 Sterling Jet Truck 8721, 8713 $79.00 $158.00 100 1997 Versalift Bucket Truck 8700, 8486 $31.25 $62.50 (2) 102 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 104 2004 Ford Taurus 8750 $7.25 $14.50 105 2008 Ford Escape 8750 $7.25 $14.50 106 2007 International Vactor 8714 $86.50 $173.00 112 2015 Solar Tech VMB Trailer 8151 $8.75 $17.50 113 2015 Solar Tech VMB Trailer 8151 $8.85 $17.70 114 2010 Toyota Prius 8750 $7.25 $14.50 115 2014 Dri-Prime SWR pump 6" 8477 $34.00 $68.00 120 2001 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 121 2001 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 122 2001 Cevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 123 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $19.45 $38.90 124 2002 Air Compressor 8013 $24.00 $48.00 125 2002 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 126 2002 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 127 2002 Chevrolet Van 8746 $42.27 $84.54 129 2002 Ford Flatbed F-450 8700 $24.25 $48.50 130 2002 Marathon Crack Sealer 8430 $8.00 $16.00 132 2003 Ford F-250 8801 $19.45 $38.90 134 2003 Ford F-450 Flatbed 8700 $24.25 $48.50 135 2004 Ford Taurus 8750 $7.25 $17.50 136 2004 Ford F-250 8801 $19.45 $38.90 137 2004 Air Compressor 8013 $24.00 $48.00 138 2007 Elgin (Sterling SC8000) Street Sweeper 8158 $83.00 $166.00 139 2007 Brush Bandit Chipper 8639 $44.20 $88.40 EPD Patrolling Car (charged per mile) 8072 $0.65 $1.30 EPD Stationary Car With Engine Running 8073 $16.25 $32.50 495 1999 GMC Sonoma Pickup 8801 $19.75 $39.50 Packet Page 160 of 1075 AM-8307 3. H. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Consent Submitted By: Renee McRae Department: Parks and Recreation Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign park concession agreement with Dog Day Afternoon for an ATM at Richard F. Anway Park Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign park concession agreement with Dog Day Afternoon for an ATM at Richard F. Anway Park Previous Council Action City Council reviewed the park concession agreement at the January 26, 2016 Council meeting and forwarded it to the February 2 Council consent agenda. Narrative In 2014 and 2015 City Council approved a park concession agreement with Dog Day Afternoon for an ATM at Richard F. Anway Park. This agreement will be consistent with an agreement City Council approved in 2015 for an ATM at the Frances Anderson Center, both now terminating in December, 2020. City Code 4.04.020 requires that City Council approve this agreement since it is not a seasonal concession agreement. ATM park concession agreement Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Scott Passey Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Fonn Started By: Renee McRae Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Attachments Form Review Date 01/28/2016 09:18 AM 01/28/2016 10:32 AM 01/28/2016 11:08 AM Started On: 01/27/2016 05:22 PM Packet Page 161 of 1075 AGREEMENT FOR CONCESSION AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 1 st day of January, 2016, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Dog Day Afternoon (hereinafter referred to as "Concessionaire"). WITNESSETH: City hereby grants to Concessionaire the right, license, and privilege to operate a concession at Richard F. Anway Park in the manner and for the purpose hereinafter specified. The following terms, conditions, and covenants shall govern this Agreement: 1. GRANT OF CONCESSION Concessionaire is granted the right to place an ATM adjacent to the vending machines at the Richard F. Anway Park. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement, unless earlier terminated as herein provided, shall be for the period beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2020. The City may allow a holdover period to permit processing an application for renewal where, due to no fault of the applicant, the City is unable to complete its review. 3. LICENSING AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Concessionaire shall, at its own expense, obtain all necessary licenses and permits for the operation hereunder from appropriate local, regional, state and federal agencies including a City of Edmonds business license. 4. PAYMENT FOR CONCESSION Concessionaire shall pay to the City on or before the 151h of each month during the term of this Agreement an amount equal to 10% of Concessionaire's receipts from the preceding month for all operations hereunder. The term "receipts" means the entire receipts from concessions of every kind, whether on credit or for cash, from the business hereunder, after sales tax. Concessionaire shall maintain an adequate set of bookkeeping records, from which the City may readily determine whether Concessionaire is making the payments required hereunder. City may inspect and audit the books of accounts and records at all Page 1 of 5 Packet Page 162 of 1075 reasonable times; the time of such inspections and audits to be at the discretion of the City. 5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement; that this is not a contract of employment; and that Concessionaire is an independent entity with respect to the business hereunder. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. No agent, employee or representative of Concessionaire shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Concessionaire shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the operation of the recreation concession covered by this Agreement. Concessionaire shall also be solely responsible for any payment due to its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors, including workers compensation and related costs. Concessionaire warrants that it has conducted a criminal background check for any agent, employee, representative or other person performing services on its behalf. 6. INSURANCE Concessionaire will, at Concessionaire's sole expense, provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability insurance coverage during the term of this Agreement, written on an occurrence basis, with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products -completed operations, stop gap liability, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. The City shall be named as an insured under the Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the operations performed using ISO Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 10 10 01 and Additional Insured -Completed Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute endorsements providing equivalent coverage. The Concessionaire's Commercial General Liability insurance policies shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. Failure on the part of the Concessionaire to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five business days' notice to the Concessionaire to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Concessionaire from the City. A copy of the endorsement naming City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom Page 2 of 5 Packet Page 163 of 1075 a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. 7. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION Concessionaire agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City and its officers, agents, and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part out of the subject matter of this Agreement; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Concessionaire to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims, demands, or suits based solely upon the conduct of the City, its officers, agents and employees; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) Concessionaire's agents or employees, and (b) the City, its officers, agents or employees, this indemnity provision with respect to (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence, and (2) the costs to the City of defending such claims and suits, shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of Concessionaire's negligence or the negligence of Concessionaire's agents or employees. "Fault" as herein used shall have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 4.22.015. Concessionaire specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by Concessionaire's own agents or employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, Concessionaire specifically waives immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. 8. RULES GOVERNING CONCESSION OPERATION Concessionaire shall maintain the Concession to comply with all terms and conditions of this Agreement. Concessionaire represents that Concessionaire and its agents, employees and representatives have the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to competently provide the concession operation hereunder and will do so in a professional manner consistent with customary practices. Concessionaire shall not place any type of signage or advertisement of their activity on City property without first obtaining written permission and appropriate permits from the City. Any such signage or advertisement shall be at Concessionaire's sole expense. 9. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Each and every term and condition herein set forth and contained in this Agreement are expressly made terms, covenants, agreements and conditions, and a breach of any one of them by Concessionaire shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. In the event Concessionaire shall fail to comply with any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions of this Agreement, or in the event Concessionaire violates any local, City, County, State, or Federal law, in connection with the operation hereunder, upon giving the Concessionaire ten (10) days' advance written notice, City may terminate this Agreement as provided herein. Provided, the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Page 3 of 5 Packet Page 164 of 1075 Director may order Concessionaire to cease operations hereunder immediately at any time should the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director determine that the operation is detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all the rights, licenses, and privileges herein contained shall be terminated, Concessionaire shall have no further rights hereunder, and it shall be lawful for City immediately thereafter to remove all property of Concessionaire from said premises. 10. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT/MODIFICATION This Agreement, together with any and all attachments and addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended, modified or added to only by written instrument properly signed by both parties hereto. 11. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS Concessionaire shall not assign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of this Agreement or any part of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. 12. NONDISCRIMINATION The Concessionaire shall, in all hiring or employment made possible or resulting from this Agreement, take affirmative action to ensure that there shall be no unlawful discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. This requirement shall apply to, but not be limited to, the following: employment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including apprenticeship. No person shall be denied, or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the benefit of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this Agreement on the grounds of sex, race, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap. 13. NONWAIVER Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. Page 4 of 5 Packet Page 165 of 1075 14. NON -ASSIGNABLE The concession services to be provided by Concessionaire shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 15. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS Concessionaire in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards and criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates written below: CONCESSIONAIRE IUn Bruce Barstow Dog Day Afternoon Date: CITY OF EDMONDS By: Date: David O. Earling Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM Office of the City Attorney Page 5 of 5 Packet Page 166 of 1075 AM-8314 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Submitted By: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Type: Action Information Subiect Title Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project Contract Award Recommendation Approve this item to be placed on the consent agenda for final Council approval of award to Razz Construction next week. Previous Council Action On February 18, 2014, Council authorized the extension of an ILA with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for $190,000 to cover the design services for the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. On October 21, 2014, Council approved the mayor to sign a contract for those design services with BergerABAM, for a total of $128,600. On November 24, 2015, Council authorized the advertising to bid the project documents as developed with the assistance of BergerABAM. In December, the Council authorized the mayor to sign an amendment to the ILA with the WDFW to use $1,300,000 of state grant funding for the project work. Narrative A copy of the bid tabulation is attached to this agenda item. There were seven submissions received at the bid opening on January 14th, varying in total (including WSST) from $1,004,317.58 to $1,376,156.52. The engineer's estimate for the entirety of the work was toward the higher side of this range at $1,248,824. Since bids were opened, staff members have evaluated references and met with the apparent low bidder, Razz Construction, to review the proposed project approach. As formulated, the bids consisted first of a base of project work covering repairs to damaged concrete across the entire structure, guardrail repair and recoating, and electrical work to update pier lighting fixtures to LED and CFL technology. The pier's fish cleaning stations also benefit by a replacement of the waterline that serves them, and they receive new roofs and paint, as well as attention to renewing their sinks and enclosure units. The alternates that were also part of the bid submissions include an upgrade to an HDPE guardrail and steel nosing to further protect it, coating of the pier light posts, and the replacement of the wind break enclosures, benches, and partitions. Finally, there were two alternate pieces to bring an information kiosk and weather station to the pier. Funding for this project work initially included a total of $1,300,000 from state grant sources and $100,000 from the City's coffers. Of this sum, approximately $140,000 has been committed to consultant fees for construction phase services, a special inspection contract as required by the building permit, and permit fees themselves. This presents a remainder of $1,260,000 for completing contracted work. Packet Page 167 of 1075 Staff recommends that the award for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project be made to Razz Construction in the total amount of $1,004,317.58, and that an additional contingency amount of $100,500 be established by Council for this project. This award will cover the base project work as well as every additive and alternate bid item described above. The total project budget proposed for the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is therefore $1,104,817.58. FP Bids Attachments Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/29/2016 08:22 AM Final Approval Date: 01/29/2016 Packet Page 168 of 1075 E a O O O O O O O O N N v O O M O 11:� M r'� 0�0 O�Ow 111: ~ �w >1 >4 >4 >0 V ral d sF, s9 vj v3 v3 v3 as Ffi sR O M M O O O G O O vi V'! O O C7 O O O kn O en � kn O O O M W) M � M 0 T p N en � � 7 rr U u a � sn 6e Ge Os Vs Vs Fs, v, sA w O O O O O O O N N O W o 0 0 0 0 eq r- 000 O O O 1D d �6. M N N o, ~ O z ++ 11 000 o .: N cl C >4 >r .0 >4 >0 � o U 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Wii In 0 0� o 0 0 0 00 0 0; Io o o 0 0 o W) o .. kn vi C O V i O O O N O M •--i 'CD O\ \O G .r .-i ^'� .~r M >m >1 >0 >m >4 u +' E o 15 Fsi s5 vi sis srj 69 rA rfi 59 � d F vi y O +' a 3 a m a a— a a Q"Cl o Un a� � W) 1�0 F W ^o ^o a a c 1.0 + v� F F F F F F Qn d r w o ca N M le W)110 t- 3 F ca m z w 0 z 169 A75 C E a 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v�i vim, 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a ❑ 6 •C O� N M M N 00 Q� � �O ri N l� C .�. N ��• a d L U U W V9 b9 bR b9 609 V9 vi 69 69 w O o 0 0 0 0 0 o v00i v°°i W o n en +r o 0 0 y v M N VI \O li Nt 7d. L 00 N \Q oo 0 "p C>0 'r U N a U4 69 6e us am vj 1 1 � r � O O O M o N �e N 06 Co tf) a a z 613 Al Wn vi 1 vi 6R vs vj 61 F L C o U _ L ;3 d oa in Iz cq • o W W W W W W �� :D ❑ d am d A H F F F E* F F U y •L1Dd F� e d d2 d.4 E E 170 175 AM-8260 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Mike DeLilla Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Department: Engineering Type: Action Information 3. J. Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with BHC Consultants for the Lake Ballinger Sewer Main Study. Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign a professional services agreement. Previous Council Action On January 12, 2015, staff presented this item to full Council and it was forwarded to the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in December 2015 to hire a consultant to provide study and modeling services for the Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study. The City received statements of qualifications from three engineering firms and the selection committee selected BHC Consultants based on their qualifications and experience in accordance with the City's consultant selection policy. This project will be divided into two phases. The first phase will provide an assessment of the existing 24-inch concrete sewer trunk main that is located west of Lake Ballinger and also the 30-inch sewer trunk main located south of Lake Ballinger. These pipes are currently owned and maintained by the City of Edmonds and based on the 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, are nearing their flow limit capacities and will need to be upsized in the future. In addition, even though the City owns and maintains both pipes, other jurisdictions also convey sewer flows through these systems as follows: • The west trunk main conveys flows from the City of Edmonds, Olympic View Water Sewer District, the City of Mountlake Terrace, and in some very high flow events, the City of Lynnwood. • The southern trunk main conveys flows from the City of Mountlake Terrace and from the City of Edmonds. The first phase of the study will help the City verify the amount of effluent that comes from each respective jurisdiction so that discussions between all these entities can begin and an interlocal agreement can be drafted between all entities as to cost sharing for maintenance of the current system, and also cost sharing of any future designs, studies, repairs, upgrades, and realignments. The first phase of the project will cost $156,469 and the second phase $138,679 making the total cost approximately $295,148. Packet Page 171 of 1075 The first phase will include: • The flow study and basin analysis for the west and south trunk pipes to determine the existing flow conditions, and flow split by jurisdiction • An alternative analysis to determine future needs by all jurisdictions, viability of upgrading the pipe at its current alignment or if other alternative alignments are feasible, • A preliminary Design Report summarizing the findings. The second phase will include: • Finalization of alternatives • Preliminary Geotechnical Services • Preliminary Environmental Permitting Requirements • Cultural Resources Investigation for possible historic site impacts • Final Design Report summarizing the findings. The second phase will be paid for by the various entities based on the interlocal agreement that will be drafted after the completion of the first phase and will not start until the interlocal agreement is in place. Attachments BHC Agreement Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator) Robert English 01/28/2016 03:21 PM Public Works Phil Williams 01/28/2016 03:22 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 01/28/2016 03:23 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/28/2016 04:20 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/28/2016 04:40 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 01/14/2016 12:27 PM Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Packet Page 172 of 1075 s CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov l890 ., PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and BHC Consultants hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide consulting services with respect to the Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $295,148. B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 1 Packet Page 173 of 1075 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Packet Page 174 of 1075 Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the City. The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City's prior written consent. Packet Page 175 of 1075 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including Packet Page 176 of 1075 regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: BHC Consultants 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle,WA 98101 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS DAY OF .20 CITY OF EDMONDS BHC CONSULTANTS By David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney By Its Packet Page 177 of 1075 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 178 of 1075 Exhibit A CITY OF EDMONDS LAKE BALLINGER SEWER TRUNK MAIN STUDY Scope of Services January 28, 2016 GENERAL The City of Edmonds has initiated an investigation of two sewer trunk mains along the west and south sides of Lake Ballinger. The West Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk drains wastewater from the City of Edmonds, City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water District, and during emergency conditions, the City of Lynnwood. This 24-inch diameter trunk sewer is composed of about 3,925 feet of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that was installed by the City in the early 1960's along the western shoreline of Lake Ballinger, extending from MH 17-90 to MH 17-23. The sewer primarily travels through back yards of lakefront homes, generally within open lawns or landscaped areas between the shoreline of the lake and the residential houses. Direct access to the manholes is very limited, with the exceptions of Manhole 17-59, which is located at the end of McAleer Way and a cluster of manholes near the downstream end where the trunk ties into the King County sewer. The South Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk drains wastewater from the City of Mountlake Terrace (MILT) and 17 lots within the City of Edmonds. This 30-inch diameter trunk sewer is also composed of about 5,465 feet of RCP that was installed by MLT in the 1950's along the southern shoreline of Lake Ballinger and extends from MH 17-90 to MH 17-98. The South Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk is located on private property, with the western half of the trunk being located upland of the lakefront homes. The eastern half of the trunk is located along the shoreline between the homes and the lake and access is extremely limited. The two trunk sewers come together at MH 17-90 near the southwest corner of the lake before flowing to King County's Lake Ballinger Pump Station. Discharge from this station is either pumped into the King County system located in the City of Shoreline and ultimately conveyed to the Brightwater Treatment Plant or pumped to the City of Edmond's Wastewater Treatment Plant via the trunk main along Edmonds Way (SR 104). The current operational goal is to create an equal flow swap with King County flows that are pumped to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant via the Richmond Beach Pump Station. Hydraulic modeling during development of the City's comprehensive sewer plan identified the two sewer trunks as having potential capacity issues. Verifying the flows and potential capacity issues in these trunk sewers is one of the goals of this project. The project will also evaluate whether rehabilitation options can prolong the life expectancy of the existing trunks or whether other options to increase the capacity of the system or divert flows to other areas will be necessary. Accessibility to manholes for maintenance will be a consideration when selecting the preferred alternative. The following scope of services outlines the tasks BHC Consultants, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant") will undertake to complete this phase of the project. In general the list of services includes evaluating the tributary basin flows and pipe capacities, and analyzing alternatives to increase the conveyance capacity. To support these activities, the Consultant will utilize the City's existing GIS data records and aerial mapping, review existing geotechnical records of the soils around Lake Ballinger, evaluate permitting requirements that will need to be addressed with each alternative, and complete a preliminary cultural resources investigation to January 28, 2016 Page 1 Packet Page 179 of 1075 City of Edmonds Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services Exhibit A determine if further investigation is necessary during subsequent phases of the project. Some of these support activities as described below will require subsequent written authorization from the City prior to the Consultant beginning work on those activities. TASKS 10 AND 110 — FLOW STUDY/BASIN ANALYSIS The Consultant will work with the City to identify/verify current operational settings and boundary conditions in the City's sanitary sewer hydraulic model. Model runs will be performed for multiple flow conditions and to evaluate/confirm capacity issues in the trunk sewers. The updated model will then be used to evaluate impacts to the City's sanitary sewer system for each of the alternatives identified in Tasks 20 and 120. The model will also be used to assist in sizing the proposed piping and determining the proportional share of the system's capacity for each contributing jurisdiction. The specific Consultant services for this task will include: Obtain current flow data from the City. 2. Update sanitary sewer hydraulic model boundary conditions and operational settings as necessary, to reflect current operating conditions. 3. Run the current conditions model and evaluate results to determine current capacity restrictions, if any, within the West and South Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewers. 4. Add the alternatives identified in Task 20 to the model and run the current and future flow scenarios to evaluate impacts to the City's conveyance. Deliverables: Model results of West and South Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunks using updated current flows. 2. Model results that identify capacity issues under current flows in other parts of the City's sanitary sewer system that are triggered by the alternative being considered. 3. Model results that identify capacity issues under future flows in other parts of the City's sanitary sewer system that are triggered by the alternatives being considered. 4. Summary of each jurisdictions proportional share of the system's capacity. Assumptions City will provide current flow data for all basins tributary to the West and South Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunks. 2. City will provide a current copy of the sanitary sewer hydraulic model. 3. The representation of the physical collection system in the hydraulic model is complete, current, and accurate. 4. Model calibration, performed for the previous Comprehensive Plan update, is also assumed to be current and accurate. January 28, 2016 Page 2 Packet Page 180 of 1075 City of Edmonds Exhibit A Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services 5. Model simulations will be performed for current conditions and build -out conditions flow scenarios for the alternatives that are selected during Workshop #2 in Task 20. 6. Data from the flow meters that are within and tributary to the West and South Lake Ballinger Trunks is sufficient to determine each respective jurisdictions proportional share of the system's capacity. 7. See Tasks 20 and 120 for assumptions pertaining to the alternatives being analyzed. TASKS 20 AND 120 — ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS This scope proposes a phased approach to the alternative analysis. Input from the basin/flow analysis will be used to identify potential alternatives for addressing capacity issues in the two trunk sewer mains. The Consultant will prepare a description of each alternative and identify its advantages and disadvantages. The Consultant will facilitate workshops with the City to discuss selection criteria, potential alternatives, screening of alternatives, and the selection of the preferred alternative. The specific Consultant services for this task will include: 1. Facilitating workshops with the City. 2. Completing the preliminary analysis of alternatives from Workshop #1. 3. Completing the selection of final alternatives. 4. Perform quality assurance/quality control. 5. Attend one (1) public meeting. Deliverables: Agendas, meeting minutes, resulting action plans, and supporting exhibits for each workshop. 2. Descriptions of alternatives, including a summary of the advantages and disadvantages. 3. Preliminary evaluation matrix and ranking for up to ten (10) alternatives. 4. Planning level estimates of capital construction cost, O&M costs, and life cycle costs for up to three (3) alternatives selected during Workshop #2. 5. Exhibits for presentation of the three (3) alternatives at a public meeting. Assumptions Facilitating Workshop #1 with the City will include: A. Reviewing background information and developing evaluation criteria for comparing the alternatives. Potential criteria may include, but not be limited to: 1) Existing condition of the pipelines. 2) Feasibility. January 28, 2016 Page 3 Packet Page 181 of 1075 City of Edmonds Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services Exhibit A 3) Constructability. 4) Hydraulic capacity. 5) Environmental factors (e.g. sensitive areas, wetlands, etc.) 6) Permitting, regulatory complexity, and schedule impacts for design and construction. 7) Easement needs. 8) Risk, including trenchless construction risks. 9) Potential for noise or odor impacts. 10) Cultural resource impacts. 11) Impacts on traffic and property owners. 12) Operation/maintenance considerations. 13) Evaluation criteria may be categorized as community, technical, operational, and cost criteria. 14) Cost criteria (graded as low, medium, or high). B. Determine the process for screening the alternatives. C. Brainstorm up to ten (10) alternatives that warrant further investigation. These alternatives are anticipated to include: 1) Adding additional conveyance pipelines via open cut or trenchless construction methods. 2) Adding tank storage. 3) Constructing new pump station(s) upstream to divert flows. 4) Any combination of the above. 2. Completing the preliminary analysis of alternatives from Workshop #1 will involve: A. Investigating and refining the alternatives selected in each workshop to address the selection and evaluation criteria. B. Determining each alternative's advantages and disadvantages. C. Developing schematic plan view layouts to assist with determining issues to be evaluated. D. Preparing a preliminary evaluation matrix with a ranking of each alternative according to the criteria determined during Workshop #1. E. Preparing a written summary of each alternative and the investigation results. F. Analysis will be qualitative and will document assumptions for each alternative that would need to be checked/verified if the alterative is selected for design. G. Facilitate Workshop #2 with the City, which will include: 1) Reviewing the results of the Consultant's investigation of the alternatives identified in Workshop #1. 2) Discussing/reviewing the evaluation criteria, weighting factors, and scores for each alternative. 3) Reducing the number of alternatives for further investigation to no more than three (3). 3. Completing the selection of the final alternative will involve: A. Preparing schematic layouts suitable for presentations at a public meeting of the final three alternatives from Workshop #2. The schematic designs will include: 1) Plan view schematic layout of each alternative. 2) Bubble type callouts of issues/factors that may have a significant impact on the cost or feasibility of each alternative. B. Preparing opinion of probable costs for each alternative based on unit process January 28, 2016 Page 4 Packet Page 182 of 1075 City of Edmonds Exhibit A Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services cost curves, recent bid results, and percent allowances for equipment and structures. C. Facilitating Workshop #3, which will be held after the public meeting, and will: 1) Discuss comments and public input from the public meeting. 2) Refine and discuss the selection criteria with the goal of selecting the final recommended alternative. 4. The alternative analysis will rely on existing utility information from the City GIS files. More precise locations of buried utilities and detailed mapping will be postponed to a future design phase. 5. The City will be responsible for all aspects of the public meeting. The Consultant will attend one (1) public meeting in a supporting role. TASK 30 AND 130 — SURVEYING SERVICES — DELETED FROM SCOPE OF SERVICES These tasks are included in the approved scope of services but Consultant understands work on these tasks will require separate future written authorization from the City before it can begin. The Consultant will meet or coordinate with various City staff and other agencies to collect and review data and information relevant to the Project. The Consultant will use aerial maps to facilitate the layout and evaluation of the alternatives. The specific Consultant services for this task will include: Collect data to support the alternative selection process. 2. Establish horizontal and vertical control and collect rim and invert information for the existing trunk sewers along the west and south shorelines. 3. Provide follow-up survey services as required. Deliverables: Copies of asbuilts that are obtained from sources other than the City of Edmonds. 2. CAD (Autocad or Civil 3D format) data gathered by surveyors. 3. Sewer profiles from the Ballinger Pump Station to Manhole 17-23 and from Manhole 17- 90 to Manhole 17-98. Assumptions Information and data to be collected and reviewed will generally include: A. Current City GIS data and information. B. Utility asbuilt information including: 1) Sewer asbuilts and maintenance records of the west and south trunk sewers from City of Edmonds. 2) Ballinger Pump Station as-builts from King County. 3) Asbuilt records of Ballinger Way (SR 104) from WSDOT. 4) Side sewer cards/asbuilts for homes fronting the lake. January 28, 2016 Page 5 Packet Page 183 of 1075 City of Edmonds Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services Exhibit A 5) City asbuilts of Lake Ballinger, if available. 6) Sewer line easement description from the City of Edmonds. 7) Storm sewer asbuilts from City of Edmonds. C. Coordinate with City of Edmonds to obtain preliminary design documents or other planning documents and information regarding future improvements in the area. D. The collected data and information will be plotted on aerial photos or other City provided base mapping that is used to layout the proposed improvements. 2. The City will provide the aerial maps. 3. The Washington State Plane Coordinate system will be used for horizontal control and NAD88 will be used for the vertical control datum. 4. Rim and invert information will be used to enhance the City GIS data and to aid in developing sewer profiles from the Ballinger Pump Station to the City of Edmonds Manhole 17-23 on the west side of Lake Ballinger and to Manhole 17-98 on the south side of Lake Ballinger. 5. Follow-up survey services to perform field checks and to verify accuracy of the base maps is limited to no more than two crew days. TASK 40 AND 140 — GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES These tasks are included in the approved scope of services but Consultant understands work on these tasks will require separate future written authorization from the City before it can begin. The Consultant will work with Landau Associates to provide the preliminary geotechnical engineering services for the project. Geotechnical engineering for this scope of services will include: Perform a geologic and engineering reconnaissance of the project area and potential alignments. 2. Review readily available published geologic and geotechnical information and other relevant data for the project area. 3. Analyze the collected data and provide preliminary geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for each alignment. 4. Prepare a written report that summarized the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Deliverables: One (1) electronic copy (Adobe PDF format) of the draft preliminary geotechnical report. 2. Three (3) bound hard copies and one (1) electronic copy (Adobe PDF format) of the final preliminary geotechnical report. January 28, 2016 Page 6 Packet Page 184 of 1075 City of Edmonds Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services Assumptions Exhibit A Readily available geologic and geotechnical information and other relevant data will be used to gain a general understanding of past activity in the area and the underlying geology. 2. No upland or overwater subsurface explorations will be performed. 3. The preliminary geotechnical report will include: A. A site plan showing the project area and the approximate location of relevant existing exploratory logs that were found during the geotechnical research. B. Logs of relevant exploratory borings conducted by Landau Associates and others in the project area. C. A discussion of soil and groundwater conditions anticipated within the vicinity of the project area. D. Preliminary conclusions regarding the geotechnical feasibility of trenchless construction techniques to install new pipes under portions of Lake Ballinger. E. Preliminary conclusions regarding the anticipated foundation support characteristics for a pipe installed within Lake Ballinger using the open trench method of construction, including preliminary conclusions regarding the possible need to support the in -water pipe(s) on piles. F. Preliminary conclusions regarding the anticipated need to dewater temporary upland excavations. G. Preliminary conclusions related to upland trench excavation and temporary shoring. H. Conclusions regarding the anticipated additional geotechnical services that will be needed to support design of the selected alternative. 4. The preliminary geotechnical information that will be developed will not be sufficient to support design of the selected alternative. 5. Exploratory borings in the next phase of the project will likely be required to support design of the selected alternative. TASK 50 AND 150 — ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES These tasks are included in the approved scope of services but Consultant understands work on these tasks will require separate future written authorization from the City before it can begin. The Consultant will work with Landau Associates to provide the preliminary environmental permitting evaluations for the project. The environmental permitting assistance for this scope of services will include: Conduct a preliminary evaluation of the permit applications and approvals anticipated for each alternative. 2. Completing a review of readily available documentation/databases and perform a limited site reconnaissance to identify environmental resources in the project area. 3. Reviewing the alternatives to evaluate potential project impacts and permitting needs January 28, 2016 Page 7 Packet Page 185 of 1075 City of Edmonds Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services associated with identified resources. Exhibit A 4. Compiling the results of the data compilation and site reconnaissance into a single permitting matrix that summarizes environmental and permitting considerations for each alternative. 5. Preparing a figure that identifies relevant environmental resources in the project area. Deliverables: One (1) electronic copy (Adobe PDF format) of the draft and final Permit Matrix and supporting figure. Assumptions Elements of the environment will include those considered as part of SEPA and NEPA compliance. 2. The permitting matrix will summarize: A. Resources in the project area. B. Permit/compliance associated with specific resources. C. Project activity that may require submittal of pre -construction permit applications. 3. Wetland, waterway, and associated buffer delineation is not included in this scope of services. 4. Sensitive species locations will not be identified on project mapping. TASK 60 AND 160 — CULTURAL RESOURCES SERVICES These tasks are included in the approved scope of services but Consultant understands work on these tasks will require separate future written authorization from the City before it can begin. The Consultant will work with Cascadia Archaeology to provide cultural resource related services for the project. The cultural resources assistance for this scope of services will include: Determine whether prehistoric or historic cultural resources are present within the project's area of potential disturbance. 2. Performing a records check for previously recorded sites, historic structures and other locations such as ethnographic sites, historic structures or features, and traditional cultural properties in the vicinity of the proposed alternative alignments. 3. Consulting reports of previous archaeological investigations in the vicinity for pertinent information related to site probability. 4. Contacting the tribal cultural resources department to ask them if they have any concerns regarding cultural resources, including Traditional Cultural Properties. 5. Summarizing the record checks in a brief memo with conclusions regarding the significance of the finds and recommendations about the archaeological sensitivity of the January 28, 2016 Page 8 Packet Page 186 of 1075 City of Edmonds Exhibit A Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services alternative alignments. Deliverables: An electronic copy (Adobe PDF format and MS Word) of the draft and final summary memo of the results of the record checks. Assumptions The scope of services does not include any onsite surveys or investigations. 2. The background research of the history, prehistory, and environmental settings of the project will be conducted during the next phase of the project after a preferred alternative and construction technology has been identified. TASK 70 AND 170 — PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT The Consultant will compile the results of the previous tasks into a Preliminary Design Report that summarizes the findings and conclusions of the preliminary investigations. This report will document the assumptions that have been made on the project and will form the basis for the design efforts associated with the next stage of the project. The specific Consultant services for this task will include: Prepare a draft Preliminary Design Report, which will be distributed to City staff for review and input. 2. Perform quality assurance/quality control reviews of the draft report by the Consultant's project manager and a senior or principal level engineer not directly associated with the design as part of the Consultants QA/QC program. 3. Meet with the City to discuss the report and the City's comments. 4. Address all review comments and prepare the final Preliminary Design Report. This activity is included in the approved scope of services but Consultant understands activity on this portion of the task will require a separate future written authorization from the City before it can begin. Deliverables: Three (3) bound hard copies and an electronic copy (Adobe PDF and MS Word format) of the Draft Preliminary Design Report will be delivered to the City. 2. Three bound hard copies and an electronic copy (Adobe PDF and MS Word format) of the Final Preliminary Design Report will be delivered to the City. This deliverable is included in the approved scope of services but will not be provided by the Consultant to the City without a separate future written authorization from the City. 3. Three bound hard copies and an electronic copy (Adobe PDF and MS Excel format) of the opinions of probable costs will be delivered to the City. This deliverable is included in the approved scope of services but will not be provided by the Consultant to the City January 28, 2016 Page 9 Packet Page 187 of 1075 City of Edmonds Exhibit A Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services without a separate future written authorization from the City. 4. Autocad or Civil 3D files of map results. This deliverable is included in the approved scope of services but will not be provided by the Consultant to the City without a separate future written authorization from the City. Assumptions Report will contain: A. An executive summary. B. Summary of the basin/flow analysis. C. Description of the evaluation process and alternatives that were considered. D. Summary of geotechnical, environmental, and cultural resources research, if said activity is subsequently authorized by the City. E. Planning level opinions of probable costs for each alternative. F. The report is intended to be a compilation of information prepared during the other tasks with minimal additional writing of chapters. TASK 80 AND 180 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT This task includes services related to the management, administration, and coordination of all scope activities. The Consultant will prepare a Project Management Plan (PMP) for review and concurrence by the City. The PMP will be used to aid in managing the work. Specific services for this task will include: Prepare the PMP. 2. Facilitate a project kickoff meeting. 3. Provide monthly status reports, including schedule updates with monthly invoices. 4. Manage with project team. 5. Coordinate with subconsultants. 6. Coordination with City. Deliverables: Up to two (2) hard copies and an electronic copy (Adobe PDF and MS Word format) of the PMP. 2. Agenda, meeting notes, and summary action items for the project kickoff meeting. 3. Progress status reports and schedule updates (Adobe PDF) to be included with monthly invoices. Assumptions The PMP will include the signed contract, scope of services, budget, contact list, and baseline project schedule. January 28, 2016 Page 10 Packet Page 188 of 1075 City of Edmonds Exhibit A Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services 2. The kickoff will be held at the City and will gather information on the project; discuss project issues, needs and requirements; determine respective actions for the City and Consultant; and discuss appropriate steps and measures that are desired/needed to assure a successful project. 3. Earned value management tracking will be used to monitor project status. 4. Coordination with the project team will include weekly meeting or phone calls to review current and upcoming task, deliverables, and coordination efforts. 5. Coordinate with City will include bi-weekly telephone conversations, email, and written correspondence as required. 6. Based on discussions with the City, the Consultant is authorized to spend approximately 60% of the budget for this task without further written authorization from the City. Services beyond the 60% threshold will require subsequent authorization from the City. TASK 90 — PROJECT CONTINGENCY This task and budget is reserved as a contingency fund for minor changes in scope which may occur during the course of the services. This budget will be used to facilitate additional services without the need for a contract amendment and may only be utilized by the Consultant after receiving written authorization from the City. BUDGET The Project budget, dated January 28, 2016, is attached as Exhibit B. This budget is based on, and in accordance with, the Consultant's rate schedule (see Exhibit C). Should the City desire to proceed with the design and construction of the preferred alternative, a contract amendment will be necessary. The Consultant and the City further recognize that portions of the approved budget, as described above, will require subsequent, future written authorization from the City before work is allowed to proceed on those tasks. SERVICES AND INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY The Project's scope, budget and schedule assume the City will provide the following services or information to the Consultant: Current flow data from all tributary basin flow meters. 2. A current copy of the sanitary sewer hydraulic model. 3. Aerial photos and mapping. 4. All public outreach services, including: A. Preparation and mailing of information letter to the affected property owners informing them of the project. B. Public meeting to present the alternatives. Consultant will attend this meeting in a support role. C. All coordination with property owners required to facilitate access to the site. January 28, 2016 Page 11 Packet Page 189 of 1075 City of Edmonds Exhibit A Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Scope of Services 5. Input on the selection and evaluation criteria. 6. Asbuilt utility documents as described above January 28, 2016 Page 12 Packet Page 190 of 1075 EXHIBIT B - BUDGET City of Edmonds Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Project Budget Date: January 28, 2016 2015 Labor Rate Billing Rate Principal Craig C. Proj. Mgr Tony F. QA/QC Ron D. Hyd. Modeler Dave H. Proj. Engr. Noah A. GIS Carlito T. CAD Patti S. Public Outreach Talia T. Public Outreach Abby W. Clerical Sarah S. $0.00 Accounting Uma P. $0.00 BHC Total Subconsultants Phase 1 Budget Phase 2 Budget Total Budget $225.00 $194.00 $225.00 $194.00 $133.00 $96.00 $145.00 $104.00 $92.00 $78.00 $103.00 hours expenses cost Tetra Tech Landau Cascadia BHC Markup Subconsul. Total Cost Cost Cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost West Trunk sk 10: Flow Study/Basin Analysis Obtain Current Flow Data $0 0.5 $97 $0 1.0 $194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.5 $9 $300 $0 $0 $300 $0 $300 Update Model with Current Data $0 0.5 $97 $0 6.0 $1,164 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.5 $38 $1,299 $0 $0 $1,299 $0 $1,299 Analyze Trunk Sewer $0 3.0 $582 $0 7.0 $1,358 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10.0 $58 $1,998 $0 $0 $1,998 $0 $1,998 Analyze Alternatives $0 6.0 $1,164 $0 24.0 $4,656 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 30.0 $175 $5,995 $0 $0 $5,995 $0 $5,995 Subtotal 0.0 $0 10.0 $1,940 0.0 $0 38.0 $7,372 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 48.0 $279 $9,591 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,591 $0 $9,591 Task 20: Alternative Analysis Facilitate Workshop #1 1.0 $225 4.0 $776 $0 $0 4.0 $532 $0 4.0 $580 $0 $0 1.0 $78 $0 14.0 $66 $2,257 $3,022 $302 $3,324d$28,488 $0 $5,581 Complete Preliminary Analysis $0 19.0 $3,686 $0 $0 36.0 $4,788 2.0 $192 6.0 $870 $0 $0 2.0 $156 $0 65.0 $291 $9,983 $13,948 $1,836 $1,578 $17,362 $0 $27,345 Complete Final Analysis $0 19.0 $3,686 $0 $0 36.0 $4,788 2.0 $192 6.0 $870 $0 $0 2.0 $156 $0 65.0 $291 $9,983 $14,987 $1,836 $1,682 $18,505 $0 $28,488 Perform QA/QC 1.0 $225 4.0 $776 4.0 $900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9.0 $57 $1,958 $0 $0 $0 $1,958 Attend Public Meeting $0 2.0 $388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.0 $12 $400 $718 $72 $790 $0 $1,189 Subtotal 2.0 $450 48.0 $9,312 4.0 $900 0.0 $0 76.0 $10,108 4.0 $384 16.0 $2,320 0 $0 0 $0 5.0 $390 0.0 $0 155.0 $716 $24,580 $32,675 $3,672 $0 $3,635 $39,982 $0 $64,562 Task 30: Survey Services* Collect data $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $700 $70 $770 $0 $770 $770 Establish Control/Collect Survey Data $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $01 0.0 $0 $0 $7,494 $749 $8,243 $0 $8,243 1 $8,243 Provide Followup Survey Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $3,536 $354 $3,890 $0 $3,890 $3,890 Subtotal 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $11,730 $0 $0 $1,173 $12,903 $0 $12,903 $12,903 sk 40: Geotechnical Services* otechnical Services $0 $0 $0Subtotal 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $18,122 $0 $1,812 $19,934 $0 $19,934 $19,934 sk 50: Environmental Services* JEnvironnnentalPermitting Evaluation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $8,136 $814 $8,950 $0 $8,950 $8,950 Subtotal sk 60: Cultural Resources Services* Conduct Prelim. Cultural Resource Invest. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $8,136 $0 $794 $814 $8,950 $0 $8,950 MINE MIN MIN $79 $873 $0 $873 $8,950 $873 Subtotal 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $01 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $794 $79 $873 $0 $873 $873 Task 70: Preliminary Desi n Repo 70.1 Currently Authorized Services Prepare Preliminary Design Report 1.0 $225 10.0 $1,940 $0 2.0 $388 16.0 $2,128 3.0 $288 3.0 $435 $0 $0 4.0 $312 $0 39.0 $171 $5,887 $7,275 $728 $8,003 $13,890 $0 $13,890 Peform QA/QC $0 1.0 $194 1.0 $225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.0 $13 $432 $0 $0 $432 $0 $432 Meet with City $0 2.0 $388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.0 $12 $400 $0 $0 $400 $0 $400 70.2 Future Services* Prepare Final Design Report 1.0 $225 9.0 $1,746 1.0 $2251 2.0 $388 12.0 $1,596 3.0 $288 3.0 $435 $0 $0 3.0 $234 $0 34.0 $154 $5,291 $5,547 $555 $6,102 $0 $11,393 $11,393 Subtotal 2.0 $450 22.0 $4,268 2.0 $4501 4.0 $776 28.01 $3,724 6.0 $5761 6.0 $870 0 $0 0 $0 7.0 $546 0.0 $0 77.0 $350 $12,010 1 $12,822 $0 $0 $1,282 $14,104 $14,721 $11,393 $26,114 sk 80: Project Management 80.1 Currently Authorized Services Prepare Project Management Plan 0.5 $113 12.0 $2,328 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.0 $206 14.5 $79 $2,726 $0 $0 $2,726 $0 $2,726 Facilitate Kickoff Meeting 0.5 $113 2.0 $388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.5 $15 $516 $0 $0 $516 $0 $516 Monthly Invoicing and Status Reports $0 5.0 $970 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.0 $515 10.0 $45 $1,530 $0 $0 $1,530 $0 $1,530 Manage Team $0 12.0 $2,328 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12.0 $70 $2,398 $0 $0 $2,398 $0 $2,398 Coordination with Subconsultants/QA/QC $0 10.0 $1,940 2.0 $450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12.0 $72 $2,462 $0 $0 $2,462 $0 $2,462 Coordination with City $0 6.0 $1,164 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.0 $35 $1,199 $0 $0 $1,199 $0 $1,199 80.2 Future Services* Monthly Invoicing and Status Reports 1 $0 3.0 $582 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3.0 $309 6.0 $27 $918 $0 $0 $0 $918 $918 Manage Team $0 12.0 $2,328 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12.0 $70 $2,398 $0 $0 $0 $2,398 $2,398 Coordination with Subconsultants/QA/QC $0 10.0 $1,940 2.0 $450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12.0 $72 $2,462 $0 $0 $0 $2,462 $2,462 Coordination with City 1.0 $225 6.0 $1,164 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7.0 $42 $525 $1,431 $0 $0 $0 $10,829 $1,431 $1,431 Subtotal 2.0 $450 78.0 $15,132 4.0 $900 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 10.0 $1,030 94.0 $18,037 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,208 $18,037 sk 90: Project Contingency* Contingency Fund 11 11 11 $25,000 1 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 Subtotal 1$25,000 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $25,000 1 $25,000 South Trunk Task 110: Flow Study/Basin Analysis Obtain Current Flow Data $0 0.5 $97 $0 1.0 $194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.5 $9 $300 $0 $0 $300 $0 $300 Update Model with Current Data $0 0.5 $97 $0 2.0 $388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.5 $15 $500 $0 $0 $500 $0 $500 Analyze Trunk Sewer $0 1.0 $194 $0 3.0 $582 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.0 $23 $799 $0 $0 : $799 $0 $799 Analyze Alternatives $0 2.0 $388 $0 8.0 $1,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10.0 $58 $1,998 $0 $0 $1,998 $0 $1,998 Subtotal sk 120: Alternative Analysis Facilitate Workshop #1 0.0 1.0 $0 $225 4.0 4.0 $776 $776 0.0 $0 14.0 $2,716 0.0 $0 $0 4.0 $0 $532 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 2.0 $0 $290 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0.0 1.0 $0 $78 0.0 $0 18.0 $105 $3,597 $0 12.0 $57 $1,958 $0 $4,076 $0 $0 $0 $408 $0 $3,597 $0 $3,597 AL $4,484 $6,442 $0 $6,442 Complete Preliminary Analysis $0 12.0 $2,328 $0 $0 20.0 $2,660 2.0 $192 4.0 $580 $0 $0 2.0 $156 $0 40.0 $177 $6,093 $6,182 $714 $690 $7,586 $13,679 $0 $13,679 Complete Final Analysis $0 12.0 $2,328 $0 $0 20.0 $2,660 2.0 $192 4.0 $580 $0 $0 2.0 $156 $0 40.0 $177 $6,093 $7,097 $714 $781 $8,592 $14,686 $0 $14,686 Perform QA/QC 1.0 $225 2.0 $388 2.0 $450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.0 $32 $1,095 $0 $0 $1,095 $0 $1,095 Attend Public Meeting $0 2.0 $388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.0 $12 $400 $608 $61 $669 $1,068 $0 $1,068 Subtotall 2.0 $450 32.0 $6,208 2.0 $450 0.0 $0 44.0 $5,852 4.0 $384 10.0 $1,450 0 $0 0 $0 5.0 $390 0.0 $0 99.0 $456 $15,640 1 $17,963 $1,428 $0 $1,9391 $21,330 $36,970 $0 $36,970 S:\Projects\Edmonds\Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study\PM\Project Plan\Budget_Final(1).xlsx Pa e 1 of 2 Packet Page 191 of 1075 EXHIBIT B - BUDGET City of Edmonds Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study Project Budget Date: January 28, 2016 2015 Labor Rate Billing Rate Principal Craig C. Proj. Mgr Tony F. QA/QC Ron D. Hyd. Modeler Dave H. Proj. Engr. Noah A. GIS Carlito T. CAD Patti S. Public Outreach Talia T. Public Outreach Abby W. Clerical Sarah S. $0.00 Accounting Uma P. $0.00 BHC Total Subconsultants Phase 1 Budget Phase 2 Budget Total Budget $225.00 $194.00 $225.00 $194.00 $133.00 $96.00 $145.00 $104.00 $92.00 $78.00 $103.00 hours expenses cost Tetra Tech FLndu Cascadia BHC Markup Subconsul. Total Cost Cost Cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost Task 130: Survey Service Collect data $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $300 $30 $330 $0 $330 $330 Establish Control/Collect Survey Data $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $3,212 $321 $3,533 $0 $3,533 $3,533 Provide Followup Survey Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $1,515 $152 $1,667 $0 $1,667 $1,667 Subtotal 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $5,027 $0 $0 $503 $5,530 $0 $5,530 $5,530 sk 140: Geotechnical Services* Geotechnical Services IIIIIIIIIIIIIM sol sol sol sol sol sol sol sol $0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 $7,048 $705 $7,753 $0 $7,753 $7,753 Subtotal 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $01 $0 $01 $7,048 $0 $7051 $7,753 1 $0 1 $7,753 1 $7,753 Task 150: Environmental Services* Environmental Permitting Evaluation Subtotal 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,164 $3,164 $0 $316 $3,480 $3161 $3,480 $0 $0 $3,480 1 $3,480 $3,480 $3,480 Task160: Cultural Resources Services* Conduct Prelim. Cultural Resource Invest. $0 sol sol sol sol sol sol sol sol sol sol 0.01 $0 I $0 I 1 1 $340 $34 $374 1 $0 1 $374 1 $374 Subtotal 0.0 $01 0.0 $01 0.0 $01 0.0 $01 0.0 $01 0.0 $01 0.0 $01 0 $01 0 $01 0.0 $01 0.0 $01 0.01 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $340 $34 $374 1 $0 1 $374 1 $374 Task 170: Preliminary Design Report 170.1 Currently Authorized Services Prepare Draft Preliminary Design Repc 1.0 $225 4.0 $776 $0 2.0 $388 8.0 $1,064 3.0 $288 3.0 $435 $0 $0 4.0 $312 $0 25.0 $105 $3,593 $6,253 $625 $6,878 $10,471 $0 $10,471 Peform QA/QC $0 1.0 $194 1.0 $225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.0 $13 $432 $0 $0 $432 $0 $432 Meet with City $0 1.0 $194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.0 $6 $200 $0 $0 $200 $0 $200 170.2 Future Services* Prepare Final Design Report 1.0 $225 4.0 $776 1.0 $225 2.0 $388 4.0 $532 3.0 $288 3.0 $435 $0 $0 3.0 $234 $0 21.0 $93 $3,196 $3,272 $327 $3,599 $0 $6,795 $6,795 Subtotal 2.0 $450 10.0 $1,940 2.0 $450 4.0 $776 12.0 $1,596 6.0 $576 6.0 $870 0 $0 0 $0 7.0 $546 0.0 $0 49.0 $216 $7,420 $9,525 $0 $0 $953 $10,478 $11,102 $6,795 $17,898 180.1 Currently Authorized Services Prepare Project Management Plan 0.5 $113 4.0 $776 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.0 $206 6.5 $33 $1,127 $0 $0 $1,127 $0 $1,127 Facilitate Kickoff Meeting 0.5 $113 1.0 $194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.5 $9 $316 $0 $0 $316 $0 $316 Monthly Invoicing and Status Reports $0 2.0 $388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.0 $412 6.0 $24 $824 $0 $0 $824 $0 $824 Manage Team $0 6.0 $1,164 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.0 $35 $1,199 $0 $0 $1,199 $0 $1,199 Coordination with Subconsultants/QA/QC $0 4.0 $776 1.0 $225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.0 $30 $1,031 $0 $0 $1,031 $0 $1,031 Coordination with City $0 3.0 $582 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3.0 $17 $599 $0 $0 $599 $0 $599 180.2 Future Services* Monthly Invoicing and Status Reports L $0 2.0 $388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.0 $412 6.0 $24 $824 $0 $0 $0 $824 $824 Manage Team $0 5.0 $970 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.0 $29 $999 $0 $0 $0 $999 $999 Coordination with Subconsultants/QA/QC $0 4.0 $776 1.0 $225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.0 $30 $1,031 $0 $0 $0 $1,031 $1,031 Coordination with City 1.0 $225 2.0 $388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3.0 $18 $631 $0 $0 $0 $631 $631 Subtotal Contingency Fund 2.0 $450 33.0 $6,402 2.0 $450 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 10.0 $1,030 47.0 $250 $8,582 $25,000 1 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,096 $3,486 $0 $25,000 $8,582 $25,000 Subtotal I 1 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 Total Budget 12.0 $2,700 237.0 $45,978 %0 $3,600 60.0 $11,640 160.0 $21,280 20.0 $1,920 38.0 $5,510 0 $0 0 $0 24.0 $1,872 20.0 $2,060 587.0 $2,897 $149,457 $89,742 $41,570 $1,134 $13,245 $145,691 $156,469 $138,679 $295,148 Requires Future Written Authorization from City Principal CraigC. Proj. Mgr Ton F. QA/QC Ron D. Hyd. Modeler Dave H. Proj. Engr. Noah A. GIS Carlito T. CAD Patti S. Public Outreach Talia T. Public Outreach AbbyW. Clerical Sarah S. Accounting Uma P. BHC Total Tetra Tech Landau Cascadia BHC Markup Subconsul. Total Phase 1 Budget Phase 2 Budget Total Budget West Trunk Currently Authorized Service 4.0 $900 118.0 $22,892 7.0 $1,575 40.0 $7,760 92.0 $12,236 7.0 $672 19.0 $2,755 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 9.0 $702 7.0 $721 303 $1,506 $51,719 $39,950 $3,672 $0 $4,362 $47,984 $99,704 $0 $99,704 Future Services* 2.0 $450 40.0 $7,760 3.0 $675 2.0 $388 12.0 $1,596 3.0 $288 3.0 $435 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 3.0 $234 3.0 $309 71 $364 $12,499 $17,277 $26,258 $794 $4,433 $48,762 $0 $61,261 $61,261 Project Contingency* $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 Subtotal 6.0 $1,350 158.0 $30,652 10.0 $2,250 42.0 $8,148 104.0 $13,832 10.0 $960 22.0 $3,190 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 12.0 $936 10.0 $1,030 374 $1,870 $89,218 $57,227 $29,930 $794 $8,795 $96,746 $99,704 $86,261 $185,965 South Trunk CurrentlyAuthorizedService 4.0 $900 62.0 $12,028 4.0 $900 16.01 $3,104 52.0 $61,916 7.0 $672 13.0 $1,885 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 9.0 $702 6.0 $618 $173 $832 $28,557 $24,216 $1,428 $0 $2,564 $28,208 $56,765 $0 $56,765 Future Services* 2.0 $450 17.0 $3,298 2.0 $450 2.0 $388 4.0 $532 3.0 $288 3.0 $435 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 3.0 $234 4.0 $412 $40 $195 $6,682 $8,299 $10,212 $340 $1,885 $20,736 $0 $27,418 $27,418 Project Contingency* $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 Subtotal 6.0 $1,350 79.0 $15,326 6.0 $1,350 18.0 $3,492 56.0 $7,448 10.0 $960 16.0 $2,320 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 12.0 $936 10.0 $1,030 $213 $1,026 $60,238 $32,515 $11,640 $340 $4,450 $48,945 $56,765 $52,418 $109,183 Total Bud et 12.0 $2,700 237.0 $45,978 16.0 $3,600 60.0 $11,640 160.0 $21,280 20.0 $1,920 38.0 $5,510 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 24.0 $1,872 20.0 $2,060 $587 $2,897 $149,457 $89,742 $41,570 $1,134 $13,245 $145,691 $156,469 $138,679 $295,148 - Requires Future Written Authorization from City S:\Projects\Edmonds\Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study\PM\Project Plan\Budget_Final(1).xlsx Pa e 2 of 2 Packet Page 192 of 107 Exhibit C 2016 Schedule of Charges S LAN S Billing Title Hourly Billing Rates Principal Engineer $210 - $240 Sr. Structural Engineer $190 - $215 Sr. Electrical Engineer $190 - $210 Senior Engineer $190 - $210 Project Engineer $114 - $165 Staff Engineer $85 - $100 Engineering Technician* $50 - $85 Planning Manager $110 - $150 Senior Planner $100 - $110 Planner $75 - $100 GIS Specialist* $90 - $100 Sr. Field Inspector* $100- $140 Field Inspector & Building Inspectors* $80 - $100 CAD Manager* $125 - $150 Draftsperson* $90 - $110 Project Administrator* $85 - $130 Project Assistant/Word Processor* $60 - $85 Building Code Compliance Review $90 - $210 Professional Reimbursement: The hourly billing rates include the cost of salaries of the BHC employees, plus paid sick and safe leave, vacation, holiday, other fringe benefits, indirect overhead and fee. All employees classified as "non-exempt" (billing category denoted with *) by the U.S. Department of Labor will be compensated at 1-1/2 times salary, as per State and Federal wage and hour laws. Billing rates will be calculated accordingly for these overtime hours. Communication Fee: Project Labor times 3.0% which includes telecommunications, faxes, standard U.S. Mail, mobile phones, and internet access. Direct Expenses: Reimbursement for direct expenses incurred in connection with the work, will be at cost plus ten percent. See Schedule of Non -Labor Charges for detail. The foregoing Schedule of Charges is incorporated into the agreement for the services provided, effective January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, and will be adjusted thereafter. Packet Page 193 of 1075 ME S�L TA NtS Exhibit C Schedule of Non -Labor Charges January 1, 2016 Non -Labor Charges Description Fee Reproduction In -House Reproduction 8&W Print 8.5" x 11" $0.15/Copy 8&W Print 11" x 17" $0.30/Copy 8&W Plot (Line Drawings) up to 6 sq. ft. $2.00/Copy 8&W Plot (Line Drawings) Large Format Plot (> 6 sq. ft.) $0.33/Sq. Ft. 8&W My/ar up to 6 sq. ft. $14.00/Copy Color Plot (Color Graphics) up to 6 sq. ft. $12.00/Copy Color Plot (Color Graphics) Large Format Plot (> 6 sq. ft.) $2.00/Sq. Ft. Color Print 8.5" x 11 " $1.00/Copy Color Print 11" x 17" $2.00/Copy External Reproductions Cost + 10% Subconsultants & Contractors Cost + 10% Transportation & Travel Airfare Cost + 10% Lodging Cost + 10% Meals Cost + 10% Vehicle Rental & Gas Cost + 10% Public Transportation & Taxis Cost + 10% Parking Cost + 10% Mileage IRS Rate Telecommunication, Faxes, Standard U.S. No Charge if 3% Comm. Chg. Mail, Mobile Phones, Internet Access and Included Cost + 10% Hardware Express Mail & Courier Cost + 10% Special Fees, Insurance, Permits, and Cost + 10% Licenses Software & Equipment Cost + 10% Packet Page 194 of 1075 7101 0 .5 I • • • • 25�1 a2.17-27 n 17-17 rry n >io LAY r� 17-161 N �� 0 7v__"-24 Gov 23011 2sG: •2_?916 0 ^ A 2 REA 0 °�ti ?30 9�e o0 021 23040 17`-`28 2302 0 18 z ^ ^o o' o ?300j ?30 ,Lg ,7/ ,U • • I • 23039 230 MAIN . 8 23107 0 27 4 2 w 17Z6213 23102 o w BALLINGE 23110 �76 � 23103 N L) 23122 17-310" "� '� o 4 23115 M M 23110 , a SUNSET" ` 17=20 / ---- N N U LL •OZ7_09A2310" •+ 2311 �: o� off POINT CO • 17-32 1r7-18 0 23116 23105 00 O 1 15 f �` n PARKING 23124-223117 2311>� • • n 23301� n/2j tiy�'�°^M c N N r N o `JW� 23300 L �� I 231" / <9 2w N" N ,•, N o-' `s IF oo 1.6-21 16-21 B i17c_633 2312LP i G/< �-F cpo N 16-12 1 • • j1 0 232 1'7-21 CLUB 23000 (q 6q a2 ti° o° N J 6-133203 • 16-21C205 2320G� < os �� ry�ro ti�ti o M • • <"', 00 (� 16_,-21 A M� I m 23' • / 4� �Co /� N zsz'rl.� 2 2321123208 17-3017-33 23215 O v, 0 0 ^6 ti 23206 232• r ao 23320 23320 PACIFIC PA Y3 ry •2321 • 1■ GOLF COURSE op 23221 1,6-22 IVY i 23215 232 F 17-19 GOLF COURSE a Zg2�6 23221 23225 y ?, 1,�, U 4 2321 • 1 2321 • O 23229 J O ry V 3'49 2322 17-22 ?3225 23233 a N O 16UFrICE -' N L� yL�' 2321 I1T64 0 232 17 223303 03307 W 00 a ?3 • 23231 o M 16-14 016'-24 • y ^� > 30S a " • • 0 23307 233 tiss . 17- 2350 ti ti 23311 w 16-20'`" 16-2323304 I (� 23311 8129 ` 23319 CO 23311 2.'16=15 • a 7711 70 23309 yg"33 17=29<17- 23323 N 2331 , M�., 8121 23327 rn I 23315 • '.'37 O N m �D N N O 23322 ,�9 2�- 23331 23329 N o 'D w ti N 8117 23331 7811 7gr7 7��1 ■ 16-16 16-1716-1816-1916 25 16-26 �° nNCO I 23325 23316 17-413,�� 34 • • • • • 117,-65 •,y33T" _ 1] 17-39 N N PARK o na 23401 23406 �'4^E 7712 o !9 23406 oh 23402 23405 a° oo co 0o ry WHIRLY o 0) 16-347714 ,D o m I ti 2340� ry`y d ao EDMONDS c M BALL n 23412" 23411 7710 r 234tl j- a O ° N N T`S M N 2342 r- Kati ?'2Y/ U 23415 ,y4�" -40 o co j6-2] �, 23418 23417 2341 1 ry co o °D • r- 0 23422 O 16� 35 7708 N ((O,) F ^ O Nm coNcn v My N 23428�• 23423 7706 ^ w ry�p`Vp234� ' 17'?66 "4` 23429 „ 3423 N LL V NORTH 'c' 23502 2 234501 7727 • ,yb"' 2�_ 17,423U z4z�1 ;HURCH O c N HAVEN Z 23508 23507 r� O ti • • 46 17-47 2351 Q rn MANOR w U r N I 4 435 25 �' v n 23514 23513 7725 v yS 17-43 3 co oO o r a Co 7709 Q 23530 O! �17-49) TRAILER n J o 23520 23519 N n ti U I rygh • 23521 d OFFICE 16-28 •16-32 16=33 23526 bo 16=36 ^16�37'707 16-38 00 17s67w„ C° 17-45 236TH ST 5 • 1 6-+^ • n • • • • wo F9 SE °' • v Ly s • 53 a 2°°6 �'517. 17=5ryo^ • 23 5 1�703530 16-316-41 23601 U 7oop w16;43 235 FEWAY -4 7710 23616-78 6 7415 w16-44f .-74c, 7411rn KJIHG 23611 ( 8�o7726 All 423 56-6�tih „33916 SUNSET = 130 ,o>w 16-55Af O 717 2°^523s I - 7 48 23635 wIL o16-40fifi456 N2?�o1T68N� 17-53 1632 e �1-5, 6s 2 1 SH CONDOS \ \ \ \ \ COE/MLT/ 5ORA 7 20 2370A-32 01 23709 23710 6-5223627 17-4 U 23704TPLACE I�7 2102 03 ^� 16821s3 7 LY PANCAK 48 051 23631 COL/OVWSD 2304 5 23711 23712 ^2I' 23725 16516 FAMI2708 09 23713 7o6 16J 037 2379 -82� 16-416-516916-50A 16-517831 23720 23723 1 2372„ CONC, L-3900 LF, DIA-24 1 6,623711 M • • 16 47 • • • • 23730 7609 117369 M �K5 N 23 8100 _48016 23806 2: )7 23804, 23800 7804 23803 ?d600 Al 6?BrJy 1,6-83 i 2375 N17-71 ZP 7403 17- 7-59 1 23805 8026 23818 016L69 23812 F, 0 238 N 8014 P 316''71 23811 23806316-84. °6 8028 • 3821 23820 • 23819 23818 23819 >'o • • 7504 n 238'� 23825 8104 8012 23b 16 70 > >6? 17-73 0 3 TRAVEL LODGE $Q30 e�"� 16-67 ti� M 8?J18-730 16=751 ��N >�� >T �• 821 Y3829 23828 O ST. FRANCIS 1.6-62, •,, N Q.(•'}-. 7 >j 2 - U 9 23905 MOTEL 8029 z3so ,,9 -, / 16-68 0— 0 16-7 23901 j,6-$6 o O I 903 23901 23832� 23821 WHSE o 0 8027 2391• 9 d16-66 915 N N N N 1,6-7 >' o >� �6 - 17-74102,909 23910 • 17 5 1\ (& E MOTEL 8115 00 °D 2392 3ti�9^ ' ti�9� 7823 • >>�,, 8 >6 7s • w`% 23915 23910 1 RV1LLE 16-60; 802E >� 3 N rn C ,n'�° >T �6`I9 �"� o �,, 23926 co 17" '%-6U 16 61 1 fi=63 16-64 ,16-65 0 16-77 1.6-87 • • • 0-0 • U• 10111 �6� 31 oo N 8012 8004 0 3 O `� d `� O O N •17-76 '7-61 N O O O N of 17-75 24007 \ STER'S o co a d rn rn 0 1 y 00 M 24004 o 4�l o NIA 0 8010 800824014 16-92 N '° P��G�e 1 o • 24009 N ( • a a N dy 36290011 mr_ Cr' i� 24034 cD o•o — co s � 24015 16-93A 16:93N16 417=7n svU: • 17-77 IRLINGTOvV 21'6-88 1.689 16-91 - aisT sT COAT 24017 M24030 M N 0 3 °ACTORY �g� y ,V S. ao • N r co 24106 07430 `\ 16-107 w 24111 7Q ytx�ry ryp� �0 00 24109 24110 • 4. 24118 N Q m o � rn 8029 8011 ^ O cn o m N c 24119 24118 24117 r N r 17- -84 0o b� O U M w w 24122�- 17a82^ n • 8027 nn w n N 16 95 1--.. 09 co 7905 ^ '801 (> 7aa29 4126 p 2a1?5 COE/MLT\ • • • 16 97i4 97 •16-98 •16--: 9 co,16-106 (y.16-110 •16-111'$0• 17,g81; nlo 740 0� O 16=102 N 8106 N ao o N 7920 7910 24206 24207 24206 4206 0 O 00 Pcsw QD O O ry O ib 818004 `° ao o� °�' y 24212 24213 24212 1621091 M N CONIC, L-1500 LF `PIA-30" U 7918 wy �°' 24218 1§�1,05421sa�• .4219 N N �' 17-85C „ 17-8 — — R '°' CO 16-101 • 0 24228 2 • • 5 17-85 ?' 24227 24226C a N o 16-116 g162ao00 O U v v v • 8115 O 24231 24304(� 6�-108iEATTLE o _ u n Ln n 17y _ 17.80i2 a ~ 8129 m CHASE • �o,h FoMo • 2431104.6 24312 7721 . 24307 CHURCHT24340 �• N 2 \ w 24323 co � d No 24346 !19 > a 8105 O 7929 s cNo GAS O t2 cn 7505 - 8201 16 114 U 16-115 ' K f n " ^ STATION h \ • r 171,797 7601 U 3 n 5 17-9 — _ — • 7-95 / Cityof Edmonds 0• Sewer Manhole Edmonds C Cleanout Lynnwood 121 5th Ave N Lift MtLake T. Edmonds, WA 0o Meter Woodway O Non City Sewer 98020 N Sewer Mains Non City Lines This document is for general information purposes only and is provided on an 'as is' and 'as available' basis. The data used comes from a variety of public sources and no warranty of any kind is given as to its accuracy. Users of this document agree to indemnify and save harmless the City of Edmonds, its officials, officers, employees and/or agents from and against any claim, demand or action, arising 1 / 12/2016 out of any use or possession of this document . 10: 36: 39 AM Packet Page 195 of 1075 AM-8293 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Type: Potential Action Information Subiect Title Veterans' Plaza update. 5. A. Recommendation Council receive a presentation on community group's work thus far, view the revised concept, and discuss City's responsibility. Previous Council Action Planning Board and Council requested staff work with Veteran's group, Planning Board member Neil Tibbot to find a location for a Veteran's Park. Councilmember Strom Peterson volunteered for the committee to work on this. The site selection was presented to the Planning Board on October 23rd, 2014 and the PPP Council Committee on November 12th, 2013 and supported by full Council on November 26, 2013. On May 5, 2014, Council adopted a resolution naming the Veteran's Plaza. In January 2015, Council received a presentation and approved the design for the Plaza. Narrative Councilmember Strom Peterson, Planning Board member Neil Tibbot, community member Ron Clyborn and several veterans in the community have identified a site for the Veteran's Plaza and discussed this with the Planning Board, the Parks Committee and the full Council. They received unanimous support from both the Planning Board and Council to go forward with the Plaza. Council adopted a resolution establishing this legacy, and invited the public to attend the naming ceremony on May 26th, 2013, at 1:00 PM outside the Public Safety complex. The community group charged with establishing the Veteran's Plaza embarked on a design contest. They received 12 submittals for designs of the Veteran's Plaza. After reviewing, scoring, and discussing, they invited interviews for three submittals ( representing two different firms). After the interviews and deliberation, the community group unanimously selected this preferred design to move forward. Council approved this design in January 2015. The City then entered into a Professional Services Contract with Site Workshop for $10,000 that was Packet Page 196 of 1075 adopted as part of the budget for 2015, and continued to work with the community group. Throughout the design process, there have been a few citizens that have weighed in and encouraged the design group to revise the initial design to be more welcoming, and add more green space to the plaza area. The result is the design the Council will see tonight. The community group has been operating a capital campaign and has raised $250,000 to date. They are confident they will meet their goal of $400,000. However, they didn't anticipate the additional $30,000 for the actual plaza area development with planter beds/benches and seating area. They respectfully request the City assist with this cost. Attachments EVP presentation Resolution Concept Design Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Form Review Reviewed By Date Scott Passey 01/28/2016 12:17 PM Dave Earling O1/28/2016 12:38 PM Scott Passey 01/28/2016 02:46 PM Started On: 01/26/2016 12:09 PM Packet Page 197 of 1075 i- . low&lrk - - - & - . JLk F Art rm **gap &F Tar WlFMm_*lv_i 4 IK&w v3- wk"m " 74, A foz Ah Jr VMP4 4F 4t 41 m q6 L olp 1 �7 LL i 4L Packei �ag'e 168 1 VETERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: FEBRUARY 2,2016 DESIGN ELEMENTS: WALL, GARDEN, PLAZA WALL: SCALE + REFINE GARDEN: REFINE DETAILS PLAZA: SOFTEN + ORGANIZE SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Packet Page 199 of 1075 tikA X; 0+ � rr 1 qp T• Ir - � � r _ �L r �•� *4 1 � r +•f • r L• r � • • � 44 - • T.- % %% f� •' r r hilt r•e v I 1 rr f r � Lrti s MEW 1 - _ L - 6p r y hr 1 1• � _ � rlll�ff�llll �. i VETERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON EXISTING CENTENNIAL PLAZA .yZ EXISTING PARKING •k� � EXISTING FLAG POLES VF � 1 F-MMINJ WALL f PLAZA V + P BELL ST 4L i SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE EDMONDS MUN JA,RVA,RY52015 vr:- 'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON lw - r - -iffAv., Id - M-- I)-- -7 ING FLAG POL So. d I[ !h F. if It %, EXISTING CENTENNIAL PLAZA pm EXISTING PARKING Now-3L---W m I'L 4F a PLAZA show qw !,.r F-4 (�7 BELLST -A w SiteWorkshOPLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Aar r. I EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT CURROJOVESIGN \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON r •� L h _ 1 17 f 1 I 1 ti 1 i _ f 1 1 • 1 Jj r I _ f r r 1 SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE f JA,RVA3RY52015 \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON La SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CQBRp�opESIGN \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON VETER PiV_ — f 0A 120' JAL SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 0 A L i. r' 30 }'4? - JA,RVM5Y52015 VETERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Ast V�'tE I" SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ALI Alm f= CQBRp�opESIGN \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE JAN UARY 2015 CUP,\R�N�ToPESIGN 4 to' nm I .- —"q Non 201 lowlrk F Art **gap &F Tar WlFMm_*lv_i i- . 4"1 4 lK&w v3- wk"m " 74, A foz Ah Jr L9 6 f "',-NI if tr, 0 b r k 'Kip. 24 zi 4W de r c ESICaN A i� 4L WRIM MOTEVAM 2r 0 Mry— \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMERICAN LEGACY �: . STONE �' . - r rI IL -- 1 J _ • 1 r .ti r• T ' � f r - r r 1• r F R I C�e"5 N � LEY � STONE . ST% rLsftpV--l:.-b=vm I r i AMERICAN LEGACypj STONE `_ . SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LD! Packet Page 210 of 1075 VETERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Tank/Pump/Filter/ ' Disinfe ` n v 00 00 00 OPP 00 ' iinel ,.•��'�� 00 A* 00 aterf 4 ` � L �.v WATERFALL Tank/Pump/Filter/ Disinf rain RUNNEL SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE WATER WALL Packet Page 211 of 1075 vr:- 'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON :1 �I 4 SiteWorkshOPLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2015 \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON M • Y fILL i-Al If i J � ` EXISTING TREE A I EXISTING SIDEWALK L SEATING AREA SER_ ..ICE -DOG ' ...STATU E SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE i Ir�i -KiT NSIGN Packet Page 213 of 1075 4 ZI Al AII k6 6*.. 9 rep *9 ir �X fyp, A7 fv IlkIr 'ir -WIN 4e IL AP44P 116 OL v r son.., wA jr.., T'Irl WPM 4-Ar N - I t a 41Y 4P� 4r r9 M, w r -- ,F 'C Cr jpr L jr 41 7 rds, OIC �lk 4 2M iC •1 � {r I� Lip idk i 2 z + 1 ra ri + Lfi1T �it` ■ \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON I _a SEATING CUBES %T I _ I k • � fir. I y y. SEA I WALLS SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE T H, Rb \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FjAV & In N N f 41 1 SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE kp f � y_ 11�7-�' SEATING - C BES BENCHES - •,��.;.s� �.��. . . All SEATWALLS Jug lip GS16 op" I t - \/r:-'ERANS PLAZA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON BENCHES SEATING CUBES SiteWorkshopLLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Packet Page 219 of 1075 i- . low&lrk - - - & - . JLk F Art rm **gap &F Tar WlFMm_*lv_i 4 IK&w v3- wk"m " 74, A foz Ah Jr VMP4 4F 4t 41 m q6 L olp LL -A I i 4L Packei �,gje2TO RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TO AUTHORIZE THE DEDICATION AND NAMING OF VETERANS' PLAZA IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WHEREAS, the City Council would like to recognize the community's sacred obligation to honor the memory of veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty and freedom; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to demonstrate the community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which veterans are held; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to thank and celebrate those who have served in all our Armed Forces; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Edmonds, the Planning Board, and the City Council have an interest in establishing a Veteran's Plaza; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board and the City Council support the location of the Veteran's Plaza outside the City's Public Safety Building; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City of Edmonds is hereby authorized to dedicate and name Veteran's Plaza, to be located outside the Public Safety Building in Edmonds, and to subsequently develop this Plaza. RESOLVED this 20'1 day of May, 2014. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING Packet Page 221 of 1075 -.4 -.4 ,-I --o m fj Ak6 Cr) m CU C: (3) �u u Ln 0 m NC x LU a- CL Packet Page 224 of 1075 0 Ul m u < u z < N z V) Z z = Ln V� Lu a z 1--0 U-J >uj uj LU cc < 3E9 z 0 z 0 LU V) 0 S- 0 4 AM 'I < 0U') 0 2 J r. m Lu LU L/) 0 0 z ul z z;� z Packet Page 225 of 1075 to J N Q Jz � o V) z z= Q �V W 0 F z O W o >W 226 of 1075 a =y Am ■16 y J; • � "r� 'E et a�" V I J N Q J z � o z z= Q� oc N Lu 0 L— Z r 0 LU o >w Packet Page 228 of 1075 3 }i1Alt r t_ � r u • *f 7' Irl J W ^J C LL 7 F- Ow � r cn = u u Q Cu Z to J '11-1*'�,� - A, FI rr yls z W 0 O K J l7 a J u Q z O o w Z cG W LU kn O O d _ A, .. ! tin �... z .i Q z *.: J LAN ' LUwr , V) l7 1a� O0 z jp1 r a ul J z 2 E35 w lw.l Packet Page 231 of 1075 Y N b4 H v h C EL,�2 � C^ N i v 47 N C� ru F LP1 L7 �r C 01 O N C v aJ t — � Q � rraay� mv W '+`• C. to Ol GJ O GJ }O—, d � v W " CuCU •f—`p V w w Ql '� -N '2 Cu Cu fu N X Li p O C O Vl E ECac��a m W 0 N i m G�moLnV� >a d2i2a LALn3: O O O Ln CD O C O CD O CD o o o C) o CDLn CD O O 0 0 0 0 o CDO o o O 0 O o 0 O O- o D O O to o 0 0 o C� Z 0 o O C oL' o o T m L O - � O C M m O. rvi r- rn00 ui %D p Lr1 w .zzr Cn N I� fV rn N (rv1 N Oi LIl M — — N N lO rn m M A{} t^ 4.4 4 !4 ter ta4 J^ t0R J.R ifi toq ia14 a, rn v m m 0 0 01 UJ i Y 2 c co ry c 0 Q N t t � C. d Q C o o 0 �00CM � +� Y u W t to C Ol C 3 Ch LAF- w unW. F' C w L �_ V ro _� L� �n •� c x 7 C O p a O Ol ?� i C GJ .L 'E '� m �, w rn � C —^ E: C � .� E � � C L Q1 d l K � u v Cp v > o rn L N d N �i ate-+ 0 � � � fo � GJ fo C !� 'i � V O L7 U. V a:+ d � vi L. � v o c `o lJ C a Ln CC un in E c a m�-� V1 d N d d V ¢ em u u a Packet Page 232 of 1075 AM-8292 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: 45 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Deuartment: Parks and Recreation Type: Action Information Subject Title Marina Beach Master Plan Approval Recommendation Council approve final Master Plan for Marina Beach 5. B. Previous Council Action Council has been briefed about the Marina Beach Master Plan throughout the process. Council has been interviewed as key stakeholders, invited to open houses and the virtual open houses, and Councilmember Diane Buckshms has been represented on the Project Advisory Committee. Council held a public hearing on August 18, 2015 and discussed. Narrative The Parks Department has been working with Walker Macy, ltd over the past year to complete a Master Plan for Marina Beach Park. This presentation and Public Hearing with the Council will inform the board about the process, public input, and final draft plan for Marina Beach park that is being proposed. Attached to this packet are the following: 1. Draft Master Plan 2. Presentation 3. Cost estimate of plan 4. Site Context 5. Site Analysis 6. Letter received from WSDOT Ferries 7. Depiction of Edmonds Crossing with Marina Beach plan 8. Summary notes from Open Houses 9. Summary notes from PAC team In addition, the Planning Board held a public hearing on August 12th, and The Council held a public hearing on August 18th, 2015. The Planning Board would like the Council to consider the following items for discussion during the public hearing. Since this time, staff have met with the Tulalip tribes representative, and published the draft plan, with no significant comments or concerns. The current plan is compliant with the current code. If the City amends the Critical Area Ordinance, this plan may be impacted. This request is for the Council to approve this current design, and if the CAO prompts changes, staff will come back to Council to work through that process. In addition to this approval, the Council will be asked to formally adopt this as part of the Comprehensive Plan adoption this year, which can consider any changes in the CAO. For reference: Why is the Marina Beach Master Plan needed? Through the City's Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, the community identified the need to restore the Edmonds Marsh, and bring back the capacity for salmon habitat. After careful review, and the completion of a feasibilit; study, the best way to accomplish this is to daylight Willow Creek from the Marsh into the Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park. The Master Planning process v help gather community input on the plan for Marina Beach with this feature. What is the Marina Beach Master Plan? The Marina Beach Master Plan will identify design concepts to improve Marina Beach Park. This includes restoring Willow Creek to become a more natural, above -ground stream — called daylighting the stream. In the feasibility study, the City identified two potential above -ground routes f Willow Creek to connect Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound through the park. Through the master planning process, we will explore these two routes with you and develop a design program, schematic, and implementation schedule. We want to be sure the Master Plan reflects how the park is currently being used, and identifies ways to mitigate any impacts due to changes at the park. What studies have been completed related to the Master Plan? Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan (Feb 2014): This plan provides comprehensive guidance on the development and management of Edmonds' parks, recreation and open space system and the services provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Parks_ and Recreation/PROS Plan _/20140225—Edmonds—PROS Plan _Final.pdf Dayton Street and SR 104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study: The study describes and evaluates the existing system, provides a screening and evaluation of alternatives, and recommends a preferred alternative with an implementation strategy. See document at: htto://www.edmondswa.2ov/images/COE/Govemment/Denartments/Public Works/Stormwater Utility/ndf/Dayton SR 104 Drainage Alternatives Final 08-16-13 Packet Page 233 of 1075 m or Ldf Packet Page 234 of 1075 Willow Creek Daylighting Early Feasibility Study: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. prepared an early feasibility study documenting historical and existing site conditions, alternative Willow Creek daylighting alignments, a preferred daylighting plan, tidal hydraulics and fish habitat assessments of the preferred plan. See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Public_Works/Stormwater Utility/pdf/Finaln/o20 Early_Feasiblity_WillowCreekDaylighting.pd Environmental Impact Statement Willow Creek Geotechnical Assessment: HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed replacement culvert under the BNSF mainline to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations. - See document at: http://www. edmondswa.gov/website-maintenance/department-articles/388-community-services/community-services-projects/ 1216-edmonds-crossing.httnl Willow Creek Geotechnical Assessment: HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed replacement culvert under the BNSF mainline evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations. - See more at: http://marinabeach.publicmeeting.info/Media/MarinaBeach/PDFS/Overview/Willown/o2OCreekn/o2ODaylight%2OProject-Geotechnicaln/o2OAssessment-FINAL.pdf What is the Project Advisory Committee? The Parks Director put together a Project Advisory Committee to work in an ad hoc role to help guide the Master Planning process with the Parks Department and Consultants. This ad hoc committee will meet as needed, and throughout the process. Who is represented on the PAC? • Carrie Hite — Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, City of Edmonds • Renee McRae — Interim Assistant Parks Director. City of Edmonds • Keeley O'Connell —Senior Project Manager, Earth Corps • Jerry Shuster — Stormwater Engineering Program Manager, City of Edmonds • Rich Lindsay — Park Maintenance Manager, City of Edmonds • Diane Buckshnis — Edmonds City Council, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, OLAE • Valerie Stewart — Planning Board, City of Edmonds • Rick Schaeffer — Tetra Tech • Kevin Conefrey — Edmonds Arts Commission • Laura Leeman — Edmonds Moms Group • Susan Smiley — Edmonds Floretum Garden Club • Janice Noe — Edmonds Floretutn Garden Club (Alternate) • Tess Cayou — Edmonds Floretum Garden Club (Alternate) Exhibits that will help understand the process: Site Context: This exhibit illustrates relevant contextual information - rail, vehicular and non -vehicular circulation, parks and significant natural resource areas, existi storm drain alignments, potential Edmonds Crossing alignment, and points of interest. Site Analysis This map illustrates existing park elements and natural features, rail, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation, vegetation, climatic information, and programmatic uses. Final Master Plan Presentation Draft cost of elan Site Context Site Analysis Letter from Ferries Edmonds Crossine with Marina Beach plan Summary: Open House 1 Summary: Open House 2 Summary: Open Houase 3 PAC 2.6.15 PAC 5.21.15 PAC 6.30.15 Marina Beach meetine notes 1 Marina Beach meetine notes 2 Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/27/2016 12:44 PM Mayor Dave Farling 01/27/2016 12:55 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/27/2016 02:35 PM Form Started By: Came Hite Started On: 01/26/2016 12:02 PM Final Approval Date: 01/27/2016 Packet Page 235 of 1075 an ng Packet Page 236 of 1075 MARINA BEACH PARK MASTER PLAN City of Edmonds, Washington OCTOBER 2015 rINAL DRAFT WALKERIMACY Packet Page 237 of 1075 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Carrie Hite, Director Parks Team Renee McRae, Interim Assistant Park Director, City of Edmonds Keeley O'Connell, Senior Project Manager, Earth Corps Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager, City of Edmonds Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager, City of Edmonds Project Advisory Committee Diane Buckshnis, City Council, Floretum Garden Club, OLAE Val Stewart, Planning Board, City of Edmonds Rick Schaeffer, Tetra Tech Susan Smiley, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club Joe Scordino, Community Member (retired NOAA fisheries) Ron Brightman, City of Edmonds Tree Board Laura Leeman, Community Member (Edmonds Moms Group) Kevin Conefrey, Edmonds Arts Commission Consultant Team Walker I Macy - Landscape Architecture Chris Jones, Principal in Charge Mike Zilis, Design Principal Thomas Fischer, Landscape Designer Herrera Environmental Consultants - Environmental Consultants Jeff Parsons, PhD, PE Shannon & Wilson, Inc. - Advisory Environmental Consultants Dave Cline, PE Envirolssues - Public Involvement Katie DeLeuw, Associate JMB Consulting Group, LLC - Cost Estimating Jon Bayles, Principal Packet Page 238 of 1075 FINAL DRAFT INTRODUCTION Packet Page 239 of 1075 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary II. Public Involvement -Community Involvement • Stakeholders • Project Advisory Committee • Public Open Houses • Online Open House • Project Schedule III. Site Analysis • Related Studies • Facts and Figures Existing Amenities Context Analysis • Site Analysis IV. Initial Concepts • Geotechnical Considerations -Creek Alignment Options • Master Plan Alternatives • Public Input V. Master Plan • Master Plan • Master Plan Enlargements • Willow Creek Daylighting • Examples VI. Appendix • Public Open House Notes • Online Open House Notes • Stakeholder Notes • Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes -Additional Public Comments • List of Reference Documents • Graphic References • Cost Estimate IN "A"M 0 91 ;NATA a I INTRODUCTION Packet Page 240 of 1075 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Packet Page 241 of 1075 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Marina Beach Park is a highly used and beloved public open space in the City. With its expansive views to the Puget Sound and its open naturalistic qualities, the park is a compelling place that attracts community members of all ages. The Park was constructed incrementally and without a comprehensive approach. The Master Plan presents an exciting opportunity to conceptualize the park in its entirety and establish a vision for its use over the next twenty years. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, re-established for salmon habitat. After careful review and the completion of a feasibility study, the preferred method to accomplish this is to daylight Willow Creek from Edmonds Marsh into the Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park. Marina Beach Park Master Plan redefines the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The Master Plan was directly derived from an inclusive community process lasting 10 months. A thorough dialogue with the community was undertaken through multiple meetings with the project advisory committee, stakeholder meetings, City of Edmonds planning board, a three part series of public open houses and an online open house. Through this dialogue, ideas discussed and tested, alternatives were evaluated, and the Master Plan formulated. The work was undertaken in two phases. Phase one included site inventory, assessment and development of the park program. Phase two included defining a collective vision and theme for Marina Beach Park and Master Plan development. Given the community's high regard for the current park's character, the Master Plan provides improvements to existing facilities and new park elements that maintain and enhance the connection to the Sound, improves services, clarifies circulation, and incorporates the new natural feature of Willow Creek. Elements of the Master Plan identified by the community include; parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches and picnic tables and BBQ's, Improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. k DAYLIGHTED WILLOW CREEK PERSPECTIVE FINAL DRAFT D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Packet Page 242 of 1075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Overlook Beach & driftwood area BBQ Picnic table and BBQ Paved path Bench Marina Boardwalk 58 stalls, 4 ADA, 2 Motorc 28 stalls overflow parking 75 stalls overflow parking Potential concession area Personal watercraft staging Play Area Possible pedestrian bridge 50' vegetated creek buffer Pedestrian bridge Secondary restroom Bicycle racks Fence Reduced off leash area Dog agility course Willow Creek Marina board walk Restroom and bicycle rack: Vehicular turnaround BNSF railroad Port of Edmonds property Additional buffer at off leash area MASTERPLAN FINAL DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Packet Page 243 of 1075 3 IBLIC W, AENT,J Packet Page 244 of 1075 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The plan was intentionally derived from an on -going dialogue with the community. Through an incremental process, the physical and programmatic aspects of the park were understood, alternatives tested and the final plan developed. A three part series of open houses employed a variety of engagement methods to reach community members including breakout sessions where participants were encouraged to sketch their ideas and engage in meaningful conversations. The community engaged in a dialogue that examined the existing park attributes and short comings, Willow Creek daylighting alignment options, and corresponding opportunities and constraints the creek alignments provided. Key participants included: The City's Parks and Recreation, En gineering and Natural Resources departments, stakeholders and concerned citizens, and user groups such as dog owners, kite boarders and other citizen groups. STAKEHOLDERS The project team conducted a series of stakeholder S y M_:-w . PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE interviews with community members identified by the City of Edmonds. Stakeholders included a range of groups who actively use the park and enabled the project team to gain specific knowledge of the park and its function. Stakeholders included: Edmonds city officials, Woodway city officials, the Port of Edmonds, WSDOT Ferries, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Ranger Naturalists, Seal Sitters, Off Leash Area Edmonds, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and meeting notes were produced and are provided in the appendix. WSDOT (Washington State Ferries) The project team engaged Washington State Ferries as part of the Edmonds Crossing project (Figure 1.7). The Edmonds Crossing Project is a regional project intended to accommodate future growth in travel along the State Route 104 corridor which includes the Edmonds/ Kingston ferry run, provide a long-term solution to current operational and safety conflicts between ferry, passenger/ commuter rail, carpool/automobile, bus, and pedestrian traffic, and reintegrate the Edmonds downtown core and waterfront by removing ferry traffic from the downtown area. The Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Washington State Department of Transportation (including Washington State Ferries), and City of Edmonds propose to develop a multimodal center that would integrate ferry, commuter and intercity rail, and transit services into a single complex. A realigned SR 104, from its current intersection with Pine Street, would provide access. WSDOT (Washinton State Ferries) does not currently have funding to advance the project beyond the schematic plans illustrated in Figure 1.7. The project team has reconfigured on site parking beneath the schematic alignment of the proposed Edmonds Crossing project to best minimize potential future conflicts between the two uses. Further studies will be necessary if the project moves forward. Tribes Integral to the public outreach process was engaging tribes which maintain fishing rights in this region of the Puget Sound. The team initially engaged Todd Zatkey of the Tulalip Tribes. The Tulalips had no issue with the proposed Marina Beach Master Plan. The City of Edmonds will be mailing notices to the other tribes which include the Suquamish, Muckelshoot, Stillaguamish, Swinomish, FINAL DRAFT 12 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Packet Page 245 of 1075 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE S'Kalllam, and Snoqualmie. Each tribe will also be notified of the proposed improvements through the SEPA application and Corp Permit Process. PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) The Parks Team and Project Advisory Committee convened to provide guidance to the Master Plan. This ad hoc committee was representative of park users, the Planning Board, Floretum Garden Club, OLAE, project manager for the Marsh project, and city staff. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE ONE On March 4, 2015, the City hosted an open house at the Edmonds Plaza Room to share information about the park and to solicit input regarding possible modifications and improvements. The open house included display boards showing relevant contextual information about the site, analysis of the existing elements and alignment concepts FINAL DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT for daylighting Willow Creek. The project team provided information on the physical aspects of the park, schedule, Willow Creek alignment options and connections between Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek. Attendees split into five groups to discuss their opinions about Marina Beach Park, whatthey hoped to see in the future and their opinions on the possible Willow Creek alignment concepts. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through Survey Monkey. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE TWO On May 6, 2015, the City hosted the second open house at the Edmonds Plaza Room to provide a forum for discussion regarding potential improvements to the park. The open house was attended by over 100 people and included display boards showing updated alignment concepts for daylighting Willow Creek and initial concepts for the park. The project team presented the project background, a recap of feedback following the first open house, and PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE 13 Packet Page 246 of 1075 an overview of the two updated Willow Creek alignment options and initial concepts for the park. Attendees split into groups to discuss their preferences related to the two Willow Creek alignment options and the initial park plans. They also provided feedback on park elements not included in the parks plans that they would like included in the master plan. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through Survey Monkey. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE THREE On July 8, 2015 the City hosted the third and final open house at the Edmonds Plaza Room to discuss the preferred Master Plan option and illicit feedback. The open house included display boards showing the preferred concept for the Marina Beach Master Plan, including an alignment for daylighting Willow Creek. r f 9 jP i t PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE The project team presented the project background and a recap of feedback from previous public outreach efforts including the Project Advisory Committee, stakeholder meetings, in -person open houses and online open houses. Additionally, the project team described the two Marina Beach Park plans and Willow Creek alignment options previously under consideration. The preferred Master Plan was then described in detail. The presentation was followed by an open forum and an informal open house. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through web comment form as well. ONLINE OPEN HOUSE During the process, the City conducted an online open house in conjunction with the three public open houses. The information presented in the three public open houses was shared on the city's website in addition to encouraging digital visitors to provide feedback through a Survey Monkey survey. The digital survey provided valuable community feedback that is provided in the appendix of the master plan. PROJECT SCHEDULE The scope of work for the Marina Beach Master Plan consisted of two phases. Phase one included site inventory, assessment and development of the park program. This included thorough review of existing site conditions and adjacencies resulting in analysis diagrams describing the physical and functional attributes of the park. Phase two included schematic design and implementation. Two concept options were developed that defined a collective vision and theme for Marina Beach Park, and a Preferred Master Plan was refined. The complete project schedule is included in the appendix (Figure 1.1). FINAL DRAFT 14 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Packet Page 247 of 1075 December January February March April May June July August September 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Assemble background info. Inventory an Summarize PROJECT SCHEDULE This diagram illustrates the timeline of phases one and two of the Master Plan. FINAL DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 15 Packet Page 248 of 1075 Packet Page 249 of 1075 SITE ANALYSIS Prior to the first public open house, the design team conducted an extensive site analysis process that examined the existing conditions of Marina Beach Park. This included research and documentation, site visits to review park conditions, data gathering using geographical information systems (GIS), and mapping existing physical attributes. The site analysis phase included reviewing and documenting existing park elements, uses, circulation, vegetation classifications, topographical, and architectural elements present in the park. Additionally, the project team worked with the City to understand the existing uses and facilities. Previous studies related to the Park and Willow Creek were reviewed by the project team and used to inform the development of initial Willow Creek alignment options and master plan options. LAND OWNERSHIP The City currently owns the 4.94 acre parcel. The City also leases a portion of the adjacent property and fence bordering BNSF railway from BNSF. Most of the tidelands are owned by the State Department of Natural Resources. PARKING There are currently42 paved surface stalls, 4 paved surface ADA stalls and 16 gravel surface stalls. The adjacent port property provides 103 paved surface overflow stalls. WILLOW CREEK CULVERT The existing culvert located north of the park pipes Willow Creek from Edmonds Marsh beneath Admiral Way to where it is exposed at the ground surface, prior to being piped below ground to the Puget Sound. PORT OF EDMONDS/MARINA BOARD WALK The Port of Edmonds, adjacent to Marina Beach Park includes wet and dry boat storage, Port parking, moorage and boat launch facilities, restaurants and restrooms. The Marina Board Walk pedestrian walkway extends North along the west edge of the Port connecting to the Edmonds Marine walkway and Brackett's Landing South. PARK USES The park currently supports several uses including walking, active and passive play, natural play, volleyball, 1 acre of open lawn space, picnicking, BBQ's, kite flying, bird watching, storm watching, interpretive signage, temporary concessions and 1.3 acre off leash area. There are portable restrooms available near the off leash area and picnick tables and benches throughout the park. Residents report enjoying the beach access, open lawn, off leash area, accessibility, wildlife, views, interaction with nature, opportunities for active recreation, environmental teaching opportunities and pedestrian connections to the Port. VIEWS The park provides incredible views across the Puget Sound to the North, West, and South. The existing rock outcrop provides an opportunity as a vantage point for views across the Sound. FINAL DRAFT SITE ANALYSIS Packet Page 250 of 1075 pirr g: isiY Wk 4 5 1 8 MARINA BEACH AERIAL IMAGE FINAL DRAFT SITE ANALYSIS 19 Packet Page 251 of 1075 OFF LEASH AREA The current 1.3 acre off leash area occupies the southern portion of the park and is heavily used by the community. The off leash area is desirable for it's views and access to the Puget Sound and is maintained by the Off Leash Area Edmonds (OLAE) volunteer organization. PLAYGROUND The 1,700 SQ FT playground provides active play opportunities with the existing play structure and soft play surfacing. WALKING PATHS Paved walking paths provide looped pedestrian circulation around the current open lawn areas while natural surface paths provide circulation through the beach and driftwood areas. AMENITIES Existing park amenities include: BBQ stands, picnic tables, benches, drinking fountain, loop trail, open turf area, play area. volleyball net, portable Restrooms, small craft hand - carry boating launch and designated off leash dog area. BNSF RAILROAD The BNSF railroad runs North/South parallel to the eastern edge of the Park. RELATED STUDIES: Several related studies have been completed prior to the Marina Beach Master Plan that either influence or are directly related to the Master Plan. The following studies informed the project team during the master planning process. PARKS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN This plan provides comprehensive guidance on the development and management of Edmonds' parks, recreation and open space system and the services provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. DAYTON STREET AND SR 104 STORM DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES STUDY The study describes and evaluates the existing system, provides a screening and evaluation of alternatives, and recommends a preferred alternative with an implementation strategy. WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING EARLY FEASIBILITY STUDY Shannon & Wilson, Inc. prepared an early feasibi I ity study documenting historical and existing site conditions, alternative Willow Creek daylighting alignments, a preferred daylighting plan, tidal hydraulics and fish habitat assessments of the preferred plan. WILLOW CREEK GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed replacement culvert under the BNSF mainline to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Proceeding the initial creek alignment options and Master Plan alternatives Shannon & Wilson, Inc. prepared a geotechnical assessment to evaluate the potential effects of proposed channel excavations and develop conceptual level design recommendations to mitigate hazards if necessary. They reviewed existing data and performed subsurface explorations to evaluate the stability of the proposed excavations and other geotechnical considerations for conceptual design during the feasibility phase prior to the Marina Beach Park master plan. The subsurface explorations were FINAL DRAFT 20 SITE ANALYSIS Packet Page 252 of 1075 conducted along both preliminary creek alignment options to characterize soil and geologic conditions present in Marina Beach Park. During subsurface explorations an archeologist with Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. was present to document the possible presence of pre- historic and historical items. Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on select samples retrieved from the explorations to characterize the index and engineering properties of the subsurface soils in Marina Beach Park. PRELIMINARY CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Cultural Resources, Inc. prepared a cultural resources assessment for the Willow Creek Day Lighting Early Feasibility Study. This report addresses potential impacts to cultural resources in the in the surveyed areas of the existing Marina Beach Park where geotechnical testing Dayton St. Willow Creek Du, II WSDOT St rmdrain Outf ��. to was conducted during the Assessment. EDMONDS CROSSING IMPACT STATEMENT Willow Creek Geotechnical FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the City of Edmonds submitted the SR 104 Edmonds Crossing Environmental Final Environmental Impact Statement that analyzes the proposed relocation of the existing state ferry terminal from Main Street to another site farther from the downtown core. Creek 5 C Intersection with Recurrent Flooding O 00 _ UAYTQN ST O O � O I PANIC EXISTING DRAINAGE DIAGRAM p ' lu tr es exi g ina e es. Existing creeks and ditches are shown in blue while existing pipes 1 s e how in ffmig mproving the marsh is to replace the piped willow creek outfall with an Fppe at I c ha s mion. SITE ANALYSIS 21 Packet Page 253 of 1075 PUGET SOUND EDMONDS CROSSING BREAKWATER EXISTING WSOOT STORMDRAIN OUTFALL EXISTING WILLOW CREEK OUTFALL EDMONDS - KINGSTON FERRY FISHING PIER EXISTING DAYTON ST OUTFALL E------ W�,LUE BEACH CAFE /* ♦♦♦_ UNOCAL PROPERTY MONDS CROSSINGS ` S ATER ARK BRACKETT'S •�. LANDING NORTH BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH i ♦♦♦ ♦ �! C OBC �•♦ ON EACHTAO ` Nil ♦ DAYT N ST OQO O G I ❑ e /♦ Q HARBOR �OUAR � ❑ _SHELLABARGER AR Li F 17 9 0 CITY PARK O 0 CONTEXT ANALYSIS This map illustrates relevant contextual information - rail, vehicular and non -vehicular circulation, parks and significant natural resource areas, existing storm drain alignments, potential Edmonds FtN Att, DIn interest. 22 SITE ANALYSIS Packet Page 254 of 1075 EXISTING #d01f1111 EXISTING WILLOW STOd/ 1 11 1 1 CREEK OUTFACE OUTFUTFA�L/I � I I I I I I I I \ hl �v 111111��\. \ 1 PUGETSpUND� i i 1v�111111iIv1vvvvvv�0� �� PLAY H16Q ER\ \\ \ BEACH AND DRIFT r \ \ \ WOOD AREA i\ 0 \ \ I I' P WjQ ' IENIC `` \\ \ `GE�SO�N� \ BENCH,TYP. TABLE,TYP. 00 LAIN --- \ 0 AV PEDESTRMN)CIRCULATIQN \ \ `\ ♦ �IP RAP ` % / �� ♦♦ 1 I I I III.' �%'`i\� ♦v I /♦ / ) I I I I / 1 0.*.- / SMALLDDG ARFA. / / I I I _ I I I / / l / •'r,%�l `�� \ I 1 \I 111 `�_ DRIFT \WOOD I / I / 1 J I 2 ( OFF LEASH AREA EDMONDS" POINT EDWARDS — CONDO[AINIUMS SITE ANALYSIS This map illustrates existing park elements and natural features, rail, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation, vegetation, FNAIL , aDRAFT SITE ANALYSIS 23 Packet Page 255 of 1075 IV. INITIAL CONCE Packet Page 256 of 1075 INITIAL CONCEPTS The project team developed three initial creek alignment options based upon previous studies and direction from the City. The creek alignment options were presented by the project team at the first and second public open houses. Each of the three alignments offers opportunities and constraints to the creek viability and the park layout. Based upon analysis from related studies, input from the City, the public open houses, and the community two preferred master plan options were developed. Initial creek alignment option one was discarded due to its engineering constraints of the hard turn required and the likely potential of the creek receiving high sedimentation from the Puget Sound in the future. INITIAL CREEK ALIGNMENT - OPTION 1 Creek alignment option 1 locates Willow Creek in the southernmost portion of the Park. A vegetated buffer is shown on either side of the creek based on current state standards for protecting natural resources. This alignment requires the least park space and retains the current parking lot configuration. The sharp bend creek alignment is not ideal for creek hydrology. This alignment requires the removal or relocation of the existing off leash area. INITIAL CREEK ALIGNMENT - OPTION 2 Creek alignment option 2 locates Willow Creek centrally in the Park. A vegetated buffer is shown on either side of the creek as per state standards. This alignment requires significant space through the Park and it provides a direct path for the creek. This alignment requires the removal of a significant amount of existing trees and lawn space. This alignment allows the retention of the existing off leash area but requires pedestrian bridges for access. INITIAL CREEK ALIGNMENT - OPTION 3 Creek alignment option 3 locates Willow Creek centrally in the Park. A vegetated buffer is shown on both sides of the creek. This alignment has a creek outfall further south than option 2 and provides the most retention of existing 26 park space north and south of the creek. This alignment also allows for the retention of the existing off leash area but requires pedestrian bridges for access. MARINA BEACH PARK \ 100' BUFFER FROM OHW \ ORDINARY HIGH WATERRE i i C MEL ��,••• / FUTURE WILLOW CREEK CULNERY K CREE OUTFALL i v /y ii ii ii ii /EGWARDBi i PDINi / -J CREEK ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 FINAL DRAFT INITIAL CONCEPTS Packet Page 257 of 1075 CREEK ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 FINAL DRAFT Him 80119.11kIuIHI" BEACH PARK WILLOW CREEK `\ `\ OUTFALL\ ORDINARY HIGH WATER- \ `. FUTURE WILLOW 100'BUFFER FROM OHW //JI / CHEEK CULVERT OFF LEASH AREA EDMONDS - TO REMAIN{ / 1 /QOPO /C /y m CREEK ALIGNMENT OPTION 3 INITIAL CONCEPTS Packet Page 258 of 1075 27 MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES The project team developed two master plan alternatives based on the aspirations of the community, the physical setting and the initial creek alignment options. Creek alignment options two and three provided the best opportunities for both the ecological functioning of the new resource and the park uses and functions. The two master plan alternatives examined locations of park elements, parking and connectivity, links to the beach and views and the balance of active and passive uses in the park. The Alternatives were presented at the second public open house and online open house to solicit community input. Generally participants were focused on park function, the importance of separation of the off leash area and the active park uses and the locations of beach access. MASTER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE A This alternative incorporated initial creek alignment option 3 which will outlet just north of the existing overlook area. This alignment allows for the most contiguous park space while maintaining the off leash dog area in its current location. Park elements were reconfigured to accommodate the desired program. A restroom, picnic tables, nature play and an overlook were added to improve the park experience. In this alternative, a significant portion of the park remains dedicated to a driftwood zone while allowing flexible spAace for active and passive recreation opportunities, like beach volleyball. A bridge over Willow Creek provides access to the off leash area. The reconfigured parking lot maintains the existing number of stalls (standard and ADA) while providing a formal drop off and pick up. Alternative A includes: 1.1 acres natural area 0.6 acres lawn area 1,800 square feet play area 1 acre off leash area MASTER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE B This alternative incorporated initial creek alignment option 2 which bisects the current lawn mounds, parking areas and the existing beach and driftwood zone. The off leash dog area remains in its current location. Park elements have been reconfigured to maintain the current uses. A restroom, picnic tables, nature play and an overlook have been added to improve the park user experience. A curved bridge provides access to the dog park, an overlook and a waterfront lawn area. This lawn area is intended for active and passive recreation as well as staging personal watercraft. The reconfigured parking lot maintains the existing number of stalls (standard and ADA). Alternative B includes: 2.2 acres natural area 0.6 acres lawn area 1,600 square feet play area 1 acre off leash area PUBLIC INPUT 75% of public open house attendees preferred alternative A with some modifications The parking turnaround is preferred. Restroom locations works well but could be more centrally located or include an additional restroom for off leash area users. More open lawn space would be preferable. More than one overlook is preferred. Separation between dogs and humans is preferred. FINAL DRAFT INITIAL CONCEPTS Packet Page 259 of 1075 I Natural area 2 Lawn s Play 4 Willow Creek 5 Off leash area 6 Parking 7 Overlook s Pedestrian bridge 5 / 0 MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE A FINAL DRAFT INITIAL CONCEPTS 1 Natural area 2 Lawn s Play 4 Willow Creek 5 Off leash area 6 Parking 7 Overlook s Pedestrian bridge 0 MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE B 29 Packet Page 260 of 1075 V_ MASTER PLAN Packet Page 261 of 1075 MASTER PLAN The Marina Beach Park Master Plan is the direct result of the public process whereby citizens had significant input regarding the program and locations of elements. Input from three public open houses, online open houses, interaction with stakeholders, TAC and CAC and direction from the City of Edmonds helped shape the final plan. Improvements include the following: At the vehicular entry to the park there is a small plaza providing bicycle racks and a small permanent restroom. The parking lot is re -configured to improve access, provide ADA and motorcycle parking and a vehicular turnaround & drop off. Large areas of open lawn space are integrated into the design providing flexible open space for passive and active recreation. The off leash dog area and agility course remain near their current locations separated from Willow Creek and vegetated buffer by fencing. Two proposed pedestrian bridges connect the south and north sides of the park providing service and security access to all areas. Pedestrian circulation is improved with paved paths throughout the park that connect to the existing marina board walk and to new overlooks on the beach providing seating with incredible views across the Puget Sound. A plaza area is provided adjacent to the vehicular turnaround that includes an improved permanent restroom, bicycle racks, and space for potential concessions. Seating is improved throughout the park with benches and picnic tables including BBQ's. Some trees are preserved while new trees are planted throughout the park and along the northern property line bordering the marina. The playground area is relocated to a centralized accessible area providing upgraded play equipment and possible adjacent areas for nature play. The Willow Creek daylighting alignment is shown including a required 50' vegetated buffer north and 75' vegetated buffer south of the creek. The creek buffers include native plantings, trees, and un-paved walking paths. The beach and driftwood areas along the waterfront will generally remain in place while a designated area for light personal watercraft staging is provided. This plan marks a new exciting era for the park in which both ecological and park uses are integrated and the community has increased opportunities to enjoy this incredible resource. Estimate of probable construction cost: Site preparation $530,000 Site improvements $1,692,000 Utilities $350,000 General Requirements $309,000 Bidding and contingencies $288,000 Total: $3,169,000 1 Overlook 2 Beach & driftwood area 3 BBQ 4 Picnic table and BBQ 5 Paved path 6 Bench 7 Marina Boardwalk 8 58 stalls, 4 ADA, 2 Motorcycle 9 28 stalls overflow parking 10 75 stalls overflow parking 11 Potential concession 12 Personal watercraft staging & hand launching 13 Play Area 14 Possible pedestrian bridge 15 50' vegetated creek buffer 16 Pedestrian bridge 17 Secondary restroom 18 Bicycle racks 19 Fence 20 Reduced off leash area 21 Dog agility course 22 Willow Creek 23 Marina board walk 24 Restroom and bicycle racks 25 Vehicular turnaround 26 BNSF railroad 27 Port of Edmonds 28 Additional buffer at off leash area FINAL DRAFT 32 MASTER PLAN Packet Page 262 of 1075 MASTERPLAN FINAL DRAFT MASTER PLAN 33 Packet Page 263 of 1075 I r I I 2 3 I 4 L J 5 6 7 8 9 10 KEYMAP i i 1 Q i i i i i i 3a 2 1 \l i i 1�6 �6 3a 9 10 Overlook Beach & driftwood area BBQ Picnic table and BBQ Paved path Benches Existing marina boardwalk 58 stalls, 4 ADA, 2 Motorcycle Potential concession Personal watercraft staging 11 Bicycle racks 12 Restroom 13 Accessible parking 14 Vehicular turnaround 15 Port of Edmonds 1 Is MASTERPLAN NORTH ENLARGEMENT FINAL DRAFT 34 MASTER PLAN Packet Page 264 of 1075 I Play area 2 Possible pedestrian bridge 3 50' vegetated creek buffer r-_____- 4 Pedestrian bridge I I 5 Restroom 6 I I Bicycle racks _- J 7 Fence s Reduced off leash area 9 Willow Creek 10 Overlook KEYMAP ` 0 14 creek buffer creek buffer i +g' +11' MASTERPLAN SOUTH ENLARGEMENT FINAL DRAFT MASTER PLAN 11 Un-paved path 12 Picnic table 13 Picnic table with BBQ 14 Benches 15 Off leash area entry gate 16 BNSF railroad 17 Additional buffer at off leash area 35 Packet Page 265 of 1075 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING The Marina Beach Master Plan includes establishing Willow Creek as a naturalized above -ground stream — which is referred to as daylighting of the stream. Daylighting Willow Creek at Marina Beach Park will reconnect Edmonds Marsh with the Puget Sound. The new channel will be driven primarily by tidal flow exchange to and from Edmonds Marsh. A portion of the flow will also be freshwater, from Willow and Shellabarger Creeks. The new creek channel will be located vertically in the intertidal zone, near the mean tide level. The new channel bed material will be sandy -gravel. The top of channel banks along the eastern portion of the park will be five to ten feet above the storm line and mean higher high water line, respectively. The location of tidal channel banks will be two to four feet above the mean higher high water line in the open beach western park areas; below the storm line in the open beach areas. The creek dimensions at low tide will be several inches deep across a roughly ten to fifteen foot wide channel. The creek dimensions at high tide will be three to five feet deep and roughly thirty to forty feet wide. The creek dimensions during winter storm surge and/or extreme tide conditions will be as much as seven to eight feet deep, for a short period of time. The storm line currently is higher than the existing beach elevation, which will not change with the project. Vegetation along the channel on the eastern side of the park will be a mosaic of native upland trees and shrubs along top and upper portions of the bank. Lower bank areas along the channel in the eastern side of the park will transition to salt -tolerant shrubs, sedges and grasses to an elevation above the mean tide level. Vegetation along the channel in the western side of the park and current open beach area will look very similar to today's beach. The upper channel banks will have sporadic patchwork of driftwood and salt -grasses, and the bed of the channel will have similar sandy -gravelly materials. The public can witness the creek though a variety of places. From either of the bridges, one will receive un- obstructed views up and down stream. Along the soft surface paths, visitors can enjoy the natural setting provided by the vegetative buffer and see the creek from multiple locations. Visitors can also enjoy seeing the creek join the Sound along the beach. CREEK DAYLIGHTING EXAMPLE, CARKEEK PARK SEATTLE SOFT SURFACE PATH EXAMPLE FINAL DRAFT 36 MASTER PLAN Packet Page 266 of 1075 milmolwahm EXAMPLES The following examples describe the type of improvements proposed in the park: OVERLOOK EXAMPLE NATURE PLAY EXAMPLE SIGNAGE EXAMPLE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EXAMPLE OVERLOOKS Three overlooks are proposed in the Master Plan. The overlooks are oriented in different directions to provide dramatic views across the Puget Sound. The overlooks include seating elements and are connected to paved path walkways for accessibility. NATURE PLAY Nature play areas are located adjacentto the improved play area and are intended to provide imaginative opportunities for children to play in a natural setting. SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING Improved signage will help users navigate throughout the park. Interpretive signs will be provided to help educate visitors about the park's natural setting. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Two pedestrian bridges are envisioned in the Master Plan to help facilitate looped circulation through the park. The pedestrian bridges are envisioned to be aesthetically pleasing, made of sustainable materials and connect different types of users to all areas of the park. The bridge connecting directly to the off leash area will also provide maintenance and emergency access. FINAL DRAFT W MASTER PLAN Packet Page 268 of 1075 EXAMPLES M iPLEASE PURCHASE �:��Gj srov , l M,1:915-1 IQ , ♦ - 1I IN 4 PERMANENT RESTROOM EXAMPLE SECONDARY RESTROOM EXAMPLE PLAY EQUIPMENT EXAMPLE FINAL DRAFT MASTER PLAN CONCESSIONS Given the high use of the park during the summer, a space has been provided for seasonal concessions to be provided within the plaza. RESTROOM The existing portable restrooms will be upgraded to permanent restroom facilities that are aesthetically pleasing and meet accessibility requirements. SECONDARY RESTROOM A secondary unisex restroom is located near the entry to the Park. This additional restroom is provided to meet current demand. Providing facilities for those entering the park, as well as those who are accessing the off leash area. PLAY AREA The existing play equipment will be upgraded to provide increased play value and developmental benefits. 39 Packet Page 269 of 1075 APPENDIX Packet Page 270 of 1075 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE 1 MEETING NOTES Public open house 1 was held on March 4, 2015 at the Edmonds plaza room, Edmonds WA. Members of the public in attendance were approximately 40. I. What elements of Marina Beach Park did attendees like? Beach access Openness and unstructured nature of beach Natural features and balance with hardscapes (e.g., driftwood, rocky inner tidal zone) Grassy area Sandy north beach Separation of play area and play structure Dog park Ability to walk down the beach and other walking paths Wildlife (e.g., seals, marine life, whales, birds) Family accessible Healthy environment View of mountains Active area and sports (e.g., kiteboarding, kayaking, volleyball, windsurfing, fishing) Opportunities for interaction with naturalists and beach rangers Accessibility for high school students to work on projects at the beach Picnicking and BBQ Connectivity to the port Quiet place to sit Pedestrian access from the north Knoll structure Views and photography Sufficient ADA parking and ok parking capacity II. What elements of Marina Beach Park did attendees dislike? Port a potties Lack of parking and no parking turnaround Erosion at south end Dog park - concerns about whether dog park is best use of real estate Dogs chasing wildlife and smell from dog park III. What elements of Marina Beach would attendees change? What elements would attendees like to in- clude? Increase ADA parking More picnic tables Keep the rustic feel of the park Add fire pits More ways to walk on beach (driftwood makes walking difficult) Relocate dog park (concerns that build-up of acid is not conducive to salmon -friendly habitat) Better signage (entrance/dog park/from Port walkway) More natural playground area (not primary colors) Make parking in a loop to lessen congestion Allow for watercraft access Address stormwater runoff (e.g., runoff from SR 104 and Shoreline) Connect pedestrian access to east side of railroad tracks and connect pedestrian walkways to parking Connect beach to marsh trail Permanent bathrooms Replenish the sand Provide walkway to birds Ensure that dog park keeps dogs in Increase salmon habitat More seating in park area Prefer to keep beach in its historic or natural state Add a nature center Create a new overlook structure Use pier footing as overlook but soften/add seating and a telescope More seating in the park. IV. Attendee feedback on Willow Creek alignments: Alignment A: Likes: takes up less of parking area; doesn't take park space. Concerns: requires too much fencing; concerns about children near creek when water level can increase 4 or 5 feet; impacts of dog park to creek. Alignment B: Likes: natural curve; more organic layout; permanent restrooms; maintains natural habitat; allows for more recreational opportunities; reduces size of park, but okay if it increases access to the boat site; more educational FINAL DRAFT 42 APPENDIX Packet Page 271 of 1075 opportunities; more fish friendly. • .Concerns: too disruptive; tree loss from grassy area; loss of lawn; needs a pedestrian overpass; loses more beach real estate. Suggestions for alternative options: Daylight along historic pier location; instead of curving, have the stream come straight through the middle through the old pier and pipes. General concerns/comments: where will dogs go temporarily during construction; soil testing and contamination; pedestrian bridges; putting a parking lot in the Uni-Cal area; allowing access to the marsh from the park; extending dusk hours. V. Other questions/feedback Attendees asked how wide the creek will be — project staff said this topic would be covered at the next open house in May. One attendee, Val Stewart, suggested outreach with high school students. She offered to distribute a survey or materials at the high school to help promote engagement with the project. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE 2 MEETING NOTES Public open house 2 was held on May 6, 2015 at the Edmonds plaza room, Edmonds WA. Members of the public in attendance were approximately 100. Option 1 Feedback and questions included: Like parking turnaround Like restroom location Natural channel Closest walk to beach More people beach less loss Middle ground Less channel, lower cost Like two overlooks Option 1 is more continuous, open Don't like restroom location in option 1; want a more centrally located restroom, or additional restrooms Add southern overlook to option 1 Separates dogs and people best Want longer walking trails ILI *WAAAk 21 Connect trail to marsh boardwalk area Keep play area natural Need better signage for dog area Option 2 Feedback and questions included: Best for salmon Better buffer creek and dog park Drop off roundabout is needed for buses Motorcycle parking Kids love the playground, nature play area More signage to limit dog park area Like a lookout options Protect from oil spill and SW Education at dog park Why did dog park stay? Is this the best use of the park? FC pollution Like consolidation of play and lawn area Second bridge on west end for both options that also provides an overlook Bathrooms are located in non -dog area; what do dog people do to access bathrooms? Choose the less costly maintenance version Impact of coal dust on daylight Lawn area is wasted, used by dog park Southern portion will become all dog park General feedback on and questions about the park plans included: Like walkway ADA access to beach Would like tsunami info Remove park from marine sanctuary or keep as a marine sanctuary? Dogs on leash ok in park Keep play area natural Concerned about wave action causing erosion — will have to work harder to maintain Add porta potties during busier times of year Add motorcycle parking Add firepits More picnic tables Put restrooms towards entrance of parking lot, middle of parking lot and one towards the end Choose less costly option Suggest 3-point turn around because it would take less room APPENDIX Packet Page 272 of 1075 43 Concern about coal dust on daylighted creek 2.Which alternative creek alignment do you prefer? Option 1 Feedback included: Less lawn space Like second lawn area with restrooms Option 2 Feedback included: • Liked two lookouts and lawn area General feedback on and questions about the creek alignments included: Need another pedestrian bridge Like the auto turn around Need better signage Need signage for community education Move restroom down to other location, Leave area as marine sanctuary Consider option to move restroom to entry of parking lot Want to keep as much of dog park as possible Keep lookout as is 3. What park elements are not included in the alternatives that you would like included in the master plan? Increase ADA parking Walkway at grade should be flat Keep play area natural More fire pits and BBQ pits Second gate to dog park (beside bridge) Extend option 1 lookout from the bridge in option 2 Showers and waterfront/fountain Outdoor fitness for adults Second walkway to cross creek on water side Some type of shelter More walking trails More picnic tables Eliminate turnaround in favor of a three point turn to get more parking ADA requirements for both plans Connect train into marsh Space for kiteboarding launch — space clear of vegetation, unobstructed from north to south winds Additional open park area Off -leash area at Pine Ridge Park Pay parking for non-residents to cut down on traffic to create funding source Provide shuttle from top foods to park As much lawn as possible Restrooms should be more centrally located, or have additional locations PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE 3 MEETING NOTES Public open house 3 was held on July 8, 2015 at the Edmonds plaza room, Edmonds WA. Members of the public in attendance were approximately 30. Summary of Q&A session: How big is the proposed round -about? 45-foot diameter. We considered an option without the round -about but feedback showed overwhelming support. There is also a fire code that requires a round- about or a T-shaped end; the round -about option would solve that problem and help traffic flow in parking lot. Will there be a place allocated for concessions? Yes, there is a specific place that can be used for concessions. There seems to be a lot of trees in the green space. A lot of people play games that require open space yet the space is not as open as it could be. • Good comment, we should take that into consideration. Do you envision the playground to be in the trees or bright and sunny? Bright and sunny. I don't like the hill in the lawn area because so much of it is sloping and can't be used. -The proposed hill is much lower than the existing one. Are the mature trees going to be able to be saved? • No, unfortunately not. The trees were attempted to be saved but will need to be removed. Will there be an increase or decrease in parking spots? • No, there will be the same number of spots. There will be an area for overflow parking as there is today. FINAL DRAFT M] APPENDIX Packet Page 273 of 1075 Can we add motorcycle spots to formalize motorcycle parking instead of taking over a whole parking spot with a motorcycle? • Good idea, we will consider that as well. What's the distance from parking to water for boat - launch area? • We are not sure of these details off hand and will need to follow up on this. Will there be paved access to the boat -launch? • Paved access all the way to launch is not part of the Preferred Master Plan. How do you reconcile marine sanctuary requirements with current lovely use of the beach? • We have a naturalist program to teach people about the natural features. We don't want people disturbing the natural habitat. What are your contingencies for moving everything southward due to major displacement? City of Edmonds is in discussion with the Washington State Department of Transportation and Washington State Ferries regarding Edmonds Crossing. The proposed alignment is adjacent to the north end of Marina Beach Park. Our understanding is that they are not at a point to discuss real plans at this time, and they are not sure when the crossing would move forward. As we continue to develop the Master Plan and get closer to construction, we will have better information and will continue to meet with WSF. Is there a practical reason why you can't move the park/ creek further south? • Yes, moving the design to the south would result in increased sediment deposits and erosion. Geomorphically, with the shoreline drift processes, the more northerly you go the more stable the stream area is. This is based on the amount of time and strength of wind. The drift direction is generally from the south. Moving the park south would require an armored channel due to railroad tracks, and is likely to negatively affect fish, kids, dogs, etc. Open house feedback: Preferences: FINAL DRAFT Shade at a park because of sunburn/heat. Close proximity of dog park to kids play area to be able to keep track of both. Flat, useable lawn. Sunny playground. Shower or foot washing station. Second bridge because of view, circuit and no dogs. Grass areas. Concession availability. Like the turnaround. Questions and suggestions How will kids use the creek? Add recycle bins. Want working water fountains — no bottled waters. Lessen trees in the open lawn. Include motorcycle parking. Include ADA parking at port — could be more efficient and it's possible to add spaces. ONLINE OPEN HOUSE NOTES Online Open House #1: Survey Monkey responses Updated: 3/18/2015 Total survey participants: 19 1. What activities do you enjoy at Marina Beach Park? Responses (17): Walking the beach, enjoying the view, having lunch or dinner while enjoying the view. Birding, walking, enjoying the view Sitting on the beach for the scenery, reading and enjoy- ing the view; playing with our grandkids in the sand; picnics with kids and family Sitting on the beach Viewing wildlife, watching sunsets, climbing on the driftwood Dog park, views, access to beach especially at minus tides The off leash dog area exclusively Walking on the beach, summers sitting at the beach and the off -leash dog park Having picnics at the tables as well as playing frisbee, soccer, and football on the lawn. In addition to playing volleyball in the sand and barbecues at the grills. Watching young seals, exploring tide pools, walking the APPENDIX Packet Page 274 of 1075 45 beach, enjoying the view, playing in the sand. Walking, playground, beach walking, enjoying the view Off -leash dog play area, picnics on the beach, lawns Walking the beach, bird -watching, people -watching, sunsets Walks, OLAE, picnics, wildlife and windsurPer viewing Walking, running, swimming, enjoying the weather. Sun tanning, sports on the grass enjoying the beach. I like to walk through marina and walk around park, and enjoy the beach, including sunbathing and the children's play area. It is one of the nicest, sandiest beaches north of West Seattle. Beach combing. meeting with friends. sights. 2. What do you consider to be the most important features of Marina Beach Park? Responses (16): Access to the water, beach and room for family groups to enjoy a cook out on the beach The fact that dogs are not allowed. It just needs to be enforced. Unfortunately, many dog owners are scofflaws and there is little enforcement. Its minimally structured beauty. The expanse of grass leads way to a variety of activities, the driftwood beach attracts people to sit and relax or play - while enjoying the beauty of our area. Open areas for playing and enjoying the beach Pedestrian trails, walkways, and bridges,natural features Access to water and beach The off leash dog area Public access and a variety of uses. That there is variety of settings, you have the lawn, the playground, the volleyball, the grills and finally the beach. But the grass is most important because it is the only beach in Edmonds that has a little bit of lawn where people can play and enjoy the day. The natural features - sand, water, driftwood, etc. and life. Beach, green lawn hill, walkway, view of activites, ferries, wind surfing, boats Off -leash dog park, walkway, beach access Beach, play areas, grassy knoll, dog park Natural beauty As stated above, it is probably the sandiest beach north of West Seattle. It has a gorgeous view of the ferry, Olympic Mountain views, and can enjoy sitting and watching boats being launched too. Access to waterfront, playground for kids 3. What additional features do you think are important to consider as we develop the Marina Beach Master Plan? Responses (15): Many families enjoy the park. Wet lands are good and fish runs are important, but remember people only develop a love for the outdoors by being outdoors. We must not keep the public out of public lands. Promoting water quality of the creek once it is daylighted. Dogs absolutely must be kept out of it to support water quality and salmon recovery. Riparian vegetation will help that goal. Maintaining walkways and a "multi use" area for activities such as kites, kids games, sitting on the grass etc Reducing the amount of parking/ pavement, eliminating the knoll, replacing much of the grass with native landscaping to support the fish recovery, shrinking the size of the dog park Restrooms, separation from trains Covered picnic tables. One of the main reason I purchased a house in Edmonds was the off leash dog area. I have two retrievers who are water dogs and I spend 6 to 7 days per week during the spring, summer and fall at the OLAE. I am currently considering either a very expensive renovation of my Edmonds house or converting it into a rental and purchasing another home else where. If the dog park goes away then it will be one more reason for me to move out of Edmonds. Pedestrian access, safe management of willow creek and a broad appeal to all edmonds citizens A creek through Marina Beach Park will only take away from everything that is already there. Children love having the play -set and the Volleyball court is often being used, especially in nice weather, I know the grill is used for dinners at the beach and if it is a sunny day there are always people on the lawn, whether they are eating, chatting, playing or just plain relaxing they are enjoying themselves and that's the way it should be. Often times people come to the park on a nice day hoping for a patch of grass but there just isn't any room, adding more to the lawn is something that should be considered so that on those beautiful, sunny Edmonds days there is enough room for everyone who comes to FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 275 of 1075 Marina Beach to relax and enjoy their city Environmental impact (getting the most positive outcome for the various native plants/animals that make the area their home). Firepits? :) Small permanent bathroom Good as it is; maybe add a restroom Access, public transport, crowded parking area, move cars away from beach, more disabled parking The Following points need to be preserved: ( in no particular order) 1. The large clean, sandy, continuous beach including driftwood 2. The large grassy picnic area 3. Proximity to marina to watch boat activity 4. Existing view of water, ferries, and mountains 5. Walking path, and how it continues through marina to town The park is perfect as is. There are no better beach parks than this. I havebeen coming here since the late 1960's ! Picnic spots 4. Are you an Off Leash Area Edmonds (OLAE) user? Responses (19): • Yes (32%) • No (68%) 5. Describe what you enjoy about the off leash area? What additional features do you think are important to consider as we develop the master plan for the off leash area? Responses (5): Opportunities for dogs to run free, play with other dogs, swim in the Sound. Dogs are away from cars and contained in a specific area. As I stated previously, I have two retrievers who are water dogs and I spend virtually every day at OLAE during the spring, summer and fall months. The area itself is nothing special but the access to the sound for dogs is a unique feature of the Edmonds community and something that makes it special. If this area was eliminated it would diminish the appeal of this community for me. Access to the water is great, the agility play equipment and a completely enclosed area is key Off leash, water access, clean, friendly I love the enclosed varied terrain and water access with tidal influences. Please use the people side of Marina 11MIRM 91 *a Me 2_1 Beach for Willow Creek!!!! 6. What is your main reason for visiting Marina Beach Park? Responses (15): Walk or jog on trails (0) Bring kids to play (0) Enjoy the open space and views of the sound. (67%) Exercise my dog (27%) Ride my bike on trails (0) STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES Tuesday February 10th and 11th 2015 Joan Bloom - City Council Joan suggested historically there was a shuttle that used to pick up residents and taken to Marina Beach. This was operated by the Chamber. It looped through the neighborhoods. It used the Edmonds Woodway High School as the pick up and drop off. Firdale village. Designated parking spots. Transportation master plan. Researched electric vehicles. Hand launch at Olympic Beach. Do we want to duplicate that. Any thought to partnering with the Port to provide a paid parking structure at Marina Beach. One of the things Joan heard was Salish crossings are concerned about overflow parking. Public private partnership with Port. Modular put in place restroom for the Port area. Dave Orvis and Fred Goff. Sewer line. Bob McChesney... ask about restroom.. Consider the Port when discussing the Port. Lighting is an issue. 2 or 3 street lamps were damaged during sewer work. This is on Dayton Street. The port has asked for a crosswalk and improved lighting to allow for people to cross around Anthony's. Carrie, dawn to dusk. Working with the Port. Some people hang out at night. Nuisance issues. The port closes the gates at dusk. Talk to the port about lighting. Do we want to shut down the park at dusk during the winter time and into the fall and winter. Concern over Sound disposal taking all trash together. APPENDIX Packet Page 276 of 1075 47 Concessions should take their own staff. Carrie talked about the downtown ones having the circles for the cans. Entering those into the parks. Recycle containers at the park and dog waste containers. Tree board may be a good resource to speak to. They're working on a street tree list. Using the plants for filtration. Is there a volunteer on the Tree Board that could join the PAC committee. March 13th is the parks retreat. Joan will send an email out to the tree board to see if someone is interested. If we're bringing more people we don't have emergency access and pedestrian access. Bell street coming down to Olympic Park is the best scenario. Senior center, dive park, marina beach - we need to address that. Maybe an emergency vehicle staged at the port. -Joan doesn't have an interest in discussing the dog conflict issue. • Support ranger naturalists and perhaps allocate more funds to it. Dr. Kent Saltonstall - Woodway Town Council/Mayor Pro Team Kent used to spend a lot of time there. Used to launch canoe from the park and used to fish. Woodway is interested in Salmon. Culvert was put in by Sound Transit. Maybe 7-8 years. Was there ever a natural salmon run to Willow Creek. Grant money for the daylighting of Willow Creek. Hatchery figures into the marsh. Questioning it's salmon spawning habitat. Woodway will like to see the science behind the reintroduction of Salmon. Not interested in parking and recreational opportunities. Has an EIS been developed. Yes, not published yet. Point Edwards is being cleaned. WSDOT has a purchase and sale agreement for the lower site and will assume ownership of the Chevron site. Port of Edmonds is on the stakeholder list. Woodway is part of Port of Edmonds. Kent 425.778.7490, leave a message. Susie Schaefer - Friends of Edmonds Marsh We've been so committed to protecting the marsh and the stormwater problem. The marsh has always been a conflict. Like to get rid of Harbor Square. Programs at the hatchery. Meadowdale Environmental Club is helping at the hatchery. Dogs have to stay out of the creek. Water quality monitoring to the Beacon. Science teacher at Seaview Elementary does water quality monitoring. Start changing the perspective on dogs. Shouldn't have dog park on the beach. Richmond, Carkeek, Golden Gardens all have dog parks. Education at the demo garden with the specific idea of educating system of how to use native plants and keep our town connected. They use the garden as an outdoor classroom. Practice identifying birds at demo garden. Edmonds Native Plant and Education Garden. Program is free. We need a way to get from the demo garden to Marina Beach Park. Educational programs at the beach. They work with the beach rangers. I don't see a lot of economic development associated with the marsh. Maintain as much of natural environment. Native plant restoration is important. Hard to keep together `Friends of Edmonds Marsh'. People are busy. Hard for Susie to keep it going. Vision, stewards of the land ... for land and fish. How do you work with the City? Purple loosetrife. Serious birders in the town. Connectedness. Nisqually wildlife refuge. Fairly good relationship with condo people. Carrie, meet with Point Edwards, coordinate with Tom Asaros. Dave Earling - Edmonds Mayor What are the pluses and minuses of option A and B. Aesthetically like A over B. Considerations of redeveopment. Needs to be understated and people friendly. Marla, Bob and Jim - Port of Edmonds Need more parking restrooms. The park is important. It doesn't need it's size reduced. Like's option A. Informally looking at the beach as the base of the breakwater. What's the impact to the breakwater. You may have to deal with the breakwater with the Army Corps of Engineers. Erosion. Hydrology from Shannon and Wilson. Details in construction. Hauling out. Restrooms are used heavily used. Ranger program uses them. Kids use them. They also use the showers too. Ports intent in the future are the public bathroom stay. Admin are 24 hr. Anthony's restrooms are closing at dusk. Boaters are covered. Water and sewer is at boat wash off. Shoreline permit is holding up restroom replacement. Brackets landing north, restroom, fishing pier restrooms, port headquarters, 2 at anthony's. An event at the park got into dry storage on the south stole FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 277 of 1075 downriggers. Security officers of the port close the door. Concern over no lighting. Want some lighting for security. Concern over lighting. Condos comment on lighting. No plans for site to the south. Dogs on breakwater isn't good. Give the port a heads up before we go there. A path to lead to a personal watercraft is a good idea. This will add parking. Overflows into lot nine. Yellow stripes from white stripes. Monitor area beyond yellow tape. Close to maxing out at summer, but not quite. Just turned dry storage to parking. Added another 56 stalls. 1,000 boats. Open up dog discussion, no. For the most part the dialogue works. A lot of schools. 5th graders have trips. Restrooms shower. Tide Gate location. Might keep for overflow or regulation. Security, Dogs, Parking, Breakwater. Kojo Fordjour - WSDOT Partnership with City of Edmonds Timing is not on long range plan. Option 2. Concept is schematic. Record of decision will allowthem to proceed. Completing process with Unocal. Six year cleanup. They were ready to build in 2005. The tribes got involved and couldn't move forward. They have to clean the site. Long range plan will be revised next year. Ferry has been down. WSDOT does not have the budget. 2005 conversation with the city is unknown. Alternative 2 is preferred. Get the current alignment from Kernan. Ridership is up. It will take a political decision. It could happen in twenty. Federal DOT has a law when dot takes land they need to pay for the impact to park. The budget shows it's not a feasible 60" pile you can use fewer. Tammy Armstrong - DNR Part of it privately owned. It's not listed on the plates. City of Edmonds owns a part of the park. DNR owns part of the land. No fee lease. La Conner. DNR wouldn't be opposed to this. Didn't see an encumbrance with the City. Bedlands cannot be privately owned. It's a Port Management Area. Water quality would be through department of ecology. Area will need to be leased. DOT can do eminent domain. Any state agency interested? Kai, Fish and Wildlife. DOE is concerned, not DNR. Carrie suggested we pursue the formal lease ILI IN "A"R *WAAAk 21 agreement soon. Karen Andres, Susan Tarpley - Ranger Naturalists Prefers Option B (Karen) Susan Prefers Option A Susan believes Option A is preferable because it's more natural Separates the dog park from the human beach. There's no delineation currently with the dog park. Very few places for people to stroll and enjoy the view. Like's the long strolling. Drop off is problemattic. Karen would like access to the creek. Keeping the play area is needed. Lawn area and picnic tables is important. Interesting to use the driftwood in a play. Restrooms are important. Extend the study group to include the creek. Kids could do monitoring. Have kids sit on logs to lecture then walk. Conclusion on the log. 30-40 students typically elementary. Sometime middle school. Some home school. Typically april to june. Time lapse photography of the construction. Hundreds of kids. Low tides are sometimes difficult to control kids. Signage should talk about stewardship. This is being funded by salmon funds. Signage is currently very poor. Way too many words. Visual signage. The seal sign is important and useful. Dog signage is poor. No dogs on the beach sign would be helpful. No collecting sign is useful. No taking things from beach. Bags in the park would be helpful. She loves the sign of the landscape profile/whale tail. People ask a lot of geographical information. Whidbey, Olympic Mountains, Seattle, North, Mount Baker, Admiralty Bay, San Juans. Shade trees would be fantastic. Picnic shelters would be helpful. Stormwater outfalls are part of the environmental education. They have a watershed class. Tidepools and rocks are a big part of the educational experience. Special needs kids will like Option A because of the accessibility and how close they are to the sound. They like the overlooks, maybe take them closer. Fire rings on the beach would be a nice idea. No driftwood. There is a huge issue with overflowing garbage cans and crows taking people foods. Recycling bins. Staunch believers in not allowing concession stands. They have taken parking spots. Trash from the concessionaire. Takes away from the experience. Likes APPENDIX Packet Page 278 of 1075 having the kayak put in. More natural vegetation. AED down there. Initiated a request for emergency medical assistance. People look to the Ranger Naturalists for medical care. It would be nice to have some art at the park. Spill response kit. Kristiana Johnson, Lora Petso, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas - City Council Overlay ferry onto design drawings. Bike lanes. Coordination with transportation plan. Be able to bike more safely to the park. Dog wash? Retain as much natural beach as possible. Prefer option A. The bridge says no dogs. Connection with dogs. Concerns over the two alignments. Fecal coliform. High School save the salmon campaign. They've put together a grant application to test the water year round in the marsh. What works best for the salmon. Shade and trees. Water elements are important. Natural play area in the creek is important. Built in bbq are preferred. Contain beach fires. Fire pits would be nice. Add restroom. Doesn't like play structure at the beach. It should be away from the beach. Preschoolers play area. Play area that's suitable for youngsters. Make art that accommodates play. Educational signage would be helpful. Susan Morrow - Seal Sitters Worked for the beach ranger naturalists. As an offshoot as a ranger was looking at harbor seals. 2008 founded seal sitters. NOAA Seal Stranding network. 35 volunteers. Does physical exam. Coordons offs areas when they come ashore. Up to 45 calls a year. Also deal with dead seals. 4-6 times a year. North end and dog beach you get seals. Much of it is public education. Does not have enforcement authority. Salmon may attract. As they get older they don't. July through October is the busiest time. Not very messy. Some will get stranded on the rocks. Ocassionally will get into the Marina. No platforms. Waterway furthest south is preferred. Playground is well utilized. Flying kites. Picnics. Large crowds. Likes the extensive beach. Dogs, dedicated outspoken community. Do well self policing and cleaning up. Animal waste. Groups take measures of contaminants. Prefers Option A. Ann Aldrich, Diane Buckshnis, Julie Nealey - OLAE Diane doesn't mind option A. Consider the potential conflict of environmental education. Dog proof planting. 2 lawsuits since 2005. Fundraising online. Option B would be lovely. Dog heaven during the winter. Dogs run into the vertical elements. Plenty of seating. OLAE leaves driftwood. Don't recommend raised beds or vetical elements. Erosion occuring south of property. Like the openness of the park. They like the agility course. Concerned about high and low tide. Dogs go around the current fence. Consider on option A, the runoff of urine into the creek. Shoreline Master Program suggests a 100' buffer. Reduce the number of trees. Maybe no trees. One or two conflicts a year. Restroom would be nice. Sani can does a good job cleaning. Composter is too expensive. Ponding is occuring where there is the most traffic. Consideration of armoring bank. Kernen Lien, Jerry Shuster, Jeff Parsons, Dave Cline - Shoreline permitting and critical areas How and when? Considerations? Permitting? Shoreline permit. Buffer averaging. Critical Areas. Shorelines 90.58.570. Provision if you do a restoration does not expand shoreline beyond 200'. Critical areas fish bearing stream. CAO, 100' on both sides of the streams. Allows for buffer averaging. CAO update is happening this year. CAO allows buffer width reduction and averaging of a reduction of 50%. You can't do both. No parkingwithin the buffer. Trails are allowed. Potential for variance is not likely. Existing pavement would take some creative looking. It's a design requirement that we need to stay within the existing pavement footprint at the entrance. Rob suggested building the park then daylighting willow creek. CAO update mid this year. SEPA Checklist is associated with the master plan. A month and a half for review. Anything in the SEPA checklist that would affect... section on archaeology is much tighter. The archaeological section is much. CRC report to Jeff Parsons. Consulted with DHP and the Tribes. Usual discovery protocol. Other significant SEPA aspect is the industrial aspect. What's required for cleanup. Didn't find anything with the borings. 1923 til 1926 pier. Option A follows the pier alignment. You could get into creosote piles. There was a pipeline on the pier. The pipe went up the hill to the tank farm. Shoreline designation of conservancy. Shoreline Master Program FINAL DRAFT 50 APPENDIX Packet Page 279 of 1075 is relaxed. Jeff thought some of it was conservancy and some of it was in its old planning designation. Dog park is conservancy and other is urban mixed use. Comp plan update for 2015 timing? Big update by mid year. Variance from critical areas... reasonable economic use, utilities. WSDOT Storm line consideration. Talk to them. WSDOT Highways Jeff to talk to the Corp about the breakwater. Scan alignment of ferry and send to everyone. Edmonds crossing is still in the comp plan. EIS may have a conflict with the preferred alignment They will have to go through the public process if they change course. Public records request for the ferry plan Walter Smith - BNSF, Rick - Tetra Tech BNSF works with sound transit Impacts mitigation All of the grading is complete for the main track. What's the biggest demand. In your forseeable future ... the third line is not in the foreseeable future. He will suggest his team talks to us. 2nd track is on the east. 3rd track would be on the west side. This would not be speed rail. Conventional rail. Would the fencing and buffer requireents remain the same. Yes. Gut reaction, option B, is more natural and preferred. Option A. BNSF conversation about Edmonds Crossing. No. BNSF have reviewed it. It has to be flatter and longer. It's not feasible. Not making presumptionns what the long term maintenance would be vs. the railroad. Maintenance reuirements. Alameda corridor. The port owns the structure floors, drain system. BNSF maintains the balast up. Standard sections on line. BNSF.com under FAQ, at grade crossings. AMA has standard plans. Any concern over the culvert. No. Deer creek is in this area. No other concerns with lease. Pedestrian overpass. Other concerns. Sight distance to signals. Fencing to prevent shortcutting. Rick Wagner is the public projects team. 1.206.625.6152. At grade crossing/train trench. Timing of that size army corp, coast guard, DOE, significant fill into the sound. Maybe a five year process FINAL DRAFT before the build. A miracle in less than 3-5 years. Probably longer. Coal train. BNSF is working with various shippers. They would have to build the 2nd before the 3rd. 2nd trac to everett. No discussions with the Port. Neil Tibbott, Phil Lovell - Planning Board Either aesthetically look fine to Phil Dog park, Phil - It's always busy. You have the nature and sand. Phil, Dog park. Dog park regulations. Is there another dog park in Edmonds. No. It's a huge draw that brings people from all over. We should do something about dog regulations. People have gone to meadowdale. Phil thinks the dog park should remain because it's not avaialble anywhere else in the community. Does need to be a pay park. Needs regulations that identify what you can and cannot do. That has been posted. It's a very unique park that's a valuable asset. It's a tourist draw. There ought to be guidelines. Neil, plan A is utilitarian. Plan B, is more interesting. Put some tables next to it. He wouldn't want to loose the picnic areas. Keep big gatherings in mind. Not as important to have picnic shelter. Neil, salmon habitat question, All the dog waste may interfere with the scent of the salmon. What's the impact to the salmon. Dave? Shannon and Wilson, is the creek lined. Fire pit area vs. singular pits. Friend is an avid kite boarder. Staging could be useful. Both like Option B. Likes separating fish from dogs. Preserves tidelands. PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES 12/12/2014 project kickoff meeting notes: The purpose of this meeting is to commence the Marina Beach Master Plan effort. Introductions Scope of Work and Goals Working with the City, Community and Stakeholders to prepare conceptual design alternatives for the park that includes daylighting of Willow Creek through the park. As part of this, the entire park site will be included in APPENDIX Packet Page 280 of 1075 51 the consideration and analysis of the conceptual design alternatives. Two Phases of Work: Phase 1: Inventory Site Assessment and Park Program Phase 2: Schematic Design and Preferred Alternative What does success entail? Marina Beach Background Brief History of the Park Agreements/Considerations/Interface with DOE Stakeholders: Parks, Public Works, Community, OLAE, Marina, BNSF, Others. Park Programming: Off Leash Area, Parking, Play Structure, Passive and Active Recreation Willow Creek Work completed to date Herrera/Shannon and Wilson Collaboration Beach Opportunity for improvement? Herrera/Shannon and Wilson Collaboration Existing Conditions / Stormwater / Utilities Survey information Geotech information: Soils/Groundwater (assume it's tidal?) Stormwater Existing Conditions Infrastructure Unique Code Requirements Design Goals? City contacts for stormwater questions Public Involvement Strategy Coordination and Scope of Work Participate in team kick-off meeting Prepare a brief summary of stakeholders and interests prior to outreach Develop a brief community engagement plan Organize 3 in -person open houses, including: Logistics (scheduling, securing venue if needed, reserving equipment) Developing individual meeting plans Preparing, including 1 prep/dry-run with the full team and City Facilitating/ participating in events, including set-up and breakdown (includes facilitator and one support staff) Developing non -content materials (agenda, comment form, sign -in sheet) Organize and host 3 online open houses, including: Building website based on El template, customized for the project but without significant customization Posting provided content Developing feedback form or survey based on input needs Providing data/feedback to Walker Macy Schedule and Next Steps 12/12/2014 PAC meeting notes: This was the first Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the Marina Beach Master Plan. The PAC was asked a series of questions related to their park experiences. Carrie provided a project overview, Chris described the schedule and process, Keeley and Jerry provided a description of the Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek daylighting project. Question #1: "Describe the recreational opportunities at Marina Beach park." Passive: Lawn, beach, walking, storm watching, photography, sunbathing, kite flying, picnicking. Active: Off leash dog park, kiteboarding, volleyball, other grass games, kayaking. Potential added program items include a restroom, concessions, additional parking, ADA parking, accessible loop trail, connections, shelter, fire pit, hand launch area, bike racks. Passive area (lawn) is very popular in summer. Some people bring their own volleyball set. BBQ areas are well used. Also used as bonfire pits. Bonfires are popular. Historically, concerns have been raised by the fire department due to the oil line. Natural driftwood is a nice amenity. It's been useful for staging outdoor classes as seating elements. Don'tduplicate uses. Keepas natural as possible. • Diane and Rich described the high use of the off leash dog park. Approx. 30,000 plastic bags are used every six weeks. Approx. 1,000 dogs/day. Every seven seconds the dog gate opens. Laura suggested accessibility should be addressed in the master plan. Especially to the playground, but also throughout the park, and to the beach. Question #2: "Are there conflicts among park uses? And, are there any program elements that should move out of Marina Beach or be moved to Marina Beach?" FINAL DRAFT 52 APPENDIX Packet Page 281 of 1075 Some mentioned it is not clear that dogs are not allowed at Marina Beach outside of the off leash dog area. This seems to be the only conflict in the park. Available parking is an issue. Dogs like to swim around the fence and enter the park. Question #3 & #4: "Describe the time of day/night, duration of use of the park. What's a day in the life of Marina Beach Park?" Marina Beach Park is a dawn to dusk park. The gate opens at dawn and closes at dusk. If lighting were incorporated into the park there's a concern it would be more appealing for people to enter after hours. If lighting is added, 'dark sky' principals should be considered. Early mornings are quiet at the park. Park use is consistent throughout the afternoon. Rich suggested there are memorial benches and picnic tables that will need to be relocated within the park. Question #5: "Describe your thoughts on the daylighting of Willow Creek." Great opportunity to create more bio-diversity, educational opportunities, and an amenity. Standup paddle boards are popular. A professional said it's dangerous for paddle boards to go out at this location. Consider the ability to land and stage personal watercraft. Carrie suggested looking into Marina Beach Park's connection to the Blue Water Trails system. Question 7: Vehicle considerations: Buses? Maintenance Vehicles? Emergency? Fire? Garbage is gathered with a pickup truck. Buses come most frequently in spring time. Difficult to get them out if they pull in. Five or six buses at a time. It's an issue. People come from throughout the Puget Sound and don't need to contact the city or get a permit. Emergency vehicles and fire will need access to the site. Question 6 & 8: "Are the park facilities sufficient in meeting the community's needs? Is there interest in moving program elements from another park to Marina Beach Park? FINAL DRAFT Facilities, other than parking, are sufficient in meeting the community's needs. There's no known need to move program elements, but the question should be asked at the open house. Question 9: "Are there opportunities for more collaborative projects at Marina Beach?" 'Coneheads' is a popular concession stand. The appeal is that park goers do not want to move their vehicle during peak periods. Consider building upon this. Consider moving concessions out of designated parking spaces. Sustainability is of high importance. Consider using local materials, natural colors, sustainable stormwater strategies, integrate nature play into natural area, encourage concessions to use compostable and recyclable goods. Look at water use. Use best practices in redevelopment. Consider a compostable toilet and waterless urinals for the restrooms. It would be very expensive to have a traditional restroom constructed on this site given the distance required to provide sewer service. Question 10: "What are some considerations for maintenance, future uses, and the public process in re - envisioning Marina Beach Park? Considerations: Parks picks up dog waste three times a week. Irrigation system runs in late spring to summer. Trash 2-3 times a day. Tried to do pack out parks - doesn't work. Mowing on maintenance management plan. This is a peak use park. The new park will likely have a different maintenance regime we will need to consider. Question 11: "What is your perspective on the potential redevelopment efforts that could affect the park?" Ferry Terminal isn't even in the 2040 plan. High Speed Rail will be considered. At grade crossing mitigation (train trench) is not very realistic financially. General PAC consensus... It makes sense to proceed with Master Planning while giving consideration for these future projects, but they are so far out and unknown. We should proceed with developing a park that is functional for the next 25+ years. The potential of a third rail is the potential conflict with APPENDIX Packet Page 282 of 1075 53 the park program. There's a BNSF R.O.W along Admiral Way that may impact the park. We need to find the alignment of the third rail. Will be critical area once creek is there. 3/27/2015 PAC meeting notes: Presented Option C-Not vetted High tide -ordinary high water 10' 2 purposes Salmon -new stakeholder Flooding -help with SR1O4 Dog park Physical barrier on S side, esp. C to keep dogs from going in water If you allow dogs in buffer, build a bigger buffer Off leash area -surprised by balance -city looking at off leash area No strong voices against What do we show public -reduce, remove, relocate Keep dog park in same area -smaller footprint 150 visitors -only 15 commenting Will we keep info from OH on website? Parking alternatives Parking reduces recreational value of park Is there a goal to keep same # of parking spots? Yes, not increase Types of uses you can accommodate with capacity of parking Buffers: Develop A & B using smaller buffer. Could qualify for buffer reduction Stream buffers are there to protect creek and wildlife in creek If B provides larger benefit for fish, can we reduce buffer? Southern portion of channel & buffer should be greater because of adjacent use Larger pool of funding. Surf -funding only benefits fish Does reducing buffer compromise federal funding Is the 100' based on buffer averaging? Don't know - hasn't been challenged yet. What can be done in buffer? Will look at buffered A & B-add buffer to south on C Rain gardens, permeable pavement, concentrated buffer Waiting for this process to go through before submitting final feasibility study Longer the channel, better for fish -more northerly outlet is better Overall area -consideration? Not how current CAO reads How much funding? $18Ok $2OOk $6Ok-$5 million entire project To maintain federal grants-100' buffer Proportionate uses of area Existing size inadequate Look at creek as another use More natural play area Prom. Point -national separation -develop into really nice feature at park Maps -fantastic Hard to visualize What does it feel like to be in a buffer Provide local photos of person walking through buffer Photo images of buffer 4/24/2015 PAC meeting notes: City is allowing for 50% buffer reduction moving forward with 50% buffer unless we hear differently from some of the grant sources Shoreline jurisdiction allows for reduction and averaging DOE 35'-75' Do they agree with our interpretation? Portion of marsh in different category Beach eco ex -different category Buffer averaging with enhancement Is the gate where the marsh starts? Wherever intertidal goes falls under this jurisdiction Beach buffer is sand -how to limit use -no hard surfaces, structures Passive recreation in buffer Area of buffer that could be plant will be Important that people understand buffer -kids can still play in sand Show it as green to where you can plant Area that includes buffer and creek will take 150' of park Feeling more comfortable, we can look at 50' buffer, keep active rec. Stub out for restroom on north end of park Nature play in buffer area, not structured play Parking More comments -we need about the same More parking, would include park use, overcrowd Dog owners only stay about 1 hour Show alternate ways of getting to park -walking paths, FINAL DRAFT 54 APPENDIX Packet Page 283 of 1075 biking Uses of parking different as far as staying at beach For next OH meeting Port parking spaces Reasonable drop off area Circulation Center median island 52 stalls take up significant portion of park Lay 50' buffer over all alignments after alignment cuts through parking as it is today Look at restrictions of dogs on walkways -would be hard on dog owners Center island for storm water management 15 A Pros Most contiguous park space remaining Cost -won't require a bridge No interest in developing further property Separates railroad tracks from park Cons Relocates dog park Sharp turn -build more structures, added cost Not a good option from fish, hydraulic, dog perspective B Pros Best for salmon Keeps dog park in same configuration -could expand B Cons Reduces active recreation significantly Not cohesive for active recreation Financial challenges-2 bridges -do we need 2? Add to flow. Less likely to cross creek. Would need to double back with only one bridge Limit where dogs can cross? Safer with 2 bridges More opportunity Both bridges should be for vehicles because of maintenance Test pits- no contaminant found in ones done. Keep dogs fenced south of point -keep same footprint - dogs will be fenced out of portion of buffer With 2 footbridges, use as an overlook -plaza feel in park - benches, art, solitary point Creek 11' deep at HHT How will design prevent drowning? Restrict access Barriers, education Safety is a major concern Erosion problems-Carkeek & Meadowdale We should show some due diligence. When designing - need balance -can't be too narrow. Designed for small FINAL DRAFT fish that can't swim with velocity. Tidal influence, more like Swinomish slough. Jetty Island -ex. tidal channel feeding marsh -active rec space, ex. limitation of space Ecola state park Kalaloch Nisqually Sammamish More space for active recreation Still have dog park B & C similar, Mix-up? Public Process-opp. To move things around B-Dog park same C-Reduce dog park 1 has over look; 1 has natural beach Make them look different -show trails in buffer Folks need to see parking Parking drop off -personal watercraft, also grassy area, layout area Current overlook is natural area -keep enc. passive rec in their area Dog park -care about agility area -show it on schematic Southern portion -port has no plans for it -only accessible at low tide Boardwalk covered marsh Buy property from USDOT, eliminate park parking, pedestrian overpass Put in master plan Is this where you want to put parking Has the most potential for being returned to marsh 5/21/2015 PAC meeting notes: Updates Public Open House #2 (5/6/2015) Planning Board Meeting (5/13/2015) City Council Meeting (5/19/2015) Buffers Online Open House Discussion on Options 1 and 2 Parking arrangement is preferred in that it replaces existing # of stalls Turnaround is useful. PAC likes the preservation of existing program elements in the park. Preservation of existing off leash area. Lawn area is reduced in both options. Let's expand if we can. PAC team supports a turnaround idea. Need to have APPENDIX Packet Page 284 of 1075 55 discussion with Fire Marshall. General support for restroom location in option 1 — not good for dog park users. PAC team suggestion: Add porta-potties to off leash dog area. PAC suggests increasing lawn area in preferred alternative. PAC suggests two bridges and/or consideration of general park users and dogs co -mingling. 2nd bridge could also add a `loop' trail for walkers. Consider maintenance access to lawn area in option 2 adjacent to off leash area. PAC likes the idea of a constructed overlook at UNOCAL dock location. Chris mentioned the Army Corps will likely require removal of the rip rap. Bridges should be designed to be vehicle rated. General support voiced for southern portion of option 2 with overlook and lawn area. PAC prefers replacement of existing play structure with something more natural in color and material. Discussion about play: Parents enjoy watching their kids while being able to see the water. Safety and visibility of the play area is critical. Some PAC members like the play area location as shown in Option 1. Others like it being moved away from the creek and out of the central lawn space towards the marina. All like the idea of nature play and engaging park users with the creek and potential interpretive elements. Only caveat is consideration of safety when determining the final location. We want to keep park users safe while not diminishing the park experience. Provide BBQ pits not fire pits. PAC agrees on moving the playground to the north and keeping the restroom centrally located. Consider movement between the two in order to minimize circulation across the dropoff. Consider nature play taking on more of a beach feel and not a woodland garden feel. PAC suggests moving the off leash agility course to the south to minimize the potential of dogs going around the fence. PAC suggested removing beach volleyball and providing sleeves in lawn area. Discussion on Kite Boarding/Water Dependent Uses: Carrie met with a representative from the kite boarding community. The group requested a way to educate the community of their staging needs at Marina Beach. Several PAC members suggested signage. Keep existing trees within the off leash area. No structures. Next Steps: July 8, 2015 Open House #3 July 22, 2015 Present Master Plan to Planning Board July 28, 2015 Present Master Plan to City Council July/August Comment Period November Adoption of Master Plan 6/30/2015 PAC meeting notes: Discussion of Preferred Alternative PAC team supports a turnaround idea. Need to have discussion with Fire Marshall. General support for restroom location in option 1 — not good for dog park users. PAC team suggestion: Add porta-potties to off leash dog area. PAC suggests increasing lawn area in preferred alternative. PAC suggests two bridges and/or consideration of general park users and dogs co -mingling. 2nd bridge could also add a `loop' trail for walkers. Consider maintenance access to lawn area in option 2 adjacent to off leash area. PAC likes the idea of a constructed overlook at UNOCAL dock location. Chris mentioned the Army Corps will likely require removal of the rip rap. Bridges should be designed to be vehicle rated. General support voiced for southern portion of option 2 with overlook and lawn area. PAC prefers replacement of existing play structure with something more natural in color and material. Discussion about play: Parents enjoy watching their kids while being able to see the water. Safety and visibility of the play area is critical. Some PAC members like the play area location as shown in Option 1. Others like it being moved away from the creek and out of the central lawn space towards the marina. All like the idea of nature play and engaging park users with the creek and potential interpretive elements. Only caveat is consideration of safety when determining the final location. FINAL DRAFT 56 APPENDIX Packet Page 285 of 1075 We want to keep park users safe while not diminishing the park experience. Provide BBQ pits not fire pits. PAC agrees on moving the playground to the north and keeping the restroom centrally located. Consider movement between the two in order to minimize circulation across the dropoff. Consider nature play taking on more of a beach feel and not a woodland garden feel. PAC suggests moving the off leash agility course to the south to minimize the potential of dogs going around the fence. PAC suggested removing beach volleyball and providing sleeves in lawn area. Discussion on Kite Boarding/Water Dependent Uses: Carrie met with a representative from the kite boarding community. The group requested a way to educate the community of their staging needs at Marina Beach. Several PAC members suggested signage. Keep existing trees within the off leash area. No structures. Next Steps: July 8, 2015 Open House #3 July 22, 2015 Present Master Plan to Planning Board July 28, 2015 Present Master Plan to City Council July/August Comment Period November Adoption of Master Plan ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS STUDENT SURVEY: Describe the recreational opportunities at Marina Beach Park: Walking, running, swimming, enjoying the weather, sun tanning. Sports on the grass, enjoying the beach. Walking, running, swimming, having a good time. Salmon would return, it would look cool if done properly (memorial) playset, volleyball, dog park, picnics picnics, dog park, recreational water activities, beach sports, tanning Play w/dog, bring children to playground, picnic, beach comb There is a park and dog park. The main park has a plaground next to the beach. FINAL DRAFT For people to come together and hang out You can play with your dog at the dog park or have a nice family picnic on the hill at the picnic tables Marina Beach Park offers a place to eat, a play ground for kids, room for sports like volleyball and a lof of space overall. The beach is large and fairly expansive. At Marina Beach Park, you can stroll on the actual beach, take your dog to the dog park, let your children play on the play structure, and go boating. That you can go swimming, walk your dog, play in the sand, walk along the beach Picnics, bbq's, playground Meet friends, have a good time Are there conflicts among park users? Not really Yes Sometimes people take their dogs to the side of the park that isn't supposed to have dogs Not sure Not that I have seen Trains every now and then. Dog waste. Not that I know of No There's some trash on the beach, which makes barefoot beach volleyball a less enticing activity. Not that I'm aware of No Describe the time of day/night, duration of use of the park: Afternoon Afternoon Usually midday to evening. Never more than a couple hours though. Morning to 9 pm in summer During the day, 7 am - 9 pm No general time, whenever comfortable or wanted I normally in the summer will go for a few hours in the afternoon Dusk to dawn Dusk to dawn 9am-10pm Usually used mid morningto evening at most. On sunnier days, the use of the park is lengthier with more people. Daylight hours, when it's not too cold or rainy. I don't visit the beach often enough to know, really. APPENDIX Packet Page 286 of 1075 57 Usually it's used in the afternoon and a lot at night. A lot of people don't show up late at night though. Day - family oriented, night - teenager/friend oriented Around 1:30 - 7:30 What's a day in the life of Marina Beach Park? Walking, talking, hanging out with friends Sunshine, fun, friends It's a regular beach, also a regular park Play football or swim Many people come to the park, many families Dogs, families, picnics, parties, sports Busy Families picnicking, children playing on the park, field and beach. Dogs playing on the dog beach. Playing Dogs playing There are many people walking on a daily basis regardless of weather. It is typically on the busier side. People heading to jobs in the complex nearer to the ferry landing. Various couples sitting at picnic benches, a full dog park (on a sunny summer day), a couple beachcombers strolling by the water. Walking around the beach, swimming (if it's summer), getting out, hanging out/talking some more with friends while eating food at the picnic tables. A fun, beach -oriented day A good time Describe your thoughts on daylighting Willow Creek considering Option A which crosses Off -Leash Area or option B which crosses through the lawn area. Option B because you can easily incorporate it into the area Option B because you could easily incorporate it into the park. A. There are lots of playgrounds in the area and no offleash areas. If it means getting rid of the dog park, go with B. Grass is useless & everywhere. The dog park is needed unless feces is an issue. Cross of dog beach I would support Option A more as long as the dog park could be relocated I would consider either option, but seem equally beneficial, although it may be easier to go through the dog park I think the off -leash area would be easier for the community, but could pose a problem in terms of dog/ salmon relationships I think they should cross through the lawn area (B) because it could disturb the animals option C I think that option A (crosses off leash area off) would be the most beneficial and practial overall. The people would be likely less disruptive. Crossing through the lawn area would be preferable. Keep the creek as far away as possible from dogs and their poop, which would contaminate the water. The dog park might need to be moved. Option A because it wouldn't be in people's way as much (people use lawns more than dog park). It would give people more chance to do what they want without having it get in the way much. A is not an option. B is the right way to go. A because dogs could have fun with a stream in their area Are the park facilities sufficient in meeting the community's needs? Yes Edmonds Parks & Recreation department meets the community needs sufficiently Yes Yes. Some aren't used as much Yes, the facilities are sufficient Maybe one more picnic table Yes Yeah They are sufficient and working well. Most of the time, there's enough room for everyone to enjoy their various activities on hot summer days, though, the parking lot fills up quickly. They have ok, so it meets the needs of the community alright because it has enough parking for some people, but not a whole lot Yes How do you get to the Park? Auto, walk, bus, bike? Walk I walk Auto, walk, bus I drive my vehicle FINAL DRAFT 0 APPENDIX Packet Page 287 of 1075 Auto & walking Auto/walk Bike/run Drive, walk, bike. Auto or walk if it's nice out Car Auto and walk When I go to the park (I live in Mountlake Terrace), I go by car. Walking is a better option, though, for those who live closer. I will drive there or someone I know will drive me there (auto) Walk or drive Auto/bike Describe how we can balance the needs of salmon and the needs of people in this park. We can make the creek an attraction of the park so that people can enjoy watching the salmon without disrupting recreation use of the park You can make the creek a part of the park, attracting people's attention while meeting the needs of the salmon Sacrifice the needs of the people, saving wildlife is more important than human idiocy and more concrete. I think it would be great to have the salmon back, they should put a memorial so people can stop and look at the nature. I think that having information available about the salmon would be interactive and it would allow for the public to see the positive change. Also, adding more places to do activities in the regular beach. Salmon are equally necessary to the community as the dog park so I believe a sort of relocation of the dog park or addition from the Marina Beach dog park to the dog park would be a way to balance the needs. Personally I would put it not through the middle of the lawn, but to the side so that there is still room for picnics/frisbee games We can build a bridge over the creek and put up informative signs so people know not to mess with the creek. Do volunteer work to help with the salmon Put the creek on the other side of the park We can balance the needs of salmon and people by remaining conscientious of the surroundings and creating a strong division so that needs of people in FINAL DRAFT Marina Beach will not be compromised and will not jeopardize the salmon. Once the stream is daylighted, and an option is chosen, focus should move to keeping the water clean. People need to be educated about how to care for salmon, and all of nature. I hope no one is stupid enough to hunt the salmon or litter in the creek. We can make this balance possible in order to help the salmon, while also avoiding the taking up/using too much land. We can make sure that the community still enjoys the beach by still keeping most of the area free for recreational activities. By ensuring this plan we can meet both the needs of the salmon and the community. Positive of this. I think the creek needs to be visually appealing and clean, make it a feature of the park! Make there a place where kids may swim with dogs DIGITALLY RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS I was wondering if we could make the new dog park more accessible for ADA. I use my four wheel walker at the park but know that with my MS I will be full time in my wheelchair at some point. At this point I can manage the beautiful walk to the waters edge by finding a path of crushed gravel. If we could make a strip of paved walkway alongside the train fence that would be awesome. I go to the park every day with my dogs and would like to continue in the future. I am sure there are others with mobility issues who would like to see an easier access to the park. My wife and I have been a resident of downtown Edmonds for over three years and we enjoy it immensely. I wanted to suggest a minor improvement that would make Marina Beach Park more enjoyable for families and all visitors that love the water. It would be a huge addition to the park to install an outdoor shower similar to the one at Brackett's landing. Please let me know if this is a possibility! Thanks! It's exciting that plans are proceeding to daylight Willow Creek and that our input is welcome. As the public comment period ends and the preferred Master Plan Alternative develops, I hope that our city leaders will determine a concept for the Marina Beach Park that befits the naturalistic new stream. By this I mean that APPENDIX Packet Page 288 of 1075 59 what surrounds the creek and buffers should also be as naturalistic as possible. For example, let the beach and drifwood be the play area for both children and adults. This means removing the red and blue structured play area and siting the restroom near the Admiral Way park entrance. Furthermore, to be in keeping with the creek, build a curved bridge because the creek will have curves. Such a naturalistic concept may be oppositional to "planners" who may want to emphasize man-made structures. But don't we have enough structures everywhere, when what children and adults really need is natural space at the beach for fun and discovery. I hope you will duly consider this suggested concept and make your decisions based on it. That would truly be exciting. I am a concerned dog owner who frequents the Edmonds off -leash dog park. I understand that there is a possibility that the dog park may be eliminated. I want you to know that I am strongly opposed to loosing this coast line treasure. I'm surprised that this is even a consideration considering the traffic this park receives. Please ensure that the Edmonds off leash park remains in tact! I am surprised by the idea to "relocate" the dog park south of Marina Beach. It is always the most well -used, widely -enjoyed park in town! It is a great place for people to meet, enjoy the sun and wind. I can't imagine any better use for this oddly shaped splinter of land between the railroad and the water. Please leave it just like it is: well -used, well -loved. I believe that is Option "C". It was with profound dismay and distress that I heard about the proposed changes to Marina Beach Park - and particularly to the Offleash Dog Park. As an Edmonds resident of nearly 20 years, I frequent the Dog Park on average of 50 times a year. I don't even own a dog - but I SO enjoy the combination of dogs running free, happy people using the park - and natural beauty - which I find totally unique to this community. In fact, for me, the Offleash Dog Park is one of Edmonds most special, unique and valuable attractions. Please don't close it or reduce its size. It's pefect as is - and it is extremely popular, well -used and cherished by its many users. In fact, it strikes me that the whole Edmonds marina/port area is perfect as it is - effectively balancing the needs and desires of the many constituencies it serves. I'm hard-pressed to understand why it should be changed at all - to accommodate salmon over.... Edmonds residents. But if it must change, I implore you to go with Option C which, I'm advised, will preserve the Dog Park largely as it is. Please, PLEASE don't take our wonderful dog park away!! I am writing in support of saving the Off Leash Dog Park. It is a wonderful place to visit with or without dogs. My 84 year old father loves to go to the park just to watch the dogs. Personally, I bring my dog to the park every opportunity I have. It is a great park for all dogs, especially the dogs who love the water. It is nice to have a beach where dogs are welcome. I have friends who come from Seattle, Lake Forest Park, and Shoreline with their dogs. Before or after their visits, you will find them cruising the shops in town, having lunch or just stopping in for coffee. It's not just another dog park, it is a wonderful dog park with a beach and gorgeous sunsets. It is nice to see it used by so many. Let's keep our Dog Park. I'm writing to voice my support for option C of the marina beach master plan. The dog park in edmonds was one of the reasons we moved here. We take our dog to the park between two and three times a week and love visiting the ocean while letting our dog run. We also enjoy exploring the tide pools with our dog. Losing the dog park would be terrible. Seems like option C would let us keep the dog park and some of marina beach for everyone to use. I hope you'll choose option C. We have been Edmond's residents for 28 years, raised our sons here, moved my mom to the Edmond's Landing (she is thriving!) and we love it here. 4 years ago, we adopted a very introverted rescue dog named Santana. He was a "Fred Hutch" dog, spending his first 5 years of life in a kennel. He was afraid of everything. Things have changed... He has become part of the Edmond's community, too. This includes a trip, everyday (sometimes twice, if I have a day off) to his favorite Marina Beach dog park. He LOVES running on the beach, seeing his friends, delighting other humans with his loving self. My husband and I find it a great place to get away and enjoy our town ... 5 minutes from our home. The beauty still takes my breath away. The larger part of the park was always a great place to take our boys. Now, we take our FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 289 of 1075 other "boy" to his beach! Please don't take this away We are good stewards of the park. I just learned about the proposed changes to the Marina Beach and the different master plans that you are considering. The choice you make will affect all of us and the use of this amazing beach front we share. The dog park is a unique and special part of this place and is a destination for dog owners near and far. My husband and I feel very strongly that the dog park be kept as part of the plan. We are not dog owners but visit the park several times a week and have numerous friends with two legs and four whom enjoy the park. In your considerations please keep the dog park intact for all of us to enjoy. The Marina Beach project soon to be decided has just come to my attention. I posted Plan A, B, C on the Nextdoor.com/Richmond Beach site which connects to over 2,000 neighbors. I'm sure you'll get a rash of emails/calls supporting Plan B. from the neighborhoods outside of Edmonds who rely on Marina Park for our enjoyment & peace of mind. It's my hope that you only seriously consider Plan B. Best for Dogs & Best for Fish. Anything else would be disturbing to our dog community who give us unconditional love & thank us for taking them to the off leash park. Through my grassroots connections, I gather that the council is not leaning towards Plan B. I hope this is not true. A local native who is excited for the Salmon run to be restored. I am a citizen of Edmonds and this email is in regards to the proposed land use plans for the Marina Beach area. As a citizen who uses the Marina Beach Off Leash Dog area, I would urge you to move forward with Option B where Willow Creek bisects the current lawn area and parking exiting the park through the existing beach and driftwood zone. It also is the option that the Fisheries department feels would be the best for the Salmon. The Off Leash Dog Beach is also an asset to the city and the citizens. This is the only off leash dog area close to downtown Edmonds and is always busy, stimulating the economy for many local businesses. I personally know many people who travel to Edmonds so that their dog can swim. It is a unique attraction that would be sorely missed. Thank you for reading and considering my opinion. I think Option C would be the best choice for the Edmonds Dog Park. I would like to provide comments on the Marina Beach Master Plan especially as it relates to the daylighting of Willow Creek. I do have a lot of knowledge on Edmonds beaches as I have lived in Edmonds for over 35 years and raised 4 kids whose favorite beach was Marina Beach. Also, my wife and I enjoy taking daily walks down to the Edmonds waterfront (weather permitting) to look at our great beaches, the birds and other wildlife, so we are very familiar with the Edmonds waterfront and beaches, the fishing pier and the Edmonds Marsh. I fully support the Willow Creek Daylighting project and want to see it happen. It will turn the Edmonds Marsh back into a fully functioning pocket estuary that will benefit ESA -listed salmon as it will provide a sheltered feeding environment for juvenile salmon that occur along the Edmonds shoreline. I'm a retired fisheries biologist, so I fully understand the ecological benefits of daylighting the Marsh outlet into Puget Sound. It would also open the creek up for adult coho and chum salmon passage, and it'd be great to see these salmon spawning in the lower Willow Creek and maybe even Shellabarger Creek (though there are some additional passage issues in Shellabarger). My wife and I attended the open house on March 4 regarding the Master Plan for Marina Beach Park and I also have been tracking the daylighting project as part of a Service Project for the Citizen Action Training School that I attended. The two options for a daylighted creek (one through the dog park and one through the hill in the park) were presented and discussed at the open house. In both options, park users would lose some of what they like about Marina beach. Thus, I would strongly recommend a different option for the daylighted creek and that is to have it follow the existing fence (separating the dog park) to an outfall along the north edge of the rocky outcrop. This would be almost a straight line from the concrete passage structure under the railroad tracks (that the daylighted creek would pass through) that is about where the gate to the dog park is located and out to the Sound. The only loss to the park would be the parking along this strip. Although people may not appreciate losing parking area for the park (which is limited), it would keep the grass hill and non -dog beach area intact, as well as the dog area intact; and I think more people would appreciate this over losing some parking. It would only require one foot APPENDIX Packet Page 290 of 1075 61 bridge for people to access the dog park, and a fence to keep the dogs out of the creek on the south side. The alternative parking would be the visitor parking in the marina parking lots to the north of the park (unless the City worked out a deal to use the old UnoCal area to the east of the park for parking, though this would require a foot bridge over/under the railroad tracks). I believe many Edmonds residents are environmentally conscious and would support the daylighting project. But to overcome opposition to the costs of the project and loss of some aspects of the park (e.g., parking), I think the City will need to be creative in seeking other opportunities to enhance/expand Marina Beach Park while undertaking the daylighting project. Specifically, I think it would be beneficial to "look east" to expand the park experience and include access to the Marsh. The City is already combining the Willow Creek Daylighting Project with the Dayton Street flooding problem, so why not include a component to provide birdwatchers and others access to the east and south edges of the Marsh through a footbridge and viewing platforms. There are many "birders" in Edmonds and they would greatly appreciate the opportunity to access this part of the Marsh especially after the daylighting creates a more natural system and likely adds to the wildlife present (especially shorebirds and waterfowl). If an arrangement can be made for a parking lot on the UnoCal site, the same footbridge would allow access from the parking lot to the park. This may increase the costs of the project, but I don't believe it'd be a significant increase and it would open the door for the City to possibly access other grant funds that pertain to wildlife and wildlife viewing. [The footbridge over the creek (to access the dog area) might also be combined with the footbridge over the tracks to reduce costs]. In summary, I believe many Edmonds residents would like to see the Daylighting Project actually happen. Modifying the options to include a "fencelline" channel for the creek and considering expanding the project to include access to the Marsh (and possibly UnoCal parking) would, I believe, greatly increase public support for this environmentally important project. FINAL DRAFT 62 APPENDIX Packet Page 291 of 1075 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS • City of Edmonds: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. February 25, 2014. • Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment, Willow Creek Daylighting Project - Park Survey, Edmonds, Sno- homish county, WA. June 20, 2014. • Dayton Street and SR 104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study. August 2013. • Willow Creek Daylighting DRAFT - Early Feasibility Study Edmonds, Washington. May 10, 2013. • Willow Creek Daylight Project Conceptual Level Geotech- nical Assessment Edmonds, Washington. November 24, 2014. SR 104 Edmonds Crossing, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. November 2004. FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 292 of 1075 63 GRAPHIC REFERENCES Phase 1 - Inventory/Site Assessment and Park Program 1. Kickoff meeting with PAC 2. Site visit with Parks Staff 3. Assemble and review background and historical information 4. Merge topographic survey with the ferry development and creek alignment 5. Meet with Shannon and Wilson to gain background information on Willow Cree 6. Site Inventory and Analysis 7. Prepare Base Plan 8. Conduct meetings with Parks, Engineering, Public Works, and Planning 9. Prepare a report that summarizes opportunities and constraints 10. Open House #1 11. Develop Park Design Program 12. Present park program and analysis to Planning Board and City Council for app Phase 2 - Schematic Design and Preferred Alternative 1. Assist PAC in establishing evaluation criteria for Master Plan alternatives 2. Develop two Master Plan alternatives 3. Assist city staff in preparing operational and maintenance cost models 4. Prepare existing conditions narrative 5. Meet with Planning Board 6. Meet with Parks Staff 7. Open House #2 8. Meet with City, County, State, and Federal permitting authorities to review des 9. Meet with PAC to review comments from Open House #2 10. Provide briefing to the Planning Board and City Council 11. Create a preferred Master Plan alternative 12. Update cost estimate and operational models. 13. Create a draft Implementation Strategy/Phasing Program 14. Identify scope and schedule of permitting process. 15. Attend meetings with Parks staff to review preferred Master Plan alternative 16. Open House #3 17. Meet with the Planning Board and City Council 18. Refine draft Master Plan and Phasing Program 19. Revise cost estimates 20. Meet with PAC to review workshop comments 21. Incorporate comments from PAC meeting Planning Board and City Council 22. Prepare SEPA checklist 23. Submit final Master Plan to Parks FIGURE 1.1- PROJECT SCHEDULE ® 325 0 325 650 Creek/Ditch Figure 1-1 Sal 1"=325' • Scale Feet Pipe/Culvert Project Area snit e1er9y, ewiro,mem x mfraso-ucmre, uc FIGURE 1.2 - EXISTING DRAINAGE DIAGRAM FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 293 of 1075 FIGURE 1.3 - PROPOSED CREEK DAYLIGHTING CHANNEL STUDY FIGURE 1.4 PROPOSED CREEK DAYLIGHTING CHANNEL STUDY FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 294 of 1075 65 Option A Alignment A 9s 0 150 30o Scale in Feet / 20 so4ih NArm Possible Retaining Wall to TP-1 B-2 Location - a 1 M mial ieI (see Figure 5) - 8 B' -10 wRT EAST TP-4 - -zo u 30 E -30 20 G -40 4 a 10 -so ° 01.414 GIRADE ? Property ne 0+00 M50 o-tS $ -10 LEGEND Willow Creek Daylight Protect 3 B-1 �fioring eMlor Teat Pn Deaigne4on .40 1+00 1-15 Geotechnical Evaluation Edmonds on 1npl. x'rv) �vmjeam oialeoce - NOTES TYPICAL STREAM CHANNEL STREAM edare vaeam.oa Taste { Pr, -lnrnea omen Nwesom 1�slaBN- 1. Groan. aartane is adaPtea rrem ste sPP.ey and DOAP. CROSS SECTION ? water Level at nme of DnllNg or Fxcavaeon �II 15�MPdIflee CalHomla Sampler 2. This aub.udace Protile is generalized from material. o ao 60 SECTION A -A' SECTION B-B' A Con(mt observed in soil boring.. W,iedons may exist between Scale in Feet SECTION D-D' USC s s bo y'" I62214 1O% pP imete—Wic �Isonamat aonng �p.b Com leted profile end equal conditions. S. See Sheet 2 of Fig 4 for Section C-C'. Vertical=HoriroMal November 2014 21-1-12393406 91UlNDNbYVL90kLfiG FIG.4 ^^^^^^ ^•• •••^•^•M Sbeettoi2 FIGURE 1.5 - WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING STREAM CHANNEL SECTION STUDY Section A -A 30 30 NOTE Figure ad,pted from electronic files. 20 20 w 2rNM_Wilbw_C, Sonrey.dwg, 2008_Mh_SurveyAwg, 201200 '8 TTOPO,Oarsand Basemap.dwg iecawd 10 _ 10 Aena1j, received 08-11-2014. IL I 0 0 0a00 M50 1+00 1-so Section 13-13 50 30 a 20 to- o 5o 40 30 20 i 0 0 0a00 0,50 1+00 1-50 .00 Section CC 4 � 30 20 10 3 w 0 A� Off Leash Do Park Chain Link Fence Sandy Substrate 40 3o 20 'm 10 w 0 t 0 00 0+50 1-do 1.. 2-00 3 0 20 40 Scale in Feat FIGURE 1.6 - WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING STREAM BEACH INSET MAP OF ALIGNMENT OPTIONS SCALE :1"=200' FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 295 of 1075 SMA 10'•. SMA 9 .• m` 3 Salmon Overhead Loading Management• Area Boundary (SMA) •; Qj �j o �.J /� 1� New o Ferry p ' Pier Overhead Pedestrian Walkway Port of Edmonds Marina UNOCAL Pier 'Pic (to be removed) Turnaround ii.! Daylighted Section of Willow Creek \ i us Stops (Lined Channel) Admiral Way Terminal Will Creek Outlet Drop Off \ FQ Open Channel Stairs and �y0\2i0 Elevator Ferry OOP ti0 Holding OArea 0 Short -Term �Gi \2ij, O Parking s\O o° O \o O \ Employe O/} \ Parking Stalls 0 Toll Booths/2nd Story Employee Facilities Safe Room/ Agent Accounting Room Terminal \ Access �/ SR 104 Pine Street F Railroad Covered Pedestrian Walkway Bus Loading Area Stormwater \ r L - Treatment Pond ii{�fiiffi♦i}fiii '.�' �j Salt Marsh Garage Entrance\ (below) 2-Level Parking Garage O m' Edmonds Marsh Terminal Access Road I Freshwater Wetlands V, Deer \ Creek Hatchery Figure S-3 ED �� 0 S�le v R S S I Modified Alternative 2 Q(Preferred Alternative): Connecting ferries, bus & rail Point Edwards Site FIGURE 1.7 EDMONDS CROSSING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FINAL L)rcAri APPENDIX Packet Page 296 of 1075 COST ESTIMATE City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre -design Cost Estimate RO Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 SITEWORK Construction Systems and Assemblies Summary Gross Site Area 194,000 SF Base Bid $/SF $x1,001 G Building sitework G10 Site preparation 530 G20 Site improvements 8.72 1,692 G30 Site civil/Mechanical utilities 210 G40 Site electrical utilities 0.72 140 G90 Other site construction - Z General Z10 General requirements Z1010 411&stration (Specified GCs, General Requirement 6.00% 0.80 154 Z1030 Temporary facilities and temporary controls (Negotiated Support Servicf 0.00% - Z1060 "1 6.00% 0.80 154 1.59 309 Z10 General requirements Z20 Bidding requirements, contract forms, and condition contingencies Z2010 Bidding requirements design contingen 10.00% 1.48 288 Z2020 Contract forms escalation contingency 0.00% - - Z2030 Conditions construction contingency 0.00% - - Z20 Bidding requirements, contract forms, and condition contingencies 1.48 288 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 5 FIGURE 1.8 - COST ESTIMATE FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 297 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Sitework Edmonds, Washington CSI Description G - Building Sitework G10 Site preparation G1010 Site clearing Demolition of building & structures Site protective construction Mobilize Traffic control Protection of existing Erosion control Construction entrances Initial set-up Dewatering allowance Street cleaning Straw wattles/sand bags/inlet protection, etc. Site clearing and grading Demolition Remove existing vertical improvements Sawcut AC paving Clear/grub/scarify 12" Remove AC paving Salvage items & return to Owner Demo existing utilites Earthwork Cut/fill site Import, limited Fine grade Paving prep, concrete Paving prep, asphalt Curb prep Bank stabilization rip rap G20 Site improvements G2020 Parking lots Traffic bump New striping vertical signage Curbs Vehicular concrete 6" JMB Consulting Group LLC FIGURE 1.8 - COST ESTIMATE FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Pre -design Cost Estimate RO July 10, 2015 14-046.110 Quantity Unit Rate Total EXCLUDED 1 is 45,000.00 45,000 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 1 is 7,500.00 7,500 1 is 20,000.00 20,000 194,000 sf 0.10 19,400 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 1 is 75,000.00 75,000 1 is 5,000.00 5,000 1 is 2,500.00 2,500 156,000 sf 0.20 31,200 38,000 sf 0.35 13,300 1 is 5,000.00 5,000 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 156,000 sf 0.75 117,000 1 is 50,000.00 50,000 156,000 sf 0.20 31,200 17,801 sf 1.50 26,702 22,300 sf 1.50 33,450 1,292 if 2.00 2,584 1 is 5,000.00 5,000 1 is 5,000.00 5,000 22,300 sf 0.15 3,345 1,292 if 25.00 32,300 EXCLUDED Page 6 Packet Page 298 of 1075 70 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre -design Cost Estimate RO Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate Total Vehicular AC 4" 22,300 sf 5.00 111,500 Overflow parking EXCLUDED Detectable warning 1 is 2,500.00 2,500 G2030 Pedestrian paving Ped cone paving 15,300 sf 5.50 84,150 Plaza hardscape, pavers on subslab 2,500 sf 55.00 137,500 G2040 Site development Fences & gates New fence 300 if 75.00 22,500 Vehicle security gate EXCLUDED Security post/Bollard EXCLUDED Retaining walls EXCLUDED Terrace/overlook seat walls 176 if 250.00 44,000 Signage 194,000 sf 0.10 19,400 Site furnishings Benches 260 if 75.00 19,500 Trash receptacles 8 ea 600.00 4,800 Bike racks 20 ea 450.00 9,000 BBQ 5 ea 2,500.00 12,500 Picnic tables 5 ea 2,500.00 12,500 Fountains, pools and watercourses EXCLUDED Playing fields Play area 1,500 sf 2.50 3,750 Play equipment/Agility course 1 is 50,000.00 50,000 Flagpoles EXCLUDED Miscellaneous structures Portland Loo 1 ea 100,000.00 100,000 Timber pedestrian bridge, 12'W 86 if 1,050.00 90,300 Restroom building, all trades 250 sf 300.00 75,000 Concession building, all trades 165 sf 350.00 57,750 Allow for anit-grafitti coatings 1 is 2,500.00 2,500 G2050 Landscaping Fine grade+soil prep+top soil 113,000 sf 1.85 209,050 Seeding and sodding Sod EXCLUDED Hydroseed 113,000 sf 0.18 20,340 Planting Trees 120 ea 400.00 48,000 Shrubs 1 is 200,000.00 200,000 Irrigation systems 113,000 sf 1.50 169,500 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 7 FIGURE 1.8 - COST ESTIMATE FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 299 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Sitework Edmonds, Washington CSI Description Other landscape features Miscellaneousroot barriers, jute, edgers, etc Mulch Mow curb, CIP Maintenance G30 Site civil/Mechanical utilities G3010 Water supply Connection G3020 Sanitary sewer Sanitary sewer Connection Allow for lift station G3030 Storm sewer Connection Allow for lift station G40 Site electrical utilities G4010 Electrical distribution Connection G4020 Site lighting Hardscape G4030 Site communications and security Communications ductbank, cabling by others JMB Consulting Group LLC FIGURE 1.8 - COST ESTIMATE FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Pre -design Cost Estimate RO July 10, 2015 14-046.110 Quantity Unit Rate Total 1 is 15,000.00 15,000 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 EXCLUDED 12 mo 10,000.00 120,000 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 1 ea 30,000.00 30,000 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 1 ea 30,000.00 30,000 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 40,100 sf 1.00 40,100 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 2,571,621 Page 8 71 Packet Page 300 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre -design Cost Estimate RO Alternates July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 Quantity Unit Rate Total Alt 1: Additional Ped Bridge Timber pedestrian bridge, 12'W Mark ups TMB Consulting Group LLC FIGURE 1.8 - COST ESTIMATE 86.00 if 1,050.00 90,300 23.20% 90,300 20,950 111,250 Page 9 FINAL DRAFT 72 APPENDIX Packet Page 301 of 1075 FINAL DRAFT APPENDIX Packet Page 302 of 1075 73 FINAL DRAFT 74 APPENDIX Packet Page 303 of 1075 "r _ 1 s a > } — C J i Packet Page 304 of 1075 ' .. 9 ,": e � y. , • '� ate` 3 � - - •ll Carrie Hite — Recreation and Cultural Services Director, City of Edmonds Renee McRae — Interim Assistant Park Director, City of Edmonds Keeley O'Connell— Senior Project Manager, Earth Corps Jerry Shuster — Stormwater Engineering Program Manager, City of Edmonds Rich Lindsay — Park Maintenance Manager, City of Edmonds Diane Buckshnis — City Council, Floretum Garden Club, OLAE Val Stewart — Planning Board, City of Edmonds Rick Schaeffer — Tetra Tech Susan Smiley — Edmonds Floretum Garden Club Joe Scordino — Community Member (retired NOAA fisheries) Ron Brightman — City of Edmonds Tree Board Laura Leeman — Community Member (Edmonds Moms Group) Kevin Conefrey — Edmonds Arts Commission Packet Page 305 of 1075 ave Earling (Mayor of Edmonds) Joan Bloom (City Council) Dr. Kent Saltonstall (City of Woodway) Susie Schaefer (Friends of Edmonds Marsh) Marla Kempf, Bob McChesney and Jim Orvis (Port of Edmonds) Kojo Fordjour (WSDOT) Tammy Armstrong (Department of Natural Resources - DNR) Karen Andres and Susan Tarpley (Ranger Naturalists) Kristiana Johnson, Lora Petso, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas (City Council) Susan Morrow (Seal Sitters) Ann Aldrich, Diane Buckshnis, Julie Nealey (OLAE, Off Leash Area Edmonds) Kernen Lien (Senior Planner, City of Edmonds) Walter Smith (Burlington Northern Santa Fe - BNSF) Neil Tibbott and Phil Lovell (City of Edmonds Planning Board) Packet Page 306 of 1075 December January 2014 2015 Phase 1 - Inventory/Site Assessment and Park Program 1. Kickoff meeting with PAC 2. Site visit with Parks Staff 3. Assemble and review background and historical information JIB 4. Merge topographic survey with the ferry development and creek alignment 5. Meet with Shannon and Wilson to gain background information on Willow Creek • 6. Site Inventory and Analysis - 7. Prepare Base Plan 8. Conduct meetings with Parks, Engineering, Public Works, and Planning 9. Prepare a report that summarizes opportunities and constraints 10. Open House #1 11. Develop Park Design Program 12. Present park program and analysis to Planning Board and City Council for approva Phase 2 - Schematic Design and Preferred Alternative 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Assist PAC in establishing evaluation criteria for Master Plan alternatives Develop two Master Plan alternatives Assist city staff in preparing operational and maintenance cost models Prepare existing conditions narrative Meet with Planning Board Meet with Parks Staff Open House #2 Meet with City, County, State, and Federal permitting authorities to review design Meet with PAC to review comments from Open House #2 Provide briefing to the Planning Board and City Council Create a preferred Master Plan alternative Update cost estimate and operational models. Create a draft Implementation Strategy/Phasing Program Identify scope and schedule of permitting process. Attend meetings with Parks staff to review preferred Master Plan alternative Open House #3 Meet with the Planning Board and City Council Refine draft Master Plan and Phasing Program Revise cost estimates Meet with PAC to review workshop comments Incorporate comments from PAC meeting Planning Board and City Council Prepare SEPA checklist Submit final Master Plan to Parks February 2015 March April May 2015 2015 2015 House #1 June July 2015 2015 Open House Open Ho Legend Task Duration Meeting ♦ Open House August 2015 e #3 Packet Page 307 of 1075 Public Input lr a d�+r t. x Poo r+t x w �44MU nj -? o f 4 = w -edueok I dppy ''K-�- 6 K 0 r 19617, 70 s . Packet Page 308 of 1075 Public Input Sourced from... Sc 2 Dir 2', AUDIENCE participants (176 visits) Other 4% Hits Referral S3% Your OOH 36.36% 4.35 4:52 p Mobile p Desktop 40 Average OOH (%) 77 60 34 Your OOH (°�) Key Terms 66 OOH —Online Open House Direct — attendee used exact OOH URL P L AT F O R M Social — attendee referred from social media Referral — attendee referred from link on external site Other — attendee connected to OOH through a different source Bounce Rate — percentage of attendees who left the OOH from the first page Target — based on project website and other OOH averages May 11 BEHAVIOR Mey 1, Timeline Bounce rate Pages per visit Time on site Mey 19 W. Dyour visitors t feedback Target < 50% >3 > 2:30 MaY Z/ Packet Page 309 of 1075 EOMONU CROSS I NO BREAKWATER EXISTING WSUOT STORNORAIN OUTFALL EXISTING WILLOW CREEK OUTPACE �poEatNRTER �KRK EOWN08 - MUM RIM EXISTING GAY-MW Si OUTFALL -*----- r"4� L-I ��` ❑ G AG E oQ LI D WOOOWAY a �_ i1 C a b ~ CIL LJ L PJ 1 f-�J F- J - Site Context Packet Page 310 of 1075 !RI RAP: U II +n ORT OF E OROS MARINA DI V STMRAGE +�+ EXISTING WSGCT C�1,\\ P EXISTING WILLOW STORAIORAM ` CREEK ONTFALL OVTFALL M. I PUGET SOUND ,PLAT /-�`. OROIHRRY WATER AND j �. -.. `\ EVRBR�`� HIGH WATER 1 BEACH AND DRIFT `� CONXECIION �`� Irr. WOOS AREA =� T I -ov ju , �o '' BENCH• TYP. PU-I-T TABLE, TYP. i LAWN PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ; �� _�� 1 fi r • I I � RIP RAP f � - -- �Z9 S4a4`£S kR _ � . �' ��% � - _ is f.J 411AII nul; AREA OFF LEASH r �UIlJ �x AGRITr r.nuRsl AREA EDMONDS I �,, 1 DRIFT �¢ EXISTING - - VEGETATION ' POINT EDWARDS - - 1 CONDOMINIUMS � I 1 I i' Fl. .' PREVAILING WING — _. I Ali — � Site Analysis Packet Page 311 of 1075 Stream Alignment Stream Alignment Stream Alignment Option A Option B Option C Packet Page 312 of 1075 Stream Alignment Stream Alignment Option B Option C Packet Page 313 of 1075 Public Input -Beach, views, environment, picnic tables, seating, walk- ing, active/passive recreation opportunities. -Retention of Dog Park -Parking capacity -Restroom facilities -Provide more habitat and educational opportunities -Willow Creek alignment and impacts -Dog and human conflicts. Dog impacts to environment. Packet Page 314 of 1075 1 Overlook 4_ Bench,Typ. Mound Driftwood Area Sand Volleyball Pi VehicularTurn Around Restroom Paved Path, Typ. � Play Area SO'Buffer,Typ Lawn Area Nature Play Area — Soft Surface Path creel, Pedestrian Bridge Agility Course' Fence Off Leash Aft To Remain f Option 1 WALKER MACY Marina Beach Masterplan Herrera Environmental Consultants I Envirolssues I WE Consulting Group City of Edmonds. Washington 15/6/2015 Overlook iDriftt SandVolleyballBench,Typ. PicnicTable,Typ.''' Paved Path,Typ. Soft Surface Path 50'Buffer,Typ.� Creek 1 Parking Restroom/ Pedestrian Bridge ' Agility Course Lawn Area Fence - ash�a o Remain i WALKERIMACY Herrera Environmental Consultants I Envirolssues I JMB Consulting Group Option 2 Marina Beach Masterplan Gay of Edmonds, Washington 15/6/2015 Packet Page 315 of 1075 Public Input • 75% of attendees preferred Option 1 • Like parking turnaround • Like restroom location - make it centrally located and/ or include an additional restroom for dog park users. • Prefer larger lawn area • Prefer two overlooks • Separate dog and people best Packet Page 316 of 1075 MUND ,9q TOI v DRDINARY HIGH WATER MA BEACH PARK V-7 Aerial Packet Page 317 of 1075 �C Overlook Beach & Driftwood Area BBQ Paved Path g I/ Picnic Table &BBQ - I Bench \ P onal Waterc,aft 51 grog Play Area 50'Buffer a,^ Possible Pedestrian Bridge i; Stalls Overflow - y Parking �f Potential Concession Restroom With Outdoor Shower ■ ' ® 28 Stalls Overflow sa siaii: Parking 4 ADA 2 Mo[or r ° Restroom Bicycle Racks Wlllm Creek Off 1,eash Area T- Pedestrian Bridge Fence Agility Course i - Preferred Master Plan 0 Packet Page 318 of 1075 A jjjj Overlook Beach & Driftwood,Area BBQ T lj Paved Path Picnic Table & BBQ Bench Personal Watercraft Staging 0 I L\ N Key Mapm 4-x (2) Motorcycle Stalls it - acket Pa of 07 4, b _--- - ._:�. now z hook f .�► Ile per -4 At or, 00 wl 14A 7j. IV • .•- r • - -•• t � � �� { } s7f � F r mm fLA - +v 114 M■ �``�'.��-h c•7'._:` r ti. •� r, ram F�'-:-•, • _ - a� _- He's, "! _ - i�r �p�r y.j �. �'rl :.�� .. - - '11A' 11• '' � •�5 tt♦w ''i � ?•4- � 'i'r.7.: SS.��v.. �l �.� .. ��. •:!'!"�� - • 'J: ✓f ^lit '� _ Y �iit ��CC ff _.��. ..:r� y� `-. rr�:4�!S_- ��.�Y�i'•�f-� rl.. I �Y.�- �� .�s ,. la., '�?' � ' �. � � " � _ � - ��,s. r._ - — .f ;�•�a: -�,� ,.+,y;.�!'� ., • . ,.. � o{ fir: Y' 4 .. - I -, .. Page 323 of 107 LLU May Area 50' Buffer Unpaved Possible Pedestrian Bridge HE 7 Potential Concession -.:, ZVA. Restroom With Outdoor Shower Willow Creek 58 Stalls + 4 ADA Key Map Restr Bic cle 4, R,cks Pedestrian Bridge Packet Page 324 of 1075 r Now aL ��_ � - -y�� a ��•�,-, z .u. liol N -i- A -pff The Portland too, Restroom Packet Page 326 of 1075 ALL 410 # } 0 ppppp" WA Abi N rre re��err� 0 NI t r. ray ,►- ,_ �; E r gill `oily .� � - � fl�T� .iic 4 -✓� ?SL'.t�'. A �. '�1�-!"� J"�' "'s'Kfiv. '-L T�y�� .1 i �i +�+� 74-i .r 1 ti • r r ti ' 1 r y r' � • �t rr��s.ti ��• fY f .- .� �� tom. "� �.l"', -•�,, '� , ' • - ,1 • ;. j .. Y - r � • �-� r�r• , r � i... ;t}� �..3}• �. `t'! 'i:' ,y 1, �� ' � �� r �.•� �"' �e';� j � � fig; ,' .. . WIN Q47" I r.i•• R - v L ; ?d�a' '•'L �'r t■��♦ •�� fi.. fin. �" T &ti:f�•`dr� yea � .. Overlook Fence �• a rf rf f � / y 4 Off Leash Area � 1 w � 1 } { y y y y 19, Y } Agility Course 1 y � 1 1 f f - y f I i ' I f � f t' I 49 Df 1075 II Overlook Beach & Driftwood Area B,Q ------ Paved Path Picnic Table & BBQ Bench n.1 Watercraft Staging Play Area 50'Buffer Possible Pedestrian Bridge 75 Stalls Overflow Parking Potential Concession Restroom With Outdoor Shower V28 Stalls Overflow ?jV/I- 518'slk Parking Preferred Master Plan Packet Page 336 of 1075 0 hp] mad Pwh L P.CrkTIk"I LMQ Lffild ft—A bom"O !u boffir Pa-LdM PtdPuiLbn Li" v PomiL,)&vvAi1 Cbjiow- Mown k Dwmy- P& kWQ DH Lr hAm P AOL (Approximate) Edmonds Crossing Alignment Packet Page 337 of 1075 a _ - _ � �� - �: `. - .. ��•� _ - - .;;�..�� = r,�;� -' � -- : art µ '", � �' � ` -x- =' - �, _ v.1 -' �• r - _ ice'. _ _ ' .. T - �-� J - ..' Elm— _ �:a. • - - xti r _ �'' ��' "•'�-Ra Let Page 338 of 1075 _ l . "r _ 1 s a > } — C J i Packet Page 339 of 1075 .. 9 ,": e � y. , • '� ate` ' 3 � - - ��C is) V I r !. A City of Edmonds MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN Edmonds, Washington PRE -DESIGN COST ESTIMATE RO July 10, 2015 JMB CONSULTING GROUP 4320 29th Avenue W Seattle, Washington 98199 Tel: 206.708.7280 July 10, 2015 Chris Jones Walker I Macy 105 S Main Street Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: City of Edmonds Subject: Marina Beach Master Plan Edmonds, Washington Dear Chris: In accordance with your instructions, we enclose our cost estimate for the project referenced above. This cost estimate is a statement of reasonable and probable construction cost. It is not a prediction of low bid. We would be pleased to discuss this report with you further at your convenience. Sincerely, Jon Bayles JMB Consulting Group LLC 14-046 Enclosures Packet Page 341 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Edmonds, Washington BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE RO Conditions of Construction The pricing is based on the following general conditions of construction A start date of July 2015 A construction period of 6 months The general contract will be hard bid There will not be small business set aside requirements The contractor will be required to pay prevailing wages The project shall be constructed in one phase Pre -design Cost Estimate RO July 10, 2015 14-046.110 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 1 Packet Page 342 of 1075 City of Edmonds Pre -design Cost Estimate RO Marina Beach Master Plan July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 EXCLUSIONS Escalation Owner supplied and installed furniture, fixtures and equipment Loose furniture and equipment except as specifically identified Furnishing of security equipment and devices Furnishing of audio visual equipment Hazardous material handling, disposal and abatement except as identified Compression of schedule, premium or shift work, and restrictions on the contractor's working hours Design, testing, inspection or construction management fees Architectural and design fees Scope change and post contract contingencies Assessments, taxes, finance, legal and development charges Environmental impact mitigation Builder's risk, project wrap-up and other owner provided insurance program Land and easement acquisition Also see detail of each estimate JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 2 Packet Page 343 of 1075 City of Edmonds Pre -design Cost Estimate RO Marina Beach Master Plan July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 r—sitework_ Gross Site Area 194,000 SF $ / SF $x1,000 16.33 3,168 TOTAL Building & Sitework Construction 3,168 Alt 1: Additional Ped Bridge 194,000 SF 0.57 111 NOTE: Escalation is not included and is recommended to be forecasted at a rate of 5% per year, compounded JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 3 Packet Page 344 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Sitework Pre -design Cost Estimate RO July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 SITEWORKAREAS Areas Site area Preferred Master Plan SF 194,000 TOTAL SITE AREA 194,000 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 4 Packet Page 345 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre -design Cost Estimate RO Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 SITEWORK Construction Systems and Assemblies Summary Gross Site Area 194,000 SF Base Bid $/SF $x1,00( G Building sitework G10 Site prep 2.73 530 G20 Site improvements 8.72 1,692 G30 Site civil/Mechanical utilities 1.08 210 G40 Site electrical utilities 0.72 140 G90 Other site construction - - Z General Z10 General requirements IqWPR�Administra on pecified GCs, General Requirements) 6.00% 0.80 154 Z1030 Temporary facilities and temporary controls (Negotiated Support Servicf 0.00% - - �060 Fee 1 .00% 0.80 154 Z10 General requirements 1.59 309 Z20 Bidding requirements, contract forms, and condition contingencies dding requirements design contingenc 10.00% 1.48 288 Z2020 Contract forms escalation contingency 0.00% - - onditions construction contingency - - Z20 Bidding requirements, contract forms, and condition contingencies 1.48 288 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 5 Packet Page 346 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre -design Cost Estimate RO Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate Total G - Building Sitework G10 Site preparation G 10 10 Site clearing Demolition of building & structures EXCLUDED Site protective construction Mobilize 1 is 45,000.00 45,000 Traffic control 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 Protection of existing 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 Erosion control Construction entrances 1 is 7,500.00 7,500 Initial set-up 1 is 20,000.00 20,000 Dewatering allowance 194,000 sf 0.10 19,400 Street cleaning 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 Straw wattles/sand bags/inlet protection, etc. 1 is 75,000.00 75,000 Site clearing and grading Demolition Remove existing vertical improvements 1 is 5,000.00 5,000 Sawcut AC paving 1 is 2,500.00 2,500 Clear/grub/scarify 12" 156,000 sf 0.20 31,200 Remove AC paving 38,000 sf 0.35 13,300 Salvage items & return to Owner 1 is 5,000.00 5,000 Demo existing utilites 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 Earthwork Cut/fill site 156,000 sf 0.75 117,000 Import, limited 1 is 50,000.00 50,000 Fine grade 156,000 sf 0.20 31,200 Paving prep, concrete 17,801 sf 1.50 26,702 Paving prep, asphalt 22,300 sf 1.50 33,450 Curb prep 1,292 if 2.00 2,584 Bank stabilization rip rap 1 is 5,000.00 5,000 G20 Site improvements G2020 Parking lots Traffic bump 1 is 5,000.00 5,000 New striping vertical signage 22,300 sf 0.15 3,345 Curbs 1,292 if 25.00 32,300 Vehicular concrete 6" EXCLUDED JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 6 Packet Page 347 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Sitework Edmonds, Washington CSI Description Vehicular AC 4" Overflow parking Detectable warning G2030 Pedestrian paving Ped conc paving Plaza hardscape, pavers on subslab G2040 Site development Fences & gates New fence Vehicle security gate Security post/Bollard Retaining walls Terrace/overlook seat walls Signage Site furnishings Benches Trash receptacles Bike racks BBQ Picnic tables Fountains, pools and watercourses Playing fields Play area Play equipment/Agility course Flagpoles Miscellaneous structures Portland Loo Timber pedestrian bridge, 12'W Restroom building, all trades Concession building, all trades Allow for anit-grafitti coatings G2050 Landscaping Fine grade+soil prep+top soil Seeding and sodding Sod Hydroseed Planting Trees Shrubs Irrigation systems Pre -design Cost Estimate RO July 10, 2015 14-046.110 Quantity Unit Rate Total 22,300 sf 5.00 111,500 EXCLUDED 1 is 2,500.00 2,500 15,300 sf 5.50 84,150 2,500 sf 55.00 137,500 300 if 75.00 22,500 EXCLUDED EXCLUDED EXCLUDED 176 if 250.00 44,000 194,000 sf 0.10 19,400 260 if 75.00 19,500 8 ea 600.00 4,800 20 ea 450.00 9,000 5 ea 2,500.00 12,500 5 ea 2,500.00 12,500 EXCLUDED 1,500 sf 2.50 3,750 1 is 50,000.00 50,000 EXCLUDED 1 ea 100,000.00 100,000 86 if 1,050.00 90,300 250 sf 300.00 75,000 165 sf 350.00 57,750 1 is 2,500.00 2,500 113,000 sf 1.85 209,050 EXCLUDED 113,000 sf 0.18 20,340 120 ea 400.00 48,000 1 is 200,000.00 200,000 113,000 sf 1.50 169,500 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 7 Packet Page 348 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Sitework Edmonds, Washington CSI Description Other landscape features Miscellaneousroot barriers, jute, edgers, etc Mulch Mow curb, CIP Maintenance G30 Site civil/Mechanical utilities G3010 Water supply Connection G3020 Sanitary sewer Sanitary sewer Connection Allow for lift station G3030 Storm sewer Connection Allow for lift station G40 Site electrical utilities G4010 Electrical distribution Connection G4020 Site lighting Hardscape G4030 Site communications and security Communications ductbank, cabling by others Pre -design Cost Estimate RO July 10, 2015 14-046.110 Quantity Unit Rate Total 1 is 15,000.00 15,000 1 is 10,000.00 10,000 EXCLUDED 12 mo 10,000.00 120,000 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 1 ea 30,000.00 30,000 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 1 ea 30,000.00 30,000 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 40,100 sf 1.00 40,100 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 2,571,621 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 8 Packet Page 349 of 1075 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre -design Cost Estimate RO Alternates July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 Alt 1: Additional Ped Bridge Timber pedestrian bridge, 12'W Mark ups Quantity Unit Rate Total 86.00 if 1,050.00 90,300 23.20% 90,300 20,950 111,250 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 9 Packet Page 350 of 1075 EDMONDS — KINGSTON FERRY ANDING � NORTH4W 0� BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH � �qe PUGET SOUND _ i Q FISHING PIER � > 'C*CIS ! %' OLYMPIC E ON BEACH �� j ' STATI � \, EXISTING DAYTON SIT OUTFACE ARNIES RESTAURANT *4&"r DAYT N SIT OQO El � Q) YACHT S Q � CLUB I$ HARBOR AR II ❑ PORT OF L1 f l EDMONDS — c �EDMONDS CROSSING 0 BEACH BREAKWATER CAFE Q� � � SH �s o R El 141 EDMONDS MARS EXISTING WILLOWAV ` • \' '/'�; CREEK OUTFALLN%AV AV UNOCAL PROPERTY 3 'i Boom IN 4or woos Oslo woos mono PROJECT � ' _ --'--wwwo 001 - W SITE `•.NL ° o IL I Na IN AR C y IL T �` CITY PARK � NDO IUMS — ` o In FIE A HATCH El E:p i 3k I� a E= I F_ Context Walker Macy Marina Beach Masterplan Herrera Environmental Consultants I Envirolssues I JMB Consulting Group City of Edmonds, Washington 13/4/2015 Packet Page 351 of 1075 � / l HIGH V1�1T\E°R\ � � � � ,DRIFT ROCK OUTCROP J AND RIP RAP (In'T OF E'--T.M0NDS IT A R I RY STORAGE Sp'aFes Q�Q 100 \WAT\E4tCR0T\ \ xj \ S ORKE YP.�� WATER 14 �SE�R �`�� 11 \� CONNEC N `\. � \ PICNIC / /TABLE, TYP. � ��\ /��',pa y �a_`Ia.\. \..r„_nnu_a� LAWN � � I jj Spaces SMALL �D `�``�►. Ile is • AGILITY qO 0 40' I 0 MEN Lk • �!t%�� 01 ►► i I' I4w. New 4++4 i 1 .•'. OA TREES A CCV Alll \ICOT \ zl- POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS n; ') 1 i ZZ ite Analysis Walker Macy Herrera Environmental Consultants I Envirolssues I JMB Consulting Group Marina Beach Masterplan City of Edmonds, Washington 13/4/2015 Packet Page 352 of 1075 Adilk Washington State Department of Transportation Lynn Peterson Secretary of Transportation June 19, 2015 Carrie Hite, Director Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services City of Edmonds Frances Anderson C ter 700 Main S5 , k Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms, Hite: WSDOT Ferries Division (WSF) 2901 3rd Avenue, Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3014 206-515-3400 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries Thank you for meeting with Washington State Ferries (WSF) on June 3, 2015 to discuss the City of Edmonds' proposed park master plan options for the Marina Beach Park, and WSF's future Edmonds Crossing project on the Unocal site. WSF has also reviewed the Purchase and Sale Agreement signed between the City of Edmonds and Unocal for the parkland. As you may be aware, WSF has a purchase and sale agreement with Unocal (aka Chevron), with funds in escrow, for the lower yard of the formal Unocal site for the relocation of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal project. A Record of Decision (ROD) for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was issued for the proposed project in 2005 by Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration. The City of Edmonds was a key stakeholder in the project. The property purchase and sale agreement between the City of Edmonds and Unocal for the Marina Beach parkland includes a condition that Unocal and its successors maintain the ownership of certain assets and an easement that span the adjacent Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way. The Limited Warrantee Deed granted Unocal and its successors (WSF) the right to demolish Vl.rsh,ul:�u, 5?.,I�• rcr� k-s Packet Page 353 of 1075 June 19, 2015 Page 2 of 2 properties in the easement, and construct a ferry terminal trestle and utilities necessary for the operation of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal at the site. In our June 3 meeting, we discussed some features in the proposed Marina Beach Park master plan that limit the State's ability to develop the NEPA/SEPA approved preferred alternative for the Edmonds Crossing project. W SF' would like to work in collaboration with the City to develop a park and ferry terminal that meet our mutual needs and interests at the site. As we discussed at our June 3rd meeting, WSF is proposing the following language to be included in the final Marina Beach Park master plan: "Washington State Ferries and the City of Edmonds agree that they shall negotiate in good faith towards a joint facility development and access agreement which would provide for the incorporation of the ferry terminal access rights and easements located within the Marina Beach Park set forth in the Limited Warranty Deed of the Purchase and Sale Agreement signed between Unocal and City of Edmonds in December 2001 " We would like to meet with the Parks Department when design of Marina Beach Park has begun so that we can develop an agreement that will protect both of our interests. I appreciate the opportunity to again work with the City of Edmonds to further our mutual goals within the City. Sincerely, Nicole McIntosh, P.E. Director, Terminal Engineering Washington State Ferries NM:kf cc: Kojo Fordjour List Packet Page 354 of 1075 • • Future F�mUnds ~\4 jj}} [rosslny Allgnment ` Parking r I Beach.& Driftwood Area --_ i� • _ - SRQ �, ti Paved Path Picnic Table&B0Q - -}'. -� II -_ �♦ Bench . .... -- - PolBnlial Conccnsivn r -: . { Restraom With Outdoor Shower t-`- - Play Area ti 28 Stalls Orerftow Parking • �Restroom Bicycle Racks - - Rassi�le R!dlitrlan Btldgr y�raeet: Pedsstnaq Rficga Fence OfLeashArea '. � •f--pgitnyOtwrse . (Approximate)Edmonds low s Crossing Alignment ........ _. Packet Page 355 of 1075 Edmonds Marina Beach Open House #1 Summary — March 4, 2015 Updated: 3/19/2015 Overview On March 4, 2015, the City of Edmonds hosted an open house at the Edmonds Plaza Room to share information about the Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan. The open house included display boards showing: relevant contextual information about the site; analysis of the existing elements and other features of the site; two different alignment concepts for daylighting Willow Creek. Aerial boards on each table illustrated the existing conditions of Edmonds Marina Beach Park. The project team provided information on the project background, schedule, Willow Creek alignment options and connections between Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek. Attendees split into five groups to discuss what they like and don't like about Marina Beach Park, what they hope to see in the future and their feedback on the two Willow Creek alignment concepts. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through SurveyMonkey. Summary of questions and input What elements of Marina Beach Park did attendees like? • Beach access • View of mountains • Openness and unstructured nature of • Active area and sports (e.g., beach kiteboarding, kayaking, volleyball, • Natural features and balance with windsurfing, fishing) hardscapes (e.g., driftwood, rocky inner • Opportunities for interaction with tidal zone) naturalists and beach rangers • Grassy area • Accessibility for high school students to • Sandy north beach work on projects at the beach • Separation of play area and play • Picnicking and BBQ structure • Connectivity to the port • Dog park • Quiet place to sit • Ability to walk down the beach and • Pedestrian access from the north other walking paths • Knoll structure • Wildlife (e.g., seals, marine life, whales, • Views and photography birds) • Sufficient ADA parking and ok parking • Family accessible capacity • Healthy environment II. What elements of Marina Beach Park did attendees dislike? • Port a potties • Dog park - concerns about whether dog • Lack of parking and no parking park is best use of real estate turnaround • Dogs chasing wildlife and smell from • Erosion at south end dog park Online Open House #1 Summary Draft 03/12/2015 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 356 of 1075 III. What elements of Marina Beach Park would attendees change? What elements would attendees like to include? • Increase ADA parking • Connect pedestrian access to east side • More picnic tables of railroad tracks and connect • Keep the rustic feel of the park pedestrian walkways to parking • Add fire pits • Connect beach to marsh trail • More ways to walk on beach (driftwood • Permanent bathrooms makes walking difficult) • Replenish the sand • Relocate dog park (concerns that build- • Provide walkway to birds up of acid is not conducive to salmon- • Ensure that dog park keeps dogs in friendly habitat) • Increase salmon habitat • Better signage (entrance/dog park/from • More seating in park area Port walkway) • Prefer to keep beach in its historic or • More natural playground area (not natural state primary colors) • Add a nature center • Make parking in a loop to lessen • Create a new overlook structure congestion • Use pier footing as overlook but • Allow for watercraft access soften/add seating and a telescope • Address stormwater runoff (e.g., runoff • More seating in the park. from SR 104 and Shoreline) IV. Attendee feedback on Willow Creek alignments: • Alignment A: i. Likes: takes up less of parking area; doesn't take park space. ii. Concerns: requires too much fencing; concerns about children near creek when water level can increase 4 or 5 feet; impacts of dog park to creek. • Alignment B: i. Likes: natural curve; more organic layout; permanent restrooms; maintains natural habitat; allows for more recreational opportunities; reduces size of park, but okay if it increases access to the boat site; more educational opportunities; more fish friendly. ii. Concerns: too disruptive; tree loss from grassy area; loss of lawn; needs a pedestrian overpass; loses more beach real estate. • Suggestions for alternative options: i. Daylight along historic pier location; instead of curving, have the stream come straight through the middle through the old pier and pipes. • General concerns/comments: where will dogs go temporarily during construction; soil testing and contamination; pedestrian bridges; putting a parking lot in the Uni-Cal area; allowing access to the marsh from the park; extending dusk hours. V. Other questions/feedback • Attendees asked how wide the creek will be — project staff said this topic would be covered at the next open house in May. Online Open House #1 Summary Draft 03/12/2015 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 357 of 1075 • One attendee, Val Stewart, suggested outreach with high school students. She offered to distribute a survey or materials at the high school to help promote engagement with the project. Attendance City of Edmonds • Dave Earling, Mayor • Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember • Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director • Renee McRae, Interim Assistant Parks Director • Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Other project team members • Chris Jones, Walker Macy • Mike Zilis, Walker Macy • Keeley O'Connell, Earth Corps • Katie DeLeuw, Envirolssues • Nicole Lobodzinski, Envirolssues Members of the public: Approximately 40 Online Open House #1 Summary Draft 03/12/2015 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 358 of 1075 Edmonds Marina Beach Open House #2 Summary — May 6, 2015 Updated: 5/15/2015 Overview On May 6, 2015, the City of Edmonds hosted the second in a series of three open houses at the Edmonds Plaza Room to share information about the Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan. The open house included display boards showing updated alignment concepts for daylighting Willow Creek and concepts for an Edmonds Marina Beach park plan. Aerial boards and handouts on each table illustrated the two different park plans proposed for Edmonds Marina Beach. The project team presented the project background, a recap of feedback following the first open house, and an overview of the two updated Willow Creek alignment options and Edmonds Marina Beach Park plans. Attendees split into groups to discuss their preferences related to the two Willow Creek alignment options and the park plans. They also provided feedback on park elements not included in the parks plans that they would like included in the master plan. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through SurveyMonkey. Summary of small group discussions 1. Which alternative park plan do you prefer? Why? Option 1 Feedback and questions included • Like parking turnaround • Like restroom location • Natural channel • Closest walk to beach • More people beach less loss • Middle ground • Less channel, lower cost • Like two overlooks • Option 1 is more continuous, open • Don't like restroom location in option 1; want a more centrally located restroom, or additional restrooms • Add southern overlook to option 1 • Separates dogs and people best • Want longer walking trails • Connect trail to marsh boardwalk area • Keep play area natural • Need better signage for dog area Option 2 Feedback and questions included: • Best for salmon • Better buffer creek and dog park • Drop off roundabout is needed for buses • Motorcycle parking • Kids love the playground, nature play area • More signage to limit dog park area • Like a lookout options • Protect from oil spill and SW • Education at dog park • Why did dog park stay? Is this the best use of the park? FC pollution • Like consolidation of play and lawn area • Second bridge on west end for both options that also provides an overlook • Bathrooms are located in non -dog area; what do dog people do to access bathrooms? Online Open House #2 Summary Updated 5/15/2015 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 359 of 1075 Option 1 Option 2 • Choose the less costly maintenance version • Impact of coal dust on daylight • Lawn area is wasted, used by dog park • Southern portion will become all dog park General feedback on and questions about the park plans included: • Like walkway • ADA access to beach • Would like tsunami info • Remove park from marine sanctuary or keep as a marine sanctuary? • Dogs on leash ok in park • Keep play area natural • Concerned about wave action causing erosion — will have to work harder to maintain • Add porta potties during busier times of year 2. Which alternative creek alignment do you prefer? Option 1 Feedback included: • Less lawn space • Like second lawn area with restrooms • Add motorcycle parking • Add firepits • More picnic tables • Put restrooms towards entrance of parking lot, middle of parking lot and one towards the end • Choose less costly option • Suggest 3-point turn around because it would take less room • Concern about coal dust on daylighted creek Option 2 Feedback included: • Liked two lookouts and lawn area General feedback on and questions about the creek alignments included: • Need another pedestrian bridge • Like the auto turn around • Need better signage • Need signage for community education • Move restroom down to other location • Leave area as marine sanctuary • Consider option to move restroom to entry of parking lot • Want to keep as much of dog park as possible • Keep lookout as is 3. What park elements are not included in the alternatives that you would like included in the master plan? • Increase ADA parking • ADA requirements for both plans • Walkway at grade should be flat • Connect train into marsh • Keep play area natural • Space for kiteboarding launch — space Online Open House #2 Summary Updated 5/15/2015 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 360 of 1075 • More fire pits and BBQ pits • Second gate to dog park (beside bridge) • Extend option 1 lookout from the bridge in option 2 • Showers and waterfront/fountain • Outdoor fitness for adults • Second walkway to cross creek on water side • Some type of shelter • More walking trails • More picnic tables • Eliminate turnaround in favor of a three point turn to get more parking Attendance clear of vegetation, unobstructed from north to south winds • Additional open park area • Off -leash area at Pine Ridge Park • Pay parking for non-residents to cut down on traffic to create funding source • Provide shuttle from top foods to park • As much lawn as possible • Restrooms should be more centrally located, or have additional locations City of Edmonds • Mike Nelson, Edmonds City Council • Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director • Renee McRae, Interim Assistant Parks Director Project team members • Chris Jones, Walker Macy • Mike Zilis, Walker Macy • Keeley O'Connell, Earth Corps • Dave Cline, Shannon and Wilson • Katie DeLeuw, Envirolssues • Nicole Lobodzinski, Envirolssues Members of the public: Approximately 100 Online Open House #2 Summary Updated 5/15/2015 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 361 of 1075 Edmonds Marina Beach Open House #3 Summary —July 8, 2015 Updated: 7/13/2015 Overview On July 8, 2015 the City of Edmonds hosted the third and final open house at the Edmonds Plaza Room to share information about the Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan. The open house included display boards showing the preferred concept for the Marina Beach Master Plan, including an alignment for daylighting Willow Creek. The project team presented the project background and a recap of feedback from previous public outreach efforts, including the Project Advisory Committee, stakeholder meetings, in -person open houses and online open houses. Additionally, the project team described the two Marina Beach Park plans and Willow Creek alignment options previously under consideration. They announced the Option 1 forward per public support and described the conceptual design and benefits of this option. The presentation was followed by a Q&A session and an informal open house. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through web comment form as well. Summary of Q&A 1. Q: How big is the proposed round -about? A: 45-foot diameter. We considered an option without the round -about but feedback showed overwhelming support. There is also a fire code that requires a round -about or a T-shaped end; the round -about option would solve that problem and help traffic flow in parking lot. 2. Q: Will there be a place allocated for concessions? A: Yes, there is a specific place that can be used for concessions. 3. Q: There seems to be a lot of trees in the green space. A lot of people play games that require open space yet the space is not as open as it could be. A: Good comment, we should take that into consideration. 4. Q: Do you envision the playground to be in the trees or bright and sunny? A: Bright and sunny. 5. C: I don't like the hill in the lawn area because so much of it is sloping and can't be used. A: The proposed hill is much lower than the existing one. 6. Q: Are the mature trees going to be able to be saved? A: No, unfortunately not. The trees were attempted to be saved but will need to be removed. 7. Q: Will there be an increase or decrease in parking spots? A: No, there will be the same number of spots. There will be an area for overflow parking as there is today. 8. Q: Can we add motorcycle spots to formalize motorcycle parking instead of taking over a whole parking spot with a motorcycle? A: Good idea, we will consider that as well. 9. Q: What's the distance from parking to water for boat -launch area? A: We are not sure of these details off hand and will need to follow up on this. Online Open House #3 Summary Updated 7/13/2015 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 362 of 1075 10. Q: Will there be paved access to the boat -launch? A: Paved access all the way to launch is not part of the Preferred Master Plan. 11. Q: How do you reconcile marine sanctuary requirements with current lovely use of the beach? A: We have a naturalist program to teach people about the natural features. We don't want people disturbing the natural habitat. 12. Q: What are your contingencies for moving everything southward due to major displacement? A: City of Edmonds is in discussion with the Washington State Department of Transportation and Washington State Ferries regarding Edmonds Crossing. The proposed alignment is adjacent to the north end of Marina Beach Park. Our understanding is that they are not at a point to discuss real plans at this time, and they are not sure when the crossing would move forward. As we continue to develop the Master Plan and get closer to construction, we will have better information and will continue to meet with WSF. 13. Q: Is there a practical reason why you can't move the park/creek further south? A: Yes, moving the design to the south would result in increased sediment deposits and erosion. Geomorphically, with the shoreline drift processes, the more northerly you go the more stable the stream area is. This is based on the amount of time and strength of wind. The drift direction is generally from the south. Moving the park south would require an armored channel due to railroad tracks, and is likely to negatively affect fish, kids, dogs, etc. Open house feedback: • Preferences: o Shade at a park because of sunburn/heat. o Close proximity of dog park to kids play area to be able to keep track of both. o Flat, useable lawn. o Sunny playground. o Shower or foot washing station. o Second bridge because of view, circuit and no dogs. o Grass areas. o Concession availability. o Like the turnaround. • Questions and suggestions o How will kids use the creek? o Add recycle bins. o Want working water fountains — no bottled waters. o Lessen trees in the open lawn. o Include motorcycle parking. o Include ADA parking at port — could be more efficient and it's possible to add spaces. Attendance City of Edmonds • Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director • Renee McRae, Interim Assistant Parks Director Project team members Online Open House #3 Summary Updated 7/13/2015 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 363 of 1075 • Chris Jones, Walker Macy • Mike Zilis, Walker Macy • Keeley O'Connell, Earth Corps • Dave Cline, Shannon and Wilson • Katie DeLeuw, Envirolssues Members of the public: approximately 30 Comment [KD1]: Renee should confirm based on sign -in sheets. Online Open House #3 Summary Updated 7/13/2015 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 364 of 1075 WALKERIMACY TING MINUTES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Time: 10:00-12:00 Topic: Project Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 2/6/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 Attendees: Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis Keeley O'Connell Janice Noe Tess Cayou Laura Leeman Rich Lindsay Renee McRae Richard Schaefer Jerry Shuster Valerie Stewart Chris Jones Attachments: This was the first Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the Marina Beach Master Plan. The PAC was asked a series of questions related to their park experiences. Carrie provided a project overview, Chris described the schedule and process, Keeley and Jerry provided a description of the Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek daylighting project. Item Description 1 Question #1: "Describe the recreational opportunities at Marina Beach park." • Passive: Lawn, beach, walking, storm watching, photography, sunbathing, kite flying, picnicking. • Active: Off leash dog park, kiteboarding, volleyball, other grass games, kayaking. • Potential added program items include a restroom, concessions, additional parking, ADA parking, accessible loop trail, connections, shelter, fire pit, hand launch area, bike racks. • Passive area (lawn) is very popular in summer. Some people bring their own volleyball set. • BBQ areas are well used. Also used as bonfire pits. Bonfires are popular. Historically, concerns have been raised by the fire department due to the oil line. • Natural driftwood is a nice amenity. It's been useful for staging outdoor classes as seating elements. • Don't duplicate uses. Keep as natural as possible. 2 Diane and Rich described the high use of the off leash dog park. Approx. 30,000 plastic bags are used every six weeks. Approx. 1,000 dogs/day. Every seven seconds the dog gate opens. Action by Due date 105 S MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 I SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Page 365 of 1075 Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN 2/6/2015 Page 2 of 4 Item Description Action by Due date 3 Laura suggested accessibility should be addressed in the master plan. Especially to the playground, but also throughout the park, and to the beach. 4 Question #2: "Are there conflicts among park uses? And, are there any program elements that should move out of Marina Beach or be moved to Marina Beach?" • Some mentioned it is not clear that dogs are not allowed at Marina Beach outside of the off leash dog area. This seems to be the only conflict in the park. • Available parking is an issue. • Dogs like to swim around the fence and enter the park. 5 Question #3 & #4: "Describe the time of day/night, duration of use of the park. What's a day in the life of Marina Beach Park?" • Marina Beach Park is a dusk to dawn park. The gate opens at dawn and closes at dusk. If lighting were incorporated into the park there's a concern it would be more appealing for people to enter after hours. If lighting is added, 'dark sky' principals should be considered. • Early mornings are quiet at the park. Park use is consistent throughout the afternoon. 6 Rich suggested there are memorial benches and picnic tables that will need to be relocated within the park. 7 Question #5: "Describe your thoughts on the daylighting of Willow Creek." • Great opportunity to create more bio- diversity, educational opportunities, and an amenity. g Standup paddle boards are popular. A professional said it's dangerous for paddle boards to go out at this location. 9 Consider the ability to land and stage personal watercraft. Carrie suggested looking into Marina Beach Park's connection to the Blue Water Trails system. Packet Page 366 of 1075 Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN 2/6/2015 Page 3 of 4 Item Description Action by Due date 10 Question 7: Vehicle considerations: Buses? Maintenance Vehicles? Emergency? Fire? • Garbage is gathered with a pickup truck. • Buses come most frequently in spring time. Difficult to get them out if they pull in. Five or six buses at a time. It's an issue. People come from throughout the Puget Sound and don't need to contact the city or get a permit. • Emergency vehicles and fire will need access to the site. 11 Question 6 & 8: "Are the park facilities sufficient in meeting the community's needs? Is there interest in moving program elements from another park to Marina Beach Park? • Facilities, other than parking, are sufficient in meeting the community's needs. There's no known need to move program elements, but the question should be asked at the open house. 12 Question 9: "Are there opportunities for more collaborative projects at Marina Beach?" • `Coneheads' is a popular concession stand. The appeal is that park goers do not want to move their vehicle during peak periods. Consider building upon this. • Consider moving concessions out of designated parking spaces. 13 Sustainability is of high importance. Consider using local materials, natural colors, sustainable stormwater strategies, integrate nature play into natural area, encourage concessions to use compostable and recyclable goods. Look at water use. Use best practices in redevelopment. Consider a compostable toilet and waterless urinals for the restrooms. It would be very expensive to have a traditional restroom constructed on this site given the distance required to provide sewer service. Packet Page 367 of 1075 Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN 2/6/2015 Page 4 of 4 Item Description Action by Due date 14 Question 10: "What are some considerations for maintenance, future uses, and the public process in re -envisioning Marina Beach Park? Considerations: Parks picks up dog waste three times a week. Irrigation system runs in late spring to summer. Trash 2-3 times a day. Tried to do pack out parks -doesn't work. Mowing on maintenance management plan. This is a peak use park. The new park will likely have a different maintenance regime we will need to consider. 15 Question 11: "What is your perspective on the potential redevelopment efforts that could affect the park?" • Ferry Terminal isn't even in the 2040 plan. High Speed Rail will be considered. At grade crossing mitigation (train trench) is not very realistic financially. • General PAC consensus... It makes sense to proceed with Master Planning while giving consideration for these future projects, but they are so far out and unknown. We should proceed with developing a park that is functional for the next 25+ years. • The potential of a third rail is the potential conflict with the park program. • There's a BNSF R.O.W along Admiral Way that may impact the park. We need to find the alignment of the third rail. • Will be critical area once creek is there. Packet Page 368 of 1075 WALKERIMACY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Time: 9:00-10:30 Topic: Project Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 5/21/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 Attendees: Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis Keeley O'Connell Kevin Conefrey Laura Leeman Rich Lindsay Renee McRae Richard Schaefer Jerry Shuster Susan Smiley Chris Jones Marina Beach Park 1 Updates • Public Open House #2 (5/6/2015) • Planning Board Meeting (5/13/2015) • City Council Meeting (5/19/2015) • Buffers Online Open House 2 Discussion on Options 1 and 2 • Parking arrangement is preferred in that it replaces existing # of stalls • Turnaround is useful. • PAC likes the preservation of existing program elements in the park. • Preservation of existing off leash area. • Lawn area is reduced in both options. Let's expand if we can. 3 PAC team supports a turnaround idea. Need to have discussion with Fire Marshall. 4 General support for restroom location in option 1 — not good for dog park users. 5 PAC team suggestion: Add porta-potties to off leash dog area. 6 PAC suggests increasing lawn area in preferred alternative. 7 PAC suggests two bridges and/or consideration of general park users and dogs co - mingling. 2nd bridge could also add a 'loop' trail for walkers. 8 Consider maintenance access to lawn area in option 2 adjacent to off leash area. 9 PAC likes the idea of a constructed overlook at UNOCAL dock location. Chris mentioned the Army Corps will likely require removal of the rip rap. 10 Bridges should be designed to be vehicle rated. 11 General support voiced for southern portion of option 2 with overlook and lawn area. 12 PAC prefers replacement of existing play structure with something more natural in color and material. 05 S MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 I SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Page 369 of 1075 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 5/21/2015 Page 2 of 2 13 Discussion about play: • Parents enjoy watching their kids while being able to see the water. • Safety and visibility of the play area is critical. • Some PAC members like the play area location as shown in Option 1. Others like it being moved away from the creek and out of the central lawn space towards the marina. • All like the idea of nature play and engaging park users with the creek and potential interpretive elements. Only caveat is consideration of safety when determining the final location. • We want to keep park users safe while not diminishing the park experience. 14 Provide BBQ pits not fire pits. 15 PAC agrees on moving the playground to the north and keeping the restroom centrally located. Consider movement between the two in order to minimize circulation across the dropoff. Consider nature play taking on more of a beach feel and not a woodland garden feel. 16 PAC suggests moving the off leash agility course to the south to minimize the potential of dogs going around the fence. 17 PAC suggested removing beach volleyball and providing sleeves in lawn area. 18 Discussion on Kite Boarding/Water Dependent Uses: • Carrie met with a representative from the kite boarding community. The group requested a way to educate the community of their staging needs at Marina Beach. Several PAC members suggested signage. 19 Keep existing trees within the off leash area. No structures. 20 Next Steps: • July 8, 2015 Open House #3 • July 22, 2015 Present Master Plan to Planning Board • July 28, 2015 Present Master Plan to City Council • July/August Comment Period • November Adoption of Master Plan Packet Page 370 of 1075 WALKERIMACY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Time: 9:00-10:30 Topic: Project Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 6/30/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 Attendees: Marina Beach Park Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis 1 Discussion of Preferred Alternative Keeley O'Connell 2 PAC team supports a turnaround idea. Need to have discussion with Fire Marshall. Kevin Conefrey 3 General support for restroom location in option 1 — not good for dog park users. Laura Leeman 4 PAC team suggestion: Add porta-potties to off leash dog area. Rich Lindsay Renee McRae 5 PAC suggests increasing lawn area in preferred alternative. Richard Schaefer 6 PAC suggests two bridges and/or consideration of general park users and dogs co - Jerry Shuster mingling. 2"d bridge could also add a 'loop' trail for walkers. Susan Smiley 7 Consider maintenance access to lawn area in option 2 adjacent to off leash area. Chris Jones 8 PAC likes the idea of a constructed overlook at UNOCAL dock location. Chris mentioned the Army Corps will likely require removal of the rip rap. 9 Bridges should be designed to be vehicle rated. 10 General support voiced for southern portion of option 2 with overlook and lawn area. 11 PAC prefers replacement of existing play structure with something more natural in color and material. 12 Discussion about play • Parents enjoy watching their kids while being able to see the water. • Safety and visibility of the play area is critical. • Some PAC members like the play area location as shown in Option 1. Others like it being moved away from the creek and out of the central lawn space towards the marina. • All like the idea of nature play and engaging park users with the creek and potential interpretive elements. Only caveat is consideration of safety when determining the final location. • We want to keep park users safe while not diminishing the park experience. 13 Provide BBQ pits not fire pits. 14 PAC agrees on moving the playground to the north and keeping the restroom centrally located. Consider movement between the two in order to minimize circulation across the dropoff. Consider nature play taking on more of a beach feel and not a woodland garden feel. 05 S MAIN STREET, SUITE 201:. SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Page 371 of 1075 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 6/30/2015 Page 2 of 2 15 PAC suggests moving the off leash agility course to the south to minimize the potential of dogs going around the fence. 16 PAC suggested removing beach volleyball and providing sleeves in lawn area. 17 Discussion on Kite Boarding/Water Dependent Uses: • Carrie met with a representative from the kite boarding community. The group requested a way to educate the community of their staging needs at Marina Beach. Several PAC members suggested signage. 18 Keep existing trees within the off leash area. No structures. 19 Next Steps: • July 8, 2015 Open House #3 • July 22, 2015 Present Master Plan to Planning Board • July 28, 2015 Present Master Plan to City Council • July/August Comment Period • November Adoption of Master Plan Packet Page 372 of 1075 WALKER IMACY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Time: Topic: MB Pac Meeting Meeting Date: 3/27/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 Attendees: Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis Keeley O'Connell Kevin Conefrey Laura Leeman Rich Lindsay Renee McRae Richard Schaefer Jerry Shuster Susan Smiley Chris Jones Marina Beach Park 1 Presented Option C-Not vetted 2 High tide -ordinary high water 10' 3 2 purposes • Salmon -new stakeholder • Flooding -help with SR104 4 Dog park • Physical barrier on S side, esp. C to keep dogs from going in water • If you allow dogs in buffer, build a bigger buffer • Off leash area -surprised by balance -city looking at off leash area • No strong voices against • What do we show public -reduce, remove, relocate • Keep dog park in same area -smaller footprint 5 150 visitors -only 15 commenting Will we keep info from OH on website? 6 Parking alternatives • Parking reduces recreational value of park • Is there a goal to keep same # of parking spots? Yes, not increase • Types of uses you can accommodate with capacity of parking 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 I SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Page 373 of 1075 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 3/27/201-5 Page 2 of 2 7 Buffers • Develop A & B using smaller buffer. • Could qualify for buffer reduction • Stream buffers are there to protect creek and wildlife in creek • If B provides larger benefit for fish, can we reduce buffer? • Southern portion of channel & buffer should be greater because of adjacent use • Larger pool of funding. Surf -funding only benefits fish • Does reducing buffer compromise federal funding • Is the 100' based on buffer averaging? Don't know -hasn't been challenged yet. • What can be done in buffer? • Will look at buffered A & B-add buffer to south on C • Rain gardens, permeable pavement, concentrated buffer Waiting for this process to go through before submitting final feasibility study 8 Longer the channel, better for fish -more northerly outlet is better 9 Overall area -consideration? Not how current CAO reads 10 How much funding? $180k $200k $60k--$5 million entire project 11 To maintain federal grants-100' buffer 12 Proportionate uses of area 13 Existing size inadequate 14 Look at creek as another use 15 More natural play area 16 With option B or C, use of area near brk ? will shift 17 Prom. Point -national separation -develop into really nice feature at park 18 Maps -fantastic • Hard to visualize • What does it feel like to be in a buffer • Provide local photos of person walking through buffer • What does it look like when creek hits the ? • Photo images of buffer Packet Page 374 of 1075 WALKER IMACY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Time: 9:00-10:30 Topic: MB PAC Meeting Meeting Date: 4/24/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 Attendees: Marina Beach Park Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis 1 City is allowing for 50% buffer reduction Keeley O'Connell Moving forward with 50% buffer unless we hear differently from some of the grant sources Kevin Conefrey Laura Leeman 2 Shoreline jurisdiction allows for reduction and averaging Rich Lindsay 0 DOE 35-75' Renee McRae • Do they agree with our interpretation? Richard Schaefer 0 Portion of marsh in different category Jerry Shuster 0 Beach eco ex -different category Susan Smiley 3 Buffer averaging with enhancement Chris Jones 4 Is the gate where the marsh starts? Wherever intertidal goes falls under this jurisdiction 5 Beach buffer is sand -how to limit use -no hard surfaces, structures 6 Passive recreation in buffer Area of buffer that could be plant will be 7 Important that people understand buffer -kids can still play in sand 8 Show it as green to where you can plant 9 Area that includes buffer and creek will take 150' of park 10 Feeling more comfortable, we can look at 50' buffer, keep active rec. 11 Stub out for restroom on north end of park 12 Nature play in buffer area, not structured play 13 Parking • More comments -we need about the same • More parking, would include park use, overcrowd • Dog owners only stay about 1 hour • Show alternate ways of getting to park -walking paths, biking • Uses of parking different as far as staying at beach 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Page 375 of 1075 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 4/24/2015 Page 2 of 3 14 For next OH meeting • Port parking spaces • Reasonable drop off area • Circulation • Center median island • 52 stalls take up significant portion of park • Lay 50' buffer over all alignments after alignment cuts through parking as it is today • Look at restrictions of dogs on walkways -would be hard on dog owners • Center island for storm water management 15 A Pros • Most contiguous park space remaining • Cost -won't require a bridge • No interest in developing further property • Separates railroad tracks from park A Cons • Relocates dog park • Sharp turn -build more structures, added cost • Not a good option from fish, hydraulic, dog perspective 16 B Pros • Best for salmon • Keeps dog park in same configuration -could expand B Cons • Reduces active recreation significantly • Not cohesive for active recreation • Financial challenges-2 bridges -do we need 2? • Add to flow ■ Less likely to cross creek ■ Would need to double back with only one bridge ■ Limit where dogs can cross? ■ Safer with 2 bridges ■ More opportunity 17 Test pits- no contaminant found in ones done. Example of bridges, ? put in these over McAleer Creek at ? 18 Keep dogs fenced south of point -keep same footprint -dogs will be fenced out of portion of buffer Packet Page 376 of 1075 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 4/24/201-5 Page 3 of 3 19 With 2 footbridges, use as an overlook -plaza feel in park -benches, art, solitary point 20 Creek 11' deep at HHT How will design prevent drowning? • Restrict access • Barriers, education • Safety is a major concern • Erosion problem s-Carkeek & Meadowdale We should show some due diligence When designing -need balance -can't be too narrow Designed for small fish that can't swim with velocity Tidal influence, more like Swinomish slough Jetty Island -ex. tidal channel feeding marsh -active rec space, ex. limitation of space • Ecola state park • Kalaloche • Nisqually • Sammamish 21 C Pros • More space for active recreation • Still have dog park 22 B & C similar Packet Page 377 of 1075 AM-8300 5. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Type: Action Information Subiect Title Snohomish County ILA Amendment No.2 Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment 2 to the ILA with Snohomish County for Conservation Futures funds for the purchase of Civic field. Previous Council Action Council authorized Mayor to sign the original ILA with Snohomish County in 2013 for purchase of a beachfront property. Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Amendment No. 1 to to this agreement, allowing for the funds to be used for the purchase of Civic Field. Council has met several times in Executive Session to discuss pricing offers during the negotiations process with the Edmonds School District. Council has adopted the Strategic Action Plan, PROS plan, and Comprehensive Plans, all identifying this purchase as a priority. Council authorized the Purchase and Sale Agreement for Civic on November 10, 2015. Council discussed this amendment on January 26, 2016 and will consider it at the Feb. 2nd 2016 meeting. Narrative The City entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County to receive $500,000 of Conservation Futures funds for acquisition of a beachfront property. After many discussions and three formal purchase offers, the owner of the property declined to sell it. In June, 2015, the City presented a proposal to the Conservation Futures Board; use the funds allocated for the beachfront property acquisition for Civic field acquisition. The Board voted unanimously to allow the City to use the funds to help acquire Civic field. City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Amendment No.1, allowing use of the funds for the Civic Field purchase. Amendment No. 2 is a revision of the legal description to which the City will file a conservation easement. As required by use of Conservation Future funds, the city needs to file a conservation easement for the property purchased by the funds. Packet Page 378 of 1075 Attached is the survey, outlining the 6 acres owned by the School District, and approx. 2 acres owned by the City as un-vacated streets. The survey then applies the City owned acreage to an area in the northwest corner of the property, in which the Boys and Girls club is now located. The purpose of the revision is so that the City can record the easement on the remaining 6 acre parcel, and have the ability in the future, to develop the northwest corner of the property ( i.e. if the city desires to enter into an agreement with the BG club to rebuild). The conservation easement, both with the State RCO funds and the Conservation Futures funds do not allow recreational buildings to be constructed on the restricted land. Once the property closes, the City will need to officially vacate the streets, and then record a conservation easement with Snohomish County and a Deed of Right for the State Recreation Conservation Office. Amendment No. 2 ILA Snohomish County Amendment No.1 ILA Snohomish County Original ILA Snohomish Cty Survey and legal description Civic Ownership Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Scott Passey 01/28/2016 02:57 PM Dave Earling 01/28/2016 03:02 PM Scott Passey 01/28/2016 03:23 PM Started On: 01/27/2016 12:42 PM Packet Page 379 of 1075 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON CONCERNING ACQUISTION OF PROPERTY WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDING THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 to that certain Interlocal Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds, Washington concerning acquisition of property with Snohomish County Conservation Futures Funding (the "Agreement") dated March 12, 2014, and Amended by Amendment No. 1 on October 28, 2015, is made by and between Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County"), and the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the "City"). NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits conferred on both parties, the parties agree to AMENDMENT NO. 2 as follows: 1. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 1. Identification of Property: The Property is located in the City of Edmonds, Washington and is generally legally described as follows: LOTS 1 THROUGH 20, BLOCK 99; ALL OF BLOCK 100; AND LOTS 21 THROUGH 40, BLOCK 101, PLAT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, INCLUDING VACATED SPRAGUE AND EDMONDS STREET EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 40, OF SAID BLOCK 101; THENCE SOUTH 01'1506" WEST, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 464.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF VACATED EDMONDS STREET;• THENCE SOUTH 88043'50 EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED STREET A DISTANCE OF 157.60 FEET: THENCE NORTH 0101506" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 464.59 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 35, BLOCK 101; THENCE NORTH 88046'13" WEST, ALONG NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 35, A DISTANCE OF 157.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1 Packet Page 380 of 1075 ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 271,415.76 SQUARE FEET OR 6.231 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 2. Section 5.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 5.2 Immediately following acquisition of the Property, execute and record an instrument conveying a Conservation Easement for the Property to the County in substantially the form of attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Conservation Easement"). EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED IN THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. In witness whereof, the parties hereby execute this Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement. "COUNTY" SNOHOMISH COUNTY IN Dave Somers, Executive Date Signed: Approved as to form only: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date 2 "CITY" CITY OF EDMONDS David O. Earling, Mayor Date Signed: Packet Page 381 of 1075 Exhibit A Conservation Easement Packet Page 382 of 1075 After Recording Return to: Assistant Clerk Snohomish County Council 3000 Rockefeller Avenue MS 609 Everett, WA 98201 Document Title: Grant of Conservation Easement Reference Numbers: Grantor: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington Grantee: Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington Abbreviated Legal Description: Lots 1-20, BI 99; all BI 100, Lots 21-40, BI 101, City of Edmonds TGW vacated streets and Except Ptn 24-27-03 Additional legal on page 15 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: Ptn. 00434209900100, 00434210000000 and 00434210102100 GRANT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT This grant of a perpetual CONSERVATION EASEMENT (hereinafter "Conservation Easement") is made this day of , 2016, by the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter "Grantor"), to Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter "Grantee" or "County"), in perpetuity as holder of the Conservation Easement pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. RECITALS A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of the property legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Protected Property"), which consists of approximately 6.231 acres of land, located on portions of tax parcel(s) 00434209900100, 00434210000000 and 00434210102100 Snohomish County, Washington; and B. Grantor warrants that Grantor has good legal title to the Protected Property, as well as the right to convey this Conservation Easement, and that the Protected Property is free and clear of any encumbrances except those general exceptions contained in the title policy and any special exceptions shown on the Preliminary Commitment that are accepted by the Grantee; and C. Grantor warrants that Grantor has no actual knowledge of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances or waste on the Protected Property; and D. The Protected Property possesses significant long-term natural and open space values ("Conservation Values") of great importance to the people of Snohomish County for passive recreation; and E. This Conservation Easement is authorized by RCW 64.04.130, the provision of state law governing conservation easements; and 0 Packet Page 383 of 1075 F. The Grantor and the Grantee intend and have the common purpose of retaining the Protected Property for open space and passive recreation by placing restrictions on the use of the Protected Property, which shall continue as a servitude running with the land, and authorizing Grantee to monitor and enforce such restrictions, as described herein; and G. To document the present condition of the Protected Property so that Grantee or its assigns are able to monitor future uses and assure compliance with the terms of this Conservation Easement, Grantee has, at its expense, prepared baseline data consisting of photographs and other documentation summarized in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full (the "Baseline Documentation") that the parties agree provide an accurate representation of the Protected Property as of the date of this Conservation Easement; and H. Snohomish County, as the Grantee of this Conservation Easement, is a qualified holder of conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130; and I. This Conservation Easement is being purchased with funds provided, in part, by the County's Conservation Futures Program pursuant to RCW 84.34.200, RCW 84.34.210, RCW 84.34.220 and chapter 4.14 SCC, which authorizes Snohomish County to purchase conservation easements for the purpose of protecting open space and timber land through restrictions on incompatible uses of the land; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein and in payment of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, including chapters 64.04 and 84.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, the parties agree as follows: I. Grant. Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee a perpetual Conservation Easement over, under, across and through the Protected Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, limit future use of or otherwise conserve the Protected Property as open space pursuant to chapter 84.34 RCW. ll. Purpose. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Protected Property will be retained forever in its natural and open space condition and to prevent any use of the Protected Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values. Grantor intends that this Conservation Easement will confine the use of, or activity on, the Protected Property to such uses and activities that are consistent with this purpose. This statement of purpose is intended as a substantive provision of the Conservation Easement. Any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the application of the provisions of this Conservation Easement will be resolved so as to further this purpose. III. Rights of the Grantee. Grantor hereby conveys to the Grantee all rights necessary to accomplish the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including, without limitation, the following: A. The right to protect, conserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; B. The right to enter the Protected Property or allow Grantee's invitees or licensees to enter, at a reasonable time and upon prior written notice to the Grantor, for the 67 Packet Page 384 of 1075 following purposes (i) to make general inspection of the Protected Property to monitor compliance with this Conservation Easement; (ii) to protect, preserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; and (iii) to mitigate or terminate any violation or otherwise enforce the provisions of this Conservation Easement. C. The right to enjoin any use of, or activity on, the Protected Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including trespasses by members of the public, and to require the restoration of such area or features of the Protected Property as may be damaged by uses or activities inconsistent with the provisions of this Conservation Easement, all in accordance with Section XI. D. The right to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, consistent with Section XI. E. The right to place a sign on the Protected Property which acknowledges this Conservation Easement, any conditions on access, and any funding contribution to the acquisition of the Conservation Easement. The foregoing are rights, not obligations, and shall not create any third party rights of enforcement. IV. Permitted Uses and Activities. A. Grantor reserves to itself, and to its successors and assigns all rights accruing from its ownership of the Protected Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Protected Property that are not prohibited herein and are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. In the event Grantor plans to undertake actions that could be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, Grantor shall provide Grantee written notice of such intent not less than sixty (60) days prior to the date Grantor intends to undertake the activity in question. The notice shall describe the nature, scope, design, location, timetable, and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit Grantee to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. Grantee shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within sixty (60) days of receipt of Grantor's notice. Grantee's approval may be withheld only upon a reasonable determination by Grantee that the action proposed would be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. B. Any improvements to the Protected Property shall be limited to those which are passive in nature and meet the requirements and intent of RCW 84.34.200-220. Passive improvements include, but are not limited to, trails, interpretive centers, viewpoints, picnicking facilities, access, restrooms, playgrounds and restoration projects. Active recreational improvements are prohibited. Such improvements include, but are not limited to, use by motorized vehicles, swimming pools, and recreation centers. Grantor retains the right to continue any existing open space use of the land, and to develop other open space uses consistent with the provisions herein. Packet Page 385 of 1075 C. Nothing herein precludes the Grantor from demolishing, removing, and remediating existing improvements on the property as of the date of this Conservation Easement. V. Prohibited Uses and Activities. Neither Grantor nor its licensees or invitees shall use the Protected Property for any activity or purpose that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities are expressly prohibited in the Protected Property: A. The placement or construction of any buildings, structures, improvements or equipment of any kind except as permitted in subsection IV. B; B. The continuation, creation, expansion or intensification of any use or activity that is contrary to the purpose of this Conservation Easement or prohibited in this section; C. Mining or extraction of soil, sand, gravel, oil, natural gas or other mineral; D. Dumping or accumulation of trash or refuse; E. The use of motorized vehicles except for those necessary to conduct the uses permitted under this Conservation Easement; and F. Any construction, expansion, repair or other development activity that would result in more than ten percent (10%) of the area of the Protected Property being covered with impervious surfaces, including, without limitation, asphalt, concrete, gravel, buildings, or ponds; provided that natural grass and accessible pathway surfaces shall not be considered an impervious surface for the purposes of this easement. VI. Transfer of Property. The Grantor agrees to: A. Incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Protected Property, including, without limitation, leasehold interests. B. Describe the Conservation Easement in and append it to any contract for the transfer of any interest in the Protected Property. C. Give written notice to the Grantee of the transfer of any interest in all or any portion of the Protected Property no later than forty five (45) days prior to the date of such transfer. Such notice to the Grantee shall include the name, address and telephone number of the prospective transferee or the prospective transferee's representative. The failure of the Grantor to perform any act required by this subsection shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability. VII. Extinguishment. This Conservation Easement may be terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, only under one or more of the following circumstances: 7 Packet Page 386 of 1075 A. By judicial determination, by a court having jurisdiction over the Conservation Easement, those circumstances have rendered the purpose of this Conservation Easement impossible to achieve. B. In the event all or any of the Protected Property is taken by exercise of the power of eminent domain or acquired in lieu of condemnation, whether by public, corporate or other authority, except by the parties hereto. Vlll. Proceeds. In the event of termination or extinguishment of this Conservation Easement, Grantee shall be compensated by Grantor for the fair market value of its interest in the Protected Property as determined by either a real estate appraiser licensed by the State of Washington or a court of competent jurisdiction. IX. Transfer or Assignment of the Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement is transferable, but Grantee may assign its rights under this Conservation Easement only to an agency or organization that is authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130 or RCW 84.34.250, or otherwise qualified at the time of transfer under §170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. As a condition of such transfer, Grantee shall require that the transferee exercise its rights under the assignment consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. X. Costs and Liabilities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Protected Property. A. Taxes. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Protected Property. B. Attorneys' fees and costs for enforcement. If the Grantee commences and successfully prosecutes an enforcement action pursuant to Section XI below, the Grantor shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the enforcement action, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. XI. Enforcement & Monitoring. Grantee shall have the authority to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement. To exercise this authority and thereby further the purpose of this Conservation Easement, the Grantee shall have the following rights under this Conservation Easement, which are subject to the stated limitations: A. Entry onto Protected Property with Reasonable Notice. If the Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement has occurred or is occurring, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property, provided that reasonable advance notice is given to the Grantor, for the purpose of inspecting it for violations of any requirement set forth in this Conservation Easement. Additionally, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property at least once a year, at a mutually agreed time, for purposes of inspection and compliance monitoring regardless of whether Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of this Conservation Easement exists. B. Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedial Measures. If the Grantee finds what it believes to be a violation of this Conservation Easement, it may, at its discretion, Packet Page 387 of 1075 use any available legal or equitable remedy to secure compliance, including but not limited to seeking injunctive relief and/or specific performance requiring the Grantor to cease and desist all activity in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and to return the Protected Property to its condition prior to any violation(s). Except when an imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, the Grantee shall give the Grantor written notice of the violation and thirty (30) days in which to take corrective action prior to commencing any legal action. The failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later time or constitute a waiver of its rights. Grantee may use the Baseline Documentation as a basis for enforcing the provisions of this Conservation Easement, but is not limited to the use of the Baseline Documentation to show a change of conditions. C. Emergency Enforcement. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damages to the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this section without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. D. Scope of Relief. Grantee's rights under this section apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantor agrees that the Grantee's remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this section, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Conservation Easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee's remedies described in this section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. E. Costs of Enforcement. In the event Grantee must enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, any costs of restoration necessitated by acts or omissions of Grantor, its agents, employees, contractors, invitees or licensees in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and Grantee's reasonable enforcement expenses, including reasonable attorneys' and consultants' fees and costs, shall be borne by Grantor, its successors or assigns. F. Waiver of Defenses. Grantor acknowledges it has carefully reviewed this Conservation Easement and has consulted or had the opportunity to consult with counsel of its terms and requirements. In full knowledge of the provisions of this Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby waives any claim or defense it may have against Grantee or its successors or assigns under or pertaining to this Conservation Easement based upon waiver, laches, estoppel or prescription. G. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle the Grantee to bring any action against Grantor to abate, correct or restore any condition in the Protected Property or to recover damages for any injury to or change in the Protected Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor's control, including fire, flood, storm, and earth movement or the like. Packet Page 388 of 1075 XII. Hold Harmless. Grantor hereby agrees to release and hold harmless, indemnify and defend Grantee, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents (collectively "Indemnified Parties") from all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' and consultants' fees arising from or in any way connected with: A. Injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Protected Property that is not a consequence of an activity of the Indemnified Parties undertaken under the rights granted to Grantee under this Conservation Easement; B. Violations or alleged violations of, or other failure to comply with, any federal, state or local law or regulation relating to pollutants or hazardous, toxic or dangerous substances or materials, including without limitation CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and MTCA (ch. 70.105D RCW), by any person other than any of the Indemnified Parties, in any way affecting, involving or relating to the Protected Property, unless such violations or alleged violations are due to the sole acts or omissions of any of the Indemnified Parties on the Protected Property; C. The presence or release in, on, from or about the Protected Property, at any time, of any substance now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement of any substance hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or the environment, unless caused solely by any of the Indemnified Parties. XIII. Recordation. Grantee shall record this instrument in the Office of the Snohomish County Auditor and may re-record it at any time. XIV. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that any party desires or is required to give to another party under the terms of this Conservation Easement shall be in writing and either served at or mailed to: Grantee: Snohomish County County Executive Office 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S #407 Everett, WA 98201 Grantor(s): City of Edmonds Office of the Mayor 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 or to such other address as any party from time to time shall designate by written notice to others. 10 Packet Page 389 of 1075 XV. General Provisions. A. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to this Conservation Easement would be appropriate, the Grantor and Grantee may jointly amend this Conservation Easement by a written instrument to be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, provided that such an amendment does not diminish the effectiveness of this Conservation Easement in carrying out its purpose to permanently preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. B. Controlling Law. The interpretation or performance of this Conservation Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and the Laws of the United States. Any legal proceeding regarding this Conservation Easement shall be initiated in Snohomish County Superior Court. C. Interpretation. This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted to resolve any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions to give maximum effect to its preservation purpose, as stated in Section II, above. If the Grantor has any doubt concerning the Conservation Easement, covenants, conditions, limitations or restrictions herein contained with respect to any particular use of the said Protected Property, it may submit a written request to the Grantee for consideration and approval of such use. D. Definitions. Any masculine term used in this Conservation Easement shall include the female gender. The terms "Grantor" and "Grantee," wherever used in this Conservation Easement, and any pronouns used in their place, shall be held to mean and include respectively the above named Grantor, its successors, and assigns, and the above -named Grantee, its successors and assigns. E. Entire agreement. This Conservation Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the issues addressed herein and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to these issues, all of which are merged herein. F. No forfeiture. Nothing in this Conservation Easement shall result in a forfeiture or revision of Grantor's title in any respect. G. Successors. As stated in the above recitals, all covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall run with the land and be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. H. Severability. If any portion of this Conservation Easement is declared unlawful or invalid, the remainder of the Conservation Easement shall remain in full force and effect. 11 Packet Page 390 of 1075 Authority of signatories. The individuals executing this Conservation Easement warrant and represent that they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Conservation Easement. J. No merger. If Grantee at some future time acquires the underlying fee title in the Protected Property, the interest conveyed by this Deed will not merge with fee title but will continue to exist and be managed as a separate estate. XVI. Environmental Compliance. A. Grantor represents and warrants that, after reasonable investigation and to the best of Grantor's knowledge, Grantor and the Protected Property are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements applicable to the Protected Property and its use, including without limitation all federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and requirements. B. Grantor further represents and warrants that there has been no release, dumping, burying, abandonment or migration from offsite onto the Property of any substances, materials or wastes that are hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful or are designated as, or contain components that are subject to regulation as hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful by any federal, state or local law, regulation, statute or ordinance. There is no pending or threatened litigation affecting the Property or any portion of the Property that will materially impair the Conservation Values. No civil or criminal proceedings have been instigated or are pending against Grantor or its predecessors by government agencies or third parties arising out of alleged violations of environmental laws, and neither Grantor nor its predecessors in interest have received any notice of violation, penalties, claims, demand letters or other notifications relating to a breach of environmental laws. C. Remediation. If at any time there occurs or has occurred a release in, on or about the Property of any substances now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement as hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or environment, Grantor agrees to take all steps necessary to assure its containment and remediation, including any cleanup that may be required, unless the release was caused by the Grantee, in which case Grantee shall be responsible for remediation. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto GRANTEE SNOHOMISH COUNTY, its respective successors and assigns forever. 12 Packet Page 391 of 1075 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have, by their authorized officers, set their own hands as of the day and year first stated above. GRANTOR: By: David O. Earling Its: City Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the of the , the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Attest: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney Date Printed Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: 13 Packet Page 392 of 1075 ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE: On _, 201_ the Snohomish County Council adopted Motion - authorizing the County Executive to accept the Conservation Easement, pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. GRANTEE: SNOHOMISH COUNTY la Dave Somers Snohomish County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the of Snohomish County, the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Printed Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: 14 Packet Page 393 of 1075 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION EASEMENT For APN/Parcel ID(s): PT N . 004342-099-001-00, 004342-100-000-00 and 004342-101-U -UU LOTS 1 THROUGH 20, BLOCK 99; ALL OF BLOCK 100; AND LOTS 21 THROUGH 40, BLOCK 101, PLAT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, INCLUDING VACATED SPRAGUE AND EDMONDS STREET EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 40, OF SAID BLOCK 101; THENCE SOUTH 01'15'06" WEST, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 464.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF VACATED EDMONDS STREET;• THENCE SOUTH 88043'50 EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED STREET A DISTANCE OF 157.60 FEET: THENCE NORTH 01 015'06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 464.59 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 35, BLOCK 101; THENCE NORTH 88046'13" WEST, ALONG NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 35, A DISTANCE OF 157.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 271,415.76 SQUARE FEET OR 6.231 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON 15 Packet Page 394 of 1075 EXHIBIT B (BASELINE DOCUMENTATION) I. CURRENT CONDITIONS II. PROPERTY DATA A. Present Use. B. Accessibility and Road Frontage. C. Land Area. D. Land Shape. E. Land Contour and Elevations. F. Minerals and Soil. G. Flood Zone Information. H. Flora. I. Wetlands. 16 Packet Page 395 of 1075 III. PICTORIAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS The following photographs of the Protected Property are not in recordable form and are available and on file with the Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Department: Said photographs demonstrate current site conditions, features, typical flora, and impact of human development 17 Packet Page 396 of 1075 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON CONCERNING ACQUISTION OF PROPERTY WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDING THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to that certain Interlocal Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds, Washington concerning acquisition of property with Snohomish County Conservation Futures Funding (the "Agreement") dated March 12, 2014, is made by and between Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County"), and the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the "City"). NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits conferred on both parties, the parties agree to AMENDMENT NO. 1 as follows: 1. The RECITALS of the Agreement are hereby amended to add Recital F, which reads as follows: F. The Snohomish County Conservation Futures Program Advisory Board, at its June 2, 2015 meeting reviewed a request by the City to transfer the recommended funding to another property known as Civic Field, addressed as 310 6t" Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington, and, after consideration, the Board recommended approval of this request. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 1. Identification of Property: The Property is located in the City of Edmonds, Washington and is generally legally described as follows: For APN/Parcel ID(s): 004342-099-001-00, 004342-100-000-00 and 004342- 101-021-00 Lots 1 through 20, Block 99, all of Block 100, and Lots 21 through 40, Block 101, plat of the City of Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. 3. Section 5.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 1 Packet Page 397 of 1075 5.1 Acquire the Property within twenty-four (24) months of the Effective Date of this Agreement and upon closing maintain, operate and conserve the Property for open space and passive park purposes. The City shall undertake all reasonable efforts to acquire the Property but if the owner of is not a willing seller, the City shall not utilize the power of eminent domain to acquire the Property. 4. Section 5.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 5.2 Immediately following acquisition of the Property, execute and record an instrument conveying a Conservation Easement for the Property to the County in substantially the form of attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Conservation Easement"). EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED IN THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. In witness whereof, the parties hereby execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement. "COUNTY" SNOHOMISH COUNTY IN John Lovick, Executive Date Signed: APPROVED AS TO FORM: "CITY" CITY OF EDMONDS David O. Earling, Mayor Date Signed: Attest: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Date 2 Packet Page 398 of 1075 Exhibit A Conservation Easement Packet Page 399 of 1075 After Recording Return to: Assistant Clerk Snohomish County Council 3000 Rockefeller Avenue MS 609 Everett, WA 98201 Document Title: Grant of Conservation Easement Reference Numbers: Grantor: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington Grantee: Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington Abbreviated Legal Description: Lots 1-20, BI 99; all BI 100, Lots 21-40, BI 101, City of Edmonds Additional legal on page 15 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 00434209900100, 00434210000000 and 00434210102100 GRANT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT This grant of a perpetual CONSERVATION EASEMENT (hereinafter "Conservation Easement") is made this day of , 201_, by the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter "Grantor"), to Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter "Grantee" or "County"), in perpetuity as holder of the Conservation Easement pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. RECITALS A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of the property legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Protected Property"), which consists of approximately eight (8) acres of land, located on tax parcel 00434209900100, 00434210000000 and 00434210102100 Snohomish County, Washington; and B. Grantor warrants that Grantor has good legal title to the Protected Property, as well as the right to convey this Conservation Easement, and that the Protected Property is free and clear of any encumbrances except those general exceptions contained in the title policy and any special exceptions shown on the Preliminary Commitment that are accepted by the Grantee; and C. Grantor warrants that Grantor has no actual knowledge of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances or waste on the Protected Property; and D. The Protected Property possesses significant long-term natural and open space values ("Conservation Values") of great importance to the people of Snohomish County for passive recreation; and E. This Conservation Easement is authorized by RCW 64.04.130, the provision of state law governing conservation easements; and 0 Packet Page 400 of 1075 F. The Grantor and the Grantee intend and have the common purpose of retaining the Protected Property for open space and passive recreation by placing restrictions on the use of the Protected Property, which shall continue as a servitude running with the land, and authorizing Grantee to monitor and enforce such restrictions, as described herein; and G. To document the present condition of the Protected Property so that Grantee or its assigns are able to monitor future uses and assure compliance with the terms of this Conservation Easement, Grantee has, at its expense, prepared baseline data consisting of photographs and other documentation summarized in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full (the "Baseline Documentation") that the parties agree provide an accurate representation of the Protected Property as of the date of this Conservation Easement; and H. Snohomish County, as the Grantee of this Conservation Easement, is a qualified holder of conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130; and I. This Conservation Easement is being purchased with funds provided, in part, by the County's Conservation Futures Program pursuant to RCW 84.34.200, RCW 84.34.210, RCW 84.34.220 and chapter 4.14 SCC, which authorizes Snohomish County to purchase conservation easements for the purpose of protecting open space and timber land through restrictions on incompatible uses of the land; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein and in payment of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, including chapters 64.04 and 84.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, the parties agree as follows: I. Grant. Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee a perpetual Conservation Easement over, under, across and through the Protected Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, limit future use of or otherwise conserve the Protected Property as open space pursuant to chapter 84.34 RCW. II. Purpose. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Protected Property will be retained forever in its natural and open space condition and to prevent any use of the Protected Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values. Grantor intends that this Conservation Easement will confine the use of, or activity on, the Protected Property to such uses and activities that are consistent with this purpose. This statement of purpose is intended as a substantive provision of the Conservation Easement. Any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the application of the provisions of this Conservation Easement will be resolved so as to further this purpose. III. Rights of the Grantee. Grantor hereby conveys to the Grantee all rights necessary to accomplish the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including, without limitation, the following: A. The right to protect, conserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; 67 Packet Page 401 of 1075 B. The right to enter the Protected Property or allow Grantee's invitees or licensees to enter, at a reasonable time and upon prior written notice to the Grantor, for the following purposes (i) to make general inspection of the Protected Property to monitor compliance with this Conservation Easement; (ii) to protect, preserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; and (iii) to mitigate or terminate any violation or otherwise enforce the provisions of this Conservation Easement. C. The right to enjoin any use of, or activity on, the Protected Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including trespasses by members of the public, and to require the restoration of such area or features of the Protected Property as may be damaged by uses or activities inconsistent with the provisions of this Conservation Easement, all in accordance with Section XI. D. The right to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, consistent with Section XI. E. The right to place a sign on the Protected Property which acknowledges this Conservation Easement, any conditions on access, and any funding contribution to the acquisition of the Conservation Easement. The foregoing are rights, not obligations, and shall not create any third party rights of enforcement. IV. Permitted Uses and Activities. A. Grantor reserves to itself, and to its successors and assigns all rights accruing from its ownership of the Protected Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Protected Property that are not prohibited herein and are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. In the event Grantor plans to undertake actions that could be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, Grantor shall provide Grantee written notice of such intent not less than sixty (60) days prior to the date Grantor intends to undertake the activity in question. The notice shall describe the nature, scope, design, location, timetable, and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit Grantee to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. Grantee shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within sixty (60) days of receipt of Grantor's notice. Grantee's approval may be withheld only upon a reasonable determination by Grantee that the action proposed would be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. B. Any improvements to the Protected Property shall be limited to those which are passive in nature and meet the requirements and intent of RCW 84.34.200-220. Passive improvements include, but are not limited to, trails, interpretive centers, viewpoints, picnicking facilities, access, restrooms, playgrounds and restoration projects. Active recreational improvements are prohibited. Such improvements include, but are not limited to ball fields, use by motorized vehicles, swimming pools, and recreation centers. A Packet Page 402 of 1075 C. Nothing herein precludes the Grantor from demolishing, removing, and remediating existing improvements on the property as of the date of this Conservation Easement. V. Prohibited Uses and Activities. Neither Grantor nor its licensees or invitees shall use the Protected Property for any activity or purpose that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities are expressly prohibited in the Protected Property: A. The placement or construction of any buildings, structures, improvements or equipment of any kind except as permitted in subsection IV. B; B. The continuation, creation, expansion or intensification of any use or activity that is contrary to the purpose of this Conservation Easement or prohibited in this section; C. Mining or extraction of soil, sand, gravel, oil, natural gas or other mineral; D. Dumping or accumulation of trash or refuse; E. The use of motorized vehicles except for those necessary to conduct the uses permitted under this Conservation Easement; and F. Any construction, expansion, repair or other development activity that would result in more than ten percent (10%) of the area of the Protected Property being covered with impervious surfaces, including, without limitation, asphalt, concrete, gravel, buildings, or ponds. VI. Transfer of Property. The Grantor agrees to: A. Incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Protected Property, including, without limitation, leasehold interests. B. Describe the Conservation Easement in and append it to any contract for the transfer of any interest in the Protected Property. C. Give written notice to the Grantee of the transfer of any interest in all or any portion of the Protected Property no later than forty five (45) days prior to the date of such transfer. Such notice to the Grantee shall include the name, address and telephone number of the prospective transferee or the prospective transferee's representative. The failure of the Grantor to perform any act required by this subsection shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability. VII. Extinguishment. This Conservation Easement may be terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, only under one or more of the following circumstances: 7 Packet Page 403 of 1075 A. By judicial determination, by a court having jurisdiction over the Conservation Easement, those circumstances have rendered the purpose of this Conservation Easement impossible to achieve. B. In the event all or any of the Protected Property is taken by exercise of the power of eminent domain or acquired in lieu of condemnation, whether by public, corporate or other authority, except by the parties hereto. Vlll. Proceeds. In the event of termination or extinguishment of this Conservation Easement, Grantee shall be compensated by Grantor for the fair market value of its interest in the Protected Property as determined by either a real estate appraiser licensed by the State of Washington or a court of competent jurisdiction. IX. Transfer or Assignment of the Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement is transferable, but Grantee may assign its rights under this Conservation Easement only to an agency or organization that is authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130 or RCW 84.34.250, or otherwise qualified at the time of transfer under §170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. As a condition of such transfer, Grantee shall require that the transferee exercise its rights under the assignment consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. X. Costs and Liabilities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Protected Property. A. Taxes. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Protected Property. B. Attorneys' fees and costs for enforcement. If the Grantee commences and successfully prosecutes an enforcement action pursuant to Section XI below, the Grantor shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the enforcement action, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. XI. Enforcement & Monitoring. Grantee shall have the authority to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement. To exercise this authority and thereby further the purpose of this Conservation Easement, the Grantee shall have the following rights under this Conservation Easement, which are subject to the stated limitations: A. Entry onto Protected Property with Reasonable Notice. If the Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement has occurred or is occurring, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property, provided that reasonable advance notice is given to the Grantor, for the purpose of inspecting it for violations of any requirement set forth in this Conservation Easement. Additionally, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property at least once a year, at a mutually agreed time, for purposes of inspection and compliance monitoring regardless of whether Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of this Conservation Easement exists. B. Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedial Measures. If the Grantee finds what it believes to be a violation of this Conservation Easement, it may, at its discretion, Packet Page 404 of 1075 use any available legal or equitable remedy to secure compliance, including but not limited to seeking injunctive relief and/or specific performance requiring the Grantor to cease and desist all activity in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and to return the Protected Property to its condition prior to any violation(s). Except when an imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, the Grantee shall give the Grantor written notice of the violation and thirty (30) days in which to take corrective action prior to commencing any legal action. The failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later time or constitute a waiver of its rights. Grantee may use the Baseline Documentation as a basis for enforcing the provisions of this Conservation Easement, but is not limited to the use of the Baseline Documentation to show a change of conditions. C. Emergency Enforcement. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damages to the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this section without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. D. Scope of Relief. Grantee's rights under this section apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantor agrees that the Grantee's remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this section, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Conservation Easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee's remedies described in this section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. E. Costs of Enforcement. In the event Grantee must enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, any costs of restoration necessitated by acts or omissions of Grantor, its agents, employees, contractors, invitees or licensees in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and Grantee's reasonable enforcement expenses, including reasonable attorneys' and consultants' fees and costs, shall be borne by Grantor, its successors or assigns. F. Waiver of Defenses. Grantor acknowledges it has carefully reviewed this Conservation Easement and has consulted or had the opportunity to consult with counsel of its terms and requirements. In full knowledge of the provisions of this Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby waives any claim or defense it may have against Grantee or its successors or assigns under or pertaining to this Conservation Easement based upon waiver, laches, estoppel or prescription. G. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle the Grantee to bring any action against Grantor to abate, correct or restore any condition in the Protected Property or to recover damages for any injury to or change in the Protected Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor's control, including fire, flood, storm, and earth movement or the like. Packet Page 405 of 1075 XII. Hold Harmless. Grantor hereby agrees to release and hold harmless, indemnify and defend Grantee, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents (collectively "Indemnified Parties") from all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' and consultants' fees arising from or in any way connected with: A. Injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Protected Property that is not a consequence of an activity of the Indemnified Parties undertaken under the rights granted to Grantee under this Conservation Easement; B. Violations or alleged violations of, or other failure to comply with, any federal, state or local law or regulation relating to pollutants or hazardous, toxic or dangerous substances or materials, including without limitation CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and MTCA (ch. 70.105D RCW), by any person other than any of the Indemnified Parties, in any way affecting, involving or relating to the Protected Property, unless such violations or alleged violations are due to the sole acts or omissions of any of the Indemnified Parties on the Protected Property; C. The presence or release in, on, from or about the Protected Property, at any time, of any substance now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement of any substance hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or the environment, unless caused solely by any of the Indemnified Parties. XIII. Recordation. Grantee shall record this instrument in the Office of the Snohomish County Auditor and may re-record it at any time. XIV. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that any party desires or is required to give to another party under the terms of this Conservation Easement shall be in writing and either served at or mailed to: Grantee: Snohomish County County Executive Office 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S #407 Everett, WA 98201 Grantor(s): City of Edmonds Office of the Mayor 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 or to such other address as any party from time to time shall designate by written notice to others. 10 Packet Page 406 of 1075 XV. General Provisions. A. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to this Conservation Easement would be appropriate, the Grantor and Grantee may jointly amend this Conservation Easement by a written instrument to be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, provided that such an amendment does not diminish the effectiveness of this Conservation Easement in carrying out its purpose to permanently preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. B. Controlling Law. The interpretation or performance of this Conservation Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and the Laws of the United States. Any legal proceeding regarding this Conservation Easement shall be initiated in Snohomish County Superior Court. C. Interpretation. This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted to resolve any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions to give maximum effect to its preservation purpose, as stated in Section II, above. If the Grantor has any doubt concerning the Conservation Easement, covenants, conditions, limitations or restrictions herein contained with respect to any particular use of the said Protected Property, it may submit a written request to the Grantee for consideration and approval of such use. D. Definitions. Any masculine term used in this Conservation Easement shall include the female gender. The terms "Grantor" and "Grantee," wherever used in this Conservation Easement, and any pronouns used in their place, shall be held to mean and include respectively the above named Grantor, its successors, and assigns, and the above -named Grantee, its successors and assigns. E. Entire agreement. This Conservation Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the issues addressed herein and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to these issues, all of which are merged herein. F. No forfeiture. Nothing in this Conservation Easement shall result in a forfeiture or revision of Grantor's title in any respect. G. Successors. As stated in the above recitals, all covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall run with the land and be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. H. Severability. If any portion of this Conservation Easement is declared unlawful or invalid, the remainder of the Conservation Easement shall remain in full force and effect. 11 Packet Page 407 of 1075 Authority of signatories. The individuals executing this Conservation Easement warrant and represent that they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Conservation Easement. J. No merger. If Grantee at some future time acquires the underlying fee title in the Protected Property, the interest conveyed by this Deed will not merge with fee title but will continue to exist and be managed as a separate estate. XVI. Environmental Compliance. A. Grantor represents and warrants that, after reasonable investigation and to the best of Grantor's knowledge, Grantor and the Protected Property are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements applicable to the Protected Property and its use, including without limitation all federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and requirements. B. Grantor further represents and warrants that there has been no release, dumping, burying, abandonment or migration from offsite onto the Property of any substances, materials or wastes that are hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful or are designated as, or contain components that are subject to regulation as hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful by any federal, state or local law, regulation, statute or ordinance. There is no pending or threatened litigation affecting the Property or any portion of the Property that will materially impair the Conservation Values. No civil or criminal proceedings have been instigated or are pending against Grantor or its predecessors by government agencies or third parties arising out of alleged violations of environmental laws, and neither Grantor nor its predecessors in interest have received any notice of violation, penalties, claims, demand letters or other notifications relating to a breach of environmental laws. C. Remediation. If at any time there occurs or has occurred a release in, on or about the Property of any substances now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement as hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or environment, Grantor agrees to take all steps necessary to assure its containment and remediation, including any cleanup that may be required, unless the release was caused by the Grantee, in which case Grantee shall be responsible for remediation. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto GRANTEE SNOHOMISH COUNTY, its respective successors and assigns forever. 12 Packet Page 408 of 1075 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have, by their authorized officers, set their own hands as of the day and year first stated above. GRANTOR: By: David O. Earling Its: City Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the of the , the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Attest: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney Date Printed Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: 13 Packet Page 409 of 1075 ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE: On _, 201_ the Snohomish County Council adopted Motion - authorizing the County Executive to accept the Conservation Easement, pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. GRANTEE: SNOHOMISH COUNTY la John Lovick Snohomish County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the of Snohomish County, the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Printed Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: 14 Packet Page 410 of 1075 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION EASEMENT ForAPN/Parcel ID(s): 004342-099-001-00, 004342-100-000-00 and 004342-101-021-00 Lots 1 through 20, Block 99, all of Block 100, and Lots 21 through 40, Block 101, plat of the City of Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. 15 Packet Page 411 of 1075 EXHIBIT B (BASELINE DOCUMENTATION) I. CURRENT CONDITIONS II. PROPERTY DATA A. Present Use. B. Accessibility and Road Frontage. C. Land Area. D. Land Shape. E. Land Contour and Elevations. F. Minerals and Soil. G. Flood Zone Information. H. Flora. I. Wetlands. 16 Packet Page 412 of 1075 III. PICTORIAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS The following photographs of the Protected Property are not in recordable form and are available and on file with the Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Department: Said photographs demonstrate current site conditions, features, typical flora, and impact of human development 17 Packet Page 413 of 1075 John Lovick County Executive Mr. David Earling, City Mayor City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 H Snohomish County Parks and Recreation March 21, 2014 RE: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement — Edmonds Waterfront Property Acquisition Dear Mayor Earling: FIB (425)388-6600 FAX (425) 388-6645 6705 Puget Park Drive Snohomish, WA 98296 Enclosed please find the executed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Edmonds ("City") and Snohomish County obligating certain acquisition funds to the City. The effective date of this Agreement is March 12, 2014 and acquisition of the property must occur no later than eighteen (18) months from the effective date. This Agreement will provide up to $500,000.00 from the Snohomish County Conservation Futures Property Tax fund for City purchase of property known as the Edmonds Waterfront property. The fund will reimburse for property acquisition and related costs after submittal of the following documents: • A copy of the signed Settlement Statement, issued by Escrow Company • A copy of the Excise Tax Affidavit • A copy of the recorded Statutory Warranty Deed • A copy of the Title Insurance, listing the City of Edmonds as the vested owner • A copy of the recorded Grant of Conservation Easement (the County must "accept" the easement after the City signs) • Copies of invoices paid by the City for acquisition related cost (see copy of reimbursable eligible costs) I have also included the original Grant of Conservation Easement. This document must be recorded after the City has acquired the property subject to the Agreement. I can record the easement after the County "accepts" it. Please check the legal description to the Grant of Conservation Easement for accuracy and confirm it matches the Statutory Warranty Deed. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 425-388-6622. Sincerely, Dianne Bailey Parks Property Administrator Enclosure (3) parks.department@co.snohomish.wa.us www,snocoporks.org Packet Page 414 of 1075 Reimburseable Costs COSTS Property Casts Land Improvements SUBTOTAL $ Reimbursable Incidental Costs Quantity $ include invoice/statement from Titte Company Applicable taxes Appraisal review Appraisal(s) Closing (escrow/recording fees) Title reports/insurance SUBTOTAL Packet Page 415 of 1075 '"'ILE COPY INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS CONCERNING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WITH CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDS THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS CONCERNING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WITH CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDS (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this -day of iJ _ . 201 by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County"), and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City") pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. RECITALS A. The County manages a Conservation Futures funding program pursuant to RCW 84.34.200 et seq. and Chapter 4.14 Snohomish County Code. B. Cities and towns located in Snohomish County, nonprofit historic preservation corporations, and nonprofit nature conservancy corporations or associations as such are described in RCW 84.34.210 are eligible to apply to the County for resources to fund acquisition of interests or rights in real property located within Snohomish County that meet the conservation criteria described in RCW 84.34.210 et seq. C. The City applied for resources from the Snohomish County Conservation Futures Property Tax Fund to purchase unimproved real property located in the City at 260 Beach Place and more particularly described in Section 1.1 below (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). D. The Snohomish County Conservation Futures Program Advisory Board, at their August 20, 21 and 23, 2013 meetings, reviewed all of the project sponsor requests and, after review, recommended funding the request of the City of Edmonds for Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) from the Snohomish County Conservation Futures Property Tax Fund. E. On September 11, 2013, the Snohomish County Council, by Amended Motion No. 13-353, allocated funding in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) to the City of Edmonds from the Snohomish County Conservation Futures Property Tax Fund for that purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set out below and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 1 of 9 Packet Page 416 of 1075 1. Identification of Property. The Property is located in the City of Edmonds, Washington and is generally legally described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. 2. Purpose of Property Ac uisition. The Property is to be acquired for the purpose of conserving open spaces and areas as authorized by RCW 84.34.200 et seq., and for conservation and for passive, public recreation. 3. Duration. This Agreement shall become effective when executed by both parties and posted on the County's Interlocal Agreements website (the "Effective Date"). If the Property is acquired within the time frame provided in Section 5.1 below, this Agreement shall be in effect perpetually, subject to any amendments agreed to in writing by the parties. If the Property is not acquired within the time frame provided in Section 5.1 below, this Agreement shall be terminated; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the County and the City may mutually agree in writing, prior to termination, upon an extension of time. 4. Administrators. Each party to this Agreement shall designate an individual (an "Administrator") who may be designated by title or position, to oversee and administer such party's participation in this Agreement. The parties' initial Administrators shall be the following: County's Initial Administrator: Tom Teigen, Director Snohomish County Parks and Recreation 6705 Puget Park Drive Snohomish, WA 98296 City's Initial Administrator: City of Edmonds Office of the Mayor 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Either party may change its Administrator at any time by delivering written notice of such party's new Administrator to the other party. shall: 5. Duties of the City to Acquire, Operate, Maintain and Conserve. The City 5.1 Acquire the Property within eighteen (18) months of the Effective Date of this Agreement and upon closing maintain, operate and conserve the Property for open space and passive park purposes. The City shall undertake all reasonable efforts to acquire the Property but if the owner of is not a willing seller, the City shall not utilize the power of eminent domain to acquire the Property. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 2 of 9 Packet Page 417 of 1075 5.2 Immediately following acquisition of the Property, execute and record an instrument conveying a Conservation Easement for the Property to the County in substantially the form of attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Conservation Easement"). 5.3 Submit an annual report to the County on February 1 of each subsequent year detailing compliance with all on -going requirements of this Agreement. 5.4 Forward a copy of the recorded deed conveying the Property and a copy of the executed Conservation Easement for the Property to the County as soon as the same are returned from the Snohomish County Auditor. 5.5 Provide an identifying sign, the size and design of which shall be approved by the Snohomish County Department of Parks and Recreation, at the entrance to the Property which shall be in plain sight in perpetuity, listing the County as a participant in the acquisition of the Property through the Snohomish County Conservation Futures Program. 5.6 Fund any improvements that are made to the Property from revenue sources other than Conservation Futures Program Funds and limit any such improvements to those that meet the requirements and intent of RCW 84.34.200 et. seq. and the Conservation Easement. 5.7 Submit to the County a long-term maintenance plan for the Property and any improvements within three (3) months of the completed Property acquisition. 5.8 Pay to the County at the end of each calendar year a pro rata share of any income the City has realized from the Property, less the City's costs of operation and maintenance of the Property. The pro rata share will be equal to the percentage of the cost of acquisition funded by the County pursuant to this Agreement. This information shall be submitted as part of the February 1 annual report to the Snohomish County Department of Parks and Recreation. 5.9 Pay to the County, upon sale of any of the City's interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, a pro rata share of any consideration received, less the costs of improvements funded by the City. The pro rata share will be equal to the percentage of the cost of acquisition funded by the County pursuant to this Agreement. 5.10 Pay on a current basis all taxes or assessments levied on Property - related activities and the Property; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that nothing contained herein will modify the City's right to contest any such tax, and the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 3 of 9 Packet Page 418 of 1075 City will not be deemed to be in default as long as it is, in good faith, contesting the validity or amount of any such taxes. 5.11 Obtain and maintain, at its own costs and expense, all necessary permits, licenses and approvals related to the purchase, ownership, and on- going maintenance and management of the Property. 6. Payment from the County. The County shall provide financial assistance to the City in the amount of up to $500,000.00 from the Conservation Futures Fund for the acquisition of the Property. Payment shall be made within ten (10) days of County receipt of a City invoice submitted with documentation of imminent purchase of the Property and transfer of title, provided the City has complied with all of the terms of this Agreement. In no event shall the County be obligated to provide any payment to the City in excess of the actual purchase price of the Property. Any obligations of the County beyond the current fiscal year are subject to appropriation of funds for the specific purpose of funding this Agreement in accordance with its Charter and applicable law. 7. Compliance with Laws. The parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations in performing this Agreement, including, but not limited to, laws against discrimination. 8. Records Inspections and Audits. The City will keep such full and detailed accounts as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Agreement. The County may, at its sole discretion, from time to time whether before or after acquisition of the Property or termination of this Agreement inspect all books and records and other materials related to any matters covered by this Agreement and not otherwise privileged, belonging to the City or any contractor or to elect to have an audit conducted to verify acquisition -related costs through the date of the acquisition, income from the Property, maintenance and operation costs, and the cost of post - acquisition improvements. Such books, records and other materials shall be made available for County inspection during regular business hours within a reasonable time of the request. If the County elects to conduct such an audit, it will give notice to the City, and such audit will be conducted as soon as is reasonably feasible thereafter, but County payments to the City (if any) will not be delayed pending the outcome of the audit. Such audit will be conducted by an auditor selected by the County, and the County will, except as provided herein, pay the cost of such audit. The City agrees to cooperate with the auditor and to make available for examination at its principal office all of its books, records, correspondence and other documents deemed necessary to conduct the audit by the auditor. If the audit reveals a variation equal to five percent (5%) or more of the cost of acquiring the Property, then the City will pay the cost of the audit, not to exceed Ten Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000.00). Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 4 of 9 Packet Page 419 of 1075 The City will preserve all records for a period of seven (7) years; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if the City proposes to dispose of any documents materially related to the Property for a period less than seven (7) years, then the City will deliver the same to the County for disposition by the County. The County may at all times enter the Property to determine the City's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement or to post notices. Any person or persons who may have an interest in the purposes of the County's visit may accompany the County. The City acknowledges and agrees that its obligations under this Section 8will survive termination of this Agreement. 9. Risk of Loss. All of the City's personal property of any kind or description whatsoever, or that of its employees, agents, contractors, and/or invitees placed on the Property shall be at the City's sole risk, and the County will not be liable for any damage done to, or loss of, such personal property. 10. Public Records Act. This Agreement and all public records associated with this Agreement shall be available from the County for inspection and copying by the public where required by the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW (the "Act"). To the extent that public records then in the custody of the City are needed for the County to respond to a request under the Act, as determined by the County, the City agrees to make them promptly available to the County. If the City considers any portion of any record provided to the County under this Agreement, whether in electronic or hard copy form, to be protected from disclosure under law, the City shall clearly identify any specific information that it claims to be confidential or proprietary. If the County receives a request under the Act to inspect or copy the information so identified by the City and the County determines that release of the information is required by the Act or otherwise appropriate, the County's sole obligations shall be to notify the City (a) of the request and (b) of the date that such information will be released to the requester unless the City obtains a court order to enjoin that disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.540. If the City fails to timely obtain a court order enjoining disclosure, the County will release the requested information on the date specified. The County has, and by this section assumes, no obligation on behalf of the City to claim any exemption from disclosure under the Act. The County shall not be liable to the City for releasing records not clearly identified by the City as confidential or proprietary. The County shall not be liable to the City for any records that the County releases in compliance with this Section or in compliance with an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. 11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The City shall assume the risk of, be liable for, and pay all damage, loss, costs and expense of any party arising out of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 5 of 9 Packet Page 420 of 1075 activities under this Agreement and all use of any improvements it may place on the Property. The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against all claims, losses, lawsuits, actions, counsel fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, judgments, or decrees by reason of damage to any property or business and/or any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including but not limited to any employee, arising out of or suffered, directly or indirectly, by reason of or in connection with the acquisition or use of the Properties and this Agreement; PROVIDED, that the above indemnification does not apply to those damages caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. In executing this Agreement, the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of City ordinances, policies, rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such City ordinance, policy, rule or regulation is at issue, the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and, if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the City, the County, or both, the City shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 12. Dispute Resolution. The Parties agree to use their best efforts to resolve disputes and other matters arising out of this Agreement or the ongoing administration of this Agreement. If a dispute arises, then (i) within ten (10) business days of a written request by either Party, the City's designated representative and County's designated representative shall meet and resolve the issue; if these parties cannot resolve the issue within ten (10) business days of the meeting, then (ii) the issue shall be submitted to the City's Mayor and to the Director of the Snohomish County Department of Parks and Recreation; if these parties cannot resolve the issue within fifteen (15) business days of submission to them, then (iii) the issue shall be submitted for mediation; if mediation does not successfully resolve the dispute, then (iv) either Party may file suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. The prevailing party in any legal action shall be entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fee and court costs. 13. Notice. All notices required to be given by any party to the other party under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person, by United States mail, or by electronic mail (email) to the applicable Administrator or Administrator's designee. Notice delivered in person shall be deemed given when accepted by the recipient. Notice by United States mail shall be deemed given as of the date the same is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the Administrator or Administrator's designee at the addresses set forth in Section 1.4 above. Notice delivered by email shall be deemed given as of the date and time received by the recipient. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 6 of 9 Packet Page 421 of 1075 14. Miscellaneous 14.1. Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement shall constitute the full and complete Agreement of the parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding the subject matter contained herein. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of the parties, executed in the same manner as provided by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, governing the execution of this Agreement. 14.2. Interpretation. This Agreement and each of the terms and provisions of it are deemed to have been explicitly negotiated by the parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either of the parties hereto. The captions and headings in this Agreement are used only for convenience and are not intended to affect the interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed so that wherever applicable the use of the singular number shall include the plural number, and vice versa, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. 14.3. Governing Law and Stipulation of Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and the parties stipulate that any lawsuit regarding this Agreement must be brought in Snohomish County, Washington. In the event that a lawsuit is instituted to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs of such a lawsuit, including reasonable attorney's fees. 14.4. Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties to this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 14.5. No Third Party Rights. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under, or by reason of, this Agreement on any persons other than the Parties. 14.6. Binding on Successors. All of the terms, provisions and conditions of this Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors, permitted assigns and legal representatives. 14.7. No Waiver. Payment by the County under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by the County of any claims it may have against the City for any breach of this Agreement or for failure of City to perform the work or actions, as specified in this Agreement. Forbearance of the rights of the parties under this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 7 of 9 Packet Page 422 of 1075 Agreement will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise their respective rights as to any future acts or omissions by the offending party. 14.8. No Employee Relationship. In performing work and services pursuant to this Agreement, the City, its, employees, consultants, agents, and representatives shall be acting as agents of the City and shall not be deemed or construed to be employees or agents of the County in any manner whatsoever. The City shall not hold itself out as, nor claim to be, an officer or employee of the County and will not make any claim, demand, or application to or for any right or privilege applicable to an officer or employee of County. The City shall be solely responsible for any claims for wages or compensation by the City's employees, consultants, agents, and representatives, including sub -consultants, or any agency, and shall defend, indemnify and hold County harmless therefrom. 14.9 Conflicts between Attachments and Text. Should any conflicts exist between any attached exhibit or schedule and the text or main body of this Agreement, the text or main body of this Agreement shall prevail. 14.10 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. 14.11 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, for any reason and to any extent, be found invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of that provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, but shall instead continue in full force and effect, to the extent permitted by law. 14.12 No Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned, either in whole or in part, by either party without the express written consent of the other party, which may be granted or withheld in such party's sole discretion. Any attempt to assign this Agreement in violation of the preceding sentence shall be null and void and shall constitute a Default under this Agreement. 14.13 Warranty of Authority. Each of the signatories hereto warrants and represents that he or she is competent and authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom he or she purports to sign this Agreement. 14.14 No Joint Venture. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any type or manner of partnership, joint venture or other joint enterprise between the parties. 14.15 No Separate Entity Necessary. The parties agree that no separate legal or administrative entities are necessary to carry out this Agreement. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 8 of 9 Packet Page 423 of 1075 14.16 Ownership of Property. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, any real or personal property used or acquired by either party in connection with its performance under this Agreement will remain the sole property of such party, and the other party shall have no interest therein. EXECUTED this 1i_�—day of 1 201 SNOHOMISH COUNTY: PETER B. CAMP Execu iv,e- Director J 3! John Lovick Date Snohomish Cbfinty Executive APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date COUNCIL USE 0!V Y Approved: _ f Docfile: CITY OF EDMONDS: By: David 0. Earling �. City Mayor Attest: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: C' 221 I`i Ytyorney Dafte Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds Concerning Acquisition of Property with Conservation Futures Funds Page 9 of 9 Packet Page 424 of 1075 EXHIBIT A Legal Description For APN/Parcel ID(s): 27032300400400 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2 WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY; THENCE SOUTH 890 47' WEST ALONG SAID LOT LINE 191.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 510 39' EAST 28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 480 28' WEST 57.5 FEET TO THE GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE; THENCE NORTH 510 39' EAST ALONG SAID MEANDER LINE 25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 480 28' EAST 57.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 510 39' WEST 25 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. (ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 4, WALKER-BELTZ SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF) Subject to easements and reservations of record. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington Packet Page 425 of 1075 EXHIBIT B Conservation Easement Packet Page 426 of 1075 After Recording Return to: Assistant Clerk Snohomish County Council 3000 Rockefeller Avenue MS 609 Everett, WA 98201 Document Title: Grant of Conservation Easement Reference Numbers: Grantor: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington Grantee: Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington Abbreviated Legal Description: Ptn SE 23-27-03 Additional legal on page 16 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 27032300400400 GRANT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT This grant of a perpetual CONSERVATION EASEMENT (hereinafter "Conservation Easement") is made this day of , 2013, by the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter "Grantor"), to Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter "Grantee" or "County"), in perpetuity as holder of the Conservation Easement pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. RECITALS A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of the property legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Protected Property"), which consists of approximately .03 acres of land, located on tax parcel 27032300400400 Snohomish County, Washington; and B. Grantor warrants that Grantor has good legal title to the Protected Property, as well as the right to convey this Conservation Easement, and that the Protected Property is free and clear of any encumbrances except those general exceptions contained in the title policy and any special exceptions shown on the Preliminary Commitment that are accepted by the Grantee; and C. Grantor warrants that Grantor has no actual knowledge of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances or waste on the Protected Property; and D. The Protected Property possesses significant long-term natural and open space values ("Conservation Values") of great importance to the people of Snohomish County for passive recreation; and Packet Page 427 of 1075 E. This Conservation Easement is authorized by RCW 64.04.130, the provision of state law governing conservation easements; and F. The Grantor and the Grantee intend and have the common purpose of retaining the Protected Property for open space and passive recreation by placing restrictions on the use of the Protected Property, which shall continue as a servitude running with the land, and authorizing Grantee to monitor and enforce such restrictions, as described herein; and G. To document the present condition of the Protected Property so that Grantee or its assigns are able to monitor future uses and assure compliance with the terms of this Conservation Easement, Grantee has, at its expense, prepared baseline data consisting of photographs and other documentation summarized in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full (the "Baseline Documentation") that the parties agree provide an accurate representation of the Protected Property as of the date of this Conservation Easement; and H. Snohomish County, as the Grantee of this Conservation Easement, is a qualified holder of conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130; and I. This Conservation Easement is being purchased with funds provided, in part, by the County's Conservation Futures Program pursuant to RCW 84.34.200, RCW 84.34.210, RCW 84.34.220 and chapter 4.14 SCC, which authorizes Snohomish County to purchase conservation easements for the purpose of protecting open space and timber land through restrictions on incompatible uses of the land; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein and in payment of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, including chapters 64.04 and 84.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, the parties agree as follows: I. Grant. Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee a perpetual Conservation Easement over, under, across and through the Protected Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, limit future use of or otherwise conserve the Protected Property as open space pursuant to chapter 84.34 RCW. II. Purpose. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Protected Property will be retained forever in its natural and open space condition and to prevent any use of the Protected Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values. Grantor intends that this Packet Page 428 of 1075 Conservation Easement will confine the use of, or activity on, the Protected Property to such uses and activities that are consistent with this purpose. This statement of purpose is intended as a substantive provision of the Conservation Easement. Any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the application of the provisions of this Conservation Easement will be resolved so as to further this purpose. III. Rights of the Grantee. Grantor hereby conveys to the Grantee all rights necessary to accomplish the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including, without limitation, the following: A. The right to protect, conserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; B. The right to enter the Protected Property or allow Grantee's invitees or licensees to enter, at a reasonable time and upon prior written notice to the Grantor, for the following purposes (i) to make general inspection of the Protected Property to monitor compliance with this Conservation Easement; (ii) to protect, preserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; and (iii) to mitigate or terminate any violation or otherwise enforce the provisions of this Conservation Easement. C. The right to enjoin any use of, or activity on, the Protected Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including trespasses by members of the public, and to require the restoration of such area or features of the Protected Property as may be damaged by uses or activities inconsistent with the provisions of this Conservation Easement, all in accordance with Section XI. D. The right to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, consistent with Section XI. E. The right to place a sign on the Protected Property which acknowledges this Conservation Easement, any conditions on access, and any funding contribution to the acquisition of the Conservation Easement. The foregoing are rights, not obligations, and shall not create any third party rights of enforcement. IV. Permitted Uses and Activities. Packet Page 429 of 1075 A. Grantor reserves to itself, and to its successors and assigns all rights accruing from its ownership of the Protected Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Protected Property that are not prohibited herein and are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. In the event Grantor plans to undertake actions that could be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, Grantor shall provide Grantee written notice of such intent not less than sixty (60) days prior to the date Grantor intends to undertake the activity in question. The notice shall describe the nature, scope, design, location, timetable, and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit Grantee to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. Grantee shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within sixty (60) days of receipt of Grantor's notice. Grantee's approval may be withheld only upon a reasonable determination by Grantee that the action proposed would be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. B. Any improvements to the Protected Property shall be limited to those which are passive in nature and meet the requirements and intent of RCW 84.34.200-220. Passive improvements include, but are not limited to, trails, interpretive centers, viewpoints, picnicking facilities, access, restrooms, playgrounds and restoration projects. Active recreational improvements are prohibited. Such improvements include, but are not limited to ball fields, use by motorized vehicles, swimming pools, and recreation centers. C. Nothing herein precludes the Grantor from demolishing, removing, and remediating existing improvements on the property as of the date of this Conservation Easement. V. Prohibited Uses and Activities. Neither Grantor nor its licensees or invitees shall use the Protected Property for any activity or purpose that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities are expressly prohibited in the Protected Property: A. The placement or construction of any buildings, structures, improvements or equipment of any kind except as permitted in subsection IV. B; B. The continuation, creation, expansion or intensification of any use or activity that is contrary to the purpose of this Conservation Easement or prohibited in this section; Packet Page 430 of 1075 VI C. Mining or extraction of soil, sand, gravel, oil, natural gas or other mineral; D. Dumping or accumulation of trash or refuse; E. The use of motorized vehicles except for those necessary to conduct the uses permitted under this Conservation Easement; and F. Any construction, expansion, repair or other development activity that would result in more than ten percent (10%) of the area of the Protected Property being covered with impervious surfaces, including, without limitation, asphalt, concrete, gravel, buildings, or ponds. Transfer of Property. The Grantor agrees to: A. Incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Protected Property, including, without limitation, leasehold interests. B. Describe the Conservation Easement in and append it to any contract for the transfer of any interest in the Protected Property. C. Give written notice to the Grantee of the transfer of any interest in all or any portion of the Protected Property no later than forty five (45) days prior to the date of such transfer. Such notice to the Grantee shall include the name, address and telephone number of the prospective transferee or the prospective transferee's representative. The failure of the Grantor to perform any act required by this subsection shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability. V11. Extinguishment. This Conservation Easement may be terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, only under one or more of the following circumstances: A. By judicial determination, by a court having jurisdiction over the Conservation Easement, those circumstances have rendered the purpose of this Conservation Easement impossible to achieve. Packet Page 431 of 1075 B. In the event all or any of the Protected Property is taken by exercise of the power of eminent domain or acquired in lieu of condemnation, whether by public, corporate or other authority, except by the parties hereto. Vlll. Proceeds. In the event of termination or extinguishment of this Conservation Easement, Grantee shall be compensated by Grantor for the fair market value of its interest in the Protected Property as determined by either a real estate appraiser licensed by the State of Washington or a court of competent jurisdiction. IX. Transfer or Assignment of the Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement is transferable, but Grantee may assign its rights under this Conservation Easement only to an agency or organization that is authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130 or RCW 84.34.250, or otherwise qualified at the time of transfer under §170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. As a condition of such transfer, Grantee shall require that the transferee exercise its rights under the assignment consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. X. Costs and Liabilities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Protected Property. A. Taxes. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Protected Property. B. Attorneys' fees and costs for enforcement. If the Grantee commences and successfully prosecutes an enforcement action pursuant to Section XI below, the Grantor shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the enforcement action, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. Xl. Enforcement & Monitoring. Grantee shall have the authority to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement. To exercise this authority and thereby further the purpose of this Conservation Easement, the Grantee shall have the following rights under this Conservation Easement, which are subject to the stated limitations: A. Entry onto Protected Property with Reasonable Notice. If the Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement has occurred or is occurring, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property, provided that reasonable advance notice is given to the Grantor, for the purpose of inspecting it for violations of any requirement set forth in this Packet Page 432 of 1075 Conservation Easement. Additionally, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property at least once a year, at a mutually agreed time, for purposes of inspection and compliance monitoring regardless of whether Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of this Conservation Easement exists. B. Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedial Measures. If the Grantee finds what it believes to be a violation of this Conservation Easement, it may, at its discretion, use any available legal or equitable remedy to secure compliance, including but not limited to seeking injunctive relief and/or specific performance requiring the Grantor to cease and desist all activity in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and to return the Protected Property to its condition prior to any violation(s). Except when an imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, the Grantee shall give the Grantor written notice of the violation and thirty (30) days in which to take corrective action prior to commencing any legal action. The failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later time or constitute a waiver of its rights. Grantee may use the Baseline Documentation as a basis for enforcing the provisions of this Conservation Easement, but is not limited to the use of the Baseline Documentation to show a change of conditions. C. Emergency Enforcement. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damages to the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this section without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. D. Scope of Relief. Grantee's rights under this section apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantor agrees that the Grantee's remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this section, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Conservation Easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee's remedies described in this section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. Packet Page 433 of 1075 E. Costs of Enforcement. In the event Grantee must enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, any costs of restoration necessitated by acts or omissions of Grantor, its agents, employees, contractors, invitees or licensees in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and Grantee's reasonable enforcement expenses, including reasonable attorneys' and consultants' fees and costs, shall be borne by Grantor, its successors or assigns. F. Waiver of Defenses. Grantor acknowledges it has carefully reviewed this Conservation Easement and has consulted or had the opportunity to consult with counsel of its terms and requirements. In full knowledge of the provisions of this Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby waives any claim or defense it may have against Grantee or its successors or assigns under or pertaining to this Conservation Easement based upon waiver, laches, estoppel or prescription. G. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle the Grantee to bring any action against Grantor to abate, correct or restore any condition in the Protected Property or to recover damages for any injury to or change in the Protected Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor's control, including fire, flood, storm, and earth movement or the like. XII. Hold Harmless. Grantor hereby agrees to release and hold harmless, indemnify and defend Grantee, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents (collectively "Indemnified Parties") from all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' and consultants' fees arising from or in any way connected with: A. Injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Protected Property that is not a consequence of an activity of the Indemnified Parties undertaken under the rights granted to Grantee under this Conservation Easement; B. Violations or alleged violations of, or other failure to comply with, any federal, state or local law or regulation relating to pollutants or hazardous, toxic or dangerous substances or materials, including without limitation CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and MTCA (ch. 70.105D RCW), by any person other than any of the Indemnified Parties, in any way affecting, involving or relating to Packet Page 434 of 1075 the Protected Property, unless such violations or alleged violations are due to the sole acts or omissions of any of the Indemnified Parties on the Protected Property; C. The presence or release in, on, from or about the Protected Property, at any time, of any substance now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement of any substance hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or the environment, unless caused solely by any of the Indemnified Parties. XIII. Recordation. Grantee shall record this instrument in the Office of the Snohomish County Auditor and may re-record it at any time. XIV. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that any party desires or is required to give to another party under the terms of this Conservation Easement shall be in writing and either served at or mailed to: Grantee: Snohomish County County Executive Office 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S #407 Everett, WA 98201 Grantor(s): City of Edmonds Office of the Mayor 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 or to such other address as any party from time to time shall designate by written notice to others. XV. General Provisions. A. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to this Conservation Easement would be appropriate, the Grantor and Grantee may jointly amend this Conservation Easement by a written instrument to be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, provided that such an amendment does not diminish the effectiveness of this Conservation Easement in carrying out its purpose to permanently preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. B. Controllinq Law. The interpretation or performance of this Conservation Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State Packet Page 435 of 1075 of Washington and the Laws of the United States. Any legal proceeding regarding this Conservation Easement shall be initiated in Snohomish County Superior Court. C. Interpretation. This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted to resolve any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions to give maximum effect to its preservation purpose, as stated in Section II, above. If the Grantor has any doubt concerning the Conservation Easement, covenants, conditions, limitations or restrictions herein contained with respect to any particular use of the said Protected Property, it may submit a written request to the Grantee for consideration and approval of such use. D. Definitions. Any masculine term used in this Conservation Easement shall include the female gender. The terms "Grantor" and "Grantee," wherever used in this Conservation Easement, and any pronouns used in their place, shall be held to mean and include respectively the above named Grantor, its successors, and assigns, and the above -named Grantee, its successors and assigns. E. Entire agreement. This Conservation Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the issues addressed herein and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to these issues, all of which are merged herein. F. No forfeiture. Nothing in this Conservation Easement shall result in a forfeiture or revision of Grantor's title in any respect. G. Successors. As stated in the above recitals, all covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall run with the land and be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. H. Severability. If any portion of this Conservation Easement is declared unlawful or invalid, the remainder of the Conservation Easement shall remain in full force and effect. Authority of signatories. The individuals executing this Conservation Easement warrant and represent that they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Conservation Easement. J. No merger. If Grantee at some future time acquires the underlying fee title in the Protected Property, the interest conveyed by this Packet Page 436 of 1075 Deed will not merge with fee title but will continue to exist and be managed as a separate estate. XVI. Environmental Compliance. A. Grantor represents and warrants that, after reasonable investigation and to the best of Grantor's knowledge, Grantor and the Protected Property are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements applicable to the Protected Property and its use, including without limitation all federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and requirements. B. Grantor further represents and warrants that there has been no release, dumping, burying, abandonment or migration from offsite onto the Property of any substances, materials or wastes that are hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful or are designated as, or contain components that are subject to regulation as hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful by any federal, state or local law, regulation, statute or ordinance. There is no pending or threatened litigation affecting the Property or any portion of the Property that will materially impair the Conservation Values . No civil or criminal proceedings have been instigated or are pending against Grantor or its predecessors by government agencies or third parties arising out of alleged violations of environmental laws, and neither Grantor nor its predecessors in interest have received any notice of violation, penalties, claims, demand letters or other notifications relating to a breach of environmental laws. C. Remediation. If at any time there occurs or has occurred a release in, on or about the Property of any substances now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement as hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or environment, Grantor agrees to take all steps necessary to assure its containment and remediation, including any cleanup that may be required, unless the release was caused by the Grantee, in which case Grantee shall be responsible for remediation. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto GRANTEE SNOHOMISH COUNTY, its respective successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have, by their authorized officers, set their own hands as of the day and year first stated above. Packet Page 437 of 1075 GRANTOR: By: David O. Earling Its: City Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the of the , the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Attest: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney Date Printed Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: Packet Page 438 of 1075 ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE: On _, 201 the Snohomish County Council adopted Motion _ - authorizing the County Executive to accept the Conservation Easement, pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. GRANTEE: SNOHOMISH COUNTY am John Lovick Snohomish County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) 1, certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the of Snohomish County, the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Printed Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Packet Page 439 of 1075 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION EASEMENT For APN/Parcel ID(s): 27032300400400 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2 WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY; THENCE SOUTH 890 4T WEST ALONG SAID LOT LINE 191.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 510 39' EAST 28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 480 28' WEST 57.5 FEET TO THE GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE; THENCE NORTH 510 39' EAST ALONG SAID MEANDER LINE 25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 480 28' EAST 57.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 510 39' WEST 25 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. (ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 4, WALKER-BELTZ SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF) Subject to easements and reservations of record. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington Packet Page 440 of 1075 EXHIBIT B (BASELINE DOCUMENTATION) Packet Page 441 of 1075 I. CURRENT CONDITIONS II. PROPERTY DATA A. Present Use. B. Accessibility and Road Frontage. C. Land Area. D. Land Shape. E. Land Contour and Elevations. F. Minerals and Soil. G. Flood Zone Information. H. Flora. I. Wetlands. HI. PICTORIAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS The following photographs of the Protected Property are not in recordable form and are available and on file with the Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Department: Said photographs demonstrate current site conditions, features, typical flora, and impact of human development Packet Page 442 of 1075 NW QUARTER OF THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W M. O"I T Y OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON FND. CONIC SUFACE MON WITH PUNCHED 2"BRASS DISC _ GLEN ST. Ii I I I I I 130 �lo L40 L39 381 37 36 35 1341 — — 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 30' 5.00 c FND. CONIC SUFACE MON WITH — PUNCHED 2"BRASS DISC — 659.85 DALEY ST, wo o N88°44'26"W — F-7 —�- _ _ C � 3 T4 5 6 17T8� y 1p 11 12 13T14 1' 16 17T18 19 20 I I � I I I I C I I �-- I o ~ TPOB I I I I I F I cn PAR EL TAKE CD I o N88 4613 W `D NIo 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 2 I 30 �� N01 °15'40"E L--� I 30.00 177i o N 5940� j o rn FND. MON CASE WITH FND. CONICMON IN CASE NO MON, USED 1' RP'S W/ PUNCHED 5/8" REBAR -1.7' BELOW SURFACE �86 NS9• 0� 0 1288.87 — — N88°44'26"W 5.00-7 FND. CONIC SUFACE MON WITH PUNCHED 2"BRASS DISC 30' ,; --I . 1 , L , / S'PRA G UE , ,ST. VACATED AREA = 35,986 SQ.FT. OR 0.826 ACRES± 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CD 7 77 T 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 ►:. 1 ' ' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 FND. CONIC SUFACE MON WITH PUNCHED 2"BRASS DISC FND. CONIC MIC WITH 5.00 PUNCHED 2"BRASS DISC _ N88°48'01"W -0.6' BELOW SURFACE 10' 659.95 N01 °15'40"E 30.00 I � 00 g N � N I� N01 °16'16"E 30'I 30.00 FND. CONIC SUFACE MON WITH PUNCHED 3"BRASS DISC FND. CONC MIC WITH 5.00 PUNCHED 2"BRASS DISC S88. 7 -0E — -0.6' BELOW SURFACE i0.01 349.47 N 01.16'16"E 1 30.00 00 ---T-T_-T--��,o�----ITI_-100 I 30' 40 L 39 L38J 37 36 35 341 33 3, — '� 29 28 2_ C-1 I 6 25 124-U LJ LL 2?—IL5.00 3FND. CONIC SUFACE MON WITH — C 659.56 PUNCHED 2"BRASS DISC — — _ FND. PK NAIL N88'43 28 W BL,i LL ST, 100' 50' 0 100' 200' mffffm SCALE IN FEET LEGEND: FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE AS NOTED ■: FOUND PK NAIL 0 FOUND SURFACE MONUMENT AS NOTED LINE TYPES: RIGHT OF WAY CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE BOUNDARY LINE R.O.W VACATED LINE — — — — — — — — — — TAKE LINE — LOT LINE PLAT LOT LINE VACATED EDMONDS ST. R.O.W. AREA - 37,225 SQ.FT. OR 0.855 ACRES± VACATED SPRAGUE ST. R.O.W. AREA - 35,986 SQ.FT. OR 0.826 ACRES± TOTAL R.O.W VACATION AREA - 73,211 SQ.FT OR 1.681 ACRES± TOTAL TAKE PARCEL AREA - 73,211 SQ.FT OR 1.681 ACRES± BASIS OF BEARING: WASHINGTON STATE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE NAD 83(2007) REFERENCE SURVEYS: RECORD OF SURVEY AF No. 0916500396 RECORD OF SURVEY AF No. 199906225007 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARENT PARCEL: LOTS 1 THROUGH 20, BLOCK 99; ALL BLOCK TOO, LOTS 21 THROUGH 40, BLOCK 101, PLAT OF CITY OF EDMONDS, INCLUDING VACATED SPRAGUE AND EDMONDS STREET EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 40, OF SAID BLOCK 101; THENCE SOUTH 01°15'06" WEST, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 464.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF VACATED EDMONDS STREET - THENCE SOUTH 88°4350" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED STREET, A DISTANCE OF 157.60 FEET - THENCE NORTH 01 °15'06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 464.59 TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 35, BLOCK 101; THENCE NORTH 88°46'13" WEST, ALONG NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 35, A DISTANCE OF 157.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 271,415.76 SQUARE FEET OR ±6.231 ACRES MORE OR LESS TAKE PARCEL: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 99; BLOCK TOO, BLOCK 101, PLAT OF CITY OF EDMONDS, INCLUDING VACATED SPRAGUE AND EDMONDS STREET DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 40, OF SAID BLOCK 107; THENCE SOUTH 01°15'06" WEST, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 464.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF VACATED EDMONDS STREET - THENCE SOUTH 88°4350" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED STREET, A DISTANCE OF 157.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 °15'06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 464.59 TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 35, BLOCK 101; THENCE NORTH 88°46'13" WEST, ALONG NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 35, A DISTANCE OF 157.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 73,211 SQUARE FEET OR ±1.681 ACRES MORE OR LESS. /Ps A. WAskr 36798 q S �G1STEg'� L LAN9 SEC. 24, TWP. 27 N., RGE. 3 E, W.M. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This map correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the SURVEY RECORDING ACT at the request of CITY OF EDMONDS in DECEMBER , 202015 DOUGLAS A. HARTMAN, PLS CERTIFICATE NO. 36798 Packet Page 443 of 1075 . City of Edmonds Civic Field Ownership M Me z N N *613 E3 tf �N ...rM-c. lYnnr.n 7.7 F pe— Fill n r n n f• n Legend Administrative Boundaries Parcels - Sections Boundary Sections Edmonds Boundary ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIN( 31 N rrn nrCrTI4 : n - r,4 Nun r n N n r• n 300 AS ' r Mun `� � f• U MC) n 1: 2,256 Notes RED: District lots 0 94.00 188.0 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION owned GREEN: Un-vacated streets ."., r V. "' V I I V, J AM-8312 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Patrick Doherty Department: Community Services Committee: Submitted By: Patrick Doherty Type: Action Information Subiect Title Ordinance Reestablishing Citizens Economic Development Commission Recommendation Approval. 5. D. Previous Council Action City Council considered the proposal at its 1/26/16 meeting, offering suggestions regarding collaboration with other boards, commissions and agencies to be reflected in the code language. Narrative On June 2, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, creating a Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC), arising from the Citizens' Levy Review Committee, which had been tasked with reviewing the financial situation of the City of Edmonds, and its recommendation to develop a broad vision and long-term strategies to make the City's fiscal situation sustainable without recurring to votes of the public for increased property taxes. The Council at that time stated that it found "it to be in the public interest to establish an Economic Development Commission in order to take advantage of the large number of highly qualified citizens who are interested in serving their community as it addresses this problem (fiscal sustainability)." The original EDC was approved with a sunset date of 12/31/10. By Ordinance 3808, passed on 1015110, the sunset date was extended till 12/31/11. By Ordinance 3868, passed on 12/20/11, the sunset date was extended till 4/29/12. Finally Ordinance No. 3876, passed on 3/20/12, established a sunset date for the Commission of 12/31/15. Over time the mission statement for the EDC, as enshrined in ECC Section 10.75.030 Powers and Duties, was revised slightly to read ultimately as follows: 1. Determining new strategies for economic development within the city of Edmonds; 2. Identifying new sources of revenue as a direct result of economic development projects for the consideration of the city council. At the 2015 City Council Retreat a study subgroup was called for to study and discuss the CEDC, its purpose, usefulness, meeting format, subgroups, and whether to extend the Commission or allow it to sunset. This subgroup, comprised of Councilmembers Bloom, Mesaros and Petso, met informally in October 2015 to discuss these issues, offering several observations and/or recommendations which were Packet Page 445 of 1075 shared with full Council in November. City Council considered the recommendations and chose to take no action, allowing the EDC to sunset on 12/31/15, as set out in the corresponding Code provisions. At this time Mayor Earling proposes to create a new Economic Development Commission, to be established and seated as soon as possible, outlined as follows (following the code structure of Chapter 10.75 ECC): Membership • Nine members. Each Councilmember appoints one; Mayor appoints two. Members must be residents and should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business, economics, real estate, finance, development, education, or other similar fields. • Ultimately two-year terms, initially staggered by two- and three-year terms. • No term limits. • No sunset. Officers, Meetings, Forum • Commission shall elect Chair and Vice -Chair, with similar duties as in previous code. • Quorum is a simple majority of filled positions. • Regular meeting days, times and place shall be established to avoid "special meeting" status and extra notice requirements every time. • All meetings open to public. Powers and duties • Advise and make recommendations to Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate to other boards or commissions of the City, on matters independently generated or specifically referred to it by the Mayor or City Council related to: o Strategies, programs or activities intended to generate economic development and consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue • Annual report to Council and Mayor • The Commission may work in conjunction with other boards or commissions on proposals, recommendations or projects of common interest, which may be presented to Mayor or Council jointly. At the 1/26/16 City Council meeting, Councilmembers suggested that language be added to the Ordinance that would encourage the EDC to invite ex-officio participation from other boards, commissions or agencies involved in economic development, as well as to encourage collaboration with such entities on programs or activities of mutual interest. The attached Ordinance reflects those suggested changes. Attachments Reestablish CEDC Ordinance Packet Page 446 of 1075 Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Form Review Reviewed By Date Scott Passey 01/28/2016 03:22 PM Dave Earling 01/28/2016 04:20 PM Scott Passey 01/28/2016 04:40 PM Started On: 01/28/2016 02:55 PM Packet Page 447 of 1075 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.75 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO REESTABLISH THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the City Council enacted Ordinance 3735 on June 2, 2009, creating a Citizens Economic Development Commission, and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission was provided with a "sunset" clause, initially setting an expiration date of December 31, 2010, which expiration date was extended through consecutive city council actions till December 31, 2015, and WHEREAS, upon full discussion and consideration in November of 2015, the City Council opted not to extend the Economic Development Commission "sunset" clause any further, thereby allowing the Commission to expire on December 31, 2015, as provided for in ECC Section 10.75.010(B), and WHEREAS, promotion of economic activity and vitality in Edmonds is of paramount concern to the residents and businesses by creating jobs, enhancing quality of life, and generating municipal revenue, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find it to be in the public interest to establish an Economic Development Commission to take advantage of highly qualified citizens interested in serving their community in ways to promote economic activity and vitality; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 10.75 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Citizens Economic Development Commission," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfilo?�gh): Packet Page 448 of 1075 10.75.010 Commission created — Membership — Term of appointments. A. There is hereby created a citizens economic development commission consisting of up to 17 nine members. The eenmnission shall autema4ieallyexpire Beeember- 31, 2 B. The members of the commission shall be appointed in the following manner: 1. Each council member may appoint up4e two one members, positions 2 through 8. 2. The mayor may appoint wee two members, positions 1 and 9. 3. In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, that position may be deemed vacant by the holder of the office that appointed the commissioner (e.g., mayor or council member) and such office holder may appoint a replacement commissioner for the remainder of the unexpired term for that position. 4. Elected government officials shall not be eligible for appointment to the commission; provided, that the city council president may appoint up to two one council members to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission; 5. the The Edmonds pPort eCommission, the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, and the Edmonds Planning Board are encouraged to may also appoint one of its their members to serve as e nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission. 56. Members of the commission must be residents of the city of Edmonds. Members should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business, economics, real estate, finance, development, education, or other similar fields. 67. If a commissioner satisfied the eligibility criteria in effect upon his/her appointment to the commission but fails to maintain his/her eligibility either through an amendment of the eligibility criteria or due to a change of circumstances surrounding the commission (e.g., change of residency) after his/her appointment, that commissioner shall lose his/her seat on the commission as a matter of law and the seat shall be deemed vacant. 78. Any vacancy on the commission will be advertised, and the new appointee will be selected from the applications received. Packet Page 449 of 1075 C. Terms of the cGommissioner members shall be two years, except terms shall initially be staggered as follows: Position No. 1 expires after two years, ppointed by the mayor. Position No. 2 expires after two years, ppointed by council seat No. 1. Position No. 3 expires after two years, ppointed by council seat No. 2. Position No. 4 expires after two years, ppointed by council seat No. 3. Position No. 5 expires after three years, ppointed by council seat No. 4. Position No. 6 expires after three years, ppointed by council seat No. 5. Position No. 7 expires after three years, ppointed by council seat No. 6. Position No. 8 expires after three years, ppointed by council seat No. 7. Position No. 9 expires after three years, ppointed by the maw There shall be no term limits. stieh that all members of the eemmission as ef Deeember- 31, 2011, shall have their- t en Deeember- 31, 2012. All members appein4ed dwing 2012 shall have their- teEms e aeeember31, 2015. [Ord. 3970 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3927 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3876 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 3868 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3808 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3735 § 1, 2009]. 10.75.020 Officers of commission — Meetings — Forum. Members of the commission shall meet and organize by electing from the members of the commission a chairman and vice-chairman and such other officers as may be determined by the commission. It shall be the duty of the chairman to preside at all meetings. The vice-chairman shall perform this duty in the absence of the chairman. A majority of the filled positions on the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A majority of the quorum may transact any particular business of the commission. The commission shall establish T e regular public meetings of the ,.,,mmissie shall including established day of the month, time Packet Page 450 of 1075 and place. the fnember-s of the eefmnissien. Sueh meetings shall be eansidered s i m eeti g .,,,a nNotice for such regular meetings shall be provided in accordance with city ordinance and state law. [Ord. 3876 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 3735 § 1, 2009]. 10.75.030 Powers and duties. A. The commission is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the mayor and city council, and as appropriate to the planning eemmission, ar-ehiteaur-al design board o other boards or commissions of the city, on such matters as may be specifically referred to the commission by the mayor or city council, or on matters independently generated by the commission, ineluding bu4 not limited related to: 1. Detefmining flew sStrate ig es, programs or activities intended to end fEw economic development and consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue.within the eity of Union a B. The commission shall deliver an annual report to the city council in written and oral form on or about the first meeting in December of every year, and when appropriate, during other times as directed by the mayor or council. The commission is encouraged to provide informal reports and/or recommendations to the mavor and citv council at anv time during the vear. �.■�.�e..•r�ee:.e�� .Rsr� .terra _...... _,.:::��:_ .. �....�..., that will impr-ove commer-eial viability, toufist development and aetivit-y within the eity. Th-e The commission is encouraged to work in conjunction with other boards and commissions on proposals, recommendations, projects or activities of mutual interest, or as otherwise directed b council. Similarly, the commission is encouraged to collaborate and cooperate with other organizations, agencies or entities engaged in economic development in Edmonds. [Ord. 3876 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 3735 § 1, 2009]. Packet Page 451 of 1075 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. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: 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. Packet Page 452 of 1075 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, 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 10.75 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO REESTABLISH THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 6 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 453 of 1075 AM-8305 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: Subject Title 15 Minutes Scott Passey City Clerk's Office Action Information Committee Action: 5. E. Reconsideration of the Mayor's veto of Ordinance No. 4017 - Amending the Critical Areas Regulations contained in Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions, 23.50 Wetlands, 23.60 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, 23.70 Frequently Flooded Areas, 23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas, and 23.90 Fish And Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and amending ECDC Section 19.00.025, A Provision of the Building Code related to Frequently Flooded Areas. Recommendation Previous Council Action On January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4017 (Attachment 1). Narrative On January 28, 2016, Mayor Earling vetoed Ordinance No. 4017; Attachment 1 includes the vetoed ordinance and email dated December 30 and 31, 2015, from Mayor Earling sent to the City Council providing notification of the veto. Below is a copy of RCW 35A.12.130; the last paragraph discusses reconsideration. Ordinances Style Requisites Veto. The enacting clause of all ordinances shall be as follows: "The city council of the city of ...... do ordain as follows:" No ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be clearly expressed in its title. No ordinance or any section or subsection thereof shall be revised or amended unless the new ordinance sets forth the revised ordinance or the amended section or subsection at full length. No ordinance shall take effect until five days after the date of its publication unless otherwise provided by statute or charter, except that an ordinance passed by a majority plus one of the whole membership of the council, designated therein as a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property or the public peace, may be made effective upon adoption, but such ordinance may not levy taxes, grant, renew, or extend a franchise, or authorize the borrowing of money. Every ordinance which passes the council in order to become valid must be presented to the mayor; if he or she approves it, he or she shall sign it, but if not, he or she shall return it with his or her written Packet Page 454 of 1075 objections to the council and the council shall cause his or her objections to be entered at large upon the journal and proceed to a reconsideration thereof. If upon reconsideration a majority plus one of the whole membership, voting upon a call of ayes and nays, favor its passage, the ordinance shall become valid notwithstanding the mayor's veto. If the mayor fails for ten days to either approve or veto an ordinance, it shall become valid without his or her approval. Ordinances shall be signed by the mayor and attested by the clerk. Attachment 1 - Mayor's Veto CAO Attachments Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/27/2016 03:44 PM Final Approval Date: 01/27/2016 Packet Page 455 of 1075 ORDINANCE NO.4017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.50 WETLANDS, 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS, AND AMENDING ECDC SECTION 19.00.025, A PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS. This ordinance is hereby vetoed for the reasons set forth in my entails to the city council of December 30 and 31, 2015, which attached a memo from Kernen Lien dated December 22, 2015. David O. Earling ❑ Mayor Packet Page 456 of 1075 ORDINANCE NO.4017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.50 WETLANDS, 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS, AND AMENDING ECDC SECTION 19.00.025, A PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.130(1) requires City of Edmonds to take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations, including its policies and regulations designating and conserving natural resource lands and designating and protecting critical areas to comply with the requirements in chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act or GMA); and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the city council of the City of Edmonds reviewed its comprehensive plan and conducted a public hearing on the 2015 update to the City of Edmonds comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds adopted the 2015 update to the City of Edmonds comprehensive plan with Ordinance 4003; and WHEREAS, based on early direction from the City Council, the 2015 update did not involve a major policy shift, but instead focused on consistency and streamlining, including the latest data, as well as the addition of several performance measures; and WHEREAS, it was determined during this review process that, with the exception of the critical areas regulations, the City of Edmonds' development regulations remained consistent with and would continue to implement the comprehensive plan and the proposed update to it so that no other development regulations would need to be revised at this time; and Packet Page 457 of 1075 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) defines "critical areas" to include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires that each city adopt development regulations that protect critical areas; and WHEREAS, cities in Snohomish County are expected to take action to review and, if needed, revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of the GMA on or before June 30, 2015, and every eight years thereafter; and WHEREAS, cities must include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas; and WHEREAS, cities must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries; and WHEREAS, City has not comprehensively reviewed its critical areas ordinance and best available science since 2005 when current version of the critical area regulations became effective; and WHEREAS, the City selected environmental consultants ESA to assist the City in updating the 2004 City's Best Available Science Report (Exhibit 1 to September 8, 2015 agenda memo 7969) and to evaluate the City's critical area regulations given the changes in science; and WHEREAS, the Best Available Science addendum prepared by ESA reviewed the current science related to critical areas as it has changed since 2004 (see Exhibit 2 to September 8, 2015 agenda memo 7969); and WHEREAS, ESA also prepared a memo for the City's review that outlines certain provisions that may deviate from Best Available Science, as required by WAC 365-195-915; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed proposed changes to the critical area regulations over the course of five Planning Board meetings between March 25 and July 22, 2015; and Packet Page 458 of 1075 WHEREAS, the Board's review included a July 8, 2015 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board forwarded its recommended changes to the City's critical area regulations to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board also forwarded a recommendation for some modifications to the building code Title 19 ECDC and definitions in Title 21 ECDC, in conjunction with its recommendations on critical areas and frequently flooded area regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the draft updated critical area regulation as recommended by the Planning Board at the September 8, 2015 Council meeting and continued that review at the September 22, 2015 Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing at the October 6, 2015 City Council meeting and continued to review the critical area regulations at the November 2, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to adopt the updated critical areas regulations as amended by the City Council during the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Mayor asked the City Council to reconsider the amendments that were approved during the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Mayor forwarded to the City Council a December 22, 2015 memo that addresses the implications of the December 15, 2015 amendments; and WHEREAS, this ordinance serves as the final legislative action required by the City under RCW 36.70A.130 for the 2015 review and update; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following chapters of the Edmonds Community Development Code, which make up the City's critical areas ordinance, are hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new Packet Page 459 of 1075 text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s* ilke t r-eu `i'): chapter 23.40, entitled "Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions;" chapter 23.50, entitled "Wetlands;" chapter 23.60, entitled "Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas;" chapter 23.70, entitled "Frequently Flooded Areas;" chapter 23.80, "Geologically Hazardous Areas;" and chapter 23.90 entitled, "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." Section 2. Section 19.00.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "International Building Code section amendments," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in tfike-t ugh) Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. 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/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: i JEFF TARADAY APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: January 22, 2016 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: January 26, 2016 Packet Page 460 of 1075 PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. January 31, 2016 February 5, 2016 4017 Packet Page 461 of 1075 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4017 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 26th day of January, 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4017. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.50 WETLANDS, 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS, AND AMENDING ECDC SECTION 19.00.025, A PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 27th day of January, 2016. C CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 462 of 1075 From: Earling, Dave To: Council Cc: "Neil Tibbott" (neil.tibbott(abfrontier.com); Dave Teitzel (kathydave52(&hotmail.com); Taraday. Jeff; Hope, Shane; Hite, Carrie; Lien, Kernen Subject: Critical Areas Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:46:52 PM Council..... I hope you are enjoying the Holidays. I want to let you know since my return from my break, I have reviewed the work which took place on the critical area ordinance at the last council meeting, as well as had a briefing from staff on the amendments made by council during the meeting. And after giving the issue considerable thought, I cannot accept the dramatic changes provided by the amendments, which in my opinion neuters the work staff and the Planning Board intended and agreed to. In current condition, I would be forced to veto an ordinance which include the amendments made by council. My hope is council will take the time to meet with staff in the next couple of weeks to better understand the impact of the amendments approved at the meeting and adjustments can be made. Thanks for your consideration, Dave Packet Page 463 of 1075 From: Earlina, Dave To: Buckshnis, Diane; Mesaros. Thomas; Nelson. Michael; "Neil Tibbott" (neil.tibbott(a frontier.com); Dave Teitzel (kathydave52(a)hotmail.com); Monillas. Adrienne; Johnson, Kristiana Cc: Taraday, Jeff; Hoge, Shane; Lien, Kernen; Hite, Carrie Subject: Critical Areas Ordinance Date: Thursday, December 31, 2015 2:10:13 PM Attachments: CouncilAmendmentImplications 20151222.pdf Almost Happy New Year...... Diane asked to better understand which of the amendments proposed for the critical areas ordinance were most problematic. I have attached the analysis Kernen did for me before he left on vacation this week. The amendments of most concern are; #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. There needs to be some more consideration on #7..... so stay tuned. I hope this helps. Again, I encourage you to meet with staff to clear up any questions you may have in the next couple of weeks. See you Tuesday! (or before) Dave Packet Page 464 of 1075 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM December 22, 2015 Shane Hope, Development Service Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Council CAO Amendment Implications At the December 15, 2015 Council meeting, the Council proposed a number of amendments to the recommended draft of the updated critical area regulations. Below is a summary of the proposed amendments by Council and my interpretation of the potential impact of each amendment. 1. Council Amendment: 23.40.010 Authority: change "development services director or designee" to "...development services director, the director may designate the planning manager under specific circumstances..." Implications: The proposed change would lead to inefficiencies processing development review proposals while not providing any greater protection of critical areas or real change in staff review. The Development Services Director is already responsible for decisions made by Development Services staff. The effect of the code change would be having the Development Services Director sign off on reviews without full knowledge of what she (or he) is signing. The Director has responsibilities beyond development review. Line staff is hired to review development and become intimately versed in the code. The Director is responsible to ensure staff is doing their job. Having the Director sign decisions adds nothing to review, but takes time away from other more appropriate Director responsibilities. 2. Council Amendment: 23.40.215 Critical area restoration projects: delete subsection B.3 which would have allowed buffer reduction of restoration projects to 50% of the newly expanded buffer. Implications: Deleting this subsection essentially removes the purpose of this whole section. The intent of the restoration project section was to encourage restoration projects. The portion of this code section that remains allows a 25% reduction of the buffer, which is already allowed in certain circumstances by other code sections. In order to reduce expanded buffers for restoration projects further, the project applicant would have to apply for a variance. Variances are intended for limited situations where special circumstances exist. The special circumstances have to be existing and not be something created by the property owner (or previous owner). Since the restoration project is creating the special circumstance, any applicant with a restoration project would not meet this criterion and could not receive a variance. Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 465 of 1075 One specific project that will be impacted by this change is the Marina Beach Master Plan which has been developed via a public process. Without subsection B.3, the Marina Beach Master Plan and daylighting of Willow Creek will have to be redesigned or abandoned. 3. Council Amendment: 23.40.220.C.4 Physically separated/functionally isolated: delete the physically separated/functionally isolated provision Implications: This was a new section proposed with this update to address situations staff has seen over the years. Edmonds is a largely urbanized area, which was mainly developed prior to any environmental regulations. As a result, properties are technically included in a critical area "buffer" when measured from the edge of a stream or wetland. In many cases, there is a road, structure or other development between a property within a "buffer" and the critical area which create a physical and functional break between the property and the critical area. Since there is this break, any development within the physically separated and functionally isolated area will, by definition, not have any impact on the critical area. The result of this amendment will be to maintain the status quo and property owners will be restricted even when additional development will not impact the critical area. 4. Council Amendment: 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv Hazard Tree Removal: change the required diameter of deciduous replacement trees from one inch dbh to one and one-half to two inches dbh Implications: One comment I have consistently heard from critical area consultants is larger trees are not necessarily better when it comes to restoration. The larger the tree, the smaller the root ball, which makes it more difficult for the trees planted for mitigation to get established. This amendment would require larger trees than currently required in the code, which critical area consultants have already indicated may be too large. 5. Council Amendment: 23.40.320 definitions: change definition of footprint of existing development to "...legally established buildings and paved roads, driveways, and parking lots." Implications: This amendment further confines what may be considered the development footprint. The original proposal would have also included roads, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, and walkways with compacted gravel; swimming pools; and patios. The development within the developed foot provision will still be an improvement over what exists in the code; this amendment just tightened where the provision can be applied. 6. Council Amendment: 23.40.320 definitions: change normal maintenance of vegetation from ...trees less than 3-inch dbh to trees less than 4-inch dbh Implications: This provision basically would allow the clearing of saplings in critical areas. The amendment allows the clearing of slightly larger saplings as a critical area exemption. 7. Council Amendment: 23.90.040.C.1 Native vegetation: change "...native trees over 10 inches in dbh make up more than 70 percent of the canopy cover" to "...native trees over 6 inches in dbh make up more than 40 percent of the canopy cover." Implications: The changes may trigger the requirements of this provision in more areas than the original proposal. Even with the amendments, this provision is improved over what currently exists in the code. The type of habitat and canopy cover goals for the City is something that should be considered in the development of the Urban Forest Management Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 466 of 1075 Plan. Information developed with the Urban Forest Management Plan could be used to further refine the native vegetation provision in the critical area regulations. 8. Council Amendment: Frequently flooded areas: delete the amendment to the definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030 that would have height in the coastal flood hazard zones measured from 2 feet of base flood elevation. Implications: The council amendment would result in structures constructed within the coastal flood hazard zones losing height otherwise allowed by the zone. As part of the critical areas update, two provisions were proposed for development within frequently flooded areas. The first is an addition to the building code that requires structures to be constructed two feet above the base flood elevation in the coastal flood hazard zone. The second proposal was a change to the definition of height which would have structures within the coastal flood hazard zone measure the allowed zoning height from two feet above base flood elevation (this proposal was recommended for deletion by the Council). Where existing grade along the waterfront is at or below the base flood elevation, requiring structures to be built 2 feet above base flood elevation would effectively eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain existing height allowances, the Planning Board recommended modifying the definition of height contained in ECDC 21.40.030 to allow for the height of structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas to be measured from two feet above base flood elevation thus compensating for the impact of the building code change. The Council amendment to delete the height definition change while keeping the requirement to building two above base flood elevation penalizes properties designing projects for the impacts of sea level rise and flooding by essentially eliminating a portion of the allowable zoning height. Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 467 of 1075 AM-8308 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted By: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Type: Potential Action Information Subiect Title Consideration of the Critical Areas Ordinance 5. F. Recommendation Adopt an ordinance that contains certain amendments that the Council approved at its December 15 meeting, as represented by Exhibit 2. Previous Council Action The City Council has provided funding for a Critical Area Regulation update and heard a progress report at the June 23, 2015 Council meeting. The City Council reviewed the draft updated critical area regulations (Exhibits 3 and 4) as recommended by the Planning Board at the September 8, 2015 Council meeting (minutes at Exhibit 12) and continued review at the September 22, 2015 Council meeting (minutes at Exhibit 13). The City Council held a public hearing at its October 6, 2015 meeting (minutes at Exhibit 14) and continued to review the critical area regulations at its November 2, 2015 meeting (minutes at Exhibit 15). The City Council held another meeting December 15, 2015, and discussed making amendments to the language shown in Exhibit 3; the Council then directed that an ordinance be prepared to reflect eight specific amendments (Exhibit 16). On January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4017, which included the eight amendments made at the December 15, 2015 Council meeting and was subsequently vetoed by the Mayor. Narrative BACKGROUND All cities and counties in Washington State are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth Management Act (GMA). As defined by the GMA: "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas." [RCW 36.70A.030(5)] In 2015, the City worked with a consulting firm, ESA, on updating the City's critical area regulations as required by the GMA. The update began with a review of the City's 2004 Best Available Science report (Exhibit 5) for which ESA prepared the 2015 BAS Addendum (Exhibit 6). This information, along with staff experiences implementing the critical area regulations over the last 10 years, was used to update the City's critical area regulations contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40 — 23.90. This review also proposed changing the building code and definition of height that relate to frequently flooded areas to reflect likely sea rise. The Best Available Science and Gap Analysis Matrix Packet Page 468 of 1075 included as Exhibit 7 summarizes proposed changes to the code. ESA also prepared a memorandum that addressed some flexibilities that are being proposed in the updated critical area regulations following the format of WAC 365-195-915 (Exhibit 8). The Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a letter of support for the draft critical area regulations on October 29, 2015 (Exhibit 9). The Planning Board reviewed the proposed changes to the critical area regulations over the course of five meetings and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council in July 2015. (See Exhibits 17 - 21 for Planning Board minutes; these were also presented in to the Council in an earlier packet.) The City Council began review of the critical area regulations in September 2015 and also reviewed the updated critical area regulations in five Council meetings. At the last Council meeting of 2015, the City Council proposed a number of amendments to the draft critical area regulations and directed that an ordinance be prepared for adoption. Following the December 15, 2015 Council meeting, the City administration raised concern about some of the amendments and their potential implications. The Washington State Department of Ecology also submitted a letter of concern to the City Council regarding one of the proposed amendments (Exhibit 8). Below is a summary of the amendments made by the Council and an analysis of the potential implication of each amendment. 1. Council Amendment: 23.40.010 Authority: CHANGE "development services director or designee" TO "...development services director, the director may designate the planning manager under specific circumstances..." Implications: The proposed change would lead to inefficiencies processing development review proposals while not providing any greater protection of critical areas or real change in staff review. The Development Services Director is already responsible for decisions made by Development Services staff. The effect of the code change would be having the Development Services Director sign off on reviews without full knowledge of what she (or he) is signing. The Director has responsibilities beyond development review. Line staff is hired to review development and become intimately versed in the code. The Director is responsible to ensure staff is doing their job. Having the Director sign decisions adds nothing to review, but takes time away from other more appropriate Director responsibilities. The number of critical areas -related decisions staff undertakes during a given year are substantial. For example, in 2015, staff issued 120 critical areas determinations. This is the determination of whether critical areas are located on or adjacent to a subject property. This involves a review of GIS information and a site visit to every property. Additionally, there were 298 building permits that involved some ground disturbance activity that requires a critical areas review. Finally, there were 10 subdivisions in 2015 which also required critical areas review. So from a permitting perspective, the items just mentioned total 428 separate decisions that would have to solely be made by the Development Services Director with the proposed amendment. This does not count the numerous phone calls and questions at the counter answered by staff that relate to critical areas. 2. Council Amendment: 23.40.215 Critical area restoration projects: DELETE subsection B.3 which would have allowed buffer reduction for restoration projects of up to 50% of the newly expanded buffer. Implications: Deleting this subsection essentially removes the purpose of this whole section. The intent of the restoration project section was to encourage restoration projects. The portion of this code section that remains allows a 25% reduction of the buffer, which is already allowed in certain circumstances by other code sections. In order to reduce expanded buffers for restoration projects further, the project applicant would have to apply for a variance. Variances are intended for limited situations where special circumstances exist. The special circumstances have to be existing and not be something created by the Packet Page 469 of 1075 property owner (or previous owner). Since the restoration project is creating the special circumstance, any applicant with a restoration project would not meet this criterion and could not receive a variance. One example of a specific project that will be impacted by this change is the Marina Beach Master Plan which has been developed via a public process. Without subsection B.3, the Marina Beach Master Plan and daylighting of Willow Creek will have to be redesigned or abandoned. Note: The state Department of Ecology has sent a letter of concern about this amendment. (See Exhibit 8.) 3. Council Amendment: 23.40.220.C.4 Physically separated/functionally isolated: DELETE the physically separated/functionally isolated provision. Implications: This was a new section proposed with this update to address situations staff has seen over the years. Edmonds is a largely urbanized area, which was mainly developed prior to any environmental regulations. As a result, properties are technically included in a critical area "buffer" when measured from the edge of a stream or wetland. In many cases, there is a road, structure or other development between a property within a "buffer" and the critical area which create a physical and functional break between the property and the critical area. Since there is this break, any development within the physically separated and functionally isolated area will, by definition, not have any impact on the critical area. The result of this amendment will be to maintain the status quo and property owners will be restricted even when additional development will not impact the critical area. 4. Council Amendment: 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv Hazard Tree Removal: CHANGE the required diameter of deciduous replacement trees from one inch dbh TO one and one-half to two inches dbh Implications: One comment consistently expressed by critical area consultants is that larger trees are not necessarily better when it comes to restoration. The larger the tree, the smaller the relative size of the root ball, which makes it more difficult for the trees planted for mitigation to get established. This amendment would require larger trees than currently required in the code, which critical area consultants have already indicated may be too large. 5. Council Amendment: 23.40.320 definitions: CHANGE definition of footprint of existing development TO "...legally established buildings and paved roads, driveways, and parking lots." Implications: This amendment further confines what may be considered the development footprint. The original proposal would have also included roads, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, and walkways with compacted gravel; swimming pools; and patios. The development within the developed footprint provision contained within the updated critical area regulations will still be an improvement over what exists in the code; this amendment just tightened where the provision may be applied. 6. Council Amendment: 23.40.320 definitions: CHANGE normal maintenance of vegetation from ...trees less than 3-inch dbh TO trees less than 4-inch dbh Implications: This provision basically would allow the clearing of saplings in critical areas. The amendment allows the clearing of slightly larger saplings as a critical area exemption. 7. Council Amendment: 23.90.040.C.1 Native vegetation: CHANGE "...native trees over 10 inches in dbh make up more than 70 percent of the canopy cover" TO "...native trees over 6 inches in dbh make up more than 40 percent of the canopy cover." Implications: The changes may trigger the requirements of this provision in more areas than the original proposal. The 10 inch dbh and 70% canopy coverage of this provision was proposed by ESA because of Packet Page 470 of 1075 specific habitat value provided by that size of trees. The proposed amendment was not tied to any specific habitat per se, but with a desire to preserve more canopy coverage within the City. Even with the amendments, this provision is an improvement over what currently exists in the code. The type of habitat and canopy cover goals for the City is something that should be considered in the development of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Information developed with the Urban Forest Management Plan could be used to further refine the native vegetation provision in the critical area regulations. 8. Council Amendment: Frequently flooded areas: DELETE the amendment to the definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030 that would have height in the coastal flood hazard zones measured from 2 feet above base flood elevation. Implications: The council amendment would result in structures constructed within the coastal flood hazard zones losing height otherwise allowed by the zone. As part of the critical areas update, two provisions were proposed for development within frequently flooded areas. The first is an addition to the building code that requires structures to be constructed two feet above the base flood elevation in the coastal flood hazard zone (a draft flood hazard map is included as Exhibit 9). The second proposal was a change to the definition of height which would have structures within the coastal flood hazard zone measure the allowed zoning height from two feet above base flood elevation (this last proposal was recommended for deletion by the Council). Where existing grade along the waterfront is at or below the base flood elevation, requiring structures to be built 2 feet above base flood elevation would effectively eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain existing height allowances, the Planning Board recommended modifying the definition of height contained in ECDC 21.40.030 to allow for the height of structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas to be measured from two feet above base flood elevation thus compensating for the impact of the building code change. The Council amendment to delete the height definition change while keeping the requirement to construct buildings two feet above base flood elevation penalizes properties designing projects for the impacts of sea level rise and flooding by essentially eliminating a portion of the allowable zoning height. Under the Council amendment, a building would end up being 27 or 28 feet tall rather than the 30 feet currently allowed by code. OVERVIEW OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 is the vetoed Ordinance No. 4017 which contains all eight of the Council amendments summarized above. Of the eight amendments, amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 have the largest impact and are of particular concern for the administration. Exhibit 2 is the administration's recommended ordinance that keeps Council -proposed amendments 5, 6, and 7 (Council amendments are highlighted by the comments on the right side margin) above but does not include proposed amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. This version of the critical area regulations is intended to balance strong environmental protection with reasonable opportunities for property improvements without harming critical areas. Exhibit 3 is the original proposed language for the critical area regulations, which the Council had been considering on December 15, and Exhibit 4 is the related amendments proposed for the building code, including the definition of height that related only to frequently flooded areas, also considered on December 15. The newest exhibit is Exhibit 22, a slide presentation that has been prepared for the meeting. Below is a list of the specific exhibits for this agenda item: Exhibit 1 — Vetoed Ordinance No. 4017 Exhibit 2 — Administration -Recommended Ordinance which includes Council amendments 5, 6, and 7 Packet Page 471 of 1075 from December 15, 2015. Exhibit 3 - Draft Critical Area Regulations ECDC 23.40 - 23.90 as presented at the December 15, 2015 Council Meeting Exhibit 4 - Frequently Flooded Area Amendments as presented at the December 15, 2015 Council Meeting Exhibit 5 — 2004 Best Available Science Report Exhibit 6 — 2015 Best Available Science Addendum Exhibit 7 — Best Available Science and Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit 8 — ESA Memorandum Rationale for Proposed Development Flexibilities Exhibit 9 — October 29, 2015 Washington State Department of Ecology Letter Exhibit 10 — January 12, 2016 Washington State Department of Ecology Letter Exhibit 11 - Draft FEMA FIRM Map for Edmonds Waterfront Exhibits 12 — 16 — Council Minutes Excerpts Exhibit 17 - 21 - Planning Board Minutes Excerpts Exhibit 22 - Visual Presentation Prepared for Feb. 2 Council Meeting Attachments Exhibit 1 - Vetoed Ordinance No. 4017 Exhibit 2 - Administration Recommended Ordinance which included Council amendments 5, 6, and 7 Exhibit 3 - Draft Critical Area Regulations ECDC 23.40 - 23.90 as presented at the December 15, 2015 Council Meeting Exhibit 4 - Frequently Flooded Area Amendments as presented at the December 15, 2015 Council Meeting Exhibit 5 - 2004 Best Available Science Report Exhibit 6 - 2015 Best Available Science Addendum Exhibit 7 - Best Available Science and Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit 8 - ESA Memorandum Rationale for Proposed Development Flexibilities Exhibit 9 - October 29, 2015 Washington State Department of Ecology Letter Exhibit 10 - January 12, 2016 Washington State Department of Ecology Letter Exhibit 11 - Draft FEMA FIRM May for Edmonds Waterfront Exhibit 12 - September 8, 2015 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 13 - September 22, 2015 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 14 - October 6, 2015 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 15 - November 11, 2015 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 16 - December 15, 2015 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 17 - March 25, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 18 - April 22, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 19 - June 10, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 20 - July 8, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 21 - July 22, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 22 - Power Point Presentation Packet Page 472 of 1075 Inbox Development Services City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kernen Lien Final Approval Date: 01/28/2016 Form Review Reviewed By Date Shane Hope 01/28/2016 11:34 AM Scott Passey 01/28/2016 11:36 AM Dave Earling 01/28/2016 12:09 PM Scott Passey 01/28/2016 02:46 PM Started On: 01/28/2016 07:54 AM Packet Page 473 of 1075 ORDINANCE NO.4017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.50 WETLANDS, 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS, AND AMENDING ECDC SECTION 19.00.025, A PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.130(1) requires City of Edmonds to take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations, including its policies and regulations designating and conserving natural resource lands and designating and protecting critical areas to comply with the requirements in chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act or GMA); and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the city council of the City of Edmonds reviewed its comprehensive plan and conducted a public hearing on the 2015 update to the City of Edmonds comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds adopted the 2015 update to the City of Edmonds comprehensive plan with Ordinance 4003; and WHEREAS, based on early direction from the City Council, the 2015 update did not involve a major policy shift, but instead focused on consistency and streamlining, including the latest data, as well as the addition of several performance measures; and WHEREAS, it was determined during this review process that, with the exception of the critical areas regulations, the City of Edmonds' development regulations remained consistent with and would continue to implement the comprehensive plan and the proposed update to it so that no other development regulations would need to be revised at this time; and Packet Page 474 of 1075 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) defines "critical areas" to include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires that each city adopt development regulations that protect critical areas; and WHEREAS, cities in Snohomish County are expected to take action to review and, if needed, revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of the GMA on or before June 30, 2015, and every eight years thereafter; and WHEREAS, cities must include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas; and WHEREAS, cities must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries; and WHEREAS, City has not comprehensively reviewed its critical areas ordinance and best available science since 2005 when current version of the critical area regulations became effective; and WHEREAS, the City selected environmental consultants ESA to assist the City in updating the 2004 City's Best Available Science Report (Exhibit 1 to September 8, 2015 agenda memo 7969) and to evaluate the City's critical area regulations given the changes in science; and WHEREAS, the Best Available Science addendum prepared by ESA reviewed the current science related to critical areas as it has changed since 2004 (see Exhibit 2 to September 8, 2015 agenda memo 7969); and WHEREAS, ESA also prepared a memo for the City's review that outlines certain provisions that may deviate from Best Available Science, as required by WAC 365-195-915; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed proposed changes to the critical area regulations over the course of five Planning Board meetings between March 25 and July 22, 2015; and Packet Page 475 of 1075 WHEREAS, the Board's review included a July 8, 2015 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board forwarded its recommended changes to the City's critical area regulations to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board also forwarded a recommendation for some modifications to the building code Title 19 ECDC and definitions in Title 21 ECDC, in conjunction with its recommendations on critical areas and frequently flooded area regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the draft updated critical area regulation as recommended by the Planning Board at the September 8, 2015 Council meeting and continued that review at the September 22, 2015 Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing at the October 6, 2015 City Council meeting and continued to review the critical area regulations at the November 2, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to adopt the updated critical areas regulations as amended by the City Council during the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Mayor asked the City Council to reconsider the amendments that were approved during the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Mayor forwarded to the City Council a December 22, 2015 memo that addresses the implications of the December 15, 2015 amendments; and WHEREAS, this ordinance serves as the final legislative action required by the City under RCW 36.70A.130 for the 2015 review and update; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following chapters of the Edmonds Community Development Code, which make up the City's critical areas ordinance, are hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new Packet Page 476 of 1075 text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s* ilke t r-eu `i'): chapter 23.40, entitled "Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions;" chapter 23.50, entitled "Wetlands;" chapter 23.60, entitled "Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas;" chapter 23.70, entitled "Frequently Flooded Areas;" chapter 23.80, "Geologically Hazardous Areas;" and chapter 23.90 entitled, "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." Section 2. Section 19.00.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "International Building Code section amendments," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in tfike-t ugh) Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. 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/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: i JEFF TARADAY APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: January 22, 2016 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: January 26, 2016 Packet Page 477 of 1075 PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. January 31, 2016 February 5, 2016 4017 Packet Page 478 of 1075 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4017 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 26th day of January, 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4017. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.50 WETLANDS, 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS, AND AMENDING ECDC SECTION 19.00.025, A PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 27th day of January, 2016. C CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 479 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 EDMONDS CITY CODE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: Part I. Purpose and General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose. 23.40.010 Authority. 23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations. 23.40.030 Severability. 23.40.040 Jurisdiction — Critical areas. 23.40.050 Protection of critical areas. Part II. Critical Areas Review Process 23.40.060 General requirements. 23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation. 23.40.080 Notice of initial determination. 23.40.090 Critical areas report — Requirements. 23.40.100 Critical areas report — Modifications to requirements. 23.40.110 Mitigation requirements. 23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing. 23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements. 23.40.140 Innovative mitigation. 23.40.150 Critical areas decision. 23.40.160 Review criteria. Page 1 of 90 Packet Page 480 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision. 23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision. 23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review. 23.40.200 Appeals. 23.40.210 Variances. 23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties 23.40.220 Allowed activities. 23.40.230 Exemptions. 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement. Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures 23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs. 23.40.270 Critical areas tracts. 23.40.280 Building setbacks. 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. 23.40.300 Critical areas inspections. Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science 23.40.310 Best available science. Part VI. Definitions 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. Part I. Purpose and General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose. Page 2 of 90 Packet Page 481 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 A. The purpose of this title is to designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private property. B. This title is to implement the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the comprehensive plan and the Washington State Growth Management Act. C. The city of Edmonds finds that critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit Edmonds and its residents, and/or may pose a threat to human safety or to public and private property. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include, but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation of flood waters, ground water recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, protection from hazards, historical, archaeological, and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority. D. Goals. By limiting development and alteration of critical areas, this title seeks to: 1. Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, or flooding; 2. Maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, including ground and surface waters, wetlands, and fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species; 3. Direct activities not dependent on critical areas resources to less ecologically sensitive sites and mitigate unavoidable impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas; and 4. Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat, and the overall net loss of wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. E. The regulations of this title are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the Growth Management Act and through the application of the best available science, as determined according to WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172, and in consultation with state and federal agencies and other qualified professionals. F. This title is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site -specific characteristics. It is not the intent of this title to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to support existing development. G. The city of Edmonds' enactment or enforcement of this title shall not be construed to benefit any individual person or group of persons other than the general public. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 3 of 90 Packet Page 482 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 23.40.010 Authority. A. As provided herein, the Edmonds development services director and the director may designate the planning manager under specific circumstances. or- his hef designee ((hereafter referred to as "the Comment [kpll]: 20151215 Council amendment director") is given the authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to enforce, this title to changing "director or his/her designee" to "director and the director may designate the planning accomplish the stated purpose. manager under specific circumstances." B. The director may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations. A. These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning, site development, stormwater management, building and other regulations adopted by the city of Edmonds. B. Any individual critical area adjoined or overlain by another type of critical area shall have the buffer and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any provision of this title or any existing land use regulation conflicts with this title, that which provides more protection to the critical area shall apply. C. These critical areas regulations shall be coordinated with review conducted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as necessary and locally adopted. D. Compliance with the provisions of this title does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, shoreline substantial development permits, Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.030 Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this title or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be judged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or judgment shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in which it was rendered. The decision shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any part thereof and to this end the provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this law are hereby declared to be severable. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.040 Jurisdiction — Critical areas. A. The director shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect one or more critical areas, consistent with the best available science and the provisions herein. B. Critical areas regulated by this title include: Page 4 of 90 Packet Page 483 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 1. Wetlands as designated in Chapter 23.50 ECDC, Wetlands; 2. Critical aquifer recharge areas as designated in Chapter 23.60 ECDC, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; 3. Frequently flooded areas as designated in Chapter 23.70 ECDC, Frequently Flooded Areas; 4. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Chapter 23.80 ECDC, Geologically Hazardous Areas; and 5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as designated in Chapter 23.90 ECDC, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. C. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the definition of one or more critical areas, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. D. Areas Adjacent to Critical Areas Subject to Regulation. Areas adjacent to critical areas shall be considered to be within the jurisdiction of these requirements and regulations to support the intent of this title and ensure protection of the functions and values of critical areas. "Adjacent' shall mean any activity located: 1. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area; and 2. Areas located within 200 feet of a subject parcel containing a jurisdictional critical area. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.050 Protection of critical areas.° 5HRRE Any action taken pursuant to this title shall result in equivalent or greater functions and values of the critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science. All actions and developments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts. Applicants must first demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts before the use of actions to mitigate potential impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Critical Areas Review Process 23.40.060 General requirements.° SHRRE A. As part of this review, the director shall: Page 5 of 90 Packet Page 484 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 1. Verify the information submitted by the applicant; 2. Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas; 3. Determine whether the proposed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas; and 4. Determine if the proposed project adequately assesses all impacts, avoids impacts, and/or mitigates impacts to the critical area associated with the project. B. If the proposed project is within, adjacent to, or is likely to impact a critical area, the director shall: 1. Require a critical areas report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional; 2. Review and evaluate the critical areas report; 3. Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of this title, including the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria; 4. Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized; and 5. Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation.a SHRRE Any person preparing to submit an application for development or use of land that may be regulated by the provisions of this title may request a preapplication meeting with the director prior to submitting an application for development or other approval. At this meeting, the director shall discuss the requirements of this title; provide critical areas maps, scientific information, and other source materials; outline the review process; and work with the activity proponent to identify any potential concerns that might arise during the review process, in addition to discussing other permit procedures and requirements. All applicants, regardless of participation in a preapplication meeting, are held fully responsible for knowledge and disclosure of critical areas on, adjacent to, or associated with a subject parcel and full compliance with the specific provisions and goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.080 Notice of initial determination. o SHRRE A. If the director determines that no critical areas report is necessary, the director shall state this in the notice of application issued for the proposal. Page 6 of 90 Packet Page 485 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 B. If the director determines that there are critical areas on the site that the proposed project is unlikely to impact and the project meets the requirements for and has been granted a waiver from the requirement to complete a critical areas report, this shall be stated in the notice of application for the proposal. A waiver may be granted if the director determines that all of the following requirements will be met: 1. There will be no alteration of the critical area or buffer; 2. The development proposal will not affect the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent, and requirements of this Title. C. If the director determines that critical areas may be affected by the proposal and a critical areas report is required, public notice of the application shall include a description of the critical area that might be affected and state that a critical areas report(s) is required. D. Critical areas determinations shall be considered valid for five years from the date in which the determination was made; after such date the city shall require a new determination, or at minimum documentation of a new assessment verifying the accuracy of the previous determination [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. 23.40.090 Critical areas report — Requirements. SHRRE A. Preparation by Qualified Professional. The applicant shall submit a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional as defined herein. For wetlands, frequently flooded areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, an applicant may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list to prepare critical areas reports per the requirements of this title or may apply to utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant may be subject to independent review pursuant to subsection B of this section. ntmet beVveen the aplieafA the eonsultant an *' eeit-y. All costs associated with the critical areas study shall be borne by the applicant. B. Independent Review of Critical Areas Reports. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas and those developed by an applicant representative or consultant not as part of a three - party contract may, at the discretion of the director, be subject to independent review. This independent review shall be performed by a qualified technical consultant selected by the city with all costs borne by the applicant. The purpose of such independent review is to provide the city with objective technical assistance in evaluating the accuracy of submitted reports and/or the effects on critical areas which may be caused by a development proposal and to facilitate the decision -making process. The director may also have technical assistance provided by appropriate resource agency staff if such assistance is available in a timely manner. C. Best Available Science. The critical areas report shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of critical areas data and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The critical areas report shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to critical areas in accordance with the provisions of this title. Page 7 of 90 Packet Page 486 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 D. Minimum Report Contents. At a minimum, the report shall contain the following: 1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit requested; 2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal including: a. A map to scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the development proposal, and any areas to be cleared; and b. A description of the proposed storm water management plan for the development and consideration of impacts to drainage alterations; 3. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; 4. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area; 5. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; a*d 6. Report requirements specific to each critical area type as indicated in the corresponding chapters of this title. 7. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon; 8. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the critical areas study, including references; and 9. Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed to offset any critical areas impacts, in accordance with the Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section 23.40.130. E. Unless otherwise provided, a critical areas report may incorporate, be supplemented by or composed, in whole or in part, of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site, as approved by the director. At the discretion of the director, reports previously compiled or submitted as part of a proposal for development may be used as a critical areas report to the extent that the requirements of this section and the report requirements for each specific critical area type are met. F. Critical areas reports shall be considered valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.100 Critical areas report — Modifications to requirements.O s"ARE Page 8 of 90 Packet Page 487 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 A. Limitations to Study Area. The director may limit the required geographic area of the critical areas report as appropriate if: 1. The applicant, with assistance from the city of Edmonds, cannot obtain permission to access properties adjacent to the project area; or 2. The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the subject site. B. Modifications to Required Contents. The applicant may consult with the director prior to or during preparation of the critical areas report to obtain approval of modifications to the required contents of the report where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately address the potential critical area impacts and required mitigation. C. Additional Information Requirements. The director may require additional information to be included in the critical areas report when determined to be necessary to the review of the proposed activity in accordance with this title. Additional information that may be required includes, but is not limited to: 1. Historical data, including original and subsequent mapping, aerial photographs, data compilations and summaries, and available reports and records relating to the site or past operations at the site; 2. Grading and drainage plans; and 3. Information specific to the type, location, and nature of the critical area. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.110 Mitigation requirements. SHRRE A. The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of critical areas. Unless otherwise provided in this title, if alteration to the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated using the best available science in accordance with an approved critical areas report and SEPA documents, so as to result in no net loss of critical area functions and values. B. Mitigation shall be i k4nd and on site,when possible and sufficient to maintain or compensate for the functions and values of the impacted critical area and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area. C. Mitigation shall not be implemented until after the director has provided approval of a critical areas report that includes a mitigation plan. Mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the approved critical areas report. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing.o SHRRE A. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. Page 9 of 90 Packet Page 488 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 B. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. C. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements.° SHRRE When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the director a mitigation plan as part of the critical areas report. The mitigation plan shall include: A. Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and including: 1. A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the mitigating actions proposed and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of compensation goals; identification of resource functions; and dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the impacted critical area; 2. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation; 3. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project; and Page 10 of 90 Packet Page 489 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 4. Specific mitigation plan and report requirements for each critical area type as indicated in this title. B. Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this title have been met. C. Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, such as: 1. The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration; 2. Areas of proposed impacts on critical areas or buffers; 3. Grading and excavation details; 34. Erosion and sediment control features; 45. A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and -6. Measures to protect and maintain plants until established. These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross -sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. D. Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years one, three, and five after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than tlfee-five 5 years without anmroval from the director. E. Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. F. Financial Guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, as necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with ECDC 23.40.290, Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.140 Innovative mitigation.O s"ARE Page 11 of 90 Packet Page 490 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 A. The city of Edmonds may encourage, facilitate, and approve innovative mitigation projects that are based on the best available science. Advance mitigation, in lieu fee programs, or mitigation banking are examples of alternative mitigation prejeets-approaches allowed under the provisions of this section wherein one or- more appheants, or- an organization with demonstra4ed eapability, may tindeftake a mitig .tioi p -ojeet together- if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. There are no reasonable opportunities on --site or within the same sub -drainage basin, or opportunities on -site or within the sub -drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydro eg omorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity. and notential to mitigate fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity): 4-2. The off -site mitigation has a ,greater likelihood of providing equal or improved critical areas functions than the altered critical area, and there is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the identified mitigation site. 3. Off -site locations shall be in the same basin and within the City unless: a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or b. Credits from an approved (State -certified) wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the approved bank instrument; c. Fees are paid to an approved in -lieu fee program to compensate for the impacts. B. Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may contribute payment towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the director, provided that the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where required. Such mitigation actions shall be consistent with ECDC 23.40.140.A.1. and ECDC 23.40.140.A.2., and with all other applicable provisions of ECDC Chapters 23.50 and 23.90. BC. Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process provides for retention or an increase in the beneficial functions and values of critical areas within the Edmonds jurisdiction. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.150 Critical areas decision.o SHRRE Page 12 of 90 Packet Page 491 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 The city of Edmonds development services director shall make a decision as to whether the proposed activity and mitigation, if any, is consistent with the provisions of this title. The decision shall be based on the criteria of ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and shall affect and be incorporated within the larger project decision. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.160 Review criteria.° SHRRE A. Any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise provided for in this title, shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements; 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. B. The director may condition the proposed activity as necessary to mitigate impacts to critical areas and to conform to the standards required by this title. Except as provided for by this title, any project that cannot adequately mitigate its impacts to critical areas in the sequencing order of preferences in ECDC 23.40.120 shall be denied. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision. o SHRRE If the director determines that the proposed activity meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of this title, the development services director shall prepare a written notice of decision for the applicant and identify any required conditions of approval as part of the larger project decision. The notice of decision and conditions of approval shall be included in the project file and be considered in the next phase of the city's review of the proposed activity in accordance with any other applicable codes or regulations. Any conditions of approval included in a notice of decision shall be attached to the underlying permit or approval. Any subsequent changes to the conditions of approval shall void the previous decision pending re -review of the proposal and conditions of approval previously set by the director. Page 13 of 90 Packet Page 492 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 A favorable decision should not be construed as endorsement or approval of any underlying permit or approval. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision.° 5HRRE If the director determines that a proposed activity is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and the provisions of this title, the director shall prepare a written decision for the applicant that includes findings of noncompliance. No proposed activity or permit shall be approved or issued if it is determined that the proposed activity does not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or does not comply with the provisions of this title. Following notice of decision that the proposed activity does not meet the review criteria and/or does not comply with the applicable provisions of this title, the applicant may request consideration of a revised critical area report. If the revision is found to be substantial and relevant to the critical area review, the director may reopen the critical area review and make a new decision based on the revised report. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review.0 5HRRE The director's decision regarding critical areas pursuant to this title shall be final concurrent with the final project decision to approve, condition, or deny the development proposal or other activity involved. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. 23.40.200 Appeals.° 5HRRE Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of this title may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. [Ord. 3736 § 71, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.210 Variances.° 5HRRE A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist: 1. The application of this title would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility. A public agency and utility exception may be granted as a variance if: a. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas; Page 14 of 90 Packet Page 493 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 b. The application of this title would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public; c. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; d. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and e. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of "reasonable economic use(s)" in ECDC 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; i The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. B. Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested action conforms to all of the following specific criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject Page 15 of 90 Packet Page 494 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as a Type III -A decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based on a proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section. D. Conditions May Be Required. The director retains the right to prescribe such conditions and safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to ensure conformity with this title for variances granted through hearing examiner review. E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for an extension of time before the expiration. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the director as a Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). F. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of a variance application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application. [Ord. 3783 § 15, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 15, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 72, 73, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Proiects A. When a critical area restoration project is proposed that is not required as mitigation for a development proposal, the City of Edmonds may grant relief from standard critical area buffer requirements if the restoration project involves: 1. The davliehtine of a stream. or 2. Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or wetland buffer Page 16 of 90 Packet Page 495 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 B. At the time a restoration project is proposed, a buffer shall be established that will apply to the restoration project boundary. Restoration project buffers shall be established according to the following requirements: 1. For the purposes of this section, an expanded buffer is that portion of the stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result of the restoration project. the exnanded buffer associated with the class of stream Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties 23.40.220 Allowed activities.° SHRRE A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas. B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed: 1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development permits and approvals that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have been met: a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval; b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer since the prior review; c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have elapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; d. There is no new information available that is applicable to any critical area review of the site or particular critical area; and Page 17 of 90 Comment [kpl2]: 20151215 Council Amendment deleted proposed ECDC 23.40.215.0.3 which read: 3. The project proponent may request a reduced buffer of between 50% and 75% of the expanded buffer associated with the class of stream or category of wetland. The following criteria will be used by the City in reviewing the request for a reduced buffer: a. The Director determines that applying a 75% expanded buffer would significantly limit the use of the property for existing or permitted uses, thus making the restoration project infeasible; b. The proposed expanded buffer relief is the minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project; c. There will be a net environmental benefit from the restoration project with the reduced expanded buffer; d. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the critical area restoration project and consistent with purposes of the City's critical area regulations. Packet Page 496 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 de. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has been achieved or secured,; 2. Modification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Structural modification of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a critical area or its buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement; 3. Permitted AlterationModifications to Existing Structures Existing Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Permitted alter tie Modification to a legally constructed structure existing within a critical area or buffer shall be allowed when the modification: does not a. Does not increase the footprint of the structuredev b. Does not increase the impact to the critical area or buffers and c. Does not increasethefe is no ".,._..sect risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement, ( Aadditions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area or buffer that do increase the existing footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provision shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of a legal nonconforming building within its �ootnrint; 4. Activities VAIhinwithin the Improved Right -of -Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such facilities are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city -authorized private roadway, except those activities that alter a wetland or watercourse. such as culverts or bridees. or result in the transport of sediment or increased stormwater. 5. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short -duration impacts to critical areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the following criteria: a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas; b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s) or other small component(s) of a utility facility; and c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet; Page 18 of 90 Comment [kp13]: 20151215 council Amendment deleted proposed Physically Separated/Functionally Isolated provision in ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 which read: Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Stream or Wetland Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally established structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more in width that occur between the area in question and the stream or wetland may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the director to be a physically separated and functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in these areas. The director may require a site assessment and functional analysis documentation by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated. In determining whether an area is physically separated and functionally isolated from the adjacent stream or wetland, the director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the interruption. Packet Page 497 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 6. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the following: a. The trail surface shall be limited to pervious surfaces and meet all other requirements, including water quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19; b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor, including disturbed areas; and c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical report; and d. Trails located only in the outer twenty -rive percent (25%) of critical areas buffers, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the width of the critical areas buffer, trails may be placed in the outer twen . -five percent (25%) of the remaining critical area buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet in width and for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. Allowances for trails within the inner seventy-five percent (75%) of critical areas buffers are provided within applicable sections of ECDC Chapters 23.50 — 23.90. 7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities: a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and lighthand-held equipment when the area of work is under one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in area as calculated cumulatively three (3) years: i. Invasive and noxious weeds; ii. English ivy (Hedera helix); iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus); iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus); v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis); Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Page 19 of 90 Packet Page 498 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that: i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees; ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (fie to erze2_1) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of on and one-half to two inches in height for evergreen diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet trees as measured from the top of the root ball; v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title; c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan; d. Chemical Applications. The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral -derived fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the City, provided that their use shall be restricted in accordance with state Department of Fish and Wildlife Mana eg ment Recommendations and the regulations of the state Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Ecology, and Page 20 of 90 Comment [kpl4]: 20151215 Council Amendment to change the diameter of replacement trees. Packet Page 499 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 de. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be prohibited; 8. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require construction of new roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the critical area shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and 9. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids and boundary markers. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.230 Exemptions. o SHRRE A. Exemption Request and Review Process. The proponent of the activity may submit a written request for exemption to the director that describes the activity and states the exemption listed in this section that applies. The director shall review the exemption request to verify that it complies with this title and approve or deny the exemption. If the exemption is approved, it shall be placed on file with the city of Edmonds. If the exemption is denied, the proponent may continue in the review process and shall be subject to the requirements of this title. B. Exempt Activities and Impacts to Critical Areas. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. To be exempt from this title does not give permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Exempt Activities. The following developments, activities, and associated uses shall be exempt from the provisions of this title; provided, that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local, state, and federal laws and requirements: 1. Emergencies. Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or preventative action in a time frame too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this title. Emergency actions that create an impact to a critical area or its buffer shall use reasonable methods to address the emergency; in addition, they must have the least possible impact to the critical area or its buffer. The person or agency undertaking such action shall notify the director within one working day following commencement of the emergency activity. Within 30 days, the director shall determine if the action taken was within the scope of the emergency actions allowed in this subsection. If the director determines that the action taken, or any part of the action taken, was beyond the scope of an allowed emergency action, then enforcement provisions of ECDC 23.40.240, Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement, shall apply. Page 21 of 90 Packet Page 500 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 After the emergency, the person or agency undertaking the action shall fully fund and conduct necessary restoration and/or mitigation for any impacts to the critical area and buffers resulting from the emergency action in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. The person or agency undertaking the action shall apply for review, and the alteration, critical area report, and mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the director in accordance with the review procedures contained herein. Restoration and/or mitigation activities must be initiated within one year of the date of the emergency and completed in a timely manner; 2. Operation, Maintenance, or Repair. Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems that do not require construction permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance also includes normal maintenance of vegetation performed in accordance with best management practices, provided that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an endangered or threatened species; and 3. Passive Outdoor Activities. Recreation, education, and scientific research activities that do not degrade the critical area, including fishing, hiking, and bird watching. Trails must be constructed pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(6), Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement. 0 3HFRE A. When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this title or the provisions of Chapter 7.200 ECC, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The director shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or other responsible party's expense to compensate for violation of the provisions of this title. The director may also require an applicant or property owner to take immediate action to ensure site stabilization and/or erosion control as needed. B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the director. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsection C of this section. The director shall, at the violator's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant or violator for revision and resubmittal. C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. 1. For alterations to frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: Page 22 of 90 Packet Page 501 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 a. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; b. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; c. The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and d. Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in ECDC 23.40.130, Mitigation plan requirements, shall be submitted to the city planning division. 2. For alterations to flood and geological hazards, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater safety can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the predevelopment hazard; b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. D. Site Investigations. The director is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this title. The director shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property. E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the provisions of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to penalties not to exceed a square footage cost of three dollars ($3.00) per square foot of impacted critical area and critical area buffer and/or a per tree penalty consistent with ECDC 18.45.070B. and C. _set c fth in -'CDC 19. ^ 5.070 ., a shall ,.enstitu4e a ..o....rate e ff awo Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this title shall constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the statutes of the state of Washington. The city of Edmonds may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for violation of any of the provisions of this title. The civil penalty shall be assessed as proscribed in ECDC 18.45.070 and 18.45.075.[Ord. 3828 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures 23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs.o SHRRE A. The boundary at the outer edge of a critical area, critical area buffer or critical area tract may, at the discretion of the director, be required to be delineated with wood fencing. Page 23 of 90 Packet Page 502 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 B. The boundary at the outer edge of the critical area or buffer may be identified with temporary signs prior to any site alteration. Such temporary signs may be replaced with permanent signs prior to occupancy or use of the site. C. These provisions may be modified by the director as necessary to ensure protection of sensitive features or wildlife needs. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.270 Critical areas tracts and casements.a SHRRE A. At the discretion of the director, critical areas tracts and/or easements may be required in development proposals for subdivisions, shW4 subdivisions, and planned nnA de•�ts.developments that include critical areas. These critical areas tracts and/or easements shall delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers greater than 5,000 square feet including: 1. Landslide hazard areas and buffers; 2. Wetlands and buffers; 3. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; and 4. Other lands to be protected from alterations as conditioned by project approval. B. Notice on Title. The owner of any property with field -verified presence of critical areas and/or critical areas buffers, except critical aquifer recharge areas, for which a permit application is submitted shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice of the existence of such critical area and/or critical area buffer against the property with the Snohomish County Auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the right to challenge this notice and to have it released if the critical area designation no longer applies; however, the titleholder shall be responsible for completing a critical areas report, subject to approval by the director, before the notice on title can be released. Gr-it ea ..,.,......... ets shall be recorded oft all doettmems of title of feeer-d for- all affeeted lots. C. Critical areas tracts or easements shall be designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a format approved by the director. The designation shall include the following restrictions: 1. An assurance that native vegetation will be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat; and 2. The right of the director to enforce the terms of the restriction. D. The director may require that critical areas tracts be dedicated to the city, to be held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner's association or other legal entity (such Page 24 of 90 Packet Page 503 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 as a land trust), which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a process to assess costs associated therewith. E. The use of herbicides within critical areas tracts or easements is prohibited except use of aquatic approved herbicides where recommended by the Noxious Weed Control Board and where otherwise consistent with the provisions of ECDC Title 23. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.280 Building setbacks. o SHRRE Unless other -wise previde Except for geologically hazardous areas where setbacks are determined by a g_eotechnical report, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. The -In addition to other allowances provided by this Title, the following may be allowed in the building setback area: A. Landscaping; B. Uncovered decks; C. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area; and D. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. o SHRRE A. When mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to final permit approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection, the applicant shall be required to post a performance bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the director. If the development proposal is subject to mitigation, the applicant shall post a mitigation bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the city to ensure mitigation is fully functional. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is greater. The amount of the performance bond shall include a reasonable allocation for inflation based on the length of anticipated delay and the provisions of subsection D of this section. C. The bond shall be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, and/or maintenance bond from an acceptable financial institution, with terms and conditions acceptable to the city of Edmonds' attorney. D. Bonds or other security authorized by this section shall remain in effect until the director determines, in writing, that the standards bonded for have been met. Bonds or other security shall be held by the city for a minimum of dwee-five 5 years to ensure that the required mitigation has been fully implemented and demonstrated to function, and may be held for longer periods when necessary to achieve these ,goals. Page 25 of 90 Packet Page 504 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 E. Depletion, failure, or collection of bond funds shall not discharge the obligation of an applicant or violator to complete required mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration. F. Public development proposals shall be relieved from having to comply with the bonding requirements of this section if public funds have previously been committed for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration. G. Any failure to satisfy critical area requirements established by law or condition including, but not limited to, the failure to provide a monitoring report within -thirty (30A days after it is due or comply with other provisions of an approved mitigation plan shall constitute a default, and the city may demand payment of any financial guarantees or require other action authorized under this title or any other law. H. Any funds recovered pursuant to this section shall be used to complete the required mitigation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.300 Critical area inspections. o SHRRE Reasonable access to the site shall be provided to the city, state, and/or federal agency review staff for the purpose of inspections during any proposal review, restoration, emergency action, or monitoring period. Failure to provide access shall constitute grounds for issuance of a stop work order. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science 23.40.310 Best available science. SHRRE A. Protect Functions and Values of Critical Areas with Special Consideration to Anadromous Fish. Critical areas reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to protect the functions and values of critical areas and must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon and bull trout, and their habitat, where applicable. B. Best Available Science to Be Consistent with Criteria. The best available science is that scientific information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state, or federal natural resource agencies, a qualified scientific professional, or a team of qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172. C. Characteristics of a Valid Scientific Process. In the context of critical areas protection, a valid scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a local government's regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies and development regulations that will be effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas. To determine whether information received during the permit review process is reliable scientific information, the director shall determine whether the source of the information displays the characteristics of a valid scientific process. Such characteristics are as follows: Page 26 of 90 Packet Page 505 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 1. Peer Review. The information has been critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified scientific experts in that scientific discipline. The proponents of the information have addressed the criticism of the peer reviewers. Publication in a refereed scientific journal usually indicates that the information has been appropriately peer -reviewed; 2. Methods. The methods used to obtain the information are clearly stated and reproducible. The methods are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been appropriately peer -reviewed to ensure their reliability and validity; 3. Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences. The conclusions presented are based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies and consistent with the general theory underlying the assumptions. The conclusions are logically and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported by the data presented. Any gaps in information and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific information are adequately explained; 4. Quantitative Analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative methods; 5. Context. The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge; and 6. References. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions are well referenced with citations to relevant, credible literature and other pertinent existing information. D. Nonscientific Information. Nonscientific information, such as anecdotal observations, non -expert opinion, and hearsay, may supplement scientific information, but it is not an adequate substitute for valid and available scientific information. E. Absence of Valid Scientific Information. Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or incomplete scientific information relating to a critical area leading to uncertainty about the risk to critical area function of permitting an alteration of or impact to the critical area, the director shall: 1. Take a "precautionary or a no -risk approach" that strictly limits development and land use activities until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved; and 2. Require application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management program shall: a. Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program; b. Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves uncertainties; and Page 27 of 90 Packet Page 506 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 c. Commit to the appropriate time frame and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and anadromous fisheries. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part VI. Definitions 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. SHRRE For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those areas activities located on --site immediately djoining a critical area; or a distance equal to or less than two hundred and twenty five (225)200 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel and these afeas leemed within 900 feet ef a deeiimeated bald eagle nest. "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard landslide hazards area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. n communities within the Page 28 of 90 Packet Page 507 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project -induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: af that have been lost by alterations, aetivities, or- eatast-r-ophie events within an area that no 1ORgeF Meets the definition of ., wetland. 31. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland or steam at a site where it did not formerly exist. 2. "Re-establishment" means actions performed to restore processes and functions to an area that was formerlv a critical area. where the former critical area was lost by oast alterations and activities. 3. "Rehabilitation' means improving or repairing processes and functions to an area that is an existing critical area that is highly degraded because one or more environmental processes supporting, the critical area have been disrupted. 34. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands critical area so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality; enhancement activities usually attempt to change plant communities within existing wetlands from non-native communities to native scrub -shrub or forested communities. 45. "Preservation' means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high -quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50, 23.60. 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; Page 29 of 90 Packet Page 508 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. "Erosion Hazard Areas." See ECDC 23.80.020(A). "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "100-year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Motprmt of hxistmg MvelopmepJ" or Pootprint of Oevelopment" means the area of a site that Comment [kpl5]: 20151215 council ......... ......... contains legally established: buildings or paved roads, driveways and parking lots Amendment changed the proposed definition. The previous staff proposed definition read as follows: "Frequently Flooded Areas." See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Footprint of Existing Development' or "Footprint of Development' means the area of a site that contains legally established: buildings; roads, "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality driveways, parking lots, storage areas, walkways or protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance other areas paved with concrete, asphalt compacted gravel; outdoor swimming pools; and and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value patios. protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. "Geologically Hazardous Areas." See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washingtona degree in geology firem an areer-edited eollege or- univer-sity and has at leas fiveyear-sef&. . aetieing geologist or- four- years of e*per-ienee and- at least tAA00- Years Of postgraduate study, Fesear-eh or- teaehing. The piraetioal experienee shall inelude at least three year-s of wairk in applied geology a -ad i—and-sdide evaluation in elese asseeiation with qualified, pr-aretieing T,.,.legis. s and , eest,.,.,...:eal/eivil engineers. For geologically hazardous areas, an applicant may choose a geologist or en ine�ering ecologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four -five years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. Page 30 of 90 Packet Page 509 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" means areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. In urban areas like the city of Edmonds, habitats of local importance include biodiversity areas and corridors, which are characterized by a framework of ecological components which provides the physical conditions necessary for ecosystems and species populations to survive in a human -dominated landscape. inelude a seasonal range or- habitat element with Which a given species has a i ever- the leng tefm. These might ineliade areas of high r-elative density or- speeies r4ehftess, br-e@4i*g habiteA, winter- Fange, and ffievement eeFfider-s. These might also inelttde habitats that are ef limite asseeiation, and whieh, if altered, may reduee the likelihood that the speeies will maintain and Fepr-odttee eelg ass boa .,«.7 wetlands. (See ECDC 23 on ni n(n vn) "In lieu fee program" means a program which sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in lieu program sponsor, a governmental or non-profit natural resource management entity. "Landslide Hazard Areas." (See ECDC 23.80.020(B).) "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; Page 31 of 90 Packet Page 510 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. "Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees ., . include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years. "Noxious weeds" means any plant which, when tabl shed that is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, limited to those plants on the state noxious weed list contained in Chapter , ~~'*�a : rw�r*�~ 16-750 WAC. "Planning staff' means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For geologically hazardous areasFe~ afeas of PEARnti~' ,.eolegie instability,the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geeto,.>,nio a' en-: oo~ engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard. If development is to take place within a geologically hazardous area, the qualified critical areas consultant develop mitigation plans and design shall be a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Washington and familiar with landslide and slope stability mitigation. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of five vears' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. "Reasonable economic use(s)" means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re -development of a property or subject parcel. Page 32 of 90 Comment [kpl6]: 20151215 Council Amendment changed the diameter from "less than 3-inch" to "less than 4-inch" Packet Page 511 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. For wetlands, restoration as compensatory mitigation may include re-establishment or rehabilitation. "Seismic Hazard Areas." (See ECDC 23.80.020(Q.) "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).) "Storm Water Management Manual" means the Stem, Water- r,r.flagomeR4 ,,,r.,,,ua for- the Puget Sousa Basin by the \7I'.,..L,ingto State t,o..,,Ament of L',,,.'ogy (as ,.l,.aoa :; stormwater manual specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC). "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).) "Title" means all chapters of the city of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. "Wetland mitigation bank" means a site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those Page 33 of 90 Packet Page 512 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. (See ECDC 23.50.010(B).) [Ord. 3952 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3931 § 2, 2013; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 34 of 90 Packet Page 513 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Chapter 23.50 WETLANDS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart. 23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping —Wetlands. Part 11. Allowed Activities — Wetlands 23.50.020 Allowed activities — Wetlands. Part 111. Additional Report Requirements — Wetlands 23.50.030 Special study and report requirements — Wetlands. Part IV. Development Standards — Wetlands 23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands. 23.50.050 Mitigation requirements — Wetlands. 23.50.060 Performance standards — Subdivisions. Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form 23.50.070 Wetland field data form. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart.o SHRRE See Figure 23.50.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Wetlands. o SHRRE A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035 Washington State Wetland identi fieatio and Delineation r,r,. fma n nm) that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All Page 35 of 90 Packet Page 514 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds - City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas - Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the wetland designation criteria :,. the Tae,.4if:,.4iet. an Delineation Manual, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating system found in the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington decumei4s ( Ecology Publications Nos. 14-06-02993 '^ and 04 06 025). Thiese doettmenis contaiffs the definitions and methods for- detei:mining the er-iter-ia and parameters defining the c 11,...,;..g wetland ~,.`:..,. ,.,.',,,.,.~:,,�• Consistent with the wetland rating system criteria and parameters within this document, wetlands that are rated for ecological functions with highest point totals (23 points or higher)_ perform ecological functions associated with water flow, water quality and habitat at highest levels, whereas wetlands that are rated with lowest point totals (15 points or lower) perform ecological functions at lowest levels. Wetlands that are rated with points between 16 and 22 points perform ecological functions at moderate to high levels. 1. The City of Edmonds Wetland Rating Categories: a. Category 4--IWetlands. Category 4-I wetlands are those that represent a unique or rare wetland type; are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The following types of wetlands are Category i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than ones acre; ii. Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; wetlands;Pr-egr-amIDNR as high quality iii. Bogs large. than one half ae iv. Wetlands with mature and old growth forests >`,r.,tue and old gr-o,..a, forested wetlands- larger than one (11) acre; v. Wetlands in coastal lagoons; vi. Wetlands that perform functions at high levels as indicated by a score of 2&twenty-three (231points or more based on functions on the city of Edmonds .etla-a field data f 4tm b. Category 2-II Wetlands. Category II wetlands are those that are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. The following types of wetlands are Category 2II i. Estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; Page 36 of 90 Packet Page 515 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 A beg between aiie ,after- and ,. e half ae«e iv. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions as indicated by a score of 544e-6920 to 22 points based on functions or the city of Edmiands . ,etlaf.d field ,data ff c. Category 3-III Wetlands. Category 3-III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions as indicated by a score of 3416 to 50-1_points based on functions. d. Category 4IV Wetlands. Category 4-IV wetlands are those with the lowest levels of functions as indicated by scores below 3�16 points based on functions €grin. All wetlands should be rated consistent with the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washimzton using the 2014 Western Washington Rating Form. field data fefmpr-evided in ECDr 23.59.070 C. Date of Wetland Rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date of adoption of the rating system by the local government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications. D. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Maps produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to identify potential wetland areas. The inventory and cited resources are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds, project applicants, and/or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. E. Delineation. The exact location of a wetland's boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified professional wetland scientist applying the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplementsWashin ten Mate Wetlands 49#7-). Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a lacustrine (lake) environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands existing along the periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided in 23.50.010. System for- Westem Washington Revised (FeelogyPubheat No fin 06 025,220(4). Consistent with Page 37 of 90 Packet Page 516 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional wetlands along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent emergent vegetation in shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds shoreline master program. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part 11. Allowed Activities — Wetlands 23.50.020 Allowed activities — Wetlands.O 5HRRE The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include: A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed. D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or wetland buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or increase the impact to a wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Wetlands 23.50.030 Special study and report requirements — Wetlands. 0 5HRRE A. Additional Requirements for Wetlands. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for wetlands must meet the requirements of this section. Critical Page 38 of 90 Packet Page 517 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. B. Critical areas report requirements for wetlands may be met in "stages" or through multiple reports. The typical sequence of potentially required reports that may in part or in combination fulfill the requirements of this section include: 1. Wetland reconnaissance report documenting the existence and general location of wetlands in the vicinity of a project area; 2. Wetland delineation report documenting the extent and boundary of a jurisdictional wetland per RCW 36.70A.175; and 3. Wetland mitigation report documenting potential wetland impacts and mitigation measures designed to retain or increase the functions and values of a wetland in accordance with ECDC 23.50.050 and the general provisions of this title. C. A wetland critical areas report may include one or more of the above three report types, depending on the information required by the director and the extent of potential wetland impacts. The Edmonds development services director maintains the authority and discretion to determine which report(s) alone or combined are sufficient to meet the requirements outlined below and to waive report requirements based upon site conditions and the potential for project impacts. D. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical area report for wetlands shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a certified professional wetland scientist or a noncertified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five years of experience in the field of wetland science and with experience preparing wetland reports. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for wetlands, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). E. Area Addressed in Critical Area Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical area report for wetlands: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; 2. All wetlands and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All shoreline areas, water features, floodplains, and other critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project area. The location and extent of wetlands and other critical areas existing outside of the project area or subject parcel boundary may be shown in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an assessment of potential project effects. Page 39 of 90 Packet Page 518 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 F. Wetland Analysis. In addition to the minimum required contents of ECDC 23.40.090, Critical areas reports — Requirements, a critical areas report for wetlands shall contain an analysis of the wetlands, including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the wetlands and buffers within 200 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum: a. Wetland delineation and required buffers; b. Existing wetland acreage; c. Wetland category; d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics; e. Soil and substrate conditions; f. Topographic elevations, at two -foot contours; and g. A discussion of the water sources supplying the wetland and documentation of hydrologic regime (locations of inlet and outlet features, water depths throughout the wetland, and evidence of recharge or discharge, evidence of water depths throughout the year: drift lines, algal layers, moss lines, and sediment deposits). The location, extent and analyses of wetlands not contiguous with the subject parcel existing outside of the immediate project area may be described in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an assessment of potential project effects and hydrologic/ecological connectivity to on -site wetlands and other critical areas. 2. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity. 3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland functions. 4. Functional evaluation for the wetland and adjacent buffer using a local or state agency staff - recognized method and including the reference of the method and all data sheets. 5. Proposed mitigation, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps of the mitigation area, including the following information at a minimum: a. Existing and proposed wetland acreage; b. Vegetative and faunal conditions; Page 40 of 90 Packet Page 519 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 c. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions including an analysis of existing and future hydrologic regime and proposed hydrologic regime for enhanced, created, or restored mitigation areas; d. Relationship to the watershed and existing waterbodies; e. Soil and substrate conditions, topographic elevations; f. Existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; g. Required wetland buffers; and h. Property ownership. 6. A scale map of the development proposal site and adjacent area. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. 7. A bond estimate for the installation (including site preparation, plant materials and installation, fertilizers, mulch, and stakes) and the proposed monitoring and maintenance work for the required number of years. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part IV. Development Standards — Wetlands 23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands. o SHRRE A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title. C. Category 4-1 Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category 4-1 wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title. D. Category 241 Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category 241 wetlands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Water -dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas. 2. Where non -water -dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that: Page 41 of 90 Packet Page 520 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer. E. Category 3-III and 4IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category 3411 and 4N wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. F. Wetland Buffers. 1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d below have been establish in accordance with best available science. The buffers are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Ratine Svstem for Western Washington. a. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in ECDC 23.50.040.F.2. where applicable. to minimize the impacts of the adiacent land uses. b. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, than a thirty- three (33%) increase in the width of all buffer is required. c_The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the buffer is composed of nonnative vegetation, lawn, or bare gro_und yeg tat_e _.. inadequate —,then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may be required to either develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard width or widen the standard width to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.{see „bseetio (F)(2) of this seetion) Required standard wetl.,n buffbased .. ,o.,n eaegor-„ ., > btlt> o as follows: e. ra4egei-7y 1. 50 feet; ,1 Category 4. A 5 F of d. Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Table. Page 42 of 90 Packet Page 521 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Minimum Buffer Buffer Buffer Width Width Buffer Width Width (Wetland Wetland (Wetland scores Wetland Wetland Category scores 3-4 scores 5 scores 6-7 8-9 habitat habitat habitatpoints) habitat points) points) points) Category I: 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Based on total score Cate ory 1: Bogs and 190 ft 190 ft 190 ft 225 ft Wetlands of High Conservation Value Category 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Forested Category I: 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft Estuarine Category ry II: 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Based on score Category III (all) 60 ft 105 ft 165 ft 165 ft Category IV (all) 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. The standard wetland buffer widths in ECDC 23.50.040.F. Le assumes implementation of the following measures, where applicable to a specific proposal. Disturbance Reauired Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Page 43 of 90 Packet Page 522 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds - City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas - Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer Toxic runoff . Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance . Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion Page 44 of 90 Packet Page 523 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of corridors or connections . Maintain connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed • Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting 2. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site -specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria: a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with subsection (17)(3) of this section may substitute. d. The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the director that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species. 63. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. 64. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter. Page 45 of 90 Packet Page 524 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 -5. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is reauired for the duration of the mitiaation bond. G. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses 1. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the City of Edmonds, the applicant shall miti -gate impacts to achieve no not loss of wetland acreage and functions consistent with ECDC 23.50.050 and other applicable provisions of this Title. 2. At the discretion of the Director, standard wetland buffers may be averaged or reduced when consistent with all criteria in ECDC 23.50.040.G. Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be preferred over wetland buffer width reducition with enhancement. Wetland buffer reduction shall only be approved by the director when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on -site. 43. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging with Buffer Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a standard ^f rwetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard or reduced buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that: a. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact: or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; buffers; b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard or reduced buffer; and d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than seventy-five percent 75% of the standard or reduced buffer width. Page 46 of 90 Packet Page 525 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 34. Buffer Width Reductions Thfsughthrouh Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmends development sen,iees director, and only when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category 3 III and 4-N wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer width reductions to no less than seventy-five percent 75 / of the standard width; provided, that: a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: i. Iincreased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level ,.Fevidea by a standard b FF or- through additional for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standardsng iner-eases in wetland buffer- fime.:,.nift . as elat ,, .,. including but not limited to: i. Percent vegetative cover; ii. Pr-ovision ,.Fwildlife ,,abit,,*Percent invasive species cover; iii. r, mate e ,.F,..edan hydr-clog Species richness; and iv. n ostriefing ,. edam intr sign an disc rbane-eAmount of large woody debris Page 47 of 90 Packet Page 526 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 8. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: a. All activities allowed by ECDC 23.50.020 (Allowed activities — wetlands). b. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. bc. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability-, are generally located only in the outer twenty percent (25%) of wetland buffers, and are located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the width of the wetland buffer, trails may be placed in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining wetland buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet in width and for pedestrian use only.Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. The director may allow trails within the inner twenty-five percent (25%) of wetland buffers when required to provide access to wildlife viewing structures, fishing access areas, or connections to other trail facilities; ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet. c. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category 3 or 4 wetlands only; provided, that: i. No other location is feasible; and ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. iii. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category 1 or 2 wetlands. iv. Projects shall also comply with all applicable requirements in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Stormwater Management. includine Minimum Reauirement #8. Wetland Protection. GH. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands. Page 48 of 90 Packet Page 527 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restrictions b. The provisions of subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Permanent Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer under the following circumstances, provided that the director may waive this require: a. As part of any development proposal for single-family plats, single-family, s�plats, multifamily mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area, provided that breaks in permanent fencing may be allowed for access to permitted buffer uses (ECDC 23.50.040.G.8)i b. As part of development proposals for parks where the adjacent proposed use is active recreation and the director determines that such fencing is necessary protect the functions of the critical area; c. When buffer averauma is emnloved as hart of a development nronosal: d. When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal, or e. At the director's discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area Ill. Additions to Structures Existing Within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers. Page 49 of 90 Packet Page 528 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 1_Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section, provided that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all, impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, buffer ,-0.7. ,bens through enhancementand wetland buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: 4-a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer; 3b. Outside of a wetland buffer -edu .oa thfough buffer- averaged (,with enhancement)ing per subsection (RG)(43) of this section 2c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced withtlfeugh enhancement) per subsection (liG)(34) of this section; 4d. Outside of the inner twenty five2S percent 25% of the standard wetland buffer width ith no more than three hundred (300hssquare feet of structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard wetland buffer width, Drovided that enhancement is Drovided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact): e. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25%) of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than five hundred (500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard wetland buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques and other measures are included as Dart of the wetland / buffer enhancement Dlan. 2. Where meeting wetland buffer enhancement requirements required by H.1. of this section would result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area. 3. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing in H.1. of this section (i.e., additions proposed within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. Page 50 of 90 Packet Page 529 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 J. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a wetland buffer, provided that the following conditions are met: 1. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.320; 2. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the wetland edge as is feasible: 3. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the wetland and not represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development. 4. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent wetland and associated buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development; 5. Enhancement is provided as wetland or buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within in the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment occurring in wetland buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer: and 6. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the wetland buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. IK. Small, hydrologically isolated wetlandsE*empfiens. The director may allow small, hydroloi>1 cally isolated Category 3-III or IV4 wetlands under 398one thousand- 1( ,000j square feet in area to be exempt from the avoidance sequencing= provisions of ECDC 23.40.120 and the wetland development standards provisions of ECDC 23.50.040.F. At the discretion of the director such wetlands may be altered, F title A tlan exemption shall only b ♦e,] f provided that p"rv=r'isiens�rthiscrcro�r'dP@crurca �e-n gam �n��g~�an«a� a submitted critical areas report and miti atg ion plan, in t'1e fofm of a er-itiea areas r-eeemaissanee- deliNeatioN provides evidence that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The wetland is underless than done thousand (1,000) square feet in area; 2. Thevvetland : a le„ .,lit„ C tegefy 3e. n wetland; 42. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and 3. The wetland is not adiacent to a riparian area: 4. The wetland has a score of three (3) — four (4) points for habitat in the adopted Western Washington rating system; and Page 51 of 90 Packet Page 530 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 5. A mitigation plan to replace lost wetland functions and values is developed, approved and implemented consistent with ECDC 23.50.050. site eonditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.50.050 Mitigation requirements — Wetlands. SHRRE Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Wetland mitigation plans shall be consistent with the state Department of Eeology Gguidelines for --in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecolo¢y, 2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology, 2009)Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Pl.,.... and Proposals, 1994, as revised. 1. Avoiding the irnpaet altogether by not taking a eeftain aetion or parts of an aetion. 2. Minimizing impaets by limiting the degree or magnitude of the aetion and its implementation, by A. Mitigation shall be r-eqttired in the following order- of pfefereflee: 4. Redtteing of eliminating the irnpaet over time by presen,ation and maintenanee operations. envirefirne«t s. 1RA. Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when: 1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site -specific function assessment, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed assessment plan or protocol; or 2. Out -of -kind replacement will best meet formally identified watershed goals, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types. EB. Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference: 1. Implementing compensatory restoration through purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank or through payment into an approved in lieu fee program. Page 52 of 90 Packet Page 531 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 42. Restoring (re-establishing) wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. 23. Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of nonnative, introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is a consistent source of hydrology and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the wetland community that is being designed. 4. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area meeting appropriate ratio requirements. DC. Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for ecological functions shall be in -kind and conducted on the site or in the vicinity of the alteration except when all of the following apply: 1. On -site opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success, after a determination of the natural capacity of the site to mitigate for the impacts. Consideration should include: anticipated wetland mitigation replacement ratios, buffer conditions and proposed widths, hydrogeomorphic classes of on - site wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); 2. Off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the impacted wetland;-a*d 3. Off -site mitigation incorporates ,guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Hrub . 2012); and 24. Off -site locations for compensatory mitigation are consistent with city of Edmonds goals for #msdietionwatershed-wide ecological restoration. Off -site locations are selected with a preference for sites within the same basin as the impact, followed by other sites within the city. Specific areas targeted for restoration efforts include: a. Lake -fringe wetlands and habitat areas associated with Lake Ballinger; b. Edmonds marsh; c. Yost Park wetlands; d. Good Hope wetlands; aPA e. Wetlands and habitat areas peripheral to anadromous fish -bearing streams -.Land f. Sites available through an approved mitigation bank or in --lieu fee program. Page 53 of 90 Packet Page 532 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 This list is not comprehensive and may change as the city of Edmonds identifies areas suitable for restoration and capital improvement projects consistent with goals for jurisdiction -wide habitat retention and enhancement provided in the city's comprehensive plan. ED. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed with an approved monitoring plan prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. EE. Mitigation Ratios. 1. Acreage Replacement Ratios. The ratios in the table below shall apply to e . feStffatiencreation or re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement that is in -kind, is on -sites the same eateget , is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall apply in those cases. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment pursuant to Table la, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-1 la, or as revised). Creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement definitions are provided in ECDC 23.40.320 (see definition for "compensatory mitigation", and shall be additionally consistent with intent pursuant to Ecology Publication #06-06-1 la.-. Category and Tyne of Wetland Creation or Re - establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement only only Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Category III 21 41 81 Category 11 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category I: 4:1 8:1 16:1 Page 54 of 90 Packet Page 533 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Based on functions Category I: Mature and old growth forest 6:1 12:1 24:1 Category I: High conservation Not considered Not considered Not considered possible possible possible value /Bog Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, 013=ia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) if approved by the director. 2. Off -site Mitigation. These ratios provided in ECDC 23.50.050.F.1. do not apply to off -site mitigation including4he use of credits from a state -certified wetland mitigation bank or payment to a certified in - lieu fee program. When off -site mitigation is proposed, or when er-e 1�Ama-eeFtified mitigation bank or in lieu fee program isare used, replacement ratios mayshould incorporate guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washineton (Ecoloev Publication #10-06-011, Hruby. 2012), and for mitigation banks or in lieu fee program should be consistent with the certification requirements of the 1 ank's et-44i fiention. Use of mitigation banks shall meet all requirements of ECDC 23.50.050.H.T-he first number- eei f es the aer-eage f-eplaee.nent wetlands and the s n.l s eiFos the aer-eage .f wetlands altered: 23. Increased Replacement Ratio. The director may require increased compensatory mitigation ratios under the following circumstances: a. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; b. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions; c. Proposed mitigation will result in a lower -category wetland or reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted; or d. The impact was an unauthorized impact. G. Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation. 1. Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands, but may, at the discretion of the director, be used in conjunction with restoration and/or creation. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical areas report that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will Page 55 of 90 Packet Page 534 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. 2. At a minimum, enhancement acreage shall be double the acreage required for creation or restoration under subsection F of this section. The ratios shall be greater than double the required acreage where the enhancement proposal would result in minimal gain in the performance of wetland functions and/or result in the reduction of other wetland functions currently being provided in the wetland. 3. Mitigation ratios for enhancement in combination with other forms of mitigation shall range from six - to -one to three -to -one and be limited to Class 3 and 4 wetlands. H. Wetland Mitigation Banks and In --Lieu Fee Programs. 1. Wetland Mitigation Banks. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: a. The bank is certified under Chapter- 173 inn W n `'state rules; b. The director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank's certification instrument. d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall heare consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank's certification. e. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank are used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include Dortions of more than one adiacent drainaee basin for specific wetland functions. 32. hi --Lieu Fee Programs. La liett of wetland mitigation bank efed#As an alternative to on -site or other off -site mitigation approaches, the director may prevideapprove purchase of credit for compensatory mitigation from an in lieu fee program. An such used to compensate for direct wetland impacts shall be developed and approved through a public process and be consistent with federal rules, state policy on in lieu fee mitigation and state water quality regulations, Determiningcredit redit purchase necessary to compensate for wetland impacts shall incorporate guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06- 011, Hruby. 2012). Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may contribute payment towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the director, provided that the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where requireL4'lh6-f-e-ug"h--a—p—ol�eant provision of funds to identified eapital improvement pr-ejeets for- wetlan restoration. The direeter- r-etains diser-etion to establish a menetar-yvaltte for- applieafA pfevision of funds which shall be, at a minimum, equal to the eest of designing, developing, implementing and monitor -in Page 56 of 90 Packet Page 535 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 in kind eempeasa4er-y mifiga4ieft en site or- in the pfejeet Applicant provision of funds for compensatory mitigation shall only be approved if: a. The director determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the nronosed wetland imnacts:Suc a,.., ine , « be demonstrated to di -eetiy s 3o ft wetland r-estor-afi b. The mitigation will occur on a site identified using the site selection and prioritization process in the approved in --lieu fee program instrument or at a City -identified restoration site consistent with ECDC23.40.140 with the provisionsn .atios of this title. c. A restoration area and plan have been identified and shall be implemented within three years of project development; d. Restoration efforts are focused in Ohose e ident:r.,,,l iah ge,.tio (D)(3) of thi,; ,e,.t:,.n and areas identified as suitable for restoration by the director; and e. Credits from an approved in --lieu fee program may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the approved in --lieu fee instrument. A suitable capital iffiffovement pr-ejeet a*d plan fer- implementation is in plaee pr-ief to r-eeeipt ef applicant NYep[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.50.060 Performance standards — Subdivisions. o sHaRE The subdivision and short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers is subject to the following: A. Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided. B. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided; provided, that an accessible and buildable contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the wetland and its buffer. C. Access roads and utilities serving the proposed subdivision may be permitted within the wetland and associated buffers only at the discretion of the director. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form 23.50.070 Wetland field data form.° sHaRE The eity of Edmonds —wetland field data used for completion of wetland ratings shall be consistent with the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Page 57 of 90 Packet Page 536 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Publication #14-06-029; Hruby 2014). depa..tment and on the eity ofEdmonds . ebsi.o [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Figure 23.50.000 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Wetlands watland lD;y ba located sallr! - Reppnnal%nose delermirres that Weelnnd MipaeaelM f/pQH/lE6 W idenufy Ivnh tnll,Wl cannot i ww="E be a ldcdRin¢and nd&dhr y:+xddi•-rna1mn rneac deternaane if Juffsd,cCLFM l -� I•' we¢andh0updarie5 FA Plan vyii; rcrSubJec[ wetland meeLsjurisdf r It Ad emit and cl ossify wetland standard buffer ED w plays •agd:rel. par ti-al critoria and is within 225R of per upda9ed Meth, n or increasewcataNecl 775hd subjeccparceL carogortm ndluncuans subiacl Parcel. PH � Va3uep. wornrra«+a. iVnrand suffer Reromafssanoeidentlfies wi'etla nd Impacts are i0" s'"0 aa`Y Enhancement Plan :4 nddi•'�-;I %euandisnotjurtsdictlMal avoadedthrogb REQUIRED to ploy f`W' land jdr*dltlipna l dewmr- standard bu lfw mwnd-w Inc -rase ''I"A'. A. m nalion is wrlo ad by lhn yf>dtha Frwe'tland In wetlarM tunclions u.$. ArW Corps of oleg ry" aM values. EngFrleersj;o naly rn identifies tha [ wetland Is located 1225 ft YVetI a nd erager Dam sub➢eefpar�el, Noadditional ww,d rpu, MRipaUnn Plan REQIIIR€D f'er cnmplianoe M, pdatedcoderequiro- [egJlrenaent5" nten.ty prove --pli�r.[c mien lion a InCleAu r x•. Hoadditlonal afW4.nd fun'dons wmplfencv and values. mquire nti. PabDc Hearingrfh Lfey . Hearing Wmine v„p.ieo,r.. EQHIRE9 an ly for —rotes, neyaay proi%tg 'or whrch Impacts nnot he mftlltated W re In —tbrd funet!ans and Values. 'kageR n•M1.—h mar is mnf "h'A—WefaaM�•.nlyllame nyoitw nailipen•pertaFmnblu— Page 58 of 90 Packet Page 537 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Chapter 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation.° SHFRE Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. CARAs are protected as critical areas under the Washington State Growth Management Act. However, no areas meeting criteria for CARAs exist in the vicinity of the city of Edmonds. Thus, additional specific provisions for protection of this critical area type are not provided within this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 59 of 90 Packet Page 538 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Chapter 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping -Frequently flooded areas. Part II. Additional Report Requirements - Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.020 Special study and report requirements - Frequently flooded areas. 23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability. Part 111. Development Standards - Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.040 Development standards - Frequently flooded areas. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping - Frequently flooded areas. o sHRRE A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include: 1. Those areas identified on FEMA flood insurance maps as areas of special flood hazard, which include those lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. For the purposes of this title, areas of special flood hazard for the city of Edmonds are hereby declared generally to be those areas shown as Zone A (including Zones A, AE, Al-A30, AH, AO, AR and A99) and Zone V (including Zones V and VE)on the following FEMA maps or panels: 53061 C00; 5306IC1292 E, Panel 1292; 5306IC1285 E, Panel 1285; 53061C1315 E, Panel 1315; and 5306IC1305 E, Panel 1305. &_-VW9, and sueh maps and panels are adopted by this r-efer-enee as a paft of this ehapter- as if fully se feit n.The city will use the most currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a propert ertX is located within a frequently flooded area. Base flood elevations and flood hazard factors for those areas shown as Zone A on the map have not been determined and the local flood management administrator shall utilize such other data as may be reasonably available from federal, state or other sources in administering this chapter as provided in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. 2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above. Page 60 of 90 Packet Page 539 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city's critical areas inventory are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners, and the public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. As flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, newer and more restrictive information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to designate and identify areas known to be prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to the provisions and protections of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Additional Report Requirements — Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.020 Special study and report requirements — Frequently flooded areas. o SHFRE In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for frequently flooded areas must meet the requirements of this section and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A frequently flooded areas report shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a hydrologist or engineer, licensed in the state of Washington, with experience in preparing flood hazard assessments. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for frequently flooded areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). B. Areas to Be Addressed. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for frequently flooded areas: 1. The site area of the proposed activity; 2. All areas of a special flood hazard area, as indicated on the flood insurance map(s), within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All other flood areas indicated on the flood insurance map(s) within 200 feet of the project area. C. Flood Hazard Assessment. A critical area report for a proposed activity within a frequently flooded area shall contain a flood hazard assessment including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. Site and Construction Plans. A copy of the site and construction plans for the development proposal showing: Page 61 of 90 Packet Page 540 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 a. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations, floodway, other critical areas, buffers, and shoreline areas; b. Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain; c. Clearing limits; and d. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and the level to which any nonresidential structure has been floodproofed. 2. Watercourse Alteration. Alteration of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If unavoidable, a critical areas report shall include: a. Extent of Watercourse Alteration. A description of and plan showing the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of a proposal; b. Maintenance Program Required for Watercourse Alterations. A maintenance program that provides maintenance practices for the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the flood - carrying capacity is not diminished. D. Information Regarding Other Critical Areas. Potential impacts to wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas shall be addressed in accordance with the applicable sections of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. 23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability.° SHRRE The degree of flood protection required by this chapter and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside frequently flooded areas or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the city of Edmonds, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Development Standards — Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.040 Development standards — Frequently flooded areas. o SHRRE Development standards and provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas are provided as applicable to areas of special flood hazard in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Conformance with the provisions for flood hazard reduction of the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Page 62 of 90 Packet Page 541 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, shall constitute conformance with ECDC 23.40.050, Protection of critical areas, per the mandates of the Washington Growth Management Act and the purposes and objectives of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Chapter 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Sections: Part 1. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart. 23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping— Geologically hazardous areas. 23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas. 23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas. Part II. Allowed Activities — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.040 Allowed activities — Geologically hazardous areas. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.050 Special study and report requirements — Geologically hazardous areas. Part IV. Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.060 Development standards — General requirements. 23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart. 5HRRE See Figure 23.80.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Geologically hazardous areas.0 5HRRE Page 63 of 90 Packet Page 542 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area: A. Erosion hazard; B. Landslide hazard; and C. Seismic hazard. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas. o SHRRE A. Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion hazard areas are at least those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds erosion hazard areas include: 1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes); c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes); 2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion related to moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat. 32. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils and springs or ground water seepage; and 43. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope. B. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of b soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Within the city of Edmonds potential landslide hazard areas speeifieally-include: Page 64 of 90 Packet Page 543 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 1. Areas of ancient or historic failures in Edmonds which include all areas within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc. and further discussed in the 2007 report by Landau Associates; 2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides) in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas; 3. Areas designated as quaternar steps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps published b, the United States Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Figure 1 Simple Slope Calculation The slope calculation guidance shall be used to determine the toe and top of %Slope for slopes that are potentially Iandslidehazard areas or potentiallyerosion hazard areas. Toe and top of landslide hazard areas (generally slopes of 400A or greater) delineated where incline reverses ordiminishesto <40%over at leas[ 10 feet of horizontal distance. Toe and top of erosion hazard areas (generally slopes 15-40N) deli nested where Inc li ne reverses or di m IN shes to -15% over cf lee e*1n f.e nFi,nri.nnFe I .i ief nee -4D* slope hazard are slope (ew area) over min ID 10, Top of Slope %Slope= Y(VerSlml Rise) 100% N (HCrlw"L Run) cote: Sups, gradie" changes, and incline re er als or 1,m ks helew percern slope: defining landslide hazard areas(W6) and erosion hazard areas (19%) shall he included as pan ofthe largerslepe- Page 65 of 90 Packet Page 544 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 24. Any slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of ten (10) feet over a twenty-five (25) foot horizontal run. Except for rockeries that have been engineered and approved by the engineer as having been built according to the engineered design, all other modified slopes (including slopes where there are breaks in slopes) meeting overall average steepness and height criteria should be considered potential landslide hazard areas): 5. Any slope with all three of the following characteristics: a. Slopes steeper than fifteen percent (15%), b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment: and c. Springs or groundwater se page; A e with a slope f 40 pe entor- steeper- and with eFt relief of 10 or more feet exeept afeas eemposed of eonsolidated r-eek. A slope is delineated b establishing its tee and top (as defined in Figure 1 in subsection (B)(1) of this seetion) and is measure by aver -aging the inelinatien ever- at least 10 feet of veffieal relief of 25 feet of hofizontal distanee. Benehes, steps Wndvaffiatians in gr-adient shall be ineofpar-E�ted into a larger- slope if they do not mee er-iter-ia defining toe andler- top depieted in Figure 1 in subseetion (B)(1) of this seetion (see also Figure 2 E�t the end of this subseetion). if the toe or- top of a slope is loeated off of a subjeet pr-opefty, then the leeation of the tee OF tOp shall be delineated 200 horizontal feet 4om the property boundar-5, or- at its natural loeation, whiehevef is eloser to the sublieet par -eel (see Figtife 2 at the end of this subseetion); 36. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; -and 47. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments 8. Any slopes that have been modified by past development activity that still meet the slope criter C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake -induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface faulting. These areas are designated as having a "high' and "moderate to high" risk of liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources or areas located within er-near-landslide hazard areas. Settlement and soil li"efaetion eonditions eeetff in areas under -lain by eohesionless, loose, or [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004] . 23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas. - 8HRRE Page 66 of 90 Packet Page 545 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 A. The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, resources providing information on the location and extent of geologically hazardous areas in Edmonds include: 1. Washington Department of Ecology coastal zone atlas (for marine bluffs); 2. U.S. Geological Survey geologic maps, landslide hazard maps, and seismic hazard maps; 3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources seismic hazard maps for Western Washington; 4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources slope stability maps; 5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami hazard maps; and 6. Federal Emergency Management Administration flood insurance maps. B. The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Allowed Activities — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.040 Allowed activities — Geologically hazardous areas. o sHaRE The following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas as consistent with ECDC 23.40.220, Allowed activities, Chapter 19.10 ECDC, Building Permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas, and Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Management, and do not require submission of a critical area report: A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Except for installation of fences and as otherwise provided for in this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent with an approved critical areas report in accordance with this title shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas. B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas: 1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly; 2. Additions to existing single -story residences that are 250 square feet or less; and 3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas Page 67 of 90 Packet Page 546 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 23.80.050 Special study and report requirements — Geologically hazardous areas. � SHRRE Critical area report requirements for geologically hazardous areas are generally met through submission to the director of one or more geotechnical engineeringreports. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for geologically hazardous areas must meet the requirements of this section and Chapters 18.30 and 19.10 ECDC as applicable. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. Geotechnical report(s) submitted for the purpose of critical areas review are required as necessary in addition to reports, data and other information mandated per ECDC Titles 18 and 19. Geotechnical report(s) shall be required: whenever a potential erosion hazard area or potential landslide hazard area, as mapped by Edmonds critical areas inventory or shown on other information consistent with ECDC 23.80.030, is located within 50 feet of the proposed development site; whenever a development site is located within a seismic hazard area, or when otherwise determined warranted by the director (e.g. a distance equal to the height of the slope). A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for assessing a potential geologically hazardous area shall be prepared by an-engineef-of geologist licensed in the state of Washington, with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience preparing reports for the relevant type of hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary, the report detailing the mitigation measures and design of the mitigation shall be prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington, with experience stabilizing slopes with similar geotechnical properties. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). B. Area Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for geologically hazardous areas: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; and 2. All geologically hazardous areas within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal. C. Geological Hazards Assessment. A geology hazard assessment ef4ie�report for a geologically hazardous area shall include a field investigation and contain an assessment of whether or not each type of geologic hazard identified in ECDC 20.80.020 is present or not present and if development of the site will increase the risk of landslides or erosion on or off the site. Geotechnical reports shall be prepared, stamped and signed _ by a qualified professional. These reports must: 1. Be annromiate for the scale and scone of the nroiect: 2. Include a discussion of all geologically hazardous areas on the site and any geologically hazardous areas off site potentially impacted by the proposed project. If the affected area extends beyond the subject propertygeology, hazard assessment may utilize existing data sources pertaining to that area; Page 68 of 90 Packet Page 547 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds - City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas - Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 3. Clearly state that the proposed project will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat to persons or property either on or off site and provide a rationale as to those conclusions based on geologic conditions and interpretations specific to the project; 4. Provide adequate information to determine compliance with the requirements of ECDC Chapter 23.80: 5. Generally follow the guidelines set forth in the Washington State Department of Licensing Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006). In some cases, such as when it is determined that no landslide or erosion risk is present, a full report may not be necessary to determine compliance with the ECDC Chapter 23.80, and in those cases a letter or abbreviated report may be provided. 6. If a landslide or erosion hazard is identified, provide minimum setback recommendations for avoiding the landslide or erosion hazard, other recommendations for site development so that the frequency or magnitude of landslidin,g or erosion on or off the site is not altered, and recommendations consistent with ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. and soils,d. Clearing limits-, char-aeter-isfies of the sails, sediments, and/or reek of the pfojeet area and potentially aMeted adjaeent pr-apei4ies, and -A of the site histafy r-egafding landslides, erosion, and prior- g-Fadiog. S analysis shall be aceemplished in aeeor-danee with aeoepted elassifieation systems in use in the The assessment shall ineltide, btA not be limited to: and N,egetation fi3und in the . et area and in A hazard areas addressed in the r-epei4; Page 69 of 90 Packet Page 548 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 b. A detailed evefview ef the field iiwesfiga4eas, published data, and r-efer-enees; da4a; and eeftelesiens from past assessments of the site; and site speeifie measttfements, tests, investigations, or- studies that supp..Ft the ide tifio lion of geologically hazardous ous areas; r.,l events;e. A description of the vulner-ability of the site to seismie and other- geologie 3. Analysis of Proposal. The r-epoi4 shall eontain a h-a-z—ar-dis analysis ineluding a_ deta-fle'd dese-r-iPtion of the project, its Felationship to the geologic hazar-d(s), and its potential impaet upon the hazard area, thee 4. Minimum Buffer- and Building Setbaek. The r-epoFt shall make a reeommendation for- the minimum geoteehnieal analysis. D. Incorporation of Previous Study. Where a valid critical areas report has been prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the required critical areas report. The applicant shall submit a hazards assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. E. Mitigation of Long -Term Impacts. When hazard mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the preexisting level of risk to the site and all other adjaeent-properties potentially impacted on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation). Proposed mitigation techniques shall be considered to provide long-term hazard reduction only if they do not require regular maintenance or other actions to maintain their function. Mitigation may also be required to avoid any increase in risk above the preexisting conditions following abandonment of the activity. F. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Projects within Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, technical information for any development within Dearth subsidence and landslide hazard areas shall meet the requirements of Chapter 19.10 ECDC and include the following information at a minimum: 1. Site Plan. The critical areas report shall include a copy of the site plan for the proposal showing: a. The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the project area; b. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of ground water on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal; and c. The location and description of surface water runoff features; 2. Hazards Analysis. The hazards analysis component of the critical areas report shall specifically include: Page 70 of 90 Packet Page 549 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 a. A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover; b. A description of subsurface conditions based on data from site -specific explorations; c. Descriptions of surface and ground water conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural improvements; d. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure; e. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate or an estimate of the percent risk of landslide area expansion that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year storm event; f. Consideration of the run -out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run -out on down -slope properties; g. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed cuts, fills, and other site grading; h. Recommendations for building siting limitations; and i. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion; 3. Geotechnical Engineering Report. The technical information for a project within a landslide hazard area shall include a geotechnical engineering report prepared by a licensed engineer that presents engineering recommendations for the following: a. Parameters for design of site improvements including appropriate foundations and retaining structures. These should include allowable load and resistance capacities for bearing and lateral loads, installation considerations, and estimates of settlement performance; b. Recommendations for drainage and subdrainage improvements; c. Earthwork recommendations including clearing and site preparation criteria, fill placement and compaction criteria, temporary and permanent slope inclinations and protection, and temporary excavation support, if necessary; and d. Mitigation of adverse site conditions including slope stabilization measures and seismically unstable soils, if appropriate; 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. For any development proposal on a site containing an erosion hazard area, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required. The erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. G. Limited Report Requirements for Stable Erosion Hazard Areas. At the director's discretion, detailed critical areas report requirements may be waived for erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability. Page 71 of 90 Packet Page 550 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Report requirements for stable erosion hazard areas may be met through construction documents that shall include at a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. H. Seismic Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, a critical areas report for a seismic hazard area shall also meet the following requirements: 21. The hazards analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity on the site (for example, forces generated and fault displacement). -32. A geotechnical engineering report shall evaluate the physical properties of the subsurface soils, especially the thickness of unconsolidated deposits and their liquefaction potential. If it is determined that the site is subject to liquefaction, mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of the development shall be recommended and implemented. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part IV. Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.060 Development standards — General requirements. o sHRRE A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and 4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. B. Critical Facilities Prohibited. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is no other practical alternative. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards. 0 5HRRE A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or landslide hazards shall meet the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards — General Requirements, and the specific following requirements: Page 72 of 90 Packet Page 551 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 1. Minimum Building Setback. The minimum setback shall be the distance required to ensure the proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, considered to be one hundred and twenty (120) years and will not cause an increased risk of landslides taking place on or off the site. Ekt ff p n *. A setback buffer shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The size of the setbackbu fef shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional. 2. Buffer Requirements. A buffer may be established with specific requirements and limitations, including but not limited to, drainage grading, irrigation, and vegetation. Buffer requirements shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the eeotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by activities within the buffer area, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report Drenared by a aualified Drofessional. 23. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area, minimum building setback and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that: a. The alteration development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; b. The alteratiolldevelopment will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Design Standards within erosion and landslide hazard areas. Development within an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are: a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed Page 73 of 90 Packet Page 552 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 development site is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties; b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas; c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation; e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties; f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage; 4. Vegetation Retention. Unless otherwise provided or as part of an approved alteration, removal of vegetation from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited; 5. Seasonal Restriction. Clearing shall be allowed only from May 1 st to October 1 st of each year; provided, that the director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case -by -case basis depending on actual weather conditions, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal, may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the city of Edmonds or the Washington State Department of Natural Resources; 6. Point Discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from an erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibited except as follows: a. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazard areas downstream from the discharge; b. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed storm water runoff in the predeveloped state; or c. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low -gradient, undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and storm water runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope; and 7. Prohibited Development. On -site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers. Page 74 of 90 Packet Page 553 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 B. Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. In addition to the requirements of this chapter, development proposals for lands located within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as indicated on the critical areas inventory shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC. C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the standards of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards — General Requirements. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 75 of 90 Packet Page 554 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Figure 23.80.000 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Geologically WaxardousArea s Geologically Ge MAN rdA�W (i a-Narardassess- G-Weivniatkepwi D"elopment hatard0us area RpQphREMEHTS to ment concludes REOIREMEHT to encma[heiwilhin (ge ,hazard) may he Wen* cla55ihcation and jurisdictional delineate boundaries delineated low"on ornear location nl geofiazard_ geo•hm rd area ande tent of %e;hawrd area subject parcel, located within 200h Se*hau darea. and orminimum Of Subject Pa reel. huilding 5eihack. Geo•Hazard assesamew cone lades no jdrisdic- Development a -ids ._Wy—kal RWM tinnal g—haaard gco•hazard aria and located ,2D0 ff Irom required minimum dad�r mndlficaddttsaad Subject parcel. buildingsatbackj MIMPUMMIDd=Mto buffer. a OW&MODRMPOMM risks da scl with derebprwtlnand afauad rdafeas. NOadditional ampliance requirements. No add itional wmpllanoo required. NO additional compliance requirements upon Imptemeotatlon of g-Whnical recommendations 'rmpmr regolr rs mar to cow *e Jb wemlw 4a tm&* p M area reperr er mutbpk Ftjn Inoan rldt Page 76 of 90 Packet Page 555 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 Chapter 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart. 23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping —Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Part 11. Additional Report Requirements — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.020 Special study and report requirements — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Part III. Development Standards — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.030 Development standards — General requirements. 23.90.040 Development standards — Specific habitats. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart. V SHRRE See Figure 23.90.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.a SHRRE A. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in the city of Edmonds include: 1. Streams. Within the city of Edmonds streams shall include those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Streams shall be classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16- 030) hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows: a. Type S: streams inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW; b. Type F: streams which contain fish habitat; Page 77 of 90 Packet Page 556 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 c. Type Np: perennial nonfish habitat streams; and d. Type Ns: seasonal nonfish habitat streams. All streams included on the inventory that are known to exist within the city of Edmonds do not meet criteria for "shorelines of the state" but contain fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type F waters pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. However, not all Edmonds streams support anadromous fish populations or have the potential for anadromous fish occurrence because of obstructions, blockages or access restrictions resulting from existing conditions. Therefore, in order to provide special consideration of and increased protection for anadromous fish in the application of development standards, Edmonds streams shall be further classified as follows: Anadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds in which anadromous fish are known to occur. As of 2004, Edmonds fishbearing streams are known to include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds Creek; and Nonanadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds which do not support fish populations and do not have the potential for fish occurrence because of barriers to fish passage or lack of suitable habitat. Streams with anadromous fish occurrence were identified in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment, a 2002 report of Pentec Environmental which is incorporated by this reference as if herein set forth. The city of Edmonds advocates and encourages the removal of barriers to anadromous fish passage consistent with the purposes and objectives of this title. The director may provide updated information on the occurrence of anadromous fish in Edmonds streams consistent with changes in existing environmental conditions. 2. Areas with AVhieh-which State or Federally Designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Have a Primary Association, or offer important fish and wildlife habitat within the urban environment. a. Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Fisheries that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be consulted for current listing status. b. State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-12-011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The state Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most current listing and should be consulted for current listing status. Page 78 of 90 Packet Page 557 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 3. State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Priority habitats and species are identified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4. Habitats and Species of Local Importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those identified by the city of Edmonds, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. 45. Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas. These areas include all public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest, including shellfish protection districts established pursuant to Chapter 90.72 RCW. 56. Kelp and eelgrass beds and herring and smelt spawning areas. 6-. Naturally Occurring Ponds Under 20 Acres. Naturally occurring ponds are those ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities, unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation. 79. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-031 (or WAC 222-16-030, depending on classification used). B. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title and shall be managed consistent with the best available science, such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Management Recommendations for Priority Habitat and Species. Page 79 of 90 Packet Page 558 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 C. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Resources providing information on the location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas incorporated into the inventory include: 1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species maps; 2. Washington State Department of Natural Resources official water type reference maps, as amended; 3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Puget Sound intertidal habitat inventory maps; 4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources shorezone inventory; 5. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program mapping data; 6. Washington State Department of Health annual inventory of shellfish harvest areas; 7. Anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in the habitat limiting factors reports published by the Washington Conservation Commission; and 8. Washington State Department of Natural Resources state natural area preserves and natural resource conservation area maps. The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants, and/or property owners and should be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical areas designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Additional Report Requirements — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.020 Special study and report requirements — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.° SHARE In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical area reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas must meet the requirements of this section. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a biologist with experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). Page 80 of 90 Packet Page 559 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 B. Areas Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; 2. All fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All shoreline areas, floodplains, other critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project area: and- 4. A discussion of the efforts to avoid and minimize potential effects to these resources and the implementation of mitigation/enhancement measures as required. C. Habitat Assessment. A habitat assessment is an investigation of the project area to evaluate the potential presence or absence of designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat. A critical areas report for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall contain an assessment of habitats, including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and its associated buffer; 2. Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species; 3. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area. D. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Streams. Consistent with specific development standards for Edmonds streams (ECDC 23.90.040(D)), critical areas report requirements for streams may be met, at the discretion of the director, through submission of one or more specific report types. If stream buffer enhancement is proposed to reduce a standard stream buffer width or as part of project mitigation required by the director, a stream buffer enhancement plan may be submitted to fulfill the requirements of this section. If no project impacts are anticipated and standard stream buffer widths are retained, a stream survey report, general critical areas report or other reports alone or in combination may be submitted as consistent with the specific requirements of this section. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas provided in subsections (A) through (C) of this section, technical information on streams shall include the following information at a minimum: 1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the stream and associated hydrologic features within 200 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum: a. Stream survey showing the ordinary high water mark(s); Page 81 of 90 Packet Page 560 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 b. Standard stream buffer boundary; c. Boundary for proposed reduced stream buffers; d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics; e. Soil and substrate conditions; and f. Topographic elevations, at two -foot contours; 2. A detailed description and functional assessment of the stream buffer under existing conditions pertaining to the protection of stream functions, fish habitat and, in particular, potential anadromous fisheries; 3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and stream functions; 4. Proposed buffer enhancement, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps and planting plans for buffer areas to be enhanced, including the following information at a minimum: a. A description of existing buffer conditions; b. A description of proposed buffer conditions and how proposed conditions will increase buffer functioning in terms of stream and fish habitat protection; c. Performance standards for measuring enhancement success through a monitoring period of at least three years; and d. Provisions for monitoring and submission of monitoring reports documenting buffer conditions as compared to performance standards for enhancement success; 5. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect stream functions and habitat value through maintenance of vegetation density within the stream buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. Part III. Development Standards — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.030 Development standards — General requirements. o SHFRE A. Alterations. A fish and wildlife habitat conservation area may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the habitat. There are no specific development standards for upland habitats of local importance unless these areas include another critical area (streams, heron rookeries, steep slopes, etc.). City staff will review the critical areas report (ECDC 23.90.020) and work with the applicant to minimize effects or improve conditions to upland habitat. Page 82 of 90 Packet Page 561 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 B. Approvals of Activities. The director shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or adjacent to a habitat conservation area or its buffers as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions shall be based on the best available science and may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Establishment of buffer zones; 2. Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as snags and downed wood; 3. Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access; 4. Seasonal restriction of construction activities; 5. Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities; and 6. Requirement of a performance bond, when necessary, to ensure completion and success of proposed mitigation. C. Mitigation and Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions. Mitigation of alterations to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis. Mitigation shall be located on -site except when demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an off -site location. Mitigation shall be detailed in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area mitigation plan, which may include the following as necessary: 1. A native vegetation planting plan; 2. Plans for retention, enhancement or restoration of specific habitat features; 3. Plans for control of nonnative invasive plant or wildlife species; and 4. Stipulations for use of innovative, sustainable building practices. D. Approvals and the Best Available Science. Any approval of alterations or impacts to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall be supported by the best available science. E. Buffers. 1. Establishment of Buffers. The director shall require the establishment of temporary or permanent buffer areas for permitted activities adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas which may result in fish or wildlife disturbance (e.g., construction, grading, etc.) when needed to protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Establishment of buffers shall follow recommendations set forth by a Page 83 of 90 Packet Page 562 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 qualified biologist in the project critical areas report. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity of the habitat and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted nearby and shall be consistent with the management recommendations issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. Seasonal and Daily Timing Restrictions. When a species is more susceptible to adverse impacts during specific periods of the year or day, seasonal restrictions on permitted activities within or adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas may be required at the discretion of the director pursuant to recommendations set forth in a critical areas report. F. Signs and Fencing of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field as required by the director in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of a metal face and attached to a metal post or another material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restriction b. The provisions of subsection (F)(2)(a) of this section may be modified by the director as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Fencing. a. The director shall determine if fencing is necessary to protect the functions and values of the critical area. If found to be necessary, the director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter to require the applicant to install a permanent fence at the edge of the fish and wildlife Page 84 of 90 Packet Page 563 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 habitat conservation area or buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. b. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on -site. c. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes habitat impacts. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.90.040 Development standards — Specific habitats. o SHRRE A. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species. 1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency. 2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the director. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies. 3. Bald eagle habitat is subject to the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. WashinjZton State bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-12-292) shall not be required as long as bald eagles are not listed as a State Endangered or Threatened species. Bala o ele h., ita+shall be ....,.teetea 3 nt t B. Anadromous Fish. 1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following standards: a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species; Page 85 of 90 Packet Page 564 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible; c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; d. Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and e. Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report. 2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. 3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water -dependent use. C. Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels. As a provision of this title, the director shall require retention of a minimum of 30 percent of native vegetation on undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 per Chapter 16.10 ECDC. This standard for development shall apply to all undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20 area -hat contain a landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 23.80.020.B; a stream or stream buffer; or a wetland or wetland buffer, except for as provided in ECDC 23.90.040.C.4._This provision for native vegetation retention will provide increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Edmonds jurisdiction, and shall be applied consistent with the following criteria: 1. Achieving the minimum 30 percent retention requirement for native vegetation shall be determined by assessing the existing site area that supports native vegetation. For purposes of this provision, areas that support native vegetation shall include areas dominated by plant species which are indigenous to the 2. The goal of 30 percent native vegetation can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation, establishing native vegetation, or a combination of both. 3. A vegetation management plan, subject to the approval of the director, is required for approval of the proposed development. 4. For undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 that currently do not support any native vegetation areas meeting minimum requirements in ECDC 23.90.040.C.1, the director may waive the requirements of this provision. Page 86 of 90 Comment [kpl7]: 20151215 council Amendment changed required diameter and percent canopy coverage from "10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) make up more than 70 percent of the canopy cover" to "6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) make up more than 40 percent of the canopy cover." Packet Page 565 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 D. Streams. No alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted unless consistent with the provisions of this title and the specific standards for development outlined below. 1. Standard Stream Buffer Widths. Buffers for streams shall be measured on each side of the stream, from the ordinary high water mark. The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing in the city of Edmonds: a. Type S: 150 feet; b. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 100 feet; c. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: 75 feet; d. Type F nonanadromous fishbearing stream: 75 feet; e. Type Np: 50 feet; f Type Ns: 2-5-40 feet. General areas and stream reaches with access for anadromous fish are indicated on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. The potential for anadromous fish access shall be confirmed in the field by a qualified biologist as part of critical areas review and determination of standard stream buffer widths. 2. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths. Standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 50 twen , five percent (25%) of the standard stream buffer width concomitant to development and implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the provision of wildlife habitat. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and: a. than a standard buffer- without enhaneenwn* ..,, The buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer reduction provides evidence that functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will be i. Increased or retained throueh elan implementation for those streams where existine buffer vegetation is generally intact: or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the stream; Page 87 of 90 Packet Page 566 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success for a minimum of five L5 years in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D) and (E); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in stream buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Protection of anadromous fisheries; iv. Enhancement of fish habitat; and v. Restricting intrusion and disturbance. 3. Stream Buffer Width Averaging with Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a standards stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a stream buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional demonstrates that: a. The buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer averaging provides evidence that functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will be: i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the stream, b. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a stream extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; be. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than -5075 percent of the reduced or standard width; and e. The funetions and values of the stfeam and asseeiated buffer will not be diminished through the use o buff-er- , Page 88 of 90 Packet Page 567 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 4. Additions to Structures Existing within Stream Buffers. a. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this chapter (ECDC 23.90.030 and this section)-, provided that a buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard stream buffers, buff f .oa,,, liens three,,. efth +ieemei+t and stream buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions through enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: ai. Outside of the standard stream buffer; hii. Outside of a stream buffer averaged (with enhancement) per subsection (D)(23) of this section; eiii. Outside of a stream buffer reduced (with enhancement) *,,,.,,ug bu f r� per subsection (13)(32) of this section; or div. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25%) per-eefA of the standard stream buffer width dffaia k ith no more than three hundred (300) square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer width, Drovided that enhancement is Drovided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact). v. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard stream buffer width with no more than five hundred (500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio (enhancement -to - impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques or other measures that enhance existing buffer condition are included as Dart of the stream buffer enhancement Dlan. b. Where meeting stream buffer enhancement requirements required by H.1. of this section would result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area. c. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. 5. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment occurring within a stream buffer, provided that the following conditions are met: Page 89 of 90 Packet Page 568 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 a. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.320; b. The proposed development within the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment is sited as far away from the stream edge as is feasible; c. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the stream and not represent an undue burden ,given the scale of the proposed development. d. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent remaining stream buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development: e. Enhancement is provided as buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within in the footprint of existing development occurring in stream buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer: and i Impacts from temporary disturbances within the stream buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. 56. Stream Crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed only if all reasonable construction techniques and best management practices are used to avoid disturbance to the stream bed or bank. Upon completion of construction, the area affected shall be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted with native species and/or otherwise protected according to a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan approved by the director, and maintained and monitored per the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and providing for buffer enhancement in accordance with the requirements of subsection (13)(2) of this section. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that best management practices will be used during construction to provide the following: a. Fisheries protection, including no interference with fish migration or spawning; b. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow periods and shall be timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when stream use is critical to salmonids; c. Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas unless no other possible crossing site exists; d. Crossings and culverted portions of the stream shall be minimized to the extent feasible and serve multiple purposes and multiple lots whenever possible; e. Roads may cross streams only on previously approved rights -of -way, provided no practical alternative exists and adequate provision is made to protect and/or enhance the stream through appropriate mitigation. Roads shall be designed and located to conform to topography, and maintained to prevent erosion and restriction of the natural movement of ground water as it affects the stream; Page 90 of 90 Packet Page 569 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 f Roads and utilities shall be designed in conjunction to minimize the area of disturbance to the stream; and g. Roads shall be constructed so as to minimize adverse impacts on the hydrologic quality of the stream or associated habitat to a degree acceptable to the city; h. An alternative alienment or location with less impact is not feasible: and i. The crossine will be designed as near as Demendicular with the water bodv as Dossible.7 67. Trails. After reviewing the proposed development and technical reports, the director may determine that a pedestrian -only trail may be allowed in a stream buffer; provided, no pervious suffaee materials are used, all appropriate provision is made to protect water quality, and all applicable permit requirements have been met. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed within a stream or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance or security. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect streams by limiting vehicular access to designated public use or interpretive areas. -78. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within stream buffers; provided, that: a. No other location is feasible; b. PiDes and convevance facilities will be in the outer twentv five Dercent (25%) of the buffer: c. Stormwater dispersion outfalls, bioswales, and bioretention facilities may be allowed anywhere within stream buffers: d. Such facilities are designed consistent with requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30; and be. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream or stream buffer. 99. City Discretion in Protection, Enhancement and Preservation of Streams. The city of Edmonds is unique within the state of Washington as a built -out community with streams that have been incorporated within, and often located immediately adjacent to, residential development. This title allows the director full discretion to condition proposals for development on parcels containing, adjacent to, or potentially impacting streams to enhance conditions consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions on development shall be required to enhance streams and stream buffers as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to provide increased protection of anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include: a. Removal of stream bank armoring; Page 91 of 90 Packet Page 570 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11201 b. In -stream habitat modification; c. Native planting; d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat; e. Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading; f. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species; g. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers; and h. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses. The right of discretion in provisioning development in regard to streams is maintained in order to provide for the creation of enhanced conditions over those currently existing around streams in the city of Edmonds. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard stream buffer widths as provided in subsection (D)(1) of this section can be accommodated by project development, the applicant shall be required to submit a stream buffer enhancement plan or a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report indicating that post -project site conditions will provide equivalent or greater protection of stream functions and fish habitat over a standard stream buffer and existing site conditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 92 of 90 Packet Page 571 of 1075 Figure 23.90.000 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 112016 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas NUI and 1%='fi ['i"All Cianal Aire 14F, lI,:i lriticn[Irca Reort C:i ni 1.A- Ha6iu,(:o�eraalian FprII );YT i.i iarrttifi[a jutmicrional IIWtA] Huy .nny' nre, wi,6nt2W fi of rrcn i,x an as Ibxr impdna on ti.ki.ix•iu: f}1'i1C Ilunj., pan,l. li[h.,biiat and idcrnil, MAC'A will liQ.cll• eAjnr W.L� n: It of puimlcl imp—rnuliin, m lr If— prui uil•ini p.inul. Imm pnrjrct rlev Jnpmrn i. Jn�elopnwnl. 0 1i•'al .Ale., Heporl mneludrs iw [Itxi nanilar Fun,eiunx No addilirmol nM •aluea will nnr hr juridic[ional areas dnrrnplin 3 m d Ihmugh proim locriod•mhi._l' of 5 &rdgrn.t. *7xiremenrs. suhjeq percxl. CCC ' Nn edd tiwn.l adAk,pnal onopl6xn mmpUarare requircmentu rrquirem suer n�lfor v,n.n,r,nxm 5neew AEQLI 14m RF)WRED u, in dasTp n¢xni an prolep win regifl armonsn afr rt a don of lsxgeer awrla, imp 1, Jeerrnorn if sircam ` in srrn nnifxr +i r and buffer rmik—. In,� Y51n urcnm xmn and buffer bul5•r r ill Ica iinpar ied impacts wilh.ianLi"ni _ t• ndlr.I, cairn I'd_a&r n,eid[d lhmugh v h n dani buff,, prujr,i inipinixn,a�i, o wifh ZRcr wMths. bull,, widt5"4". 4 11. nuf uTrduction. wdl6s. uanaanl li ter nrJlb. Nn addilxnal Noadditiml 5trc rnhufhrwxreging Fortner huflet Noaadid-1 mmpliaxee wwgrtinnot allowed wish aaitional reduction n d,d m wmldlansv reyuiremmtx ,eyuit—rO hufff enit—meal- a w NuFFer irnnaea. rrywreinena. *Report requirements may be met through submission of a single critical area report or multiple reports in combination. Page 93 of 90 Packet Page 572 of 1075 Attachment B 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments. The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows: A. Section 104.3, Notices and Orders, is amended to read: The building official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with this code. The building official is also authorized to use Chapter 20.110 ECDC for code compliance in addition to the remedies provided for in this code. B. Section 105.1.1, Annual Permit, is deleted. C. Section 105.1.1, Demolition Permits, is added and shall read: Before the partial or complete demolition of any building or structure (interior or exterior), a demolition permit shall be obtained from the building official. The permit fee is established pursuant to Chapter 19.70 ECDC. The applicant shall also post with the city, prior to permit issuance, a performance bond, or frozen fund, conforming to Chapter 17.10 ECDC herein, in an amount to be determined by the building official to satisfy all city requirements no later than 180 days after the issuance of the permit. The demolition performance bond or frozen fund shall not be released until the building official determines the following requirements have been completed: 1 Cap Abandoned Sanitary Sewers. Septic tanks shall be pumped, collapsed and removed and/or filled with earth, sand, concrete, CDF or hard slurry. 2 Knock Down of Concrete Foundation Walls, Porches, Chimneys and Similar Structures. Concrete, bricks, cobbles and boulders shall be broken to less than 12-inch diameter. Debris left on site shall conform to IBC Section 1804.2 for clean fill. 3 Construction debris, vegetation, and garbage attributable to the demolition shall be removed from the site and from unopened street right-of-way within 30 days of written notice. No debris of any kind may be placed or maintained on street right-of-way (including alleys) without a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 18.60 or 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 4 Repair of any damage to, and restoration of, any public property to substantially original conditions, i.e., alley, street, sidewalk, landscaping, water meter, utilities, rockeries, retaining walls, etc, in accordance with this code and the City's engineering requirements. 5 Grading of Site Back to Original Topography Grades. Basements shall be filled and compacted to 90 percent as verified by a special inspector. "Structural fill" is defined as any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils need to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill shall be clean and free draining, placed above unyielding native site soils and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent modified proctor, per ASTM D1557. 6 Temporary erosion control shall be installed and maintained per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. D. Section 105.1.2, Annual permit records, is deleted. E. Section 105.2, Work exempt from permit, is replaced as follows: Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with bulk zoning code standards per ECDC Title 16 and storm water management provisions per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Permits shall not be required for the following unless required by the provisions of ECDC Title 23 or limited or prohibited by the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC: Page 1 of 9 Packet Page 573 of 1075 Attachment B 1. Building (general): (a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (measured to the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 120 square feet, with a maximum eave of thirty (30) inches. (b) Fences not over six (6) feet high; provided a permit is not required by Chapter 17.30 ECDC. (c) Movable cases, counters and partitions not over five (5) feet nine (9) inches high. (d) Retaining walls 4 feet (1,219 nun) in height or less measured vertically from the finished grade at the exposed toe of the retaining wall to the highest point in the wall, unless: I Supporting a surcharge; or II Impounding Class I, II, III -A liquids; or III Subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC. (e) Rockeries. (f) Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed two (2) to one (1). (g) Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route, provided a permit is not required by Chapter 18.60 ECDC. (h) Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops and similar finish work. (i) Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 0) Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes. (k) Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to an occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons. Hot tubs and spas less than 5,000 gallons, completely supported by the ground. (1) Grading less than fifty (50) cubic yards (placed, removed or moved within any 365-day period) unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC. (m) Repair of appliances which do not alter original approval, certification, listing or code. (n) Replacement or adding new insulation with no drywall removal or placement. (o) Replacement or repair of existing gutters or downspouts. (p) The following types of signs are exempt from permit requirements except that dimensional size and placement standards shall comply with Chapter 20.60 ECDC: I. Replacing the panel on a previously permitted existing wall cabinet or pole sign, II. Repainting an existing previously permitted wood sign, III. Painted or vinyl lettering on storefront windows, IV. Governmental signs, campaign signs, official public notices, and signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law, Page 2 of 9 Packet Page 574 of 1075 Attachment B V. Temporary signs announcing the sale or rent of property and other temporary signs as described in ECDC 20.60.080, VI. Signs erected by the transportation authorities, and temporary seasonal and holiday displays. 2. Mechanical: (a) Portable heating, ventilation, cooling, cooking or clothes drying appliances. (b) Replacement of any part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe. (c) Portable fuel cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed piping system and are not interconnected to a power grid. (d) Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by this code. (d) Portable evaporative cooler. (f) Self-contained refrigeration systems containing ten (10) pounds or less of refrigerant or that are actuated by motor of one (1) horsepower or less. 3. Plumbing: (a) The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided that the replacement of defective material shall be done with new material and a permit obtained and inspection made. (b) Reinstallation or replacement of approved prefabricated plumbing fixtures that do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves or pipes. 4. Residential permit exemptions: In addition the following exemptions apply for single family dwellings: (a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (measured to the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 200 square feet, with a maximum eave of twelve (12) inches and maximum height of fifteen (15) feet. Vehicle storage structures, such as garages and carports, are not exempted. (b) Window awnings supported by an exterior wall and do not project more than fifty-four (54) inches from the exterior wall and do not require additional support. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply to such awnings. (c) Sport courts less than 2,000 square feet. (d) Dock repair of individual decking members. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply. (e) Replacement or repair of existing exterior siding. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply. (f) Replacement or repair of existing windows or doors provided; no alteration of structural members is required, the replacement would not require installation of safety glazing, the installation does not involve required egress windows. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply- (g) Minor like -for -like drywall repairs not involving fire -rated assemblies. Page 3 of 9 Packet Page 575 of 1075 Attachment B (h) Replacement or repair of individual decking, joists, stair treads, or intermediate rails. ECDC Title 23 provisions do not apply. (i) Uncovered platforms, decks, patios, not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not more than thirty (30) inches above grade at any point and do not serve the exit door required by IRC Section R311.4. 0) Canopies, as defined in ECDC 17.70.035, accessory to a single family dwelling, with a floor area measured to the exterior wall or post not to exceed 200 square feet, for covered storage, carport or similar use. (k) Reroof overlays, except that all existing layers of roofing must first be removed if the existing material is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos tile, or where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roofing. F. Section 105.3.2, Time limitation of permit application, is amended to read: 1. Applications, for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application, shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. 2. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days prior to such expiration date. 3. No application shall be extended more than once for a total application life of 360 days except as allowed within this section. In order to renew action on an expired application, the applicant shall submit a new application, revised plans based on any applicable code or ordinance change, and pay new plan review fees. 4. The Building Official may extend the life of an application if any of the following conditions exist: (a) Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act is in progress; or (b) Any other City review is in progress; provided, the applicant has submitted a complete response to City requests or the Building Official determines that unique or unusual circumstances exist that warrant additional time for such response and the Building Official determines that the review is proceeding in a timely manner toward final City decision; or (c) Litigation against the City or applicant is in progress, the outcome of which may affect the validity or the provisions of any permit issued pursuant to such application. G. Section 105.3.3, Fully complete application, is added and reads: In accordance with the provisions of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, an applicant's rights shall vest when a fully complete building permit application is filed. A fully complete building permit application is an application executed by the owners of the property for which the application is submitted or the duly authorized agent(s) for such owners, containing each and every document required under the terms of these ordinances and the IBC and is substantially complete in all respects. It is anticipated that minor changes or revisions may be required and are frequently made in the course of any building application review process, and such minor revisions or changes shall not keep an application from being deemed complete if a good faith attempt has been made to submit a substantially complete application containing all required components. Where required, the application and supporting documents shall be stamped and/or certified by the appropriate engineering, surveying or other professional consultants. A fully complete building permit application shall be accompanied by all required intake fees, including but not limited to plan review fees required under the provisions of this chapter and code. Page 4 of 9 Packet Page 576 of 1075 Attachment B H. Section 105.3.4, Concurrent review, is added and reads: An applicant may submit an application for building permit approval and request plan review services concurrently with, or at any time following, the submittal of a complete application for any necessary or required discretionary permit approval or discretionary hearing; provided, that any building permit application submitted concurrently with an application for discretionary permit or approvals shall not be considered complete unless the applicant submits a signed statement, on a form approved by the director, which acknowledges that the building permit application is subject to any conditions or requirements imposed pursuant to the review and approval of any necessary or required discretionary permit or approvals. The applicant shall solely bear the risk of building permit submittal with discretionary permit approval. If, after discretionary approval, the building permit plans are modified or amended to comply with conditions or restrictions required by any discretionary permit or approval, the applicant shall be solely responsible for any and all costs which result therefrom, including but not limited to additional full plan review fees; provided further, that any applicant -initiated changes made after the original plan review is complete shall also require payment of full plan review fees. I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read: 1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2). 2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be extended, unless they are associated with a primary building permit for a larger construction project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit: Demolition permits; Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC; Mechanical permits; Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits; Grading, excavation and fill permits; Water service line permits; Plumbing permits; Gas piping permits; Deck and dock permits; Fence permits; Re -roof permits; Retaining wall permits; Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits; Sign permits; Shoring permits; Foundation permits. Page 5 of 9 Packet Page 577 of 1075 Attachment B 3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for an additional year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required, with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC 20.07.004 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision. 6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of a new permit. J. Repealed by Ord. 3926. K. Section 107.3.3, Phased approval, is amended to read: 1. The building official may issue partial permits for phased construction as part of a development before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure have been approved provided architectural design board approval has been granted and a fully complete permit application for the entire building or structure has been submitted for review. 2. Phased approval means permits for grading, shoring, and foundation may be issued separately, provided concurrent approval is granted by the planning manager, city engineer and fire marshal, when applicable. No phased approval permit shall be issued unless approved civil plans detailing the construction of all site improvements including, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved streets, water lines, sewer lines, and storm drainage have been signed as approved by the city engineer. 3. With such phased approval, a performance bond shall be posted with the city pursuant to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, to cover the estimated cost of construction to city standards for the improvements. L. Section 108, Temporary Structures and Uses, is deleted. M. Section 110.3.3, Lowest floor elevation, is amended to read: In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certification required in Section 1612.5 shall be submitted to the building official. Prior to final inspection approval, the building official shall require an elevation certificate based on finished construction prepared and sealed by a State licensed land surveyor. N. Section 113, Board of Appeals, is deleted and replaced by Chapter 19.80 ECDC. Page 6 of 9 Packet Page 578 of 1075 Attachment B O. Section 501.2, Address Identification, is amended to read: Approved numbers or addresses shall be installed by the property owner for new and existing buildings in such a position as to be clearly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property. Letters or numbers on the building shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height and stroke a minimum of .75 inch of a contrasting color to the building base color. Where public or private access is provided and the building address cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other approved sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. This means of premises identification does not preclude approved identification also affixed to structure. P. Section 1612.1.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads: Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded from the 50 percent calculation. Q. IBC section 1612.4.1, Lowest Flood Elevation, is added and reads: For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. QR. Section 3103, Temporary Structures, is deleted. RS. Section 3108.1.1, Radio, television and cellular communication related equipment and devices, is added and reads: A permit shall be required for the installation or relocation of commercial radio, television or cellular tower support structures including monopoles, whip antennas, panel antennas, parabolic antennas and related accessory equipment, and accessory equipment shelters (regardless of size) including roof mounted equipment shelters. 8T. Section 3109.1, Applicability and maintenance, is amended to read: 1. Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas of all occupancies shall comply with the requirements of this section and other applicable sections of this code. 2. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a swimming pool, hot tub or spa in a clean and sanitary condition and all equipment shall be maintained in a satisfactory operating condition when the swimming pool, hot tub or spa is in use. A swimming pool, hot tub or spa that is neglected, not secured from public entry and/or not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition or its equipment in accord with manufacturers recommendations shall be determined to be a hazard to health and safety and shall be properly mitigated to the satisfaction of the building official. -TU. Section 3109.3, Public Swimming Pools, is deleted. UV. Section 3109.4, Residential Swimming Pools, is deleted. VW. Section 3109.6, Location and Setbacks, is added and reads: Page 7 of 9 Packet Page 579 of 1075 Attachment B Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas shall meet requirements of the zoning code of the city of Edmonds. 1. Minimum setbacks are measured from property lines to the inside face of the pool, hot tub or spa as required by the zoning code for accessory structures. 2. All other accessory buildings and equipment shall meet the normally required setbacks for accessory structures in the zone in which they are located. WX. Section 3109.7, Tests and cross -connection devices, is added and reads: 1. All swimming pool, hot tub and spa piping shall be inspected and approved before being covered or concealed. 2. Washington State Department of Health approved cross connection devices are required to be provided on potable water systems when used to fill any swimming pool, hot tub or spa. XY. Section 3109.8, Wastewater disposal, is added and reads: A means of disposal of the total contents of the swimming pool, hot tub or spa (including partial or periodic emptying) shall be reviewed and approved by the public works director. 1. No direct connection shall be made between any swimming pool, hot tub or spa to any storm drain, city sewer main, drainage system, seepage pit, underground leaching pit, or sub -soil drain. 2. A sanitary tee (outside cleanout installed on the main building side sewer line) shall be provided for draining of treated water into the city sanitary sewer system. YZ. Section 3109.9, Inspection requirements, is added and reads: The appropriate city inspector shall be notified for the following applicable inspections: 1. Footing, wall, pre -form, pre-gunite, erosion control, underground plumbing, sanitary extension and cleanout, mechanical pool equipment, gas piping, mechanical enclosure location, cross connection and final inspection. 2. An initial cross connection control installation inspection is required by the city cross connection control specialist prior to final installation approval. 3. All backflow assemblies shall be tested by state certified backflow assembly testers upon initial installation and then annually thereafter. Copies of all test reports shall be submitted to the city water division for review and approval. ZAA. Section 3403.2.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads: Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor areas; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent. AABB. Appendix E, Accessibility Requirements, is amended by deleting Sections E107, E108, El 10 and El 11. Page 8 of 9 Packet Page 580 of 1075 Attachment B 13HCC. Appendix G, Flood -Resistant Construction, is amended by addition of new section: Section G301.1(4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is less. CODD. Appendix H, Signs, is amended as follows: 1. Section H101.2, Signs exempt from permits, is replaced by subsection (E)(1)(p) of this section. 2. Section H101.2.1, Prohibited signs, is added and reads as follows: a. It is unlawful for any person to advertise or display any visually communicated message, by letter or pictorially, of any kind on any seating bench, or in direct connection with any bench. b. All signs not expressly permitted by Chapter 20.60 ECDC. c. Signs which the city engineer determines to be a hazard to vehicle or pedestrian traffic because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or pose a hazard to a pedestrian walkway or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage. Such signs shall be immediately removed at the request of the city engineer. d. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way and that have been improperly posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate removal and confiscation per ECDC 20.60.090. 3. Sections H104, Identification, H106.1.1, Internally illuminated signs, H107, Combustible materials, H108, Animated devices, H109.1, Height restrictions, and H110, Roof signs, are deleted. [Ord. 3926 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 3845 § 6, 2011; Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. Page 9 of 9 Packet Page 581 of 1075 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.50 WETLANDS, 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS, AMENDING ECDC SECTION 19.00.025, A PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, AND AMENDING ECDC SECTION 21.40.030, THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT USED IN COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD ZONES. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.130(1) requires City of Edmonds to take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations, including its policies and regulations designating and conserving natural resource lands and designating and protecting critical areas to comply with the requirements in chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act or GMA); and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the city council of the City of Edmonds reviewed its comprehensive plan and conducted a public hearing on the 2015 update to the City of Edmonds comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds adopted the 2015 update to the City of Edmonds comprehensive plan with Ordinance 4003; and WHEREAS, based on early direction from the City Council, the 2015 update did not involve a major policy shift, but instead focused on consistency and streamlining, including the latest data, as well as the addition of several performance measures; and WHEREAS, it was determined during this review process that, with the exception of the critical areas regulations, the City of Edmonds' development regulations remained consistent Packet Page 582 of 1075 with and would continue to implement the comprehensive plan and the proposed update to it so that no other development regulations would need to be revised at this time; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) defines "critical areas" to include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires that each city adopt development regulations that protect critical areas; and WHEREAS, cities in Snohomish County are expected to take action to review and, if needed, revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of the GMA on or before June 30, 2015, and every eight years thereafter; and WHEREAS, cities must include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas; and WHEREAS, cities must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries; and WHEREAS, City has not comprehensively reviewed its critical areas ordinance and best available science since 2005 when current version of the critical area regulations became effective; and WHEREAS, the City selected environmental consultants ESA to assist the City in updating the 2004 City's Best Available Science Report (Exhibit 1 to September 8, 2015 agenda memo 7969) and to evaluate the City's critical area regulations given the changes in science; and WHEREAS, the Best Available Science addendum prepared by ESA reviewed the current science related to critical areas as it has changed since 2004 (see Exhibit 2 to September 8, 2015 agenda memo 7969); and WHEREAS, ESA also prepared a memo for the City's review that outlines certain provisions that may deviate from Best Available Science, as required by WAC 365-195-915; and Packet Page 583 of 1075 WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed proposed changes to the critical area regulations over the course of five Planning Board meetings between March 25 and July 22, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Board's review included a July 8, 2015 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board forwarded its recommended changes to the City's critical area regulations to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board also forwarded a recommendation for some modifications to the building code Title 19 ECDC and definitions in Title 21 ECDC, in conjunction with its recommendations on critical areas and frequently flooded area regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the draft updated critical area regulation as recommended by the Planning Board at the September 8, 2015 Council meeting and continued that review at the September 22, 2015 Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing at the October 6, 2015 City Council meeting and continued to review the critical area regulations at the November 2, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to adopt the updated critical areas regulations as amended by the City Council during the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Mayor asked the City Council to reconsider the amendments that were approved during the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Mayor forwarded to the City Council a December 22, 2015 memo that addresses the implications of the December 15, 2015 amendments; and WHEREAS, to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the critical area regulations, the City Administration will provide a report to the City Council two years from the effective date of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, this ordinance serves as the final legislative action required by the City under RCW 36.70A.130 for the 2015 review and update; NOW, THEREFORE, Packet Page 584 of 1075 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following chapters of the Edmonds Community Development Code, which make up the City's critical areas ordinance, are hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through): chapter 23.40, entitled "Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions;" chapter 23.50, entitled "Wetlands;" chapter 23.60, entitled "Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas;" chapter 23.70, entitled "Frequently Flooded Areas;" chapter 23.80, "Geologically Hazardous Areas;" and chapter 23.90 entitled, "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." Section 2. Section 19.00.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "International Building Code section amendments," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfoug ). Section 3. Section 21.40.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Height," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through): 21.40.030 Height. A. Height means the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure. (See subsection (D) of this section for exceptions to this rule.) B. "Average level" shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls off the site, its elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of the rectangle cross the property line. (See subsection (D) of this section for exceptions to this rule.) C. Accessory buildings that are attached to the main building by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection so that the accessory building is separated by 10 feet or less from the main building shall be considered to be part of the main building for purposes of determining the average level. For the purposes of Packet Page 585 of 1075 this section, in order for an accessory building to be considered to be attached to and a part of the main building, the connecting structure must have a roof and be constructed of similar materials to both the main building and the accessory building so that it appears to be a unified and consistently designed building. D. Height Exceptions. 1. f Rem For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map; 2. Church steeples; 3. Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit; 4. Chimneys, not to exceed nine square feet in horizontal section or more than three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit. In RM districts, chimneys shall be clustered. No multiple -flue chimney shall exceed 39 square feet in horizontal section. The first chimney shall not exceed nine square feet in horizontal section, and other chimneys shall not exceed six square feet in horizontal section; 5. Vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches in height above the height limit; 6. Standpipes not to exceed 30 inches in height above the height limit; 7. Solar energy installations not to exceed 36 inches in height above the height limit. Such an installation may be approved as a Type II staff decision if it is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar access while limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties; and 8. Replacement of existing rooftop HVAC equipment which exceeds the existing height limit, so long as the replacement equipment does not exceed the height of the existing equipment by more than 12 inches. The replacement equipment must have earned the Energy Star label. Section 4. 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 Page 586 of 1075 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING 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 Page 587 of 1075 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.50 WETLANDS, 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS, AMENDING ECDC SECTION 19.00.025, A PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, AND AMENDING ECDC SECTION 21.40.030, THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT USED IN COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD ZONES. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 7 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 588 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 EDMONDS CITY CODE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: Part I. Purpose and General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose. 23.40.010 Authority. 23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations. 23.40.030 Severability. 23.40.040 Jurisdiction — Critical areas. 23.40.050 Protection of critical areas. Part II. Critical Areas Review Process 23.40.060 General requirements. 23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation. 23.40.080 Notice of initial determination. 23.40.090 Critical areas report — Requirements. 23.40.100 Critical areas report — Modifications to requirements. 23.40.110 Mitigation requirements. 23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing. 23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements. 23.40.140 Innovative mitigation. 23.40.150 Critical areas decision. 23.40.160 Review criteria. Page 1 of 90 Packet Page 589 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision. 23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision. 23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review. 23.40.200 Appeals. 23.40.210 Variances. 23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties 23.40.220 Allowed activities. 23.40.230 Exemptions. 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement. Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures 23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs. 23.40.270 Critical areas tracts. 23.40.280 Building setbacks. 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. 23.40.300 Critical areas inspections. Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science 23.40.310 Best available science. Part VI. Definitions 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. Part I. Purpose and General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose. Page 2 of 90 Packet Page 590 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 A. The purpose of this title is to designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private property. B. This title is to implement the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the comprehensive plan and the Washington State Growth Management Act. C. The city of Edmonds finds that critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit Edmonds and its residents, and/or may pose a threat to human safety or to public and private property. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include, but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation of flood waters, ground water recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, protection from hazards, historical, archaeological, and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority. D. Goals. By limiting development and alteration of critical areas, this title seeks to: 1. Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, or flooding; 2. Maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, including ground and surface waters, wetlands, and fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species; 3. Direct activities not dependent on critical areas resources to less ecologically sensitive sites and mitigate unavoidable impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas; and 4. Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat, and the overall net loss of wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. E. The regulations of this title are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the Growth Management Act and through the application of the best available science, as determined according to WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172, and in consultation with state and federal agencies and other qualified professionals. F. This title is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site -specific characteristics. It is not the intent of this title to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to support existing development. G. The city of Edmonds' enactment or enforcement of this title shall not be construed to benefit any individual person or group of persons other than the general public. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 3 of 90 Packet Page 591 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 23.40.010 Authority. A. As provided herein, the Edmonds development services director or his/her designee (hereafter referred to as "the director") is given the authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to enforce, this title to accomplish the stated purpose. B. The director may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations. A. These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning, site development, stormwater management, building and other regulations adopted by the city of Edmonds. B. Any individual critical area adjoined or overlain by another type of critical area shall have the buffer and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any provision of this title or any existing land use regulation conflicts with this title, that which provides more protection to the critical area shall apply. C. These critical areas regulations shall be coordinated with review conducted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as necessary and locally adopted. D. Compliance with the provisions of this title does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, shoreline substantial development permits, Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.030 Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this title or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be judged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or judgment shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in which it was rendered. The decision shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any part thereof and to this end the provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this law are hereby declared to be severable. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. 23.40.040 Jurisdiction — Critical areas. A. The director shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect one or more critical areas, consistent with the best available science and the provisions herein. B. Critical areas regulated by this title include: Page 4 of 90 Packet Page 592 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 1. Wetlands as designated in Chapter 23.50 ECDC, Wetlands; 2. Critical aquifer recharge areas as designated in Chapter 23.60 ECDC, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; 3. Frequently flooded areas as designated in Chapter 23.70 ECDC, Frequently Flooded Areas; 4. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Chapter 23.80 ECDC, Geologically Hazardous Areas; and 5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as designated in Chapter 23.90 ECDC, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. C. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the definition of one or more critical areas, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. D. Areas Adjacent to Critical Areas Subject to Regulation. Areas adjacent to critical areas shall be considered to be within the jurisdiction of these requirements and regulations to support the intent of this title and ensure protection of the functions and values of critical areas. "Adjacent' shall mean any activity located: 1. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area; and 2. Areas located within 200 feet of a subject parcel containing a jurisdictional critical area. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.050 Protection of critical areas.° 5HRRE Any action taken pursuant to this title shall result in equivalent or greater functions and values of the critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science. All actions and developments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts. Applicants must first demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts before the use of actions to mitigate potential impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Critical Areas Review Process 23.40.060 General requirements.° SHRRE A. As part of this review, the director shall: Page 5 of 90 Packet Page 593 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 1. Verify the information submitted by the applicant; 2. Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas; 3. Determine whether the proposed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas; and 4. Determine if the proposed project adequately assesses all impacts, avoids impacts, and/or mitigates impacts to the critical area associated with the project. B. If the proposed project is within, adjacent to, or is likely to impact a critical area, the director shall: 1. Require a critical areas report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional; 2. Review and evaluate the critical areas report; 3. Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of this title, including the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria; 4. Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized; and 5. Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation.a SHRRE Any person preparing to submit an application for development or use of land that may be regulated by the provisions of this title may request a preapplication meeting with the director prior to submitting an application for development or other approval. At this meeting, the director shall discuss the requirements of this title; provide critical areas maps, scientific information, and other source materials; outline the review process; and work with the activity proponent to identify any potential concerns that might arise during the review process, in addition to discussing other permit procedures and requirements. All applicants, regardless of participation in a preapplication meeting, are held fully responsible for knowledge and disclosure of critical areas on, adjacent to, or associated with a subject parcel and full compliance with the specific provisions and goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.080 Notice of initial determination. o SHRRE A. If the director determines that no critical areas report is necessary, the director shall state this in the notice of application issued for the proposal. Page 6 of 90 Packet Page 594 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 B. If the director determines that there are critical areas on the site that the proposed project is unlikely to impact and the project meets the requirements for and has been granted a waiver from the requirement to complete a critical areas report, this shall be stated in the notice of application for the proposal. A waiver may be granted if the director determines that all of the following requirements will be met: 1. There will be no alteration of the critical area or buffer; 2. The development proposal will not affect the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent, and requirements of this Title. C. If the director determines that critical areas may be affected by the proposal and a critical areas report is required, public notice of the application shall include a description of the critical area that might be affected and state that a critical areas report(s) is required. D. Critical areas determinations shall be considered valid for five years from the date in which the determination was made; after such date the city shall require a new determination, or at minimum documentation of a new assessment verifying the accuracy of the previous determination [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. 23.40.090 Critical areas report — Requirements. SHRRE A. Preparation by Qualified Professional. The applicant shall submit a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional as defined herein. For wetlands, frequently flooded areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, an applicant may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list to prepare critical areas reports per the requirements of this title or may apply to utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant may be subject to independent review pursuant to subsection B of this section. ntmet beVveen the a.Bean. the eonsultant an *' et) All costs associated with the critical areas study shall be borne by the applicant. B. Independent Review of Critical Areas Reports. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas and those developed by an applicant representative or consultant not as part of a three - party contract may, at the discretion of the director, be subject to independent review. This independent review shall be performed by a qualified technical consultant selected by the city with all costs borne by the applicant. The purpose of such independent review is to provide the city with objective technical assistance in evaluating the accuracy of submitted reports and/or the effects on critical areas which may be caused by a development proposal and to facilitate the decision -making process. The director may also have technical assistance provided by appropriate resource agency staff if such assistance is available in a timely manner. C. Best Available Science. The critical areas report shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of critical areas data and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The critical areas report shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to critical areas in accordance with the provisions of this title. Page 7 of 90 Packet Page 595 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 D. Minimum Report Contents. At a minimum, the report shall contain the following: 1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit requested; 2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal including: a. A map to scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the development proposal, and any areas to be cleared; and b. A description of the proposed storm water management plan for the development and consideration of impacts to drainage alterations; 3. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; 4. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area; 5. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; a*d 6. Report requirements specific to each critical area type as indicated in the corresponding chapters of this title. 7. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon; 8. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the critical areas study, including references; and 9. Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed to offset any critical areas impacts, in accordance with the Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section 23.40.130. E. Unless otherwise provided, a critical areas report may incorporate, be supplemented by or composed, in whole or in part, of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site, as approved by the director. At the discretion of the director, reports previously compiled or submitted as part of a proposal for development may be used as a critical areas report to the extent that the requirements of this section and the report requirements for each specific critical area type are met. F. Critical areas reports shall be considered valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.100 Critical areas report — Modifications to requirements.O s"ARE Page 8 of 90 Packet Page 596 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 A. Limitations to Study Area. The director may limit the required geographic area of the critical areas report as appropriate if: 1. The applicant, with assistance from the city of Edmonds, cannot obtain permission to access properties adjacent to the project area; or 2. The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the subject site. B. Modifications to Required Contents. The applicant may consult with the director prior to or during preparation of the critical areas report to obtain approval of modifications to the required contents of the report where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately address the potential critical area impacts and required mitigation. C. Additional Information Requirements. The director may require additional information to be included in the critical areas report when determined to be necessary to the review of the proposed activity in accordance with this title. Additional information that may be required includes, but is not limited to: 1. Historical data, including original and subsequent mapping, aerial photographs, data compilations and summaries, and available reports and records relating to the site or past operations at the site; 2. Grading and drainage plans; and 3. Information specific to the type, location, and nature of the critical area. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.110 Mitigation requirements. SHRRE A. The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of critical areas. Unless otherwise provided in this title, if alteration to the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated using the best available science in accordance with an approved critical areas report and SEPA documents, so as to result in no net loss of critical area functions and values. B. Mitigation shall be i k4nd and on site,when possible and sufficient to maintain or compensate for the functions and values of the impacted critical area and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area. C. Mitigation shall not be implemented until after the director has provided approval of a critical areas report that includes a mitigation plan. Mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the approved critical areas report. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing.o SHRRE A. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. Page 9 of 90 Packet Page 597 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 B. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. C. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements.° SHRRE When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the director a mitigation plan as part of the critical areas report. The mitigation plan shall include: A. Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and including: 1. A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the mitigating actions proposed and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of compensation goals; identification of resource functions; and dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the impacted critical area; 2. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation; 3. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project; and Page 10 of 90 Packet Page 598 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 4. Specific mitigation plan and report requirements for each critical area type as indicated in this title. B. Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this title have been met. C. Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, such as: 1. The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration; 2. Areas of proposed impacts on critical areas or buffers; 3. Grading and excavation details; 34. Erosion and sediment control features; 45. A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and -6. Measures to protect and maintain plants until established. These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross -sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. D. Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years one, three, and five after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than thfee-five 5 years without anmroval from the director. E. Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. F. Financial Guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, as necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with ECDC 23.40.290, Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.140 Innovative mitigation.O s"ARE Page 11 of 90 Packet Page 599 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 A. The city of Edmonds may encourage, facilitate, and approve innovative mitigation projects that are based on the best available science. Advance mitigation, in lieu fee programs, or mitigation banking are examples of alternative mitigation prejeets-approaches allowed under the provisions of this section wherein one or- more appheants, or- an organization with demenstra4ed eapability, may tindeftake a mitig .ties p -ejeet together- if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. There are no reasonable opportunities on --site or within the same sub -drainage basin, or opportunities on -site or within the sub -drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydro eg omorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity. and notential to mitigate fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity): 4-2. The off -site mitigation has a ,greater likelihood of providing equal or improved critical areas functions than the altered critical area, and there is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the identified mitigation site. 3. Off -site locations shall be in the same basin and within the City unless: a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or b. Credits from an approved (State -certified) wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the approved bank instrument; c. Fees are paid to an approved in -lieu fee program to compensate for the impacts. B. Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may contribute payment towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the director, provided that the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where required. Such mitigation actions shall be consistent with ECDC 23.40.140.A.1. and ECDC 23.40.140.A.2., and with all other applicable provisions of ECDC Chapters 23.50 and 23.90. BC. Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process provides for retention or an increase in the beneficial functions and values of critical areas within the Edmonds jurisdiction. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.150 Critical areas decision.o SHRRE Page 12 of 90 Packet Page 600 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 The city of Edmonds development services director shall make a decision as to whether the proposed activity and mitigation, if any, is consistent with the provisions of this title. The decision shall be based on the criteria of ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and shall affect and be incorporated within the larger project decision. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.160 Review criteria.° SHRRE A. Any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise provided for in this title, shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements; 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. B. The director may condition the proposed activity as necessary to mitigate impacts to critical areas and to conform to the standards required by this title. Except as provided for by this title, any project that cannot adequately mitigate its impacts to critical areas in the sequencing order of preferences in ECDC 23.40.120 shall be denied. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision. o SHRRE If the director determines that the proposed activity meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of this title, the development services director shall prepare a written notice of decision for the applicant and identify any required conditions of approval as part of the larger project decision. The notice of decision and conditions of approval shall be included in the project file and be considered in the next phase of the city's review of the proposed activity in accordance with any other applicable codes or regulations. Any conditions of approval included in a notice of decision shall be attached to the underlying permit or approval. Any subsequent changes to the conditions of approval shall void the previous decision pending re -review of the proposal and conditions of approval previously set by the director. Page 13 of 90 Packet Page 601 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 A favorable decision should not be construed as endorsement or approval of any underlying permit or approval. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision.° 5HRRE If the director determines that a proposed activity is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and the provisions of this title, the director shall prepare a written decision for the applicant that includes findings of noncompliance. No proposed activity or permit shall be approved or issued if it is determined that the proposed activity does not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or does not comply with the provisions of this title. Following notice of decision that the proposed activity does not meet the review criteria and/or does not comply with the applicable provisions of this title, the applicant may request consideration of a revised critical area report. If the revision is found to be substantial and relevant to the critical area review, the director may reopen the critical area review and make a new decision based on the revised report. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review.0 5HRRE The director's decision regarding critical areas pursuant to this title shall be final concurrent with the final project decision to approve, condition, or deny the development proposal or other activity involved. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. 23.40.200 Appeals.° 5HRRE Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of this title may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. [Ord. 3736 § 71, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.210 Variances.° 5HRRE A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist: 1. The application of this title would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility. A public agency and utility exception may be granted as a variance if: a. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas; Page 14 of 90 Packet Page 602 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 b. The application of this title would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public; c. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; d. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and e. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of "reasonable economic use(s)" in ECDC 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; i The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. B. Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested action conforms to all of the following specific criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject Page 15 of 90 Packet Page 603 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as a Type III -A decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based on a proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section. D. Conditions May Be Required. The director retains the right to prescribe such conditions and safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to ensure conformity with this title for variances granted through hearing examiner review. E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for an extension of time before the expiration. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the director as a Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). F. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of a variance application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application. [Ord. 3783 § 15, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 15, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 72, 73, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Proiects A. When a critical area restoration project is proposed that is not required as mitigation for a development proposal, the City of Edmonds may grant relief from standard critical area buffer requirements if the restoration project involves: 1. The davliehtine of a stream. or 2. Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or wetland buffer Page 16 of 90 Packet Page 604 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 B. At the time a restoration project is proposed, a buffer shall be established that will apply to the restoration project boundary. Restoration project buffers shall be established according to the following requirements: 1. For the purposes of this section, an expanded buffer is that portion of the stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result of the restoration project. 2. A buffer mgy be Whed to the restored portion of the stream or wetland that is not less than 75% of the expanded buffer associated with the class of stream or category of wetland; or, 3. The project proponent may request a reduced buffer of between 50% and 75% of the expanded buffer associated with the class of stream or category of wetland. The following criteria will be used by the City in reviewing the request for a reduced buffer: a. The Director determines that applying a 75% expanded buffer would significantly limit the use of the property for existing or permitted uses, thus making the restoration project infeasible, b. The proposed expanded buffer relief is the minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project; c. There will be a net environmental benefit from the restoration project with the reduced expanded buffer: d. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the critical area restoration project and consistent with purposes of the City's critical area regulations. Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties 23.40.220 Allowed activities. SHRRE A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas. B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed Page 17 of 90 Packet Page 605 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development permits and approvals that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have been met: a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval; b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer since the prior review; c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have elapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; d. There is no new information available that is applicable to any critical area review of the site or particular critical area: and de. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has been achieved or secured. 2. Modification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Structural modification of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a critical area or its buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement; 3. Permitted AlterationModifications to Existing Structures Existing Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Permitted after tie Modification to a legally constructed structure existing within a critical area or buffer shall be allowed when the a'�modification:does not a. Does not increase the footprint of the structureaeven b. Does not increase the impact to the critical area or buffer- and c. Does not increasethere is ~e ifte .eased- risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement. ( Aadditions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area or buffer that do increase the existing footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provision shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of a legal nonconforming building within its footprint; 4. Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Stream or Wetland Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally Page 18 of 90 Packet Page 606 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 established structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more in width that occur between the area in question and the stream or wetland may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the director to be a physically separated and functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in these areas. The director may require a site assessment and functional analysis documentation by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated. In determining whether an area is physically separated and functionally isolated from the adjacent stream or wetland, the director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the interruption. 45. Activities VAlki-3within the Improved Right -of -Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such facilities are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city -authorized private roadway, except those activities that alter a wetland or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges, or result in the transport of sediment or increased stormwater. -6. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short -duration impacts to critical areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the following criteria: a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas; b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s) or other small component(s) of a utility facility; and c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet; 6. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the following: a. The trail surface shall be limited to pervious surfaces and meet all other requirements, including water quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19; b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor, including disturbed areas; and c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical report; and d. Trails located only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of critical areas buffers, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the Page 19 of 90 Packet Page 607 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 width of the critical areas buffer, trails maybe placed in the outer twenty-fivepercent (25%) of the remaining critical area buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet in width and for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. Allowances for trails within the inner seventy-five percent (75%) of critical areas buffers are provided within applicable sections of ECDC Chapters 23.50 — 23.90. 7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities: a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and hght-hand-held equipment when the area of work is under one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over three (3) years: i. Invasive and noxious weeds; ii. English ivy (Hedera helix); iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus); iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus); v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis); Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that: i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees; ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; Page 20 of 90 Packet Page 608 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (twe4e-ene2_1) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball; v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title; c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan; d. Chemical Applications. The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral -derived fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the City, provided that their use shall be restricted in accordance with state Department of Fish and Wildlife Management Recommendations and the regulations of the state Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Ecology de. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be prohibited; 8. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require construction of new roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the critical area shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and 9. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids and boundary markers. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.230 Exemptions. o SHRRE A. Exemption Request and Review Process. The proponent of the activity may submit a written request for exemption to the director that describes the activity and states the exemption listed in this section that applies. Page 21 of 90 Packet Page 609 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 The director shall review the exemption request to verify that it complies with this title and approve or deny the exemption. If the exemption is approved, it shall be placed on file with the city of Edmonds. If the exemption is denied, the proponent may continue in the review process and shall be subject to the requirements of this title. B. Exempt Activities and Impacts to Critical Areas. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. To be exempt from this title does not give permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Exempt Activities. The following developments, activities, and associated uses shall be exempt from the provisions of this title; provided, that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local, state, and federal laws and requirements: 1. Emergencies. Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or preventative action in a time frame too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this title. Emergency actions that create an impact to a critical area or its buffer shall use reasonable methods to address the emergency; in addition, they must have the least possible impact to the critical area or its buffer. The person or agency undertaking such action shall notify the director within one working day following commencement of the emergency activity. Within 30 days, the director shall determine if the action taken was within the scope of the emergency actions allowed in this subsection. If the director determines that the action taken, or any part of the action taken, was beyond the scope of an allowed emergency action, then enforcement provisions of ECDC 23.40.240, Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement, shall apply. After the emergency, the person or agency undertaking the action shall fully fund and conduct necessary restoration and/or mitigation for any impacts to the critical area and buffers resulting from the emergency action in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. The person or agency undertaking the action shall apply for review, and the alteration, critical area report, and mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the director in accordance with the review procedures contained herein. Restoration and/or mitigation activities must be initiated within one year of the date of the emergency and completed in a timely manner; 2. Operation, Maintenance, or Repair. Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems that do not require construction permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance also includes normal maintenance of vegetation performed in accordance with best management practices, provided that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directlypact an endangered or threatened species; and Page 22 of 90 Packet Page 610 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 3. Passive Outdoor Activities. Recreation, education, and scientific research activities that do not degrade the critical area, including fishing, hiking, and bird watching. Trails must be constructed pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(6), Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement. a sHaRE A. When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this title or the provisions of Chapter 7.200 ECC, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The director shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or other responsible party's expense to compensate for violation of the provisions of this title. The director may also require an applicant or property owner to take immediate action to ensure site stabilization and/or erosion control as needed. B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the director. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsection C of this section. The director shall, at the violator's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant or violator for revision and resubmittal. C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. 1. For alterations to frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; b. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; c. The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and d. Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in ECDC 23.40.130, Mitigation plan requirements, shall be submitted to the city planning division. 2. For alterations to flood and geological hazards, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater safety can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the predevelopment hazard; Page 23 of 90 Packet Page 611 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. D. Site Investigations. The director is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this title. The director shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property. E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the provisions of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to penalties not to exceed a square footage cost of three dollars (,$3.O0) per square foot of impacted critical area and critical area buffer and/or a per tree penalty consistent with ECDC 18.45.070B. and C. set f Fth i Errs , Q n c non., a 18. 4 5.075. Eaeh day or portion of a day dtffing w-hieh a violation of this title is eemmitted or- eonfinue Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this title shall constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the statutes of the state of Washington. The city of Edmonds may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for violation of any of the provisions of this title. The civil penalty shall be assessed as proscribed in ECDC 18.45.070 and 18.45.075.[Ord. 3828 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures 23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs. SHRRE A. The boundary at the outer edge of a critical area, critical area buffer or critical area tract may, at the discretion of the director, be required to be delineated with wood fencing. B. The boundary at the outer edge of the critical area or buffer may be identified with temporary signs prior to any site alteration. Such temporary signs may be replaced with permanent signs prior to occupancy or use of the site. C. These provisions may be modified by the director as necessary to ensure protection of sensitive features or wildlife needs. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.270 Critical areas tracts and easements. SHRRE A. At the discretion of the director, critical areas tracts and/or easements may be required in development proposals for developments that include critical areas. These critical areas tracts and/or easements shall delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers greater than 5,000 square feet including: 1. Landslide hazard areas and buffers; 2. Wetlands and buffers; Page 24 of 90 Packet Page 612 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 3. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; and 4. Other lands to be protected from alterations as conditioned by project approval. B. Notice on Title. The owner of any property with field -verified presence of critical areas and/or critical areas buffers, except critical aquifer recharge areas, for which a permit application is submitted shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice of the existence of such critical area and/or critical area buffer against the property with the Snohomish County Auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the right to challenge this notice and to have it released if the critical area designation no longer applies; however, the titleholder shall be responsible for completing a critical areas report, subject to approval by the director, before the notice on title can be released. Critical areas tracts shall be roeeraoa on all ,a,.,.ume is of title of -eee -a for all a ff eted lots. C. Critical areas tracts or easements shall be designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a format approved by the director. The designation shall include the following restrictions: 1. An assurance that native vegetation will be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat; and 2. The right of the director to enforce the terms of the restriction. D. The director may require that critical areas tracts be dedicated to the city, to be held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner's association or other legal entity (such as a land trust), which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a process to assess costs associated therewith. E. The use of herbicides within critical areas tracts or easements is prohibited except use of aquatic approved herbicides where recommended by the Noxious Weed Control Board and where otherwise consistent with the provisions of ECDC Title 23. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.280 Building setbacks. o sHaRe Unless other -wise previde Except for geologically hazardous areas where setbacks are determined by a geotechnical report, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. TY--ln addition to other allowances provided by this Title, the following may be allowed in the building setback area: A. Landscaping; B. Uncovered decks; Page 25 of 90 Packet Page 613 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 C. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area; and D. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring.o SHRRE A. When mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to final permit approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection, the applicant shall be required to post a performance bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the director. If the development proposal is subject to mitigation, the applicant shall post a mitigation bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the city to ensure mitigation is fully functional. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is greater. The amount of the performance bond shall include a reasonable allocation for inflation based on the length of anticipated delay and the provisions of subsection D of this section. C. The bond shall be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, and/or maintenance bond from an acceptable financial institution, with terms and conditions acceptable to the city of Edmonds' attorney. D. Bonds or other security authorized by this section shall remain in effect until the director determines, in writing, that the standards bonded for have been met. Bonds or other security shall be held by the city for a minimum of five 5 ears to ensure that the required mitigation has been fully implemented and demonstrated to function, and maybe held for longer periods when necessaryto achieve these goals. E. Depletion, failure, or collection of bond funds shall not discharge the obligation of an applicant or violator to complete required mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration. F. Public development proposals shall be relieved from having to comply with the bonding requirements of this section if public funds have previously been committed for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration. G. Any failure to satisfy critical area requirements established by law or condition including, but not limited to, the failure to provide a monitoring report within thirty (301 days after it is due or comply with other provisions of an approved mitigation plan shall constitute a default, and the city may demand payment of any financial guarantees or require other action authorized under this title or any other law. H. Any funds recovered pursuant to this section shall be used to complete the required mitigation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.300 Critical area inspections. o -RE Page 26 of 90 Packet Page 614 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Reasonable access to the site shall be provided to the city, state, and/or federal agency review staff for the purpose of inspections during any proposal review, restoration, emergency action, or monitoring period. Failure to provide access shall constitute grounds for issuance of a stop work order. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science 23.40.310 Best available science.La SHRRE A. Protect Functions and Values of Critical Areas with Special Consideration to Anadromous Fish. Critical areas reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to protect the functions and values of critical areas and must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon and bull trout, and their habitat, where applicable. B. Best Available Science to Be Consistent with Criteria. The best available science is that scientific information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state, or federal natural resource agencies, a qualified scientific professional, or a team of qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172. C. Characteristics of a Valid Scientific Process. In the context of critical areas protection, a valid scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a local government's regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies and development regulations that will be effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas. To determine whether information received during the permit review process is reliable scientific information, the director shall determine whether the source of the information displays the characteristics of a valid scientific process. Such characteristics are as follows: 1. Peer Review. The information has been critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified scientific experts in that scientific discipline. The proponents of the information have addressed the criticism of the peer reviewers. Publication in a refereed scientific journal usually indicates that the information has been appropriately peer -reviewed; 2. Methods. The methods used to obtain the information are clearly stated and reproducible. The methods are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been appropriately peer -reviewed to ensure their reliability and validity; 3. Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences. The conclusions presented are based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies and consistent with the general theory underlying the assumptions. The conclusions are logically and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported by the data presented. Any gaps in information and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific information are adequately explained; 4. Quantitative Analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative methods; Page 27 of 90 Packet Page 615 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 5. Context. The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge; and 6. References. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions are well referenced with citations to relevant, credible literature and other pertinent existing information. D. Nonscientific Information. Nonscientific information, such as anecdotal observations, non -expert opinion, and hearsay may supplement scientific information, but it is not an adequate substitute for valid and available scientific information. E. Absence of Valid Scientific Information. Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or incomplete scientific information relating to a critical area leading to uncertainty about the risk to critical area function of permitting an alteration of or impact to the critical area, the director shall: 1. Take a "precautionary or a no -risk approach" that strictly limits development and land use activities until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved; and 2. Require application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management program shall: a. Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program; b. Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves uncertainties; and c. Commit to the appropriate time frame and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and anadromous fisheries. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part VT. Definitions 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. sHRRE For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those afeas activities located on --site immediately adjoining a critical area; or a distance equal to or less than two hundred and twenty five (225)2-00 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel and these . s i,,ea4ed within 900 feet f a ,a,,,.ti .fluted bald eagle nest "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; Page 28 of 90 Packet Page 616 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. "Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project -induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 21. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland or steam at a site where it did not formerly exist. Page 29 of 90 Packet Page 617 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 2. "Re-establishment" means actions performed to restore processes and functions to an area that was formerlv a critical area. where the former critical area was lost by past alterations and activities. 3. "Rehabilitation" means improving or repairing processes and functions to an area that is an existing critical area that is highly degraded because one or more environmental processes supporting the critical area have been disrupted. -4. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wilds critical area so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality; enhancement activities usually attempt to change plant communities within existing wetlands from non-native communities to native scrub -shrub or forested communities. 45. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high -quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. "Erosion Hazard Areas." See ECDC 23.80.020(A). "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. Page 30 of 90 Packet Page 618 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "100-year flood" means flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. 'Joal2rint of ExistingDevelopmen�' or "Footprint of Development" means the area of a site that contains legally established: buildings or paved roads, driveway, s�parking lots. "Frequently Flooded Areas." See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. "Geologically Hazardous Areas." See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washington five year-s of e�. i . aetieing geologist or- feur- years of exper-ienee and a4 least two years of work in applied geology and landslide evaluation in close assoeiation with qualified, pr-aeti geologists aaa geeteehn ea �eivil eagineer-s. For geologically hazardous areas, an applicant may choose a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least fear -five years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" means areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. In urban areas like the city of Edmonds, habitats of local importance include biodiversity areas and corridors, which are characterized by a framework of ecological components which provides the physical conditions necessary for ecosystems and species populations to survive in a human -dominated landscape. inelude a seasonal range or- habitat element with w-hieh a given speeies has a i asseeiation, and whieh, if altered, may r-eduee the likelihood that the speeies will fnain4ain and r-epiroduee ever the long tefin. These might inelude areas of high relative density or species r4ehness, breeding habitat, wintef fange, and mevement eeFfidefs. These might also iftelude habita4s th4 afe Elf limiste Page 31 of 90 Comment [kpll]: 20151215 council Amendment changed the proposed definition. The previous staff proposed definition read as follows: "Footprint of Existing Development" or "Footprint of Development" means the area of a site that contains legally established: buildings; roads, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, walkways or other areas paved with concrete, asphalt or compacted gravel; outdoor swimming pools; and patios. Packet Page 619 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 availability or high vulnerability to alteration, sueh as eliffi, shorelines, eoastal beaehes, mudflats-, eelg .ass boa and wetlands. (coo l CDC 23 nn nt n(n vn) ) "In lieu fee program" means a program which sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in lieu program sponsor, a governmental or non-profit natural resource management entity. "Landslide Hazard Areas." (See ECDC 23.80.020(B).) "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. than that occurs at include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years. "Noxious weeds" means any plant whieh, when estab4& ea,that is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, limited to those plants on the state noxious weed list contained in Chapter- 16-750 WAC. Page 32 of 90 Comment [kpl2]: 20151215 Council Amendment changed the diameter from 'less than 3-inch" to "less than 4-inch" Packet Page 620 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 "Planning staff' means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For geologically hazardous areasFer- areas of potential ge , the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geete_haiea_ en-~_�-. engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard. If development is to take place within a geologically hazardous area, the qualified critical areas consultant developing mitigation plans and design shall be a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Washington and familiar with landslide and slope stability mitigation. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of five years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. "Reasonable economic use(s)" means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re -development of a property or subject parcel. "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. For wetlands, restoration as compensatory mitigation may include re-establishment or rehabilitation. "Seismic Hazard Areas." (See ECDC 23.80.020(C).4 "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).) "Storm Water Management Manual" means the Stem Water Management ,,,r,,,,ua f the Puget Souna Basin by the Washington State t,o..,,Ament of L',.,.'ogy (as ,.l,.aoa :; stormwater manual specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC). "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such Page 33 of 90 Packet Page 621 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).) "Title" means all chapters of the city of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. "Wetland mitigation bank" means a site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. (See ECDC 23.50.010(B).) [Ord. 3952 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3931 § 2, 2013; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 34 of 90 Packet Page 622 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Chapter 23.50 WETLANDS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart. 23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping —Wetlands. Part 11. Allowed Activities — Wetlands 23.50.020 Allowed activities — Wetlands. Part 111. Additional Report Requirements — Wetlands 23.50.030 Special study and report requirements — Wetlands. Part IV. Development Standards — Wetlands 23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands. 23.50.050 Mitigation requirements — Wetlands. 23.50.060 Performance standards — Subdivisions. Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form 23.50.070 Wetland field data form. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart.o SHRRE See Figure 23.50.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Wetlands. o SHRRE A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035 Washington State Wetland identi fieatio and Delineation r,r,. fma n nm) that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All Page 35 of 90 Packet Page 623 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds - City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas - Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the wetland designation criteria :,. the Tae,.t.f.,... ieti an Delineation Manual, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating system found in the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington decumei4s ( Ecology Publications Nos. 14-06-02993 74 and 04 06 025). Thiese doettmenis contaiffs the definitions and methods for- detei:mining the er-iter-ia and parameters defining the c 11,...,;..g wetland ~,.`:..,. ,.,.',,,.,.~:,,�• Consistent with the wetland rating system criteria and parameters within this document, wetlands that are rated for ecological functions with highest point totals (23 points or higher)_ perform ecological functions associated with water flow, water quality and habitat at highest levels, whereas wetlands that are rated with lowest point totals (15 points or lower) perform ecological functions at lowest levels. Wetlands that are rated with points between 16 and 22 points perform ecological functions at moderate to high levels. 1. The City of Edmonds Wetland Rating Categories: a. Category 4--IWetlands. Category 4-I wetlands are those that represent a unique or rare wetland type; are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The following types of wetlands are Category i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than ones acre; ii. Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; wetlands;Pr-egr-amIDNR as high quality iii. Bogs large. than one half ae iv. Wetlands with mature and old growth forests >`,r.,tue and old gr-o,..a, forested wetlands- larger than one (11) acre; v. Wetlands in coastal lagoons; vi. Wetlands that perform functions at high levels as indicated by a score of 2&twenty-three (231points or more based on functions on the city of Edmonds wetla-ad field data fq4tm. b. Category 2-II Wetlands. Category II wetlands are those that are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. The following types of wetlands are Category 2II i. Estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; Page 36 of 90 Packet Page 624 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 A beg between aiie ,after- and ,. e half ae«e iv. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions as indicated by a score of 544e-6920 to 22 points based on functions or the city of Edmiands . ,etlaf.d f:eld ,data ff c. Category 3-III Wetlands. Category 3-III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions as indicated by a score of 3416 to 50-1_points based on functions. d. Category 4IV Wetlands. Category 4-IV wetlands are those with the lowest levels of functions as indicated by scores below 3�16 points based on functions €sue. All wetlands should be rated consistent with the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washimzton using the 2014 Western Washington Rating Form. field data fefmpr-evided in ECDr 23.59.070 C. Date of Wetland Rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date of adoption of the rating system by the local government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications. D. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Maps produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to identify potential wetland areas. The inventory and cited resources are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds, project applicants, and/or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. E. Delineation. The exact location of a wetland's boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified professional wetland scientist applying the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements`xrashin ten Mate Wetlands 49#7-). Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a lacustrine (lake) environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands existing along the periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided in 23.50.010. System for- Westem Washington Revised (FeelogyPubheat No fin 06 025,220(4). Consistent with Page 37 of 90 Packet Page 625 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional wetlands along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent emergent vegetation in shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds shoreline master program. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part 11. Allowed Activities — Wetlands 23.50.020 Allowed activities — Wetlands.O 5HRRE The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include: A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed. D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or wetland buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or increase the impact to a wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Wetlands 23.50.030 Special study and report requirements — Wetlands. 0 5HRRE A. Additional Requirements for Wetlands. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for wetlands must meet the requirements of this section. Critical Page 38 of 90 Packet Page 626 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. B. Critical areas report requirements for wetlands may be met in "stages" or through multiple reports. The typical sequence of potentially required reports that may in part or in combination fulfill the requirements of this section include: 1. Wetland reconnaissance report documenting the existence and general location of wetlands in the vicinity of a project area; 2. Wetland delineation report documenting the extent and boundary of a jurisdictional wetland per RCW 36.70A.175; and 3. Wetland mitigation report documenting potential wetland impacts and mitigation measures designed to retain or increase the functions and values of a wetland in accordance with ECDC 23.50.050 and the general provisions of this title. C. A wetland critical areas report may include one or more of the above three report types, depending on the information required by the director and the extent of potential wetland impacts. The Edmonds development services director maintains the authority and discretion to determine which report(s) alone or combined are sufficient to meet the requirements outlined below and to waive report requirements based upon site conditions and the potential for project impacts. D. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical area report for wetlands shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a certified professional wetland scientist or a noncertified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five years of experience in the field of wetland science and with experience preparing wetland reports. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for wetlands, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). E. Area Addressed in Critical Area Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical area report for wetlands: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; 2. All wetlands and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All shoreline areas, water features, floodplains, and other critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project area. The location and extent of wetlands and other critical areas existing outside of the project area or subject parcel boundary may be shown in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an assessment of potential project effects. Page 39 of 90 Packet Page 627 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 F. Wetland Analysis. In addition to the minimum required contents of ECDC 23.40.090, Critical areas reports — Requirements, a critical areas report for wetlands shall contain an analysis of the wetlands, including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the wetlands and buffers within 200 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum: a. Wetland delineation and required buffers; b. Existing wetland acreage; c. Wetland category; d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics; e. Soil and substrate conditions; f. Topographic elevations, at two -foot contours; and g. A discussion of the water sources supplying the wetland and documentation of hydrologic regime (locations of inlet and outlet features, water depths throughout the wetland, and evidence of recharge or discharge, evidence of water depths throughout the year: drift lines, algal layers, moss lines, and sediment deposits). The location, extent and analyses of wetlands not contiguous with the subject parcel existing outside of the immediate project area may be described in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an assessment of potential project effects and hydrologic/ecological connectivity to on -site wetlands and other critical areas. 2. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity. 3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland functions. 4. Functional evaluation for the wetland and adjacent buffer using a local or state agency staff - recognized method and including the reference of the method and all data sheets. 5. Proposed mitigation, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps of the mitigation area, including the following information at a minimum: a. Existing and proposed wetland acreage; b. Vegetative and faunal conditions; Page 40 of 90 Packet Page 628 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 c. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions including an analysis of existing and future hydrologic regime and proposed hydrologic regime for enhanced, created, or restored mitigation areas; d. Relationship to the watershed and existing waterbodies; e. Soil and substrate conditions, topographic elevations; f. Existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; g. Required wetland buffers; and h. Property ownership. 6. A scale map of the development proposal site and adjacent area. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. 7. A bond estimate for the installation (including site preparation, plant materials and installation, fertilizers, mulch, and stakes) and the proposed monitoring and maintenance work for the required number of years. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part IV. Development Standards — Wetlands 23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands. o SHRRE A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title. C. Category 4-1 Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category 4-1 wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title. D. Category 241 Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category 241 wetlands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Water -dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas. 2. Where non -water -dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that: Page 41 of 90 Packet Page 629 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer. E. Category 3-III and 4IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category 3411 and 4N wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. F. Wetland Buffers. 1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d below have been establish in accordance with best available science. The buffers are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Ratine Svstem for Western Washington. a. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in ECDC 23.50.040.F.2. where annlicable. to minimize the impacts of the adiacent land uses. b. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, than a thirty- three (33%) increase in the width of all buffer is required. c_The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the buffer is composed of nonnative vegetation, lawn, or bare gro_und yeg tat_e _.. inadequate —,then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may be required to either develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard width or widen the standard width to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.{see „bseetio (F)(2) of this seetion) Required standard wetl.,n buff based .. ,o.,n eaegor-„ ., > wetland t> o as follows: e. ra4egei-7y 1. 50 feet; ,1 Category 4. A 5 F of d. Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Table. Page 42 of 90 Packet Page 630 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Minimum Buffer Buffer Buffer Width Width Buffer Width Width (Wetland Wetland (Wetland scores Wetland Wetland Category scores 3-4 scores 5 scores 6-7 8-9 habitat habitat habitatpoints) habitat points) points) points) Category I: 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Based on total score Cate o1y1: Bogs and 190 ft 190 ft 190 ft 225 ft Wetlands of High Conservation Value Category 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Forested Category I: 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft Estuarine Category ry II: 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Based on score Category III (all) 60 ft 105 ft 165 ft 165 ft Category IV (all) 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. The standard wetland buffer widths in ECDC 23.50.040.F. Le assumes implementation of the following measures, where applicable to a specific proposal. Disturbance Reauired Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Page 43 of 90 Packet Page 631 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentallv Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer Toxic runoff . Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance . Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion Page 44 of 90 Packet Page 632 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of corridors or connections . Maintain connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed • Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting 2. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site -specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria: a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with subsection (17)(3) of this section may substitute. d. The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the director that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species. 63. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. 64. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter. Page 45 of 90 Packet Page 633 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 -5. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is reauired for the duration of the mitiaation bond. G. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses 1. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the City of Edmonds, the applicant shall miti -gate impacts to achieve no not loss of wetland acreage and functions consistent with ECDC 23.50.050 and other annlicable provisions of this Title. 2. At the discretion of the Director, standard wetland buffers may be averaged or reduced when consistent with all criteria in ECDC 23.50.040.G. Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be preferred over wetland buffer averaging with enhancement. Wetland buffer reduction shall only be approved by the director when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on -site. 43. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging with Buffer Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a standard ^f rwetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard or reduced buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that: a. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact: or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; buffers; b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard or reduced buffer; and d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than seventy-five percent /o of the standard or reduced buffer width. Page 46 of 90 Packet Page 634 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 34. Buffer Width Reductions Tghthrough Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmends development sen,iees director, and only when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category 3 III and 4-N wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer width reductions to no less than seventy-five percent 75 / of the standard width; provided, that: a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: i. Iincreased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level ,.Fevidea by a standard b FF or- through additional for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standardsng iner-eases in wetland buffer- fime.:,.nift . as elat ,, .,. including but not limited to: i. Percent vegetative cover; ii. Pr-ovision ,.Fwildlife ,,abit,,*Percent invasive species cover; iii. r, mate e ,.F,..edan hydr-clog Species richness; and iv. n ostriefing ,. edam intr sign an disc rbanc-eAmount of large woody debris Page 47 of 90 Packet Page 635 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 8. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: a. All activities allowed by ECDC 23.50.020 (Allowed activities — wetlands). b. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. bc. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability-, are generally located only in the outer twenty percent (25%) of wetland buffers, and are located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the width of the wetland buffer, trails may be placed in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining wetland buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet in width and for pedestrian use only.Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. The director may allow trails within the inner twenty-five percent (25%) of wetland buffers when required to provide access to wildlife viewing structures, fishing access areas, or connections to other trail facilities; ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet. c. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category 3 or 4 wetlands only; provided, that: i. No other location is feasible; and ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. iii. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category 1 or 2 wetlands. iv. Projects shall also comply with all applicable requirements in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Stormwater Management. includine Minimum Reauirement #8. Wetland Protection. GH. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands. Page 48 of 90 Packet Page 636 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restrictions b. The provisions of subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Permanent Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer under the following circumstances, provided that the director may waive this require: a. As part of any development proposal for single-family plats, single-family, s�plats, multifamily mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area, provided that breaks in permanent fencing may be allowed for access to permitted buffer uses (ECDC 23.50.040.G.8)i b. As part of development proposals for parks where the adjacent proposed use is active recreation and the director determines that such fencing is necessary protect the functions of the critical area; c. When buffer averauma is emDloved as hart of a development DroDosal: d. When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal, or e. At the director's discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area Ill. Additions to Structures Existing Within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers. Page 49 of 90 Packet Page 637 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 1_Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section, provided that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all.- impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, buffer ,-0.7. ,bens through enhancementand wetland buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: 4-a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer; 3b. Outside of a wetland buffer redueed thfough buffer- averaged (,with enhancement)ing per subsection (RG)(43) of this section 2c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced withtlfeugh enhancement) per subsection (liG)(34) of this section; 4d. Outside of the inner twenty five2S percent 25% of the standard wetland buffer width ith no more than three hundred (300hssquare feet of structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard wetland buffer width, Drovided that enhancement is Drovided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact): e. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25%) of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than five hundred (500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard wetland buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques and other measures are included as Dart of the wetland / buffer enhancement Dlan. 2. Where meeting wetland buffer enhancement requirements required by H.1. of this section would result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area. 3. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing in H.1. of this section (i.e., additions proposed within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. Page 50 of 90 Packet Page 638 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 J. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a wetland buffer, provided that the following conditions are met: 1. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.320; 2. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the wetland edge as is feasible: 3. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the wetland and not represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development. 4. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent wetland and associated buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development; 5. Enhancement is provided as wetland or buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within in the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment occurring in wetland buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer: and 6. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the wetland buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. IK. Small, hydrologically isolated wetlandsE*empfiens. The director may allow small, hydroloi>1 cally isolated Category 3-III or IV4 wetlands under 398one thousand- 1( ,000j square feet in area to be exempt from the avoidance sequencing= provisions of ECDC 23.40.120 and the wetland development standards provisions of ECDC 23.50.040.F. At the discretion of the director such wetlands may be altered, F title A tlan exemption shall only b ♦e,] f provided that p"rv=r'isiens�rthiscrcro�r'dP@crurca �e-n gam �n��g~�an«a� a submitted critical areas report and miti atg ion plan, in t'1e fofm of a er-itiea areas r-eeemaissanee- deliNeatioN provides evidence that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The wetland is underless than done thousand (1,000) square feet in area; 2. Thevvetland : a le„ .,lit„ C tegefy 3e. n wetland; 42. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and 3. The wetland is not adiacent to a riparian area: 4. The wetland has a score of three (3) — four (4) points for habitat in the adopted Western Washington rating system; and Page 51 of 90 Packet Page 639 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 5. A mitigation plan to replace lost wetland functions and values is developed, approved and implemented consistent with ECDC 23.50.050. site eonditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.50.050 Mitigation requirements — Wetlands. SHRRE Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Wetland mitigation plans shall be consistent with the state Department of Eeology Gguidelines for --in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecolo¢y, 2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology, 2009)Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Pl.,.... and Proposals, 1994, as revised. A Mitigation shall be r-eqttired in the following order- of prof re flee: 2. Minimizing impaets by limiting the degree or magnitude of the aetion and its implementation, by 1. Avoiding the irnpaet altogether by not taking a eeftain aetion or parts of an aetion. 4. Redtteing of eliminating the irnpaet over time by presen,ation and maintenanee operations. envirefirne«t s. IRA. Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when: 1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site -specific function assessment, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed assessment plan or protocol; or 2. Out -of -kind replacement will best meet formally identified watershed goals, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types. EB. Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference: 1. Implementing compensatory restoration through purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank or through payment into an approved in lieu fee program. Page 52 of 90 Packet Page 640 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 42. Restoring (re-establishing) wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. 23. Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of nonnative, introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is a consistent source of hydrology and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the wetland community that is being designed. 4. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area meeting appropriate ratio requirements. DC. Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for ecological functions shall be in -kind and conducted on the site or in the vicinity of the alteration except when all of the following apply: 1. On -site opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success, after a determination of the natural capacity of the site to mitigate for the impacts. Consideration should include: anticipated wetland mitigation replacement ratios, buffer conditions and proposed widths, hydrogeomorphic classes of on - site wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); 2. Off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the impacted wetland;-a*d 3. Off -site mitigation incorporates ,guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Hrub . 2012); and 24. Off -site locations for compensatory mitigation are consistent with city of Edmonds goals for #msdietionwatershed-wide ecological restoration. Off -site locations are selected with a preference for sites within the same basin as the impact, followed by other sites within the city. Specific areas targeted for restoration efforts include: a. Lake -fringe wetlands and habitat areas associated with Lake Ballinger; b. Edmonds marsh; c. Yost Park wetlands; d. Good Hope wetlands; aPA e. Wetlands and habitat areas peripheral to anadromous fish -bearing streams -.Land f. Sites available through an approved mitigation bank or in --lieu fee program. Page 53 of 90 Packet Page 641 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 This list is not comprehensive and may change as the city of Edmonds identifies areas suitable for restoration and capital improvement projects consistent with goals for jurisdiction -wide habitat retention and enhancement provided in the city's comprehensive plan. ED. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed with an approved monitoring plan prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. EE. Mitigation Ratios. 1. Acreage Replacement Ratios. The ratios in the table below shall apply to e . feStffatiencreation or re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement that is in -kind, is on -sites the same eateget , is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall apply in those cases. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment pursuant to Table la, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-1 la, or as revised). Creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement definitions are provided in ECDC 23.40.320 (see definition for "compensatory mitigation", and shall be additionally consistent with intent pursuant to Ecology Publication #06-06-1 la.-. Category and Tw3e of Wetland Creation or Re- establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement only only Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Category III 21 41 81 Category 11 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category I: 4:1 8:1 16:1 Page 54 of 90 Packet Page 642 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Based on functions Category I: Mature and old growth forest 6:1 12:1 24:1 Category I: High conservation Not considered Not considered Not considered possible possible possible value /Bog Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, 013=ia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) if approved by the director. 2. Off -site Mitigation. These ratios provided in ECDC 23.50.050.F.1. do not apply to off -site mitigation including4he use of credits from a state -certified wetland mitigation bank or payment to a certified in - lieu fee program. When off -site mitigation is proposed, or when er-e 1�Ama-eeFtified mitigation bank or in lieu fee program isare used, replacement ratios mayshould incorporate guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washineton (Ecoloev Publication #10-06-011, Hruby. 2012), and for mitigation banks or in lieu fee program should be consistent with the certification requirements of the 1 ank's et-44i fiention. Use of mitigation banks shall meet all requirements of ECDC 23.50.050.H.T-he first number- eei f es the aer-eage f-eplaee.nent wetlands and the s n.l s eiFos the aer-eage .f wetlands altered: 23. Increased Replacement Ratio. The director may require increased compensatory mitigation ratios under the following circumstances: a. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; b. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions; c. Proposed mitigation will result in a lower -category wetland or reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted; or d. The impact was an unauthorized impact. G. Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation. 1. Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands, but may, at the discretion of the director, be used in conjunction with restoration and/or creation. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical areas report that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will Page 55 of 90 Packet Page 643 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. 2. At a minimum, enhancement acreage shall be double the acreage required for creation or restoration under subsection F of this section. The ratios shall be greater than double the required acreage where the enhancement proposal would result in minimal gain in the performance of wetland functions and/or result in the reduction of other wetland functions currently being provided in the wetland. 3. Mitigation ratios for enhancement in combination with other forms of mitigation shall range from six - to -one to three -to -one and be limited to Class 3 and 4 wetlands. H. Wetland Mitigation Banks and In --Lieu Fee Programs. 1. Wetland Mitigation Banks. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: a. The bank is certified under Chapter- 173 inn W n `'state rules; b. The director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank's certification instrument. d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall heare consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank's certification. e. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank are used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include Dortions of more than one adiacent drainaee basin for specific wetland functions. 32. hi --Lieu Fee Programs. La liett of wetland mitigation bank efed#As an alternative to on -site or other off -site mitigation approaches, the director may prevideapprove purchase of credit for compensatory mitigation from an in lieu fee program. An such used to compensate for direct wetland impacts shall be developed and approved through a public process and be consistent with federal rules, state policy on in lieu fee mitigation and state water quality regulations, Determiningcredit redit purchase necessary to compensate for wetland impacts shall incorporate guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06- 011, Hruby. 2012). Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may contribute payment towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the director, provided that the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where requireL4'lh6-f-e-ug"h--a—p—ol�eant provision of funds to identified eapital improvement pr-ejeets for- wetlan restoration. The direeter- r-etains diser-etion to establish a menetar-yvaltte for- applieafA pfevision of funds which shall be, at a minimum, equal to the eest of designing, developing, implementing and monitor -in Page 56 of 90 Packet Page 644 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 in kind eempeasmer-y mifiga4ieft en site or- in the pfejeet Applicant provision of funds for compensatory mitigation shall only be approved if: a. The director determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the nronosed wetland imnacts:Suc a,.., ine , « be demonstrated to di -eetiy s 3o ft wetland r-estor-afi b. The mitigation will occur on a site identified using the site selection and prioritization process in the approved in --lieu fee program instrument or at a City -identified restoration site consistent with ECDC23.40.140 with the provisionsn .atios of this title. c. A restoration area and plan have been identified and shall be implemented within three years of project development; d. Restoration efforts are focused in Ohose e ident:r.,,,l ,ah gestio (D)(3) of thi,; ,est:,.n and areas identified as suitable for restoration by the director; and e. Credits from an approved in --lieu fee program may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the approved in --lieu fee instrument. A suitable capital iffiffovement pr-ejeet a*d plan fer- implementation is in plaee pr-ief to r-eeeipt ef applicant NYep[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.50.060 Performance standards — Subdivisions. o sHaRE The subdivision and short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers is subject to the following: A. Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided. B. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided; provided, that an accessible and buildable contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the wetland and its buffer. C. Access roads and utilities serving the proposed subdivision may be permitted within the wetland and associated buffers only at the discretion of the director. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form 23.50.070 Wetland field data form.° sHaRE The eity of Edmonds —wetland field data used for completion of wetland ratings shall be consistent with the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Page 57 of 90 Packet Page 645 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Publication #14-06-029; Hruby 2014). depa..tment and on the eity ofEdmonds . ebsi.o [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Figure 23.50.000 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Wetlands watland lD;y ba located sallr! - Reppnnal%nose delermirres that Weelnnd MipaeaelM f/pQH/lE6 W idenufy Ivnh tnll,Wl cannot i ww="E be a ldcdRin¢and nd&dhr y:+xddi•-rna1mn rneac deternaane if Juffsd,cCLFM l -� I•' we¢andh0updarie5 FA Plan vyii; rcrSubJec[ wetland meeLsjurisdf r It Ad emit and cl ossify wetland standard buffer ED w plays •agd:rel. par ti-al critoria and is within 225R of per upda9ed Meth, n or increasewcataNecl 775hd subjeccparceL carogortm ndluncuans subiacl Parcel. PH � Va3uep. wornrra«+a. iVnrand suffer Reromafssanoeidentlfies wi'etla nd Impacts are i0" s'"0 aa`Y Enhancement Plan :4 nddi•'�-;I %euandisnotjurtsdictlMal avoadedthrogb REQUIRED to ploy f`W' land jdr*dltlipna l dewmr- standard bu lfw mwnd-w Inc -rase ''I"A'. A. m nalion is wrlo ad by lhn yf>dtha Frwe'tland In wetlarM tunclions u.$. ArW Corps of oleg ry" aM values. EngFrleersj;o naly rn identifies tha [ wetland Is located 1225 ft YVetI a nd erager Dam sub➢eefpar�el, Noadditional ww,d rpu, MRipaUnn Plan REQIIIR€D f'er cnmplianoe M, pdatedcoderequiro- [egJlrenaent5" nten.ty prove --pli�r.[c mien lion a InCleAu r x•. Hoadditlonal afW4.nd fun'dons wmplfencv and values. mquire nti. PabDc Hearingrfh Lfey . Hearing Wmine v„p.ieo,r.. EQHIRE9 an ly for —rotes, neyaay proi%tg 'or whrch Impacts nnot he mftlltated W re In —tbrd funet!ans and Values. 'kageR n•M1.—h mar is mnf "h'A—WefaaM�•.nlyllame nyoitw nailipen•pertaFmnblu— Page 58 of 90 Packet Page 646 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Chapter 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation.° SHFRE Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. CARAs are protected as critical areas under the Washington State Growth Management Act. However, no areas meeting criteria for CARAs exist in the vicinity of the city of Edmonds. Thus, additional specific provisions for protection of this critical area type are not provided within this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 59 of 90 Packet Page 647 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Chapter 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping -Frequently flooded areas. Part II. Additional Report Requirements - Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.020 Special study and report requirements - Frequently flooded areas. 23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability. Part 111. Development Standards - Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.040 Development standards - Frequently flooded areas. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping - Frequently flooded areas. o sHRRE A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include: 1. Those areas identified on FEMA flood insurance maps as areas of special flood hazard, which include those lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. For the purposes of this title, areas of special flood hazard for the city of Edmonds are hereby declared generally to be those areas shown as Zone A (including Zones A, AE, Al-A30, AH, AO, AR and A99) and Zone V (including Zones V and VE)on the following FEMA maps or panels: 53061 C00; 5306IC1292 E, Panel 1292; 5306IC1285 E, Panel 1285; 53061C1315 E, Panel 1315; and 5306IC1305 E, Panel 1305. &_-VW9, and sueh maps and panels are adopted by this r-efer-enee as a paft of this ehapter- as if fully se feit n.The city will use the most currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a propert ertX is located within a frequently flooded area. Base flood elevations and flood hazard factors for those areas shown as Zone A on the map have not been determined and the local flood management administrator shall utilize such other data as may be reasonably available from federal, state or other sources in administering this chapter as provided in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. 2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above. Page 60 of 90 Packet Page 648 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city's critical areas inventory are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners, and the public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. As flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, newer and more restrictive information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to designate and identify areas known to be prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to the provisions and protections of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Additional Report Requirements — Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.020 Special study and report requirements — Frequently flooded areas. o SHFRE In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for frequently flooded areas must meet the requirements of this section and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A frequently flooded areas report shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a hydrologist or engineer, licensed in the state of Washington, with experience in preparing flood hazard assessments. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for frequently flooded areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). B. Areas to Be Addressed. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for frequently flooded areas: 1. The site area of the proposed activity; 2. All areas of a special flood hazard area, as indicated on the flood insurance map(s), within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All other flood areas indicated on the flood insurance map(s) within 200 feet of the project area. C. Flood Hazard Assessment. A critical area report for a proposed activity within a frequently flooded area shall contain a flood hazard assessment including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. Site and Construction Plans. A copy of the site and construction plans for the development proposal showing: Page 61 of 90 Packet Page 649 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 a. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations, floodway, other critical areas, buffers, and shoreline areas; b. Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain; c. Clearing limits; and d. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and the level to which any nonresidential structure has been floodproofed. 2. Watercourse Alteration. Alteration of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If unavoidable, a critical areas report shall include: a. Extent of Watercourse Alteration. A description of and plan showing the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of a proposal; b. Maintenance Program Required for Watercourse Alterations. A maintenance program that provides maintenance practices for the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the flood - carrying capacity is not diminished. D. Information Regarding Other Critical Areas. Potential impacts to wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas shall be addressed in accordance with the applicable sections of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. 23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability.° SHRRE The degree of flood protection required by this chapter and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside frequently flooded areas or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the city of Edmonds, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Development Standards — Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.040 Development standards — Frequently flooded areas. o SHRRE Development standards and provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas are provided as applicable to areas of special flood hazard in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Conformance with the provisions for flood hazard reduction of the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Page 62 of 90 Packet Page 650 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, shall constitute conformance with ECDC 23.40.050, Protection of critical areas, per the mandates of the Washington Growth Management Act and the purposes and objectives of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Chapter 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Sections: Part 1. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart. 23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping— Geologically hazardous areas. 23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas. 23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas. Part II. Allowed Activities — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.040 Allowed activities — Geologically hazardous areas. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.050 Special study and report requirements — Geologically hazardous areas. Part IV. Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.060 Development standards — General requirements. 23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart. 5HRRE See Figure 23.80.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Geologically hazardous areas.0 5HRRE Page 63 of 90 Packet Page 651 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area: A. Erosion hazard; B. Landslide hazard; and C. Seismic hazard. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas. o SHRRE A. Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion hazard areas are at least those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds erosion hazard areas include: 1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes); c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes); 2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion related to moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat. 32. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils and springs or ground water seepage; and 43. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope. B. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of b soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Within the city of Edmonds potential landslide hazard areas speeifieally-include: Page 64 of 90 Packet Page 652 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 1. Areas of ancient or historic failures in Edmonds which include all areas within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc. and further discussed in the 2007 report by Landau Associates; 2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides) in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas; 3. Areas designated as quaternar steps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps published b, the United States Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Figure 1 Simple Slope Calculation The slope calculation guidance shall be used to determine the toe and top of %Slope for slopes that are potentially Iandslidehazard areas or potentiallyerosion hazard areas. Toe and top of landslide hazard areas (generally slopes of 400A or greater) delineated where incline reverses ordiminishesto <40%over at leas[ 10 feet of horizontal distance. Toe and top of erosion hazard areas (generally slopes 15-40N) deli nested where Inc li ne reverses or di m IN shes to -15% over cf lee e*1n f.e nFi,nri.nnFe I .i ief nee -4D* slope hazard are slope (ew area) over min ID 10, Top of Slope %Slope= Y(VerSlml Rise) 100% N (HCrlw"L Run) cote: Sups, gradie" changes, and incline re er als or 1,m ks helew percern slope: defining landslide hazard areas(W6) and erosion hazard areas (19%) shall he included as pan ofthe largerslepe- Page 65 of 90 Packet Page 653 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 24. Any slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of ten (10) feet over a twenty-five (25) foot horizontal run. Except for rockeries that have been engineered and approved by the engineer as having been built according to the engineered design, all other modified slopes (including slopes where there are breaks in slopes) meeting overall average steepness and height criteria should be considered potential landslide hazard areas): 5. Any slope with all three of the following characteristics: a. Slopes steeper than fifteen percent (15%), b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment: and c. Springs or groundwater se page; A e with a slope f 40 pe entor- steeper- and with eFt relief of 10 or more feet exeept afeas eemposed of eonsolidated r-eek. A slope is delineated b establishing its tee and top (as defined in Figure 1 in subsection (B)(1) of this seetion) and is measure by aver -aging the inelinatien ever- at least 10 feet of veffieal relief of 25 feet of hofizontal distanee. Benehes, steps Wndvaffiatians in gr-adient shall be ineofpar-E�ted into a larger- slope if they do not mee er-iter-ia defining toe andler- top depieted in Figure 1 in subseetion (B)(1) of this seetion (see also Figure 2 E�t the end of this subseetion). if the toe or- top of a slope is loeated off of a subjeet pr-opefty, then the leeation of the tee OF tOp shall be delineated 200 horizontal feet 4om the property boundar-5, or- at its natural loeation, whiehevef is eloser to the sublieet par -eel (see Figtife 2 at the end of this subseetion); 36. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; -and 47. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments 8. Any slopes that have been modified by past development activity that still meet the slope criter C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake -induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface faulting. These areas are designated as having a "high' and "moderate to high" risk of liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources or areas located within er-near-landslide hazard areas. Settlement and soil li"efaetion eonditions eeetff in areas under -lain by eohesionless, loose, or [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004] . 23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas. - 8HRRE Page 66 of 90 Packet Page 654 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 A. The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, resources providing information on the location and extent of geologically hazardous areas in Edmonds include: 1. Washington Department of Ecology coastal zone atlas (for marine bluffs); 2. U.S. Geological Survey geologic maps, landslide hazard maps, and seismic hazard maps; 3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources seismic hazard maps for Western Washington; 4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources slope stability maps; 5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami hazard maps; and 6. Federal Emergency Management Administration flood insurance maps. B. The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Allowed Activities — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.040 Allowed activities — Geologically hazardous areas. o sHaRE The following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas as consistent with ECDC 23.40.220, Allowed activities, Chapter 19.10 ECDC, Building Permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas, and Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Management, and do not require submission of a critical area report: A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Except for installation of fences and as otherwise provided for in this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent with an approved critical areas report in accordance with this title shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas. B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas: 1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly; 2. Additions to existing single -story residences that are 250 square feet or less; and 3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas Page 67 of 90 Packet Page 655 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 23.80.050 Special study and report requirements — Geologically hazardous areas. � SHRRE Critical area report requirements for geologically hazardous areas are generally met through submission to the director of one or more geotechnical engineeringreports. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for geologically hazardous areas must meet the requirements of this section and Chapters 18.30 and 19.10 ECDC as applicable. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. Geotechnical report(s) submitted for the purpose of critical areas review are required as necessary in addition to reports, data and other information mandated per ECDC Titles 18 and 19. Geotechnical report(s) shall be required: whenever a potential erosion hazard area or potential landslide hazard area, as mapped by Edmonds critical areas inventory or shown on other information consistent with ECDC 23.80.030, is located within 50 feet of the proposed development site; whenever a development site is located within a seismic hazard area, or when otherwise determined warranted by the director (e.g. a distance equal to the height of the slope). A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for assessing a potential geologically hazardous area shall be prepared by an-engineef-of geologist licensed in the state of Washington, with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience preparing reports for the relevant type of hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary, the report detailing the mitigation measures and design of the mitigation shall be prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington, with experience stabilizing slopes with similar geotechnical properties. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). B. Area Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for geologically hazardous areas: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; and 2. All geologically hazardous areas within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal. C. Geological Hazards Assessment. A geology hazard assessment ef4ie�report for a geologically hazardous area shall include a field investigation and contain an assessment of whether or not each type of geologic hazard identified in ECDC 20.80.020 is present or not present and if development of the site will increase the risk of landslides or erosion on or off the site. Geotechnical reports shall be prepared, stamped and signed _ by a qualified professional. These reports must: 1. Be annromiate for the scale and scone of the nroiect: 2. Include a discussion of all geologically hazardous areas on the site and any geologically hazardous areas off site potentially impacted by the proposed project. If the affected area extends beyond the subject propertygeology, hazard assessment may utilize existing data sources pertaining to that area; Page 68 of 90 Packet Page 656 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds - City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas - Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 3. Clearly state that the proposed project will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat to persons or property either on or off site and provide a rationale as to those conclusions based on geologic conditions and interpretations specific to the project; 4. Provide adequate information to determine compliance with the requirements of ECDC Chapter 23.80: 5. Generally follow the guidelines set forth in the Washington State Department of Licensing Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006). In some cases, such as when it is determined that no landslide or erosion risk is present, a full report may not be necessary to determine compliance with the ECDC Chapter 23.80, and in those cases a letter or abbreviated report may be provided. 6. If a landslide or erosion hazard is identified, provide minimum setback recommendations for avoiding the landslide or erosion hazard, other recommendations for site development so that the frequency or magnitude of landslidin,g or erosion on or off the site is not altered, and recommendations consistent with ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. and soils,d. Clearing limits-, char-aeter-isfies of the sails, sediments, and/or reek of the pfojeet area and potentially aMeted adjaeent pr-apei4ies, and -A of the site histafy r-egafding landslides, erosion, and prior- g-Fadiog. S analysis shall be aceemplished in aeeor-danee with aeoepted elassifieation systems in use in the The assessment shall ineltide, btA not be limited to: and N,egetation fi3und in the . et area and in A hazard areas addressed in the r-epei4; Page 69 of 90 Packet Page 657 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 b. A detailed evefview of the field iiwesfigatiens, published data, and r-efer-eaees; da4a: and eeftelesiefis from past assessments of the site; and site speeifie measttfements, tests, investigations, or- studies that supp..Ft the ide tifio lion of geologically hazardous ous areas; r.,l events;e. A description of the vulner-ability of the site to seismie and other- geologie 3. Analysis of Proposal. The r-epoi4 shall eontain a h-a-z—ar-dis analysis ineluding a_ deta-fle'd dese-r-iPtion of the project, its Felationship to the geologic hazar-d(s), and its potential impaet upon the hazard area, thee 4. Minimum Buffer- and Building Setbaek. The r-epoFt shall make a reeommendation for- the minimum geoteehnieal analysis. D. Incorporation of Previous Study. Where a valid critical areas report has been prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the required critical areas report. The applicant shall submit a hazards assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. E. Mitigation of Long -Term Impacts. When hazard mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the preexisting level of risk to the site and all other adjaeent-properties potentially impacted on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation). Proposed mitigation techniques shall be considered to provide long-term hazard reduction only if they do not require regular maintenance or other actions to maintain their function. Mitigation may also be required to avoid any increase in risk above the preexisting conditions following abandonment of the activity. F. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Projects within Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, technical information for any development within Dearth subsidence and landslide hazard areas shall meet the requirements of Chapter 19.10 ECDC and include the following information at a minimum: 1. Site Plan. The critical areas report shall include a copy of the site plan for the proposal showing: a. The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the project area; b. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of ground water on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal; and c. The location and description of surface water runoff features; 2. Hazards Analysis. The hazards analysis component of the critical areas report shall specifically include: Page 70 of 90 Packet Page 658 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 a. A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover; b. A description of subsurface conditions based on data from site -specific explorations; c. Descriptions of surface and ground water conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural improvements; d. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure; e. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate or an estimate of the percent risk of landslide area expansion that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year storm event; f. Consideration of the run -out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run -out on down -slope properties; g. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed cuts, fills, and other site grading; h. Recommendations for building siting limitations; and i. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion; 3. Geotechnical Engineering Report. The technical information for a project within a landslide hazard area shall include a geotechnical engineering report prepared by a licensed engineer that presents engineering recommendations for the following: a. Parameters for design of site improvements including appropriate foundations and retaining structures. These should include allowable load and resistance capacities for bearing and lateral loads, installation considerations, and estimates of settlement performance; b. Recommendations for drainage and subdrainage improvements; c. Earthwork recommendations including clearing and site preparation criteria, fill placement and compaction criteria, temporary and permanent slope inclinations and protection, and temporary excavation support, if necessary; and d. Mitigation of adverse site conditions including slope stabilization measures and seismically unstable soils, if appropriate; 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. For any development proposal on a site containing an erosion hazard area, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required. The erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. G. Limited Report Requirements for Stable Erosion Hazard Areas. At the director's discretion, detailed critical areas report requirements may be waived for erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability. Page 71 of 90 Packet Page 659 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Report requirements for stable erosion hazard areas may be met through construction documents that shall include at a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. H. Seismic Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, a critical areas report for a seismic hazard area shall also meet the following requirements: 21. The hazards analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity on the site (for example, forces generated and fault displacement). -32. A geotechnical engineering report shall evaluate the physical properties of the subsurface soils, especially the thickness of unconsolidated deposits and their liquefaction potential. If it is determined that the site is subject to liquefaction, mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of the development shall be recommended and implemented. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part IV. Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.060 Development standards — General requirements. o sHRRE A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and 4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. B. Critical Facilities Prohibited. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is no other practical alternative. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards. 0 5HRRE A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or landslide hazards shall meet the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards — General Requirements, and the specific following requirements: Page 72 of 90 Packet Page 660 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 1. Minimum Building Setback. The minimum setback shall be the distance required to ensure the proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, considered to be one hundred and twenty (120) years and will not cause an increased risk of landslides taking place on or off the site. Ekt ff p n *. A setback buffer shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The size of the setbackbu fef shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional. 2. Buffer Requirements. A buffer may be established with specific requirements and limitations, including but not limited to, drainage grading, irrigation, and vegetation. Buffer requirements shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the eeotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by activities within the buffer area, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report Drenared by a aualified Drofessional. 23. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area, minimum building setback and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that: a. The alteration development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; b. The alteratiolldevelopment will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Design Standards within erosion and landslide hazard areas. Development within an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are: a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed Page 73 of 90 Packet Page 661 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 development site is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties; b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas; c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation; e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties; f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage; 4. Vegetation Retention. Unless otherwise provided or as part of an approved alteration, removal of vegetation from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited; 5. Seasonal Restriction. Clearing shall be allowed only from May 1 st to October 1 st of each year; provided, that the director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case -by -case basis depending on actual weather conditions, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal, may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the city of Edmonds or the Washington State Department of Natural Resources; 6. Point Discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from an erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibited except as follows: a. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazard areas downstream from the discharge; b. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed storm water runoff in the predeveloped state; or c. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low -gradient, undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and storm water runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope; and 7. Prohibited Development. On -site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers. Page 74 of 90 Packet Page 662 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 B. Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. In addition to the requirements of this chapter, development proposals for lands located within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as indicated on the critical areas inventory shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC. C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the standards of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards — General Requirements. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 75 of 90 Packet Page 663 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Figure 23.80.000 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Geologically WaxardousArea s Geologically Ge MAN rdA�W (i a-Narardassess- G-Weivniatkepwi D"elopment hatard0us area RpQphREMEHTS to ment concludes REOIREMEHT to encma[heiwilhin (ge ,hazard) may he Wen* cla55ihcation and jurisdictional delineate boundaries delineated low"on ornear location nl geofiazard_ geo•hm rd area ande tent of %e;hawrd area subject parcel, located within 200h Se*hau darea. and orminimum Of Subject Pa reel. huilding 5eihack. Geo•Hazard assesamew cone lades no jdrisdic- Development a -ids ._Wy—kal RWM tinnal g—haaard gco•hazard aria and located ,2D0 ff Irom required minimum dad�r mndlficaddttsaad Subject parcel. buildingsatbackj MIMPUMMIDd=Mto buffer. a OW&MODRMPOMM risks da scl with derebprwtlnand afauad rdafeas. NOadditional ampliance requirements. No add itional wmpllanoo required. NO additional compliance requirements upon Imptemeotatlon of g-Whnical recommendations 'rmpmr regolr rs mar to cow *e Jb wemlw 4a tm&* p M area reperr er mutbpk Ftjn Inoan rldt Page 76 of 90 Packet Page 664 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 Chapter 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart. 23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping —Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Part 11. Additional Report Requirements — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.020 Special study and report requirements — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Part III. Development Standards — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.030 Development standards — General requirements. 23.90.040 Development standards — Specific habitats. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart. V SHRRE See Figure 23.90.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.a SHRRE A. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in the city of Edmonds include: 1. Streams. Within the city of Edmonds streams shall include those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Streams shall be classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16- 030) hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows: a. Type S: streams inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW; b. Type F: streams which contain fish habitat; Page 77 of 90 Packet Page 665 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 c. Type Np: perennial nonfish habitat streams; and d. Type Ns: seasonal nonfish habitat streams. All streams included on the inventory that are known to exist within the city of Edmonds do not meet criteria for "shorelines of the state" but contain fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type F waters pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. However, not all Edmonds streams support anadromous fish populations or have the potential for anadromous fish occurrence because of obstructions, blockages or access restrictions resulting from existing conditions. Therefore, in order to provide special consideration of and increased protection for anadromous fish in the application of development standards, Edmonds streams shall be further classified as follows: Anadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds in which anadromous fish are known to occur. As of 2004, Edmonds fishbearing streams are known to include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds Creek; and Nonanadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds which do not support fish populations and do not have the potential for fish occurrence because of barriers to fish passage or lack of suitable habitat. Streams with anadromous fish occurrence were identified in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment, a 2002 report of Pentec Environmental which is incorporated by this reference as if herein set forth. The city of Edmonds advocates and encourages the removal of barriers to anadromous fish passage consistent with the purposes and objectives of this title. The director may provide updated information on the occurrence of anadromous fish in Edmonds streams consistent with changes in existing environmental conditions. 2. Areas with AVhieh-which State or Federally Designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Have a Primary Association, or offer important fish and wildlife habitat within the urban environment. a. Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Fisheries that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be consulted for current listing status. b. State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-12-011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The state Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most current listing and should be consulted for current listing status. Page 78 of 90 Packet Page 666 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 3. State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Priority habitats and species are identified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4. Habitats and Species of Local Importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those identified by the city of Edmonds, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. 45. Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas. These areas include all public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest, including shellfish protection districts established pursuant to Chapter 90.72 RCW. 56. Kelp and eelgrass beds and herring and smelt spawning areas. 6-. Naturally Occurring Ponds Under 20 Acres. Naturally occurring ponds are those ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities, unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation. 79. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-031 (or WAC 222-16-030, depending on classification used). B. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title and shall be managed consistent with the best available science, such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Management Recommendations for Priority Habitat and Species. Page 79 of 90 Packet Page 667 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 C. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Resources providing information on the location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas incorporated into the inventory include: 1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species maps; 2. Washington State Department of Natural Resources official water type reference maps, as amended; 3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Puget Sound intertidal habitat inventory maps; 4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources shorezone inventory; 5. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program mapping data; 6. Washington State Department of Health annual inventory of shellfish harvest areas; 7. Anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in the habitat limiting factors reports published by the Washington Conservation Commission; and 8. Washington State Department of Natural Resources state natural area preserves and natural resource conservation area maps. The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants, and/or property owners and should be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical areas designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Additional Report Requirements — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.020 Special study and report requirements — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.° SHARE In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical area reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas must meet the requirements of this section. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a biologist with experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). Page 80 of 90 Packet Page 668 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 B. Areas Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; 2. All fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All shoreline areas, floodplains, other critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project area: and- 4. A discussion of the efforts to avoid and minimize potential effects to these resources and the implementation of mitigation/enhancement measures as required. C. Habitat Assessment. A habitat assessment is an investigation of the project area to evaluate the potential presence or absence of designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat. A critical areas report for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall contain an assessment of habitats, including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and its associated buffer; 2. Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species; 3. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area. D. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Streams. Consistent with specific development standards for Edmonds streams (ECDC 23.90.040(D)), critical areas report requirements for streams may be met, at the discretion of the director, through submission of one or more specific report types. If stream buffer enhancement is proposed to reduce a standard stream buffer width or as part of project mitigation required by the director, a stream buffer enhancement plan may be submitted to fulfill the requirements of this section. If no project impacts are anticipated and standard stream buffer widths are retained, a stream survey report, general critical areas report or other reports alone or in combination may be submitted as consistent with the specific requirements of this section. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas provided in subsections (A) through (C) of this section, technical information on streams shall include the following information at a minimum: 1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the stream and associated hydrologic features within 200 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum: a. Stream survey showing the ordinary high water mark(s); Page 81 of 90 Packet Page 669 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 b. Standard stream buffer boundary; c. Boundary for proposed reduced stream buffers; d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics; e. Soil and substrate conditions; and f. Topographic elevations, at two -foot contours; 2. A detailed description and functional assessment of the stream buffer under existing conditions pertaining to the protection of stream functions, fish habitat and, in particular, potential anadromous fisheries; 3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and stream functions; 4. Proposed buffer enhancement, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps and planting plans for buffer areas to be enhanced, including the following information at a minimum: a. A description of existing buffer conditions; b. A description of proposed buffer conditions and how proposed conditions will increase buffer functioning in terms of stream and fish habitat protection; c. Performance standards for measuring enhancement success through a monitoring period of at least three years; and d. Provisions for monitoring and submission of monitoring reports documenting buffer conditions as compared to performance standards for enhancement success; 5. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect stream functions and habitat value through maintenance of vegetation density within the stream buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. Part III. Development Standards — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.030 Development standards — General requirements. o SHFRE A. Alterations. A fish and wildlife habitat conservation area may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the habitat. There are no specific development standards for upland habitats of local importance unless these areas include another critical area (streams, heron rookeries, steep slopes, etc.). City staff will review the critical areas report (ECDC 23.90.020) and work with the applicant to minimize effects or improve conditions to upland habitat. Page 82 of 90 Packet Page 670 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 B. Approvals of Activities. The director shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or adjacent to a habitat conservation area or its buffers as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions shall be based on the best available science and may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Establishment of buffer zones; 2. Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as snags and downed wood; 3. Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access; 4. Seasonal restriction of construction activities; 5. Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities; and 6. Requirement of a performance bond, when necessary, to ensure completion and success of proposed mitigation. C. Mitigation and Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions. Mitigation of alterations to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis. Mitigation shall be located on -site except when demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an off -site location. Mitigation shall be detailed in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area mitigation plan, which may include the following as necessary: 1. A native vegetation planting plan; 2. Plans for retention, enhancement or restoration of specific habitat features; 3. Plans for control of nonnative invasive plant or wildlife species; and 4. Stipulations for use of innovative, sustainable building practices. D. Approvals and the Best Available Science. Any approval of alterations or impacts to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall be supported by the best available science. E. Buffers. 1. Establishment of Buffers. The director shall require the establishment of temporary or permanent buffer areas for permitted activities adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas which may result in fish or wildlife disturbance (e.g., construction, grading, etc.) when needed to protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Establishment of buffers shall follow recommendations set forth by a Page 83 of 90 Packet Page 671 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 qualified biologist in the project critical areas report. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity of the habitat and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted nearby and shall be consistent with the management recommendations issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. Seasonal and Daily Timing Restrictions. When a species is more susceptible to adverse impacts during specific periods of the year or day, seasonal restrictions on permitted activities within or adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas may be required at the discretion of the director pursuant to recommendations set forth in a critical areas report. F. Signs and Fencing of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field as required by the director in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of a metal face and attached to a metal post or another material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restriction b. The provisions of subsection (F)(2)(a) of this section may be modified by the director as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Fencing. a. The director shall determine if fencing is necessary to protect the functions and values of the critical area. If found to be necessary, the director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter to require the applicant to install a permanent fence at the edge of the fish and wildlife Page 84 of 90 Packet Page 672 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 habitat conservation area or buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. b. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on -site. c. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes habitat impacts. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.90.040 Development standards — Specific habitats. o SHRRE A. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species. 1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency. 2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the director. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies. 3. Bald eagle habitat is subject to the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. WashinjZton State bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-12-292) shall not be required as long as bald eagles are not listed as a State Endangered or Threatened species. Bala o ele h., ita+shall be ....,.teetea 3 nt t B. Anadromous Fish. 1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following standards: a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species; Page 85 of 90 Packet Page 673 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible; c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; d. Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and e. Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report. 2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. 3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water -dependent use. C. Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels. As a provision of this title, the director shall require retention of a minimum of 30 percent of native vegetation on undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 per Chapter 16.10 ECDC. This standard for development shall apply to all undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20 area -hat contain a landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 23.80.020.B; a stream or stream buffer; or a wetland or wetland buffer, except for as provided in ECDC 23.90.040.C.4._This provision for native vegetation retention will provide increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Edmonds jurisdiction, and shall be applied consistent with the following criteria: 1. Achieving the minimum 30 percent retention requirement for native vegetation shall be determined by assessing the existing site area that supports native vegetation. For purposes of this provision, areas that support native vegetation shall include areas dominated by plant species which are indigenous to the 2. The goal of 30 percent native vegetation can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation, establishing native vegetation, or a combination of both. 3. A vegetation management plan, subject to the approval of the director, is required for approval of the proposed development. 4. For undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 that currently do not support any native vegetation areas meeting minimum requirements in ECDC 23.90.040.C.1, the director may waive the requirements of this provision. Page 86 of 90 Comment [kpl3]: 20151215 council Amendment changed required diameter and percent canopy coverage from "10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) make up more than 70 percent of the canopy cover" to "6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) make up more than 40 percent of the canopy cover." Packet Page 674 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 D. Streams. No alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted unless consistent with the provisions of this title and the specific standards for development outlined below. 1. Standard Stream Buffer Widths. Buffers for streams shall be measured on each side of the stream, from the ordinary high water mark. The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing in the city of Edmonds: a. Type S: 150 feet; b. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 100 feet; c. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: 75 feet; d. Type F nonanadromous fishbearing stream: 75 feet; e. Type Np: 50 feet; f Type Ns: 2-5-40 feet. General areas and stream reaches with access for anadromous fish are indicated on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. The potential for anadromous fish access shall be confirmed in the field by a qualified biologist as part of critical areas review and determination of standard stream buffer widths. 2. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths. Standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 50 twen , five percent (25%) of the standard stream buffer width concomitant to development and implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the provision of wildlife habitat. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and: a. than a standard buffer- without enhaneenwn* ..,, The buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer reduction provides evidence that functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will be i. Increased or retained throueh elan implementation for those streams where existine buffer vegetation is generally intact: or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the stream; Page 87 of 90 Packet Page 675 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success for a minimum of five L5 years in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D) and (E); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in stream buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Protection of anadromous fisheries; iv. Enhancement of fish habitat; and v. Restricting intrusion and disturbance. 3. Stream Buffer Width Averaging with Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a standards stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a stream buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional demonstrates that: a. The buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer averaging provides evidence that functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will be: i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the stream, b. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a stream extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; be. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than -5075 percent of the reduced or standard width; and e. The funetions and values of the stfeam and asseeiated buffer will not be diminished through the use o buff-er- , Page 88 of 90 Packet Page 676 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 4. Additions to Structures Existing within Stream Buffers. a. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this chapter (ECDC 23.90.030 and this section)-, provided that a buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard stream buffers, buff f .oa,,, liens three,,. efth +ieemei+t and stream buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions through enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: ai. Outside of the standard stream buffer; hii. Outside of a stream buffer averaged (with enhancement) per subsection (D)(23) of this section; eiii. Outside of a stream buffer reduced (with enhancement) *,,,.,,ug bu f r� per subsection (13)(32) of this section; or div. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25%) per-eefA of the standard stream buffer width dffaia k ith no more than three hundred (300) square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer width, Drovided that enhancement is Drovided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact). v. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard stream buffer width with no more than five hundred (500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio (enhancement -to - impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques or other measures that enhance existing buffer condition are included as Dart of the stream buffer enhancement elan. b. Where meeting stream buffer enhancement requirements required by H.1. of this section would result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area. c. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. 5. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment occurring within a stream buffer, provided that the following conditions are met: Page 89 of 90 Packet Page 677 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 a. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.320; b. The proposed development within the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment is sited as far away from the stream edge as is feasible; c. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the stream and not represent an undue burden ,given the scale of the proposed development. d. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent remaining stream buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development: e. Enhancement is provided as buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within in the footprint of existing development occurring in stream buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer: and i Impacts from temporary disturbances within the stream buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. 56. Stream Crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed only if all reasonable construction techniques and best management practices are used to avoid disturbance to the stream bed or bank. Upon completion of construction, the area affected shall be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted with native species and/or otherwise protected according to a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan approved by the director, and maintained and monitored per the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and providing for buffer enhancement in accordance with the requirements of subsection (13)(2) of this section. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that best management practices will be used during construction to provide the following: a. Fisheries protection, including no interference with fish migration or spawning; b. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow periods and shall be timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when stream use is critical to salmonids; c. Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas unless no other possible crossing site exists; d. Crossings and culverted portions of the stream shall be minimized to the extent feasible and serve multiple purposes and multiple lots whenever possible; e. Roads may cross streams only on previously approved rights -of -way, provided no practical alternative exists and adequate provision is made to protect and/or enhance the stream through appropriate mitigation. Roads shall be designed and located to conform to topography, and maintained to prevent erosion and restriction of the natural movement of ground water as it affects the stream; Page 90 of 90 Packet Page 678 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 f Roads and utilities shall be designed in conjunction to minimize the area of disturbance to the stream; and g. Roads shall be constructed so as to minimize adverse impacts on the hydrologic quality of the stream or associated habitat to a degree acceptable to the city; h. An alternative alienment or location with less impact is not feasible: and i. The crossine will be designed as near as Demendicular with the water bodv as Dossible.7 67. Trails. After reviewing the proposed development and technical reports, the director may determine that a pedestrian -only trail may be allowed in a stream buffer; provided, no pervious suffaee materials are used, all appropriate provision is made to protect water quality, and all applicable permit requirements have been met. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed within a stream or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance or security. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect streams by limiting vehicular access to designated public use or interpretive areas. -78. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within stream buffers; provided, that: a. No other location is feasible; b. PiDes and convevance facilities will be in the outer twentv five Dercent (25%) of the buffer: c. Stormwater dispersion outfalls, bioswales, and bioretention facilities may be allowed anywhere within stream buffers: d. Such facilities are designed consistent with requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30; and be. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream or stream buffer. 99. City Discretion in Protection, Enhancement and Preservation of Streams. The city of Edmonds is unique within the state of Washington as a built -out community with streams that have been incorporated within, and often located immediately adjacent to, residential development. This title allows the director full discretion to condition proposals for development on parcels containing, adjacent to, or potentially impacting streams to enhance conditions consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions on development shall be required to enhance streams and stream buffers as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to provide increased protection of anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include: a. Removal of stream bank armoring; Page 91 of 90 Packet Page 679 of 1075 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 b. In -stream habitat modification; c. Native planting; d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat; e. Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading; f. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species; g. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers; and h. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses. The right of discretion in provisioning development in regard to streams is maintained in order to provide for the creation of enhanced conditions over those currently existing around streams in the city of Edmonds. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard stream buffer widths as provided in subsection (D)(1) of this section can be accommodated by project development, the applicant shall be required to submit a stream buffer enhancement plan or a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report indicating that post -project site conditions will provide equivalent or greater protection of stream functions and fish habitat over a standard stream buffer and existing site conditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 92 of 90 Packet Page 680 of 1075 Figure 23.90.000 Attachment A City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, January 11, 2016 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas NUI and 1%='fi ['i"All Cianal Aire 14F, lI,:i lriticn[Irca Reort C:i ni 1.A- Ha6iu,(:o�eraalian FpiII );YT i.i iar,ttifi[a jutmicrional IIWtA] Huy .nny' nre, wi,6nt2W fi of rrcn i,x an as Ibxr impdna on ti.ki.ix 2"f}1'i1C Ilunj., pan,l. u[h.,biiat and idcrnil, MAC'A will liQ.cll• eAjnr W.L� n: It of puimlcl imp—rnuliin, m lr If— prui uil•ini p.inul. Imm pnrjrct rlev Jnpmrn i. Jn�elopnwnl. 0 1i•'al .Ale., Heporl mneludrs iw [Itxi nanilar Fun,eiunx No addilirmol nM •aluea will nnr hr juriaic[ional areas dnrrnplin 3 m d Ihmugh proim locriod•mhi._l' of 5 &rdgrn.t. *7xiremenrs. suhjeq percxl. CCC ' Nn edd tiwn.l adAk,pnal onopl6xn JU are [cquircmentu rrquiuirem llrmm BYlfie FMxn rik 5neew AEQLI 14m RF)WRED u, in dasTp n¢xni an prolep win reaifl armonsn afr rt a don of lsxgeer awrla, imp 1, Jceernurn if sircam ` in srrn nnifxr +i r and buffer rmik—. In,� Y51n urcnm xmn and buffer bul5•r r ill Ica iinpar ied impacts wilh.ianLi"ni _ t• ndlr.I, cairn Ild_a&r n,eid[d lhmugh v h n d.,d buff,, prujr,i inipinixn,a�i, a with ZRcr wMths. bull,, widt5"4". 4 11. nuf uTrduction. wdl6s. uanaanl li ter nrJlb. Nn addilxnal Noadditiml 5trc rnhufhrwxreging Fortner huflet Noaadid-1 mmpliaxee wwgrtinnot allowed wish aaitional reduction n d,d m ramldlansv reyuiremmtx ,eyuit—rO hufff enit—meal- a w NuFFer irnnaea. rrywreinena. *Report requirements may be met through submission of a single critical area report or multiple reports in combination. Page 93 of 90 Packet Page 681 of 1075 Attachment B 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments. The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows: A. Section 104.3, Notices and Orders, is amended to read: The building official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with this code. The building official is also authorized to use Chapter 20.110 ECDC for code compliance in addition to the remedies provided for in this code. B. Section 105.1.1, Annual Permit, is deleted. C. Section 105.1.1, Demolition Permits, is added and shall read: Before the partial or complete demolition of any building or structure (interior or exterior), a demolition permit shall be obtained from the building official. The permit fee is established pursuant to Chapter 19.70 ECDC. The applicant shall also post with the city, prior to permit issuance, a performance bond, or frozen fund, conforming to Chapter 17.10 ECDC herein, in an amount to be determined by the building official to satisfy all city requirements no later than 180 days after the issuance of the permit. The demolition performance bond or frozen fund shall not be released until the building official determines the following requirements have been completed: 1 Cap Abandoned Sanitary Sewers. Septic tanks shall be pumped, collapsed and removed and/or filled with earth, sand, concrete, CDF or hard slurry. 2 Knock Down of Concrete Foundation Walls, Porches, Chimneys and Similar Structures. Concrete, bricks, cobbles and boulders shall be broken to less than 12-inch diameter. Debris left on site shall conform to IBC Section 1804.2 for clean fill. 3 Construction debris, vegetation, and garbage attributable to the demolition shall be removed from the site and from unopened street right-of-way within 30 days of written notice. No debris of any kind may be placed or maintained on street right-of-way (including alleys) without a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 18.60 or 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 4 Repair of any damage to, and restoration of, any public property to substantially original conditions, i.e., alley, street, sidewalk, landscaping, water meter, utilities, rockeries, retaining walls, etc, in accordance with this code and the City's engineering requirements. 5 Grading of Site Back to Original Topography Grades. Basements shall be filled and compacted to 90 percent as verified by a special inspector. "Structural fill" is defined as any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils need to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill shall be clean and free draining, placed above unyielding native site soils and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent modified proctor, per ASTM D1557. 6 Temporary erosion control shall be installed and maintained per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. D. Section 105.1.2, Annual permit records, is deleted. E. Section 105.2, Work exempt from permit, is replaced as follows: Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with bulk zoning code standards per ECDC Title 16 and storm water management provisions per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Permits shall not be required for the following unless required by the provisions of ECDC Title 23 or limited or prohibited by the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC: Page 1 of 9 Packet Page 682 of 1075 Attachment B 1. Building (general): (a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (measured to the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 120 square feet, with a maximum eave of thirty (30) inches. (b) Fences not over six (6) feet high; provided a permit is not required by Chapter 17.30 ECDC. (c) Movable cases, counters and partitions not over five (5) feet nine (9) inches high. (d) Retaining walls 4 feet (1,219 nun) in height or less measured vertically from the finished grade at the exposed toe of the retaining wall to the highest point in the wall, unless: I Supporting a surcharge; or II Impounding Class I, II, III -A liquids; or III Subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC. (e) Rockeries. (f) Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed two (2) to one (1). (g) Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route, provided a permit is not required by Chapter 18.60 ECDC. (h) Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops and similar finish work. (i) Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 0) Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes. (k) Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to an occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons. Hot tubs and spas less than 5,000 gallons, completely supported by the ground. (1) Grading less than fifty (50) cubic yards (placed, removed or moved within any 365-day period) unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC. (m) Repair of appliances which do not alter original approval, certification, listing or code. (n) Replacement or adding new insulation with no drywall removal or placement. (o) Replacement or repair of existing gutters or downspouts. (p) The following types of signs are exempt from permit requirements except that dimensional size and placement standards shall comply with Chapter 20.60 ECDC: I. Replacing the panel on a previously permitted existing wall cabinet or pole sign, II. Repainting an existing previously permitted wood sign, III. Painted or vinyl lettering on storefront windows, IV. Governmental signs, campaign signs, official public notices, and signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law, Page 2 of 9 Packet Page 683 of 1075 Attachment B V. Temporary signs announcing the sale or rent of property and other temporary signs as described in ECDC 20.60.080, VI. Signs erected by the transportation authorities, and temporary seasonal and holiday displays. 2. Mechanical: (a) Portable heating, ventilation, cooling, cooking or clothes drying appliances. (b) Replacement of any part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe. (c) Portable fuel cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed piping system and are not interconnected to a power grid. (d) Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by this code. (d) Portable evaporative cooler. (f) Self-contained refrigeration systems containing ten (10) pounds or less of refrigerant or that are actuated by motor of one (1) horsepower or less. 3. Plumbing: (a) The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided that the replacement of defective material shall be done with new material and a permit obtained and inspection made. (b) Reinstallation or replacement of approved prefabricated plumbing fixtures that do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves or pipes. 4. Residential permit exemptions: In addition the following exemptions apply for single family dwellings: (a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (measured to the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 200 square feet, with a maximum eave of twelve (12) inches and maximum height of fifteen (15) feet. Vehicle storage structures, such as garages and carports, are not exempted. (b) Window awnings supported by an exterior wall and do not project more than fifty-four (54) inches from the exterior wall and do not require additional support. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply to such awnings. (c) Sport courts less than 2,000 square feet. (d) Dock repair of individual decking members. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply. (e) Replacement or repair of existing exterior siding. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply. (f) Replacement or repair of existing windows or doors provided; no alteration of structural members is required, the replacement would not require installation of safety glazing, the installation does not involve required egress windows. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply- (g) Minor like -for -like drywall repairs not involving fire -rated assemblies. Page 3 of 9 Packet Page 684 of 1075 Attachment B (h) Replacement or repair of individual decking, joists, stair treads, or intermediate rails. ECDC Title 23 provisions do not apply. (i) Uncovered platforms, decks, patios, not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not more than thirty (30) inches above grade at any point and do not serve the exit door required by IRC Section R311.4. 0) Canopies, as defined in ECDC 17.70.035, accessory to a single family dwelling, with a floor area measured to the exterior wall or post not to exceed 200 square feet, for covered storage, carport or similar use. (k) Reroof overlays, except that all existing layers of roofing must first be removed if the existing material is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos tile, or where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roofing. F. Section 105.3.2, Time limitation of permit application, is amended to read: 1. Applications, for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application, shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. 2. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days prior to such expiration date. 3. No application shall be extended more than once for a total application life of 360 days except as allowed within this section. In order to renew action on an expired application, the applicant shall submit a new application, revised plans based on any applicable code or ordinance change, and pay new plan review fees. 4. The Building Official may extend the life of an application if any of the following conditions exist: (a) Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act is in progress; or (b) Any other City review is in progress; provided, the applicant has submitted a complete response to City requests or the Building Official determines that unique or unusual circumstances exist that warrant additional time for such response and the Building Official determines that the review is proceeding in a timely manner toward final City decision; or (c) Litigation against the City or applicant is in progress, the outcome of which may affect the validity or the provisions of any permit issued pursuant to such application. G. Section 105.3.3, Fully complete application, is added and reads: In accordance with the provisions of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, an applicant's rights shall vest when a fully complete building permit application is filed. A fully complete building permit application is an application executed by the owners of the property for which the application is submitted or the duly authorized agent(s) for such owners, containing each and every document required under the terms of these ordinances and the IBC and is substantially complete in all respects. It is anticipated that minor changes or revisions may be required and are frequently made in the course of any building application review process, and such minor revisions or changes shall not keep an application from being deemed complete if a good faith attempt has been made to submit a substantially complete application containing all required components. Where required, the application and supporting documents shall be stamped and/or certified by the appropriate engineering, surveying or other professional consultants. A fully complete building permit application shall be accompanied by all required intake fees, including but not limited to plan review fees required under the provisions of this chapter and code. Page 4 of 9 Packet Page 685 of 1075 Attachment B H. Section 105.3.4, Concurrent review, is added and reads: An applicant may submit an application for building permit approval and request plan review services concurrently with, or at any time following, the submittal of a complete application for any necessary or required discretionary permit approval or discretionary hearing; provided, that any building permit application submitted concurrently with an application for discretionary permit or approvals shall not be considered complete unless the applicant submits a signed statement, on a form approved by the director, which acknowledges that the building permit application is subject to any conditions or requirements imposed pursuant to the review and approval of any necessary or required discretionary permit or approvals. The applicant shall solely bear the risk of building permit submittal with discretionary permit approval. If, after discretionary approval, the building permit plans are modified or amended to comply with conditions or restrictions required by any discretionary permit or approval, the applicant shall be solely responsible for any and all costs which result therefrom, including but not limited to additional full plan review fees; provided further, that any applicant -initiated changes made after the original plan review is complete shall also require payment of full plan review fees. I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read: 1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2). 2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be extended, unless they are associated with a primary building permit for a larger construction project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit: Demolition permits; Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC; Mechanical permits; Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits; Grading, excavation and fill permits; Water service line permits; Plumbing permits; Gas piping permits; Deck and dock permits; Fence permits; Re -roof permits; Retaining wall permits; Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits; Sign permits; Shoring permits; Foundation permits. Page 5 of 9 Packet Page 686 of 1075 Attachment B 3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for an additional year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required, with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC 20.07.004 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision. 6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of a new permit. J. Repealed by Ord. 3926. K. Section 107.3.3, Phased approval, is amended to read: 1. The building official may issue partial permits for phased construction as part of a development before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure have been approved provided architectural design board approval has been granted and a fully complete permit application for the entire building or structure has been submitted for review. 2. Phased approval means permits for grading, shoring, and foundation may be issued separately, provided concurrent approval is granted by the planning manager, city engineer and fire marshal, when applicable. No phased approval permit shall be issued unless approved civil plans detailing the construction of all site improvements including, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved streets, water lines, sewer lines, and storm drainage have been signed as approved by the city engineer. 3. With such phased approval, a performance bond shall be posted with the city pursuant to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, to cover the estimated cost of construction to city standards for the improvements. L. Section 108, Temporary Structures and Uses, is deleted. M. Section 110.3.3, Lowest floor elevation, is amended to read: In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certification required in Section 1612.5 shall be submitted to the building official. Prior to final inspection approval, the building official shall require an elevation certificate based on finished construction prepared and sealed by a State licensed land surveyor. N. Section 113, Board of Appeals, is deleted and replaced by Chapter 19.80 ECDC. Page 6 of 9 Packet Page 687 of 1075 Attachment B O. Section 501.2, Address Identification, is amended to read: Approved numbers or addresses shall be installed by the property owner for new and existing buildings in such a position as to be clearly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property. Letters or numbers on the building shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height and stroke a minimum of .75 inch of a contrasting color to the building base color. Where public or private access is provided and the building address cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other approved sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. This means of premises identification does not preclude approved identification also affixed to structure. P. Section 1612.1.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads: Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded from the 50 percent calculation. Q. IBC section 1612.4.1, Lowest Flood Elevation, is added and reads: For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. QR. Section 3103, Temporary Structures, is deleted. RS. Section 3108.1.1, Radio, television and cellular communication related equipment and devices, is added and reads: A permit shall be required for the installation or relocation of commercial radio, television or cellular tower support structures including monopoles, whip antennas, panel antennas, parabolic antennas and related accessory equipment, and accessory equipment shelters (regardless of size) including roof mounted equipment shelters. 8T. Section 3109.1, Applicability and maintenance, is amended to read: 1. Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas of all occupancies shall comply with the requirements of this section and other applicable sections of this code. 2. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a swimming pool, hot tub or spa in a clean and sanitary condition and all equipment shall be maintained in a satisfactory operating condition when the swimming pool, hot tub or spa is in use. A swimming pool, hot tub or spa that is neglected, not secured from public entry and/or not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition or its equipment in accord with manufacturers recommendations shall be determined to be a hazard to health and safety and shall be properly mitigated to the satisfaction of the building official. -TU. Section 3109.3, Public Swimming Pools, is deleted. UV. Section 3109.4, Residential Swimming Pools, is deleted. VW. Section 3109.6, Location and Setbacks, is added and reads: Page 7 of 9 Packet Page 688 of 1075 Attachment B Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas shall meet requirements of the zoning code of the city of Edmonds. 1. Minimum setbacks are measured from property lines to the inside face of the pool, hot tub or spa as required by the zoning code for accessory structures. 2. All other accessory buildings and equipment shall meet the normally required setbacks for accessory structures in the zone in which they are located. WX. Section 3109.7, Tests and cross -connection devices, is added and reads: 1. All swimming pool, hot tub and spa piping shall be inspected and approved before being covered or concealed. 2. Washington State Department of Health approved cross connection devices are required to be provided on potable water systems when used to fill any swimming pool, hot tub or spa. XY. Section 3109.8, Wastewater disposal, is added and reads: A means of disposal of the total contents of the swimming pool, hot tub or spa (including partial or periodic emptying) shall be reviewed and approved by the public works director. 1. No direct connection shall be made between any swimming pool, hot tub or spa to any storm drain, city sewer main, drainage system, seepage pit, underground leaching pit, or sub -soil drain. 2. A sanitary tee (outside cleanout installed on the main building side sewer line) shall be provided for draining of treated water into the city sanitary sewer system. YZ. Section 3109.9, Inspection requirements, is added and reads: The appropriate city inspector shall be notified for the following applicable inspections: 1. Footing, wall, pre -form, pre-gunite, erosion control, underground plumbing, sanitary extension and cleanout, mechanical pool equipment, gas piping, mechanical enclosure location, cross connection and final inspection. 2. An initial cross connection control installation inspection is required by the city cross connection control specialist prior to final installation approval. 3. All backflow assemblies shall be tested by state certified backflow assembly testers upon initial installation and then annually thereafter. Copies of all test reports shall be submitted to the city water division for review and approval. ZAA. Section 3403.2.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads: Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor areas; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent. AABB. Appendix E, Accessibility Requirements, is amended by deleting Sections E107, E108, El 10 and El 11. Page 8 of 9 Packet Page 689 of 1075 Attachment B 13HCC. Appendix G, Flood -Resistant Construction, is amended by addition of new section: Section G301.1(4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is less. CODD. Appendix H, Signs, is amended as follows: 1. Section H101.2, Signs exempt from permits, is replaced by subsection (E)(1)(p) of this section. 2. Section H101.2.1, Prohibited signs, is added and reads as follows: a. It is unlawful for any person to advertise or display any visually communicated message, by letter or pictorially, of any kind on any seating bench, or in direct connection with any bench. b. All signs not expressly permitted by Chapter 20.60 ECDC. c. Signs which the city engineer determines to be a hazard to vehicle or pedestrian traffic because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or pose a hazard to a pedestrian walkway or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage. Such signs shall be immediately removed at the request of the city engineer. d. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way and that have been improperly posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate removal and confiscation per ECDC 20.60.090. 3. Sections H104, Identification, H106.1.1, Internally illuminated signs, H107, Combustible materials, H108, Animated devices, H109.1, Height restrictions, and H110, Roof signs, are deleted. [Ord. 3926 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 3845 § 6, 2011; Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. Page 9 of 9 Packet Page 690 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 EDMONDS CITY CODE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: Part I. Purpose and General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose. 23.40.010 Authority. 23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations. 23.40.030 Severability. 23.40.040 Jurisdiction — Critical areas. 23.40.050 Protection of critical areas. Part H. Critical Areas Review Process 23.40.060 General requirements. 23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation. 23.40.080 Notice of initial determination. 23.40.090 Critical areas report — Requirements. 23.40.100 Critical areas report— Modifications to requirements. 23.40.110 Mitigation requirements. 23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing. 23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements. 23.40.140 Innovative mitigation. 23.40.150 Critical areas decision. 23.40.160 Review criteria. 23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision. Page 1 of 90 Packet Page 691 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision. 23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review. 23.40.200 Appeals. 23.40.210 Variances. 23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties 23.40.220 Allowed activities. 23.40.230 Exemptions. 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement. Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures 23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs. 23.40.270 Critical areas tracts. 23.40.280 Building setbacks. 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. 23.40.300 Critical areas inspections. Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science 23.40.310 Best available science. Part VI. Definitions 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. Part I. Purpose and General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose. A. The purpose of this title is to designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private property. Page 2 of 90 Packet Page 692 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 B. This title is to implement the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the comprehensive plan and the Washington State Growth Management Act. C. The city of Edmonds finds that critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit Edmonds and its residents, and/or may pose a threat to human safety or to public and private property. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include, but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation of flood waters, ground water recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, protection from hazards, historical, archaeological, and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority. D. Goals. By limiting development and alteration of critical areas, this title seeks to: 1. Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, or flooding; 2. Maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, including ground and surface waters, wetlands, and fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species; 3. Direct activities not dependent on critical areas resources to less ecologically sensitive sites and mitigate unavoidable impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas; and 4. Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat, and the overall net loss of wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. E. The regulations of this title are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the Growth Management Act and through the application of the best available science, as determined according to WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172, and in consultation with state and federal agencies and other qualified professionals. F. This title is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site -specific characteristics. It is not the intent of this title to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to support existing development. G. The city of Edmonds' enactment or enforcement of this title shall not be construed to benefit any individual person or group of persons other than the general public. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.010 Authority. A. As provided herein, the Edmonds development services director or his/her designee (hereafter referred to as "the director") is given the authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to enforce, this title to accomplish the stated purpose. Page 3 of 90 Packet Page 693 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 B. The director may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations. A. These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning, site development, stormwater management, building and other regulations adopted by the city of Edmonds. B. Any individual critical area adjoined or overlain by another type of critical area shall have the buffer and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any provision of this title or any existing land use regulation conflicts with this title, that which provides more protection to the critical area shall apply. C. These critical areas regulations shall be coordinated with review conducted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as necessary and locally adopted. D. Compliance with the provisions of this title does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, shoreline substantial development permits, Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.030 Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this title or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be judged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or judgment shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in which it was rendered. The decision shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any part thereof and to this end the provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this law are hereby declared to be severable. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.040 Jurisdiction — Critical areas. A. The director shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect one or more critical areas, consistent with the best available science and the provisions herein. B. Critical areas regulated by this title include: 1. Wetlands as designated in Chapter 23.50 ECDC, Wetlands; 2. Critical aquifer recharge areas as designated in Chapter 23.60 ECDC, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; 3. Frequently flooded areas as designated in Chapter 23.70 ECDC, Frequently Flooded Areas; Page 4 of 90 Packet Page 694 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 4. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Chapter 23.80 ECDC, Geologically Hazardous Areas; and 5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as designated in Chapter 23.90 ECDC, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. C. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the definition of one or more critical areas, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. D. Areas Adjacent to Critical Areas Subject to Regulation. Areas adjacent to critical areas shall be considered to be within the jurisdiction of these requirements and regulations to support the intent of this title and ensure protection of the functions and values of critical areas. "Adjacent" shall mean any activity located: 1. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area; and 2. Areas located within 200 feet of a subject parcel containing a jurisdictional critical area. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.050 Protection of critical areas.0 SHARE Any action taken pursuant to this title shall result in equivalent or greater functions and values of the critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science. All actions and developments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts. Applicants must first demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts before the use of actions to mitigate potential impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Critical Areas Review Process 23.40.060 General requirements.0 SHARE A. As part of this review, the director shall: 1. Verify the information submitted by the applicant; 2. Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas; 3. Determine whether the pro —posed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas; and Page 5 of 90 Packet Page 695 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 4. Determine if the proposed project adequately assesses all impacts, avoids impacts, and/or mitigates impacts to the critical area associated with the project. B. If the proposed project is within, adjacent to, or is likely to impact a critical area, the director shall: 1. Require a critical areas report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional; 2. Review and evaluate the critical areas report; 3. Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of this title, including the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria; 4. Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized; and 5. Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation.O SHARE Any person preparing to submit an application for development or use of land that may be regulated by the provisions of this title may request a preapplication meeting with the director prior to submitting an application for development or other approval. At this meeting, the director shall discuss the requirements of this title; provide critical areas maps, scientific information, and other source materials; outline the review process; and work with the activity proponent to identify any potential concerns that might arise during the review process, in addition to discussing other permit procedures and requirements. All applicants, regardless of participation in a preapplication meeting, are held fully responsible for knowledge and disclosure of critical areas on, adjacent to, or associated with a subject parcel and full compliance with the specific provisions and goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.080 Notice of initial determination.O SHARE A. If the director determines that no critical areas report is necessary, the director shall state this in the notice of application issued for the proposal. B. If the director determines that there are critical areas on the site that the proposed project is unlikely to impact and the project meets the requirements for and has been granted a waiver from the requirement to complete a critical areas report, this shall be stated in the notice of application for the proposal. A waiver may be granted if the director determines that all of the following_ requirements will be met: 1. There will be no alteration of the critical area or buffer; 2. The development proposal will not affect the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent, and requirements of this Title. Page 6 of 90 Packet Page 696 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 C. If the director determines that critical areas may be affected by the proposal and a critical areas report is required, public notice of the application shall include a description of the critical area that might be affected and state that a critical areas report(s) is required. D. Critical areas determinations shall be considered valid for five years from the date in which the determination was made; after such date the city shall require a new determination, or at minimum documentation of a new assessment verifying the accuracy of the previous determination [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. j 23.40.090 Critical areas report — Requirements.0 SHARE A. Preparation by Qualified Professional. The applicant shall submit a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional as defined herein. For wetlands, frequently flooded areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, an applicant may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list to prepare critical areas reports per the requirements of this title or may apply to utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shallmay be subject to independent review pursuant to subsection B of this section. Applieants wilizing the serviees of a "alified teehaieal eenstiltant from the eivy's approved list shall enter- into a three Pat4y .,*, aet between the a„lieant the eensultant and the eity. All costs associated with the critical areas study shall be borne by the applicant. B. Independent Review of Critical Areas Reports. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas and those developed by an applicant representative or consultant not as part of a three - party contract may, at the discretion of the director, be subject to independent review. This independent review shall be performed by a qualified technical consultant selected by the city with all costs borne by the applicant. The purpose of such independent review is to provide the city with objective technical assistance in evaluating the accuracy of submitted reports and/or the effects on critical areas which may be caused by a development proposal and to facilitate the decision -making process. The director may also have technical assistance provided by appropriate resource agency staff if such assistance is available in a timely manner. C. Best Available Science. The critical areas report shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of critical areas data and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The critical areas report shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to critical areas in accordance with the provisions of this title. D. Minimum Report Contents. At a minimum, the report shall contain the following: 1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit requested; 2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal including: a. A map to scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the development proposal, and any areas to be cleared; and Page 7 of 90 Packet Page 697 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 b. A description of the proposed storm water management plan for the development and consideration of impacts to drainage alterations; 3. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; 4. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area; 5. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; and 6. Report requirements specific to each critical area type as indicated in the corresponding chapters of this title. 7. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon; 8. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the critical areas study, including references; and 9. Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed to offset any critical areas impacts, in accordance with the Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section 23.40.130. E. Unless otherwise provided, a critical areas report may incorporate, be supplemented by or composed, in whole or in part, of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site, as approved by the director. At the discretion of the director, reports previously compiled or submitted as part of a proposal for development may be used as a critical areas report to the extent that the requirements of this section and the report requirements for each specific critical area type are met. F. Critical areas reports shall be considered valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.100 Critical areas report — Modifications to requirements. ' s"psE A. Limitations to Study Area. The director may limit the required geographic area of the critical areas report as appropriate if. 1. The applicant, with assistance from the city of Edmonds, cannot obtain permission to access properties adjacent to the project area; or 2. The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the subject site. B. Modifications to Required Contents. The applicant may consult with the director prior to or during preparation of the critical areas report to obtain approval of modifications to the required contents of the report where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately address the potential critical area impacts and required mitigation. Page 8 of 90 Packet Page 698 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 C. Additional Information Requirements. The director may require additional information to be included in the critical areas report when determined to be necessary to the review of the proposed activity in accordance with this title. Additional information that may be required includes, but is not limited to: 1. Historical data, including original and subsequent mapping, aerial photographs, data compilations and summaries, and available reports and records relating to the site or past operations at the site; 2. Grading and drainage plans; and 3. Information specific to the type, location, and nature of the critical area. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.110 Mitigation requirements.0 SHARE A. The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of critical areas. Unless otherwise provided in this title, if alteration to the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated using the best available science in accordance with an approved critical areas report and SEPA documents, so as to result in no net loss of critical area functions and values. B._ Mitigation shall be in kindand an site when possible, a sufficient to maintain or compensate for the functions and values of the impacted critical area and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area. C. Mitigation shall not be implemented until after the director has provided approval of a critical areas report that includes a mitigation plan. Mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the approved critical areas report. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing.0 SHARE A. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. B. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; Page 9 of 90 Packet Page 699 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. C. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements. s"RE When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the director a mitigation plan as part of the critical areas report. The mitigation plan shall include: A. Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and including: 1. A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the mitigating actions proposed and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of compensation goals; identification of resource functions; and dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the impacted critical area; 2. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation; 3. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project; and 4. Specific mitigation plan and report requirements for each critical area type as indicated in this title. B. Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this title have been met. C. Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, such as: 1. The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration; 2. Areas of proposed impacts on critical areas or buffers; 3. Grading and excavation details; Page 10 of 90 Packet Page 700 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 -4. Erosion and sediment control features; 45. A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and -56. Measures to protect and maintain plants until established. These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross -sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. D. Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years one, three, and five after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than thfee-five 5 years without approval from the director. E. Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. F. Financial Guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, as necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with ECDC 23.40.290, Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.140 Innovative mitigation.0 SHARE A. The city of Edmonds may encourage, facilitate, and approve innovative mitigation projects that are based on the best available science. Advance mitigation, in lieu fee programs, or mitigation banking are examples of alternative mitigation prejeets- p! aches allowed under the provisions of this section mitigation projeet together --if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. There are no reasonable opportunities on --site or within the same sub -drainage basin, or opportunities on -site or within the sub -drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydro eg omorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); Page 11 of 90 Packet Page 701 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 4—.2. The off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved critical areas functions than the altered critical area, and there is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the identified mitigation site. 3. Off -site locations shall be in the same basin and within the City unless: a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or b. Credits from an approved (State -certified) wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the approved bank instrument; c. Fees are paid to an approved in -lieu fee program to compensate for the impacts. B. Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may contribute payment towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the director, provided that the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where required. Such miti ag tion actions shall be consistent with ECDC 23.40.140.A.1. and ECDC 23.40.140.A.2., and with all other applicable provisions of ECDC Chapters 23.50 and 23.90. -BC. Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process provides for retention or an increase in the beneficial functions and values of critical areas within the Edmonds jurisdiction. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.150 Critical areas decision.0 SHARE The city of Edmonds development services director shall make a decision as to whether the proposed activity and mitigation, if any, is consistent with the provisions of this title. The decision shall be based on the criteria of ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and shall affect and be incorporated within the larger project decision. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.160 Review criteria.0 SHARE A. Any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise provided for in this title, shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; Page 12 of 90 Packet Page 702 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements; 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. B. The director may condition the proposed activity as necessary to mitigate impacts to critical areas and to conform to the standards required by this title. Except as provided for by this title, any project that cannot adequately mitigate its impacts to critical areas in the sequencing order of preferences in ECDC 23.40.120 shall be denied. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision.0 SHARE If the director determines that the proposed activity meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of this title, the development services director shall prepare a written notice of decision for the applicant and identify any required conditions of approval as part of the larger project decision. The notice of decision and conditions of approval shall be included in the project file and be considered in the next phase of the city's review of the proposed activity in accordance with any other applicable codes or regulations. Any conditions of approval included in a notice of decision shall be attached to the underlying permit or approval. Any subsequent changes to the conditions of approval shall void the previous decision pending re -review of the proposal and conditions of approval previously set by the director. A favorable decision should not be construed as endorsement or approval of any underlying permit or approval. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision.0 SHARE If the director determines that a proposed activity is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and the provisions of this title, the director shall prepare a written decision for the applicant that includes findings of noncompliance. No proposed activity or permit shall be approved or issued if it is determined that the proposed activity does not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or does not comply with the provisions of this title. Following notice of decision that the proposed activity does not meet the review criteria and/or does not comply with the applicable provisions of this title, the applicant may request consideration of a revised critical area report. If the revision is found to be substantial and relevant to the critical area review, the Page 13 of 90 Packet Page 703 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 director may reopen the critical area review and make a new decision based on the revised report. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review.0 SHARE The director's decision regarding critical areas pursuant to this title shall be final concurrent with the final project decision to approve, condition, or deny the development proposal or other activity involved. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.200 Appeals.0 SHARE Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of this title may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. [Ord. 3736 § 71, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.210 Variances.' SHARE A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist: 1. The application of this title would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility. A public agency and utility exception may be granted as a variance if: a. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas; b. The application of this title would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public; c. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; d. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and e. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of "reasonable economic use(s)" in ECDC 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; Page 14 of 90 Packet Page 704 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. B. Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested action conforms to all of the following specific criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as a Type III -A decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based on a proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section. Page 15 of 90 Packet Page 705 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 D. Conditions May Be Required. The director retains the right to prescribe such conditions and safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to ensure conformity with this title for variances granted through hearing examiner review. E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for an extension of time before the expiration. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the director as a Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). F. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of a variance application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application. [Ord. 3783 § 15, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 15, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 72, 73, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Proiects A. When a critical area restoration project t is proposed that is not required as mitigation for a development proposal, the City of Edmonds may grant relief from standard critical area buffer requirements if the restoration project involves: 1. The daylighting of a stream, or 2. Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or wetland buffer B. At the time a restoration project is proposed, a buffer shall be established that will apply to the restoration project boundary. Restoration project buffers shall be established according to the following requirements: 1. For the purposes of this section, an expanded buffer is that portion of the stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result of the restoration project. 2. A buffer may be j1pplied to the restored portion of the stream or wetland that is not less than 75% of the expanded buffer associated with the class of stream or category of wetland; or, 3. The project proponent may request a reduced buffer of between 50% and 75% of the expanded buffer associated with the class of stream or category of wetland. The following criteria will be used b. the City in reviewingthe he request for a reduced buffer: a. The Director determines that applying a 75% expanded buffer would significantly limit the use of the property for existing or permitted uses, thus making the restoration project infeasible; b. The proposed expanded buffer relief is the minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project; c. There will be a net environmental benefit from the restoration project with the reduced expanded buffer; Page 16 of 90 Packet Page 706 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 d. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the critical area restoration project and consistent with purposes of the City's critical area regulations. Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties 23.40.220 Allowed activities.0 SHARE A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas. B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed: 1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development permits and approvals that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have been met: a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval; b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer since the prior review; c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have elapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; d. There is no new information available that is applicable to any critical area review of the site or particular critical area; and de. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has been achieved or secured.; 2. Modification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Structural modification of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a critical area or its buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement; Page 17 of 90 Packet Page 707 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 3. Permitted Alteratio Modifications to Existing Structures Existing Wit ithin Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Permitted al erntio Modification to a legally constructed structure existing within a critical area or buffer shall be allowed when the a'�modification: does fie a. Does not increase the footprint of the structuredeve opment; and b. Does not increase the impact to the critical area or buffer; and c. Does not increasethere ;s no increase d risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement_ f _Aadditions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area or buffer that do increase the existing footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)3. This provision shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of a legal nonconforming building within its footprint; 4. Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Stream or Wetland Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally established structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more in width that occur between the area in question and the stream or wetland may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the director to be a physically separated and functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in these areas. The director may require a site assessment and functional analysis documentation byqualified professional to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated. In determining whether an area is physically parated and functionally isolated from the adjacent stream or wetland, the director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the interruption. 45. Activities M44nwithip the Improved Right -of -Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such facilities are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city -authorized private roadway, exce,ot those activities that alter a wetland or watercourse. such as culverts or bridges. or result in the transport of sediment or increased stormwater. -56. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short -duration impacts to critical areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the following criteria: a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas; Page 18 of 90 Packet Page 708 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s) or other small component(s) of a utility facility; and c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet; 6. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the following: a. The trail surface shall be limited to pervious surfaces and meet all other requirements, including water quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19; b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor, including disturbed areas; and c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical report; and d. Trails located only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of critical areas buffers, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the width of the critical areas buffer, trails may be placed in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining critical area buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet in width and for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. Allowances for trails within the inner seventy-fivepercent 75%) of critical areas buffers are provided within applicable sections of ECDC Chapters 23.50 — 23.90. 7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities: a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and Whand-held equipment when the area of work is under one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in area as calculated cumulatively three (3) years: i. Invasive and noxious weeds; ii. English ivy (Hedera helix); iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus); iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus); v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis); Page 19 of 90 Packet Page 709 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that: i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees; ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (two 21) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball; v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title; c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan; d. Chemical Applications. The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral -derived fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the City, provided that their use shall be restricted in accordance with state Department of Fish and Wildlife Management Page 20 of 90 Packet Page 710 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Recommendations and the regulations of the state Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Ecology; and de. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be prohibited; 8. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require construction of new roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the critical area shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and 9. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids and boundary markers. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.230 Exemptions.0 SHARE A. Exemption Request and Review Process. The proponent of the activity may submit a written request for exemption to the director that describes the activity and states the exemption listed in this section that applies. The director shall review the exemption request to verify that it complies with this title and approve or deny the exemption. If the exemption is approved, it shall be placed on file with the city of Edmonds. If the exemption is denied, the proponent may continue in the review process and shall be subject to the requirements of this title. B. Exempt Activities and Impacts to Critical Areas. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. To be exempt from this title does not give permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Exempt Activities. The following developments, activities, and associated uses shall be exempt from the provisions of this title; provided, that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local, state, and federal laws and requirements: 1. Emergencies. Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or preventative action in a time frame too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this title. Emergency actions that create an impact to a critical area or its buffer shall use reasonable methods to address the emergency; in addition, they must have the least possible impact to the critical area or its buffer. The person or agency undertaking such action shall notify the director within one working day following commencement of the emergency activity. Within 30 days, the director shall determine if the action taken was within the scope of the emergency actions allowed in this subsection. If the director determines that the action taken, or any part of the action taken, was beyond the scope of an allowed Page 21 of 90 Packet Page 711 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 emergency action, then enforcement provisions of ECDC 23.40.240, Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement, shall apply. After the emergency, the person or agency undertaking the action shall fully fund and conduct necessary restoration and/or mitigation for any impacts to the critical area and buffers resulting from the emergency action in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. The person or agency undertaking the action shall apply for review, and the alteration, critical area report, and mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the director in accordance with the review procedures contained herein. Restoration and/or mitigation activities must be initiated within one year of the date of the emergency and completed in a timely manner; 2. Operation, Maintenance, or Repair. Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems that do not require construction permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance also includes normal maintenance of vegetationperformed in accordance with best management practices, provided that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly ip act an endangered or threatened species; and 3. Passive Outdoor Activities. Recreation, education, and scientific research activities that do not degrade the critical area, including fishing, hiking, and bird watching. Trails must be constructed pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(6), Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement.O SHARE A. When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this title or the provisions of Chapter 7.200 ECC, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The director shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or other responsible party's expense to compensate for violation of the provisions of this title. The director may also require an applicant or property owner to take immediate action to ensure site stabilization and/or erosion control as needed. B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the director. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsection C of this section. The director shall, at the violator's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant or violator for revision and resubmittal. C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. 1. For alterations to frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area; Page 22 of 90 Packet Page 712 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; b. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; c. The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and d. Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in ECDC 23.40.130, Mitigation plan requirements, shall be submitted to the city planning division. 2. For alterations to flood and geological hazards, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater safety can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the predevelopment hazard; b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. D. Site Investigations. The director is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this title. The director shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property. E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the provisions of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to penalties not to exceed a square footage cost of three dollars ($3.00) per square foot of impacted critical area and critical area buffer and/or a per tree penalty consistent with ECDC 18.45.070B. and C. _set fort i Errs ' 4.45.070 an shall eonst tute a separate offense. Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this title shall constitute a public nuisance and maybe enjoined as provided by the statutes of the state of Washington. The city of Edmonds may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for violation of any of the provisions of this title. The civil penalty shall be assessed as proscribed in ECDC 18.45.070 and 18.45.075.[Ord. 3828 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures 23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs. o SHARE Page 23 of 90 Packet Page 713 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 A. The boundary at the outer edge of a critical area, critical area buffer or critical area tract may, at the discretion of the director, be required to be delineated with wood fencing. B. The boundary at the outer edge of the critical area or buffer may be identified with temporary signs prior to any site alteration. Such temporary signs may be replaced with permanent signs prior to occupancy or use of the site. C. These provisions may be modified by the director as necessary to ensure protection of sensitive features or wildlife needs. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.270 Critical areas tracts and easements. 0 s"ACE A. At the discretion of the director, critical areas tracts and/or easements may be required in development proposals for s4divisions, snei4 subdivisions, and -pla*ne tini developments, developments that include critical areas. These critical areas tracts and/or easements shall delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers greater than 5,000 square feet including: 1. Landslide hazard areas and buffers; 2. Wetlands and buffers; 3. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; and 4. Other lands to be protected from alterations as conditioned by project approval. B. Notice on Title. The owner of any property with field -verified presence of critical areas and/or critical areas buffers, except critical aquifer recharge areas, for which a permit application is submitted shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice of the existence of such critical area and/or critical area buffer against the property with the Snohomish County Auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the right to challenge this notice and to have it released if the critical area designation no longer applies; however, the titleholder shall be responsible for completing a critical areas report, subject to approval by the director, before the notice on title can be released. rr-itie ' areas *rae*s shall be reeer- oa o all ,a,,,,,,Y, ents of title fr-eee,.a for- all aff-eeted lots C. Critical areas tracts or easements shall be designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a format approved by the director. The designation shall include the following restrictions: 1. An assurance that native vegetation will be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat; and 2. The right of the director to enforce the terms of the restriction. D. The director may require that critical areas tracts be dedicated to the city, to be held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing with Page 24 of 90 Packet Page 714 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner's association or other legal entity (such as a land trust), which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a process to assess costs associated therewith. E. The use of herbicides within critical areas tracts or easements is prohibited except use of aquatic approved herbicides where recommended by the Noxious Weed Control Board and where otherwise consistent with the provisions of ECDC Title 23. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.280 Building setbacks.C3 sH11RE Unless other -wise pr-e ide- Except for geologically hazardous areas where setbacks are determined by -a geotechnical report, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. The -In addition to other allowances provided by this Title, the following may be allowed in the building setback area: A. Landscaping; B. Uncovered decks; C. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area; and D. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring.O SHARE A. When mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to final permit approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection, the applicant shall be required to post a performance bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the director. If the development proposal is subject to mitigation, the applicant shall post a mitigation bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the city to ensure mitigation is fully functional. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is greater. The amount of the performance bond shall include a reasonable allocation for inflation based on the length of anticipated delay and the provisions of subsection D of this section. C. The bond shall be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, and/or maintenance bond from an acceptable financial institution, with terms and conditions acceptable to the city of Edmonds' attorney. D. Bonds or other security authorized by this section shall remain in effect until the director determines, in writing, that the standards bonded for have been met. Bonds or other security shall be held by the city for a minimum of twee -five 5 years to ensure that the required mitigation has been fully implemented and demonstrated to function, and may be held for longer periods when necessary to achieve these goals. Page 25 of 90 Packet Page 715 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 E. Depletion, failure, or collection of bond funds shall not discharge the obligation of an applicant or violator to complete required mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration. F. Public development proposals shall be relieved from having to comply with the bonding requirements of this section if public funds have previously been committed for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration. G. Any failure to satisfy critical area requirements established by law or condition including, but not limited to, the failure to provide a monitoring report within thirty �30) days after it is due or comply with other provisions of an approved mitigation plan shall constitute a default, and the city may demand payment of any financial guarantees or require other action authorized under this title or any other law. H. Any funds recovered pursuant to this section shall be used to complete the required mitigation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.40.300 Critical area inspections.0 SHARE Reasonable access to the site shall be provided to the city, state, and/or federal agency review staff for the purpose of inspections during any proposal review, restoration, emergency action, or monitoring period. Failure to provide access shall constitute grounds for issuance of a stop work order. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science 23.40.310 Best available science.13 SHARE A. Protect Functions and Values of Critical Areas with Special Consideration to Anadromous Fish. Critical areas reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to protect the functions and values of critical areas and must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon and bull trout, and their habitat, where applicable. B. Best Available Science to Be Consistent with Criteria. The best available science is that scientific information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state, or federal natural resource agencies, a qualified scientific professional, or a team of qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172. C. Characteristics of a Valid Scientific Process. In the context of critical areas protection, a valid scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a local government's regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies and development regulations that will be effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas. To determine whether information received during the permit review process is reliable scientific information, the director shall determine whether the source of the information displays the characteristics of a valid scientific process. Such characteristics are as follows: Page 26 of 90 Packet Page 716 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 1. Peer Review. The information has been critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified scientific experts in that scientific discipline. The proponents of the information have addressed the criticism of the peer reviewers. Publication in a refereed scientific journal usually indicates that the information has been appropriately peer -reviewed; 2. Methods. The methods used to obtain the information are clearly stated and reproducible. The methods are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been appropriately peer -reviewed to ensure their reliability and validity; 3. Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences. The conclusions presented are based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies and consistent with the general theory underlying the assumptions. The conclusions are logically and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported by the data presented. Any gaps in information and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific information are adequately explained; 4. Quantitative Analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative methods; 5. Context. The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge; and 6. References. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions are well referenced with citations to relevant, credible literature and other pertinent existing information. D. Nonscientific Information. Nonscientific information, such as anecdotal observations, non -expert opinion, and hearsamay supplement scientific information, but it is not an adequate substitute for valid and available scientific information. E. Absence of Valid Scientific Information. Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or incomplete scientific information relating to a critical area leading to uncertainty about the risk to critical area function of permitting an alteration of or impact to the critical area, the director shall: 1. Take a "precautionary or a no -risk approach" that strictly limits development and land use activities until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved; and 2. Require application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management program shall: a. Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program; b. Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves uncertainties; and Page 27 of 90 Packet Page 717 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 c. Commit to the appropriate time frame and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and anadromous fisheries. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004] . Part VI. Definitions 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas.O SHARE For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those areas activities located on --site immediately adjoining a critical area; or a distance equal to or less than two hundred and twenty five (225)2,00 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel and those areas 1,,eatea within 900 foot of'., doetimented bald eagle nest "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. "Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. Page 28 of 90 Packet Page 718 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project -induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: • y ew+r�: :e�sz.I'll ssee •'r�11111 11 A I I 1 !I --- 1.00 -21. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland or steam at a site where it did not formerly exist. 2. "Re-establishment" means actions performed to restore processes and functions to an area that was formerly a critical area, where the former critical area was lost by past alterations and activities. 3. "Rehabilitation" means improving or repairing processes and functions to an area that is an existing critical area that is highly degraded because one or more environmental processes supporting the critical area have been disrupted. -4. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands critical area so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality; enhancement activities usually attempt to change plant communities within existing wetlands from non-native communities to native scrub -shrub or forested communities. 45. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the pennanent protection of existing high -quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. Page 29 of 90 Packet Page 719 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. "Erosion Hazard Areas." See ECDC 23.80.020(A). "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "100-year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. "Footprint of Existing Development" or "Footprint of Development" means the area of a site that contains legally established: buildings; roads, driveways,parking lots, storage areas, walkways or other areas paved with concrete, asphalt or compacted gravel; outdoor swimming pools; and patios. "Frequently Flooded Areas." See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. "Geologically Hazardous Areas." See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washington five yea -Fs of expe-rienee as a pr-aetieing geologist or- fouf years of exper-ienee and at least two year- weFk in appked geology and landslide evaluation in elese assoeiation with qualified, pr-aetieing geologists and geoteehnieal/eivil engineers. For geologically hazardous areas, an applicant may choose a geologist or en in�g_geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least €a�five years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" means areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered may reduce the likelihood that the species Page 30 of 90 Packet Page 720 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. In urban areas like the city of Edmonds, habitats of local importance include biodiversity areas and corridors, which are characterized by a framework of ecological components which provides the physical conditions necessary for ecosystems and species populations to survive in a human -dominated landselpe.-ineltide a seasonal range or- habitm element with Whieh a given speeies ha ' . I habitat, winter range, and movemeiA eorFidoFs. These might also inelude habitats that af!e of limited over- the !on tefm. These might include areas of high relative density or- speeies richness, breeding eelgfass beds, and wetlands.(See ECDC 23on ni ni n vn> ) "In lieu fee program" means a program which sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in lieu program sponsor, a governmental or non-profit natural resource management entity "Landslide Hazard Areas." (See ECDC 23.80.020(B).3 "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Page 31 of 90 Packet Page 721 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. "Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees (less than 3-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously pproved by the City in the past 5 years. "Noxious weeds" means any plant which, when tabl she ,that is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, limited to those plants on the state noxious weed list contained in Chapter , �i,o�„ r''�16-750 WAC. "Planning staff' means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For geologically hazardous areasFer- areas of potential ge ', gig inst bill , the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or ge to hfli a engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard. If development is to take place within a geologically hazardous area, the qualified critical areas consultant developing mitigationplans and design shall be a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Washington and familiar with landslide and slope stability mitigation. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of five years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. "Reasonable economic use(s)" means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re -development of a property or subject parcel. "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. For wetlands, restoration as compensatory mitigation may include re-establishment or rehabilitation. "Seismic Hazard Areas." (See ECDC 23.80.020(C).) "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).) Page 32 of 90 Packet Page 722 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 "Storm Water Management Manual" means the Stof Water- M,,,,,,,.vmen4Mat+a,l for- the Puget coup Basi,, by the Washington State r,o,..,,.tment of Eeoiegy (as ieluded in stormwater manual specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC). "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).) "Title" means all chapters of the city of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. "Wetland mitigation bank" means a site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. (See ECDC 23.50.010(B).) [Ord. 3952 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3931 § 2, 2013; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 33 of 90 Packet Page 723 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Chapter 23.50 WETLANDS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart. 23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping —Wetlands. Part II. Allowed Activities — Wetlands 23.50.020 Allowed activities — Wetlands. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Wetlands 23.50.030 Special study and report requirements — Wetlands. Part IV. Development Standards — Wetlands 23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands. 23.50.050 Mitigation requirements — Wetlands. 23.50.060 Performance standards — Subdivisions. Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form 23.50.070 Wetland field data form. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart.0 SHARE See Figure 23.50.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Wetlands.0 SHARE A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035 that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the wetland designation criteria i the ident fieatio an Page 34 of 90 Packet Page 724 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Delineation Manual, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating system found in the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington doettmefAs Mlpgfp� AI'Shiflgtef , Ecology Publications Nos. 14-06-02993 74 a-aa nn 06 02-5). Thiese documents eontainsdefining the following wedand rating e-ate-,.,,,.;oss• Consistent with the wetland rating system criteria and parameters within this document, wetlands that are rated for ecological functions with highest point totals (23 points or higher) perform ecological functions associated with water flow, water quality and habitat at highest levels, whereas wetlands that are rated with lowest point totals (15 points or lower) perform ecological functions at lowest levels. Wetlands that are rated with points between 16 and 22 points perform ecological functions at moderate to high levels. The City of Edmonds Wetland Rating Categories: a. Category 4-I Wetlands. Category 4-I wetlands are those that represent a unique or rare wetland type; are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The following types of wetlands are Category I:meet e of the following er-i i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one(D acre; ii. Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR;We4a-nds that afe identified by seientists of the Washington Natufal Heritage Pr-egr-am/DNR as high quality wetlapA-s; iii. Bogs l , ger than e half aer-o. iv. Wetlands with mature and old growth forests M 4,,,.o and old growth forested wet! larger than one allacre; v. Wetlands in coastal lagoons; vi. Wetlands that perform functions at high levels Wetlands that per-fOF . many fune*iefis well as indicated by a score of 7-&twent -three 2312oints or more based on functions or the eit fEdMOR ds wedand field data f .., b. Category 2-II Wetlands. Category II wetlands are those that are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. The following types of wetlands are Category III wetlands i. Estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; Page 35 of 90 Packet Page 725 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 iv. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions as indicated by a score of 51 to 6920 to 22 points based on functions on the eity of Edmonds wetland field da4a f4m. c. Category 3-III Wetlands. Category 3-III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions as indicated by a score of 3&16 to 5419 points on the city of Edmonds wetland f^'a dat rn based on functions. d. Category 4-IV Wetlands. Category 4-IV wetlands are those with the lowest levels of functions as indicated by scores below 3-0-16 points based on functions^r the eity of Edmonds wetland f^'a dat f. All wetlands should be rated consistent with the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington using the 2014 Western Washington RatingForm. T'v^ ^�� field data form yi edirirrECDC 23.50.070. C. Date of Wetland Rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date of adoption of the rating system by the local government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications. D. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Maps produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to identify potential wetland areas. The inventory and cited resources are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds, project applicants, and/or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. E. Delineation. The exact location of a wetland's boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified professional wetland scientist applying the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplementsWashi gte State Wedan'- , 49". Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a lacustrine (lake) environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands existing along the periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided in 23.50.010. System for- Westefa Washington Revised (Eeology PiAheation Ne. 04 06 025, . Consistent with guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional wetlands along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent emergent vegetation in shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake Page 36 of 90 Packet Page 726 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds shoreline master program. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Allowed Activities — Wetlands 23.50.020 Allowed activities — Wetlands.0 SHARE The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include: A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed. D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or wetland buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or increase the impact to a wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Wetlands 23.50.030 Special study and report requirements — Wetlands.0 SHARE A. Additional Requirements for Wetlands. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for wetlands must meet the requirements of this section. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. Page 37 of 90 Packet Page 727 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 B. Critical areas report requirements for wetlands may be met in "stages" or through multiple reports. The typical sequence of potentially required reports that may in part or in combination fulfill the requirements of this section include: 1. Wetland reconnaissance report documenting the existence and general location of wetlands in the vicinity of a project area; 2. Wetland delineation report documenting the extent and boundary of a jurisdictional wetland per RCW 36.70A.175; and 3. Wetland mitigation report documenting potential wetland impacts and mitigation measures designed to retain or increase the functions and values of a wetland in accordance with ECDC 23.50.050 and the general provisions of this title. C. A wetland critical areas report may include one or more of the above three report types, depending on the information required by the director and the extent of potential wetland impacts. The Edmonds development services director maintains the authority and discretion to determine which report(s) alone or combined are sufficient to meet the requirements outlined below and to waive report requirements based upon site conditions and the potential for project impacts. D. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical area report for wetlands shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a certified professional wetland scientist or a noncertified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five years of experience in the field of wetland science and with experience preparing wetland reports. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for wetlands, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). E. Area Addressed in Critical Area Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical area report for wetlands: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; 2. All wetlands and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All shoreline areas, water features, floodplains, and other critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project area. The location and extent of wetlands and other critical areas existing outside of the project area or subject parcel boundary may be shown in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an assessment of potential project effects. F. Wetland Analysis. In addition to the minimum required contents of ECDC 23.40.090, Critical areas reports — Requirements, a critical areas report for wetlands shall contain an analysis of the wetlands, including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the wetlands and buffers within 200 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum: Page 38 of 90 Packet Page 728 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 a. Wetland delineation and required buffers; b. Existing wetland acreage; c. Wetland category; d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics; e. Soil and substrate conditions; f. Topographic elevations, at two -foot contours; and g. A discussion of the water sources supplying the wetland and documentation of hydrologic regime (locations of inlet and outlet features, water depths throughout the wetland, and evidence of recharge or discharge, evidence of water depths throughout the year: drift lines, algal layers, moss lines, and sediment deposits). The location, extent and analyses of wetlands not contiguous with the subject parcel existing outside of the immediate project area may be described in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an assessment of potential project effects and hydrologic/ecological connectivity to on -site wetlands and other critical areas. 2. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity. 3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland functions. 4. Functional evaluation for the wetland and adjacent buffer using a local or state agency staff - recognized method and including the reference of the method and all data sheets. 5. Proposed mitigation, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps of the mitigation area, including the following information at a minimum: a. Existing and proposed wetland acreage; b. Vegetative and faunal conditions; c. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions including an analysis of existing and future hydrologic regime and proposed hydrologic regime for enhanced, created, or restored mitigation areas; d. Relationship to the watershed and existing waterbodies; e. Soil and substrate conditions, topographic elevations; Page 39 of 90 Packet Page 729 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 f. Existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; g. Required wetland buffers; and h. Property ownership. 6. A scale map of the development proposal site and adjacent area. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. 7. A bond estimate for the installation (including site preparation, plant materials and installation, fertilizers, mulch, and stakes) and the proposed monitoring and maintenance work for the required number of years. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part IV. Development Standards — Wetlands 23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands.0 SHARE A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title. C. Category I -I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category I -I wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title. D. Category III Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category III wetlands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Water -dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas. 2. Where non -water -dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that: a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer. Page 40 of 90 Packet Page 730 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 E. Category 3411 and 4-IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category 3-III and 4-IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. F. Wetland Buffers. 1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths in ECDC 23.50.040.F. l.d below have been establish in accordance with best available science. The buffers are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. a. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. b. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, than a thirty- three (33%) increase in the width of all buffer is reauired. c_The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the buffer is composed of nonnative vegetation, lawn, or bare ground, then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may be required to either develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard width or widen the standard width to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.— see , are as follows: d. Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Table. Minimum Buffer Buffer Buffer Width Width Buffer Width Width Wetland Wetland (Wetland scores (Wetland Wetland Category scores 3-4 scores5 scores 6-7 8-9 habitat habitat habitatpoints) habitat points) oints points) Page 41 of 90 Packet Page 731 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Category I: 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Based on total score Category I: Bogs and 190 ft 190 ft 190 ft 225 ft Wetlands of High Conservation Value Category I: 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Forested Category I: 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft Estuarine Category 11: 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft Based on score Category III (all) 60 ft 105 ft 165 ft 165 ft Category IV 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. The standard wetland buffer widths in ECDC 23.50.040.F. Le assumes implementation of the following measures, where applicable to a specific proposal. Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while Page 42 of 90 Packet Page 732 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of corridors or • Maintain connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed • Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting Page 43 of 90 Packet Page 733 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts connections 2. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site -specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria: a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with subsection (F)(3) of this section may substitute. d. The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the director that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species. -53. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. 64. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter. -75. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond. G. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses 1. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the City of Edmonds, the applicant shall mitigate impacts to achieve no not loss of wetland acreage and functions consistent with ECDC 23.50.050 and other applicable provisions of this Title. Page 44 of 90 Packet Page 734 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 2. At the discretion of the Director, standard wetland buffers may be averaged or reduced when consistent with all criteria in ECDC 23.50.040.G. Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be preferred over wetland buffer averaging with enhancement. Wetland buffer reduction shall only be approved by the director when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on -site. 43. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging with Buffer Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a standard Ex-r�wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard or reduced buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that: a. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard or reduced buffer; and d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than -5&seventy-five percent 75% of the standard or reduced buffer width. 34. Buffer Width Reductions Thr-o kghthrough Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmonds development sery ees director, and only when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category 3-III and 4-IV wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer width reductions to no less than seventy-five -58 percent 75 o of the standard width; provided, that: a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: Page 45 of 90 Packet Page 735 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 i. Inncreased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level pr.,yide.7 by a s*.,,,.7.,r buffer- or- through additional mitig do for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for- assessing wetland bti r- fitne*;,.. ing as relate including but not limited to: i. Percent vegetative cover; ii. Provisionfwildlife h b: ercent invasive species cover; iii. M aintenan e r,..edan hydr-clog Species richness; and iv. Dostr4eting wedand ;.,*msie and dirt r-baneeAmount of large woody debris. :01 8. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: a. All activities allowed by ECDC 23.50.020 (Allowed activities — wetlands). b. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. Page 46 of 90 Packet Page 736 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 bc. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability-, are generally located only in the outer twenty percent (25%) of wetland buffers, and are located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the width of the wetland buffer, trails may be placed in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining wetland buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet in width and for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable_ The director may allow trails within the inner twenty-five percent (25%) of wetland buffers when required to provide access to wildlife viewing structures, fishing access areas, or connections to other trail facilities; ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet. c. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category 3 or 4 wetlands only; provided, that: i. No other location is feasible; and ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. iii. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category 1 or 2 wetlands. iv. Projects shall also comply with all applicable requirements in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Stormwater Management, including Minimum Requirement #8, Wetland Protection. FtH. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands. 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Page 47 of 90 Packet Page 737 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restrictions b. The provisions of subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Permanent Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer under the following circumstances, provided that the director may waive this require: a. As part of any development proposal for single-family plats, single-family short plats, multifamily, mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area, provided that breaks in permanent fencing may be allowed for access to permitted buffer uses (ECDC 23.50.040.G.8); b. As part of development proposals for parks where the adjacent proposed use is active recreation and the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area; c. When buffer averagingiplo. employed of a development proposal; d. When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal; or e. At the director's discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area. I4I. Additions to Structures Existing Within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers. 1. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section, provided that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all.. impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, , wetland buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: 4-a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer; -3b. Outside of a wetland buffer r-e"eed *h,.,.,,g buff-er averaged (with enhancement)i*g per subsection (FG)(43) of this section -- Page 48 of 90 Packet Page 738 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 -2c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced wither enhancement) per subsection (EG)(34) of this section; 4d. Outside of the inner twenty fives percent 25% of the standard wetland buffer width use of both buffer- eduetio and buff -erne -with no more than three hundred (300) square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard wetland buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact e. Outside of the inner twentv five percent (25%) of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than five hundred (500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard wetland buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques and other measures are included as part of the wetland / buffer enhancement plan. 2. Where meeting wetland buffer enhancement reauirements reauired by H.1. of this section would result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area. 3. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing in H.1. of this section (i.e., additions proposed within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. J. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a wetland buffer, provided that the following conditions are met: 1. The footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.320; 2. The proposed development within the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment is sited as far away from the wetland edge as is feasible; 3. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the wetland and not represent an undue burden ,given the scale of the proposed development. 4. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent wetland and associated buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development; Page 49 of 90 Packet Page 739 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 5. Enhancement is provided as wetland or buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within in the footprint of existingdevelopment occurring in wetland buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer; and 6. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the wetland buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. IK. Small, hydrologically isolated wetlands€*emptions. The director may allow small, hydrolo ig cally isolated Category 3-III or IV4 wetlands under 500one thousand- 1 000 square feet in area to be exempt from the avoidance sequencing provisions of ECDC 23.40.120 and the wetland development standards provisions of ECDC 23.50.040.F. At the discretion of the director such wetlands may be altered, provided that --e- ; 1-n- fthis title ^ wetia d exemption shall only be granted i a submitted critical areas repor delineation, , provides evidence that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The wetland is unless than 580-one thousand (1,000) square feet in area; -32. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and 3. The wetland is not adjacent to a riparian area; 4. The wetland has a score of three (3) — four (4) points for habitat in the adopted Western Washington rating system; and 5. A mitigation _ plan to replace lost wetland functions and values is developed, approved and implemented consistent with ECDC 23.50.050. 4. Filling of the wetland ea-m maintain equivalent or- greater- habitat fidnetions and values ever- existing to ,.,.,..bons. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.50.050 Mitigation requirements — Wetlands.0 SHARE Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Wetland mitigation plans shall be consistent with the state r,o,.,,,4nent fEee',.g Cguidelines min Wetland Mitigation in Washington State —Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecologyy, 2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology, 2009)Develeping Freshwater- Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals, 1994, as revised. Page 50 of 90 Packet Page 740 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 > enhaneing, nt- -BA. Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when: 1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site -specific function assessment, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed assessment plan or protocol; or 2. Out -of -kind replacement will best meet formally identified watershed goals, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types. EB. Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference: 1. Implementing compensatory restoration through purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank or through payment into an approved in lieu fee program. 4-2. Restoring (re-establishing) wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. -23. Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of nonnative, introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is a consistent source of hydrology and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the wetland community that is being designed. 4. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area meeting appropriate ratio requirements. DC. Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for ecological functions shall be in -kind and conducted on the site or in the vicinity of the alteration except when all of the following apply: 1. On -site opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success, after a determination of the natural capacity of the site to mitigate for the impacts. Consideration should include: anticipated wetland Page 51 of 90 Packet Page 741 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 mitigation replacement ratios, buffer conditions and proposed widths, hydrogeomorphic classes of on - site wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); 2. Off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the impacted wetland; -and 3. Off -site mitigation incorporates guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Hruby. 2012); and -34. Off -site locations for compensatory mitigation are consistent with city of Edmonds goals for rimwatershed-wide ecological restoration. Off -site locations are selected with a preference for sites within the same basin as the impact, followed by other sites within the city. Specific areas targeted for restoration efforts include: a. Lake -fringe wetlands and habitat areas associated with Lake Ballinger; b. Edmonds marsh; c. Yost Park wetlands; d. Good Hope wetlands; and e. Wetlands and habitat areas peripheral to anadromous fish -bearing streams..-; and f. Sites available through an approved mitigation bank or in --lieu fee program. This list is not comprehensive and may change as the city of Edmonds identifies areas suitable for restoration and capital improvement projects consistent with goals for jurisdiction -wide habitat retention and enhancement provided in the city's comprehensive plan. ED. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed with an approved monitoring plan prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. EE. Mitigation Ratios. 1. Acreage Replacement Ratios. The fellowin ratios in the table below shall apply to ^rem '-esteror re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement that is in -kind, is on-site,e safne , is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall apply in those cases. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment pursuant to Table la, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance —Version 1, (Ecology Page 52 of 90 Packet Page 742 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Publication #06-06-1 la, or as revised). Creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement definitions are provided in ECDC 23.40.320 (see definition for "compensatory mitigation", and shall be additionally consistent with intent pursuant to Ecology Publication #06-06-1 la.. Category and Type of Wetland Creation or Re - establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement on/v only Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Category III 21 41 8:1 Category II 31 61 12:1 Category I: Based on functions 4:1 8:1 16:1 Category I: Mature and old growth forest 6:1 12:1 24:1 Category I: High conservation Not considered Not considered Not considered possible possible possible ' value /Bog Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) if approved by the director. 2. Off -site Mitigation. These ratios provided in ECDC 23.50.050.F.1. do not apply to off -site mitigation, including4he use of credits from a state -certified wetland mitigation bank or payment to a certified in - lieu fee program. When off -site mitigation is proposed, or when ^'-edits f e aid mitigation bank Page 53 of 90 Packet Page 743 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 or in lieu fee pro r�ar-e used, replacement ratios mays incorporate guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Hruby. 2012), and for mitigation banks or in lieu fee program should be consistent with the certification requirements of the bank's certification. Use of mitigation banks shall meet all requirements of ECDC 23.50.050.H.The first i ,V ber- speeifies the ao e fr-epl ,,,effle„t wetlands and the s „a s eifies the acreage of wetlands altoroa. -23. Increased Replacement Ratio. The director may require increased compensatory mitigation ratios under the following circumstances: a. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; b. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions; c. Proposed mitigation will result in a lower -category wetland or reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted; or d. The impact was an unauthorized impact. G. Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation. 1. Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands, but may, at the discretion of the director, be used in conjunction with restoration and/or creation. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical areas report that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. 2. At a minimum, enhancement acreage shall be double the acreage required for creation or restoration under subsection F of this section. The ratios shall be greater than double the required acreage where the enhancement proposal would result in minimal gain in the performance of wetland functions and/or result in the reduction of other wetland functions currently being provided in the wetland. 3. Mitigation ratios for enhancement in combination with other forms of mitigation shall range from six - to -one to three -to -one and be limited to Class 3 and 4 wetlands. H. Wetland Mitigation Banks and In --Lieu Fee Programs. 1. Wetland Mitigation Banks. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: a. The bank is certified under Chapter- 173 inn W n rstate rules; b. The director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and Page 54 of 90 Packet Page 744 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank's certification instrument. d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits Beare consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank's certification. e. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank are used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. -32. In --Lieu Fee Programs.r„ lie fwetland mitigation bank er-e itAs an alternative to on -site or other off -site mitigation approaches, the director may provideapprove purchase of credit for compensatory mitigation from an in lieu fee program. An. such used to compensate for direct wetland impacts shall be developed and approved through a public process and be consistent with federal rules, state policy on in lieu fee mitigation and state water quality regulations, Determiningcredit redit purchase necessary to compensate for wetland impacts shall incorporate guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington Ecology Publication #10-06- 011, Hruby. 2012). Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may contribute payment towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the director, provided that the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where required. through aPpheant provision of ffinds to identified eapital improvement pr-ojeets for wedand r-ester-at -... T' .., d*. eeter- r-etains diser-etion to establish a monetary valtie for appliea*t provision of funds whieh shall be, at a minimum, equal to the eest of designing, developing, implementing and monitoring in kind eempensater-y mitigation en site oin the N eet vieiH t . Applicant provision of funds for compensatory mitigation shall only be approved i£ a. The director determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed wetland impacts;c,,,,], :;,,,aiflg ,, be ao,.. onstFate t dire tly s ot4 .,,odan ,-este,-at eff-et4s; b. The mitigation will occur on a site identified using the site selection and prioritization process in the approved in --lieu fee program instrument or at a City -identified restoration site consistent with ECDC23.40.140 with the provisions and fu4i s of this title. c. A restoration area and plan have been identified and shall be implemented within three years of project development; d. Restoration efforts are focused in these afeas identified in subseetion (D)(3) ofthis seer o and areas identified as suitable for restoration by the director; and e. Credits from an approved in --lieu fee program m may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the approved in --lieu fee instrument. A suitable eapital improvement pr-qjeet and plan for- implementation is in plaee prior- to r-eeeipt of „Bean* proposal. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 55 of 90 Packet Page 745 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 23.50.060 Performance standards — SubdivisionsA3 SHARE The subdivision and short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers is subject to the following: A. Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided. B. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided; provided, that an accessible and buildable contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the wetland and its buffer. C. Access roads and utilities serving the proposed subdivision may be permitted within the wetland and associated buffers only at the discretion of the director. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form 23.50.070 Wetland field data form.0 SHARE The eit-y of Ed ,, *ds wetland field data used for completion of wetland ratings shall be consistent with the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029• Hruby 2014).f f, is aila le i the eity fEdmonds development serviees department and on the , ity of Edmonds . ,obsite. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Figure 23.50.000 Page 56 of 90 Packet Page 746 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Wetlands Wetla nd mw Wetland Reconnais- Reconnaissance be located sane REQUIRED to determines that on or near determine if potential jurisdictional subject wetland meets jurisdic- wetland exist parcel. tional criteria and is within 225 ft of located within 225 ft of subject parcel. subject pa rcel. Reconnaissance identifies wetland is notjurfsdfctional (and ju risd fictional determi- nation is confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engrneers); or reconnais- sanceidentifiesthat wetland is located 1225 it from subject parcel. No additional compliance requ irements. Wetland Delineation Impacts cannot BA.r - epee w� h and Buffe REQUIRED to identify beavoided eraging and wetland boundaries through ancement Plan and classify wetland standard buffer QUIRED to prove rIn per updated widths. rtionorincreaser categories. etland functions 0 - 1 and values. Wetland Impacts are avoided through standard buffer widths for wetia nd category. Jil No additional compiiance requirements. `Report requirements maybe met through submission of a single critica I area report or multiple reports In—bination. Buffer width reduction [hroLgh enhanoemert[ Icarrgaryaa"e. Wetland Buffer endmg Enhancement Plan pia"m"g anprwap REQUIRED to prove -FeterLlDn or Increase -wetland functions ues. Wetland Buffer weue"a im Mitigation Plan re;tisar�� s REQUIRED Per updated code require- ments to prove retention or increase of wetland functions and values. 11P Public Hearing with City Hearing Examiner i.P Una""otbe IrinDt QUIRED only for variances m'e;�ted projects for which impacts be mitigated to retain wetland functions and values. No additional compliance required. No additional compliance required. No additional compliance req a ired. Page 57 of 90 Packet Page 747 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Chapter 23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation.0 SHARE Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. CARAs are protected as critical areas under the Washington State Growth Management Act. However, no areas meeting criteria for CARAs exist in the vicinity of the city of Edmonds. Thus, additional specific provisions for protection of this critical area type are not provided within this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 58 of 90 Packet Page 748 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Chapter 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping —Frequently flooded areas. Part II. Additional Report Requirements — Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.020 Special study and report requirements — Frequently flooded areas. 23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability. Part III. Development Standards — Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.040 Development standards — Frequently flooded areas. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas. SHARE , A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include: 1. Those areas identified on FEMA flood insurance maps as areas of special flood hazard, which include those lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. For the purposes of this title, areas of special flood hazard for the city of Edmonds are hereby declared generally to be those areas shown as Zone A (including Zones A, AE, Al—A30, AH, AO, AR and A99) and Zone V (including Zones V and VE)on the following FEMA maps or panels: 53061 C00; 5306IC1292 E, Panel 1292; 5306IC1285 E, Panel 1285; 5306IC1315 E, Panel 1315; and 5306IC1305 E, Panel 1305. , ,49W, and sueh fnaps and panels are adopted by this r-efer-efiee as a part of this ehapt r- as if fully f f*" n.The city will use the most currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a property is located within a frequently flooded area. Base flood elevations and flood hazard factors for those areas shown as Zone A on the map have not been determined and the local flood management administrator shall utilize such other data as may be reasonably available from federal, state or other sources in administering this chapter as provided in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. 2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above. Page 59 of 90 Packet Page 749 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city's critical areas inventory are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners, and the public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. As flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, newer and more restrictive information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to designate and identify areas known to be prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to the provisions and protections of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Additional Report Requirements — Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.020 Special study and report requirements — Frequently flooded areas. s"pE In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for frequently flooded areas must meet the requirements of this section and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A frequently flooded areas report shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a hydrologist or engineer, licensed in the state of Washington, with experience in preparing flood hazard assessments. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for frequently flooded areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). B. Areas to Be Addressed. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for frequently flooded areas: 1. The site area of the proposed activity; 2. All areas of a special flood hazard area, as indicated on the flood insurance map(s), within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All other flood areas indicated on the flood insurance map(s) within 200 feet of the project area. C. Flood Hazard Assessment. A critical area report for a proposed activity within a frequently flooded area shall contain a flood hazard assessment including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. Site and Construction Plans. A copy of the site and construction plans for the development proposal showing: Page 60 of 90 Packet Page 750 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 a. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations, floodway, other critical areas, buffers, and shoreline areas; b. Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain; c. Clearing limits; and d. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and the level to which any nonresidential structure has been floodproofed. 2. Watercourse Alteration. Alteration of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If unavoidable, a critical areas report shall include: a. Extent of Watercourse Alteration. A description of and plan showing the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of a proposal; b. Maintenance Program Required for Watercourse Alterations. A maintenance program that provides maintenance practices for the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the flood - carrying capacity is not diminished. D. Information Regarding Other Critical Areas. Potential impacts to wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas shall be addressed in accordance with the applicable sections of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability.0 SHARE The degree of flood protection required by this chapter and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside frequently flooded areas or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the city of Edmonds, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Development Standards — Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.040 Development standards — Frequently flooded areas.C3 SHARE Development standards and provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas are provided as applicable to areas of special flood hazard in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Conformance with the provisions for flood hazard reduction of the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, shall constitute conformance with ECDC 23.40.050, Page 61 of 90 Packet Page 751 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Protection of critical areas, per the mandates of the Washington Growth Management Act and the purposes and objectives of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Chapter 23.80 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart. 23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping —Geologically hazardous areas. 23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas. 23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas. Part II. Allowed Activities — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.040 Allowed activities — Geologically hazardous areas. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.050 Special study and report requirements — Geologically hazardous areas. Part IV. Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.060 Development standards — General requirements. 23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart. D SHARE See Figure 23.80.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Geologically hazardous areas-0 SHARE Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible Page 62 of 90 Packet Page 752 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area: A. Erosion hazard; B. Landslide hazard; and C. Seismic hazard. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas.O SHARE A. Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion hazard areas are at least those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds erosion hazard areas include: 1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes); c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes); 2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion related to moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat. 3-2. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils and springs or ground water seepage; and 4-3. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope. B. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination ofbedr-ek,soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Within the city of Edmonds potential landslide hazard areas s„e�y include: 1. Areas of ancient or historic failures in Edmonds which include all areas within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc. and further discussed in the 2007 report by Landau Associates; Page 63 of 90 Packet Page 753 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), ups (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides) in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas; 3. Areas designated as quaternary, steps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps published by the United States Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Figure 1 Simple Slope Calculation The slope calculation guidance shall be used to determine the toe and top of%slope for slopes that are potentially landslide hazard areas or potentially erosion hazard areas. Toe and top of landslide hazard areas (generally slopes of 40% or greater) delineated where incline reverses or diminishes to <40% over at least 10 feet of horizontal distance. Toe and top of erosion hazard areas (genera I ly slopes 15-400/6) delineated where incline reverses or diminishes to <15% over <40% slop hazard are slope (ero area) over min 10 R. 10, Top of Slope ®r V (Vertical Rise) Slope = x 100% H (Horizontal Run) Note: Steps, gradient changes, and incline reversals or breaks below percent slopes defining landslide hazard areas (400/8) and erosion hazard areas (15%) shall be included as part ofthe larger slope. 24. Any slope of forty percent 40%, or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of ten (10) feet over a twenty -five 25) foot horizontal run. Except for rockeries that have been engineered and approved by the engineer as having been built according to the engineered design, all other modified slopes (including slopes where there are breaks in slopes) meeting overall average steepness and height criteria should be considered potential landslide hazard areas); Page 64 of 90 Packet Page 754 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 5. Any slope with all three of the following characteristics: a. Slopes steeper than fifteen percent (15%); b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively_ permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment; and c. Springs or groundwater seepage; Any aFea with a slope of 40 pereent or steeper- and with a veft relief of • OF HIE)Fe feet eXeept areas composed of eonselidated Feek. A slope is delineated b by aveFaging the inclination over at least establishing its toe and top (as defined in Figare I in stibseetion (B)(1) of this seetion) a -ad is fneasii Benehes, steps andvar-iations in gradient shall be ineofpor-ated into a larger- slope if they do not fneet er-itef!ia defining toe and/or top depieted in Figuf!e 1 in subseetion (B)(1) of this seetion (see also Figuf!e 2 a4 the end of this s4seetion). if the toe or- top of a slope is loeated off of a s4bjeet pr-opei4y, then t laeation of the toe or top shall be delineated •• horizontal feet ftom the pf!apefty boundary or at i 36. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; -and 47. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments, and 8. Any slopes that have been modified by past development activity that still meet the slope criter - C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake -induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface faulting. These areas are designated as having a "high" and "moderate to high" risk of liquefaction as manned on the Liauefaction Susceptibility Man of Snohomish Countv by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources or areas located within ep4tea-r-landslide hazard areas. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004] . 23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas.O SHARE A. The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, resources providing information on the location and extent of geologically hazardous areas in Edmonds include: 1. Washington Department of Ecology coastal zone atlas (for marine bluffs); 2. U.S. Geological Survey geologic maps, landslide hazard maps, and seismic hazard maps; 3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources seismic hazard maps for Western Washington; Page 65 of 90 Packet Page 755 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources slope stability maps; 5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami hazard maps; and 6. Federal Emergency Management Administration flood insurance maps. B. The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Allowed Activities — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.040 Allowed activities — Geologically hazardous areas. J SHRRE The following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas as consistent with ECDC 23.40.220, Allowed activities, Chapter 19.10 ECDC, Building Permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas, and Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Management, and do not require submission of a critical area report: A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Except for installation of fences and as otherwise provided for in this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent with an approved critical areas report in accordance with this title shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas. B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas: 1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly; 2. Additions to existing single -story residences that are 250 square feet or less; and 3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.050 Special study and report requirements — Geologically hazardous areas. SHARE Critical area report requirements for geologically hazardous areas are generally met through submission to the director of one or more geotechnical eug�reports. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for geologically hazardous areas must meet the requirements of this section and Chapters 18.30 and 19.10 ECDC as applicable. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. Geotechnical report(s) submitted for the purpose of critical areas review are required as necessary in addition to reports, data and other information mandated per ECDC Titles 18 and 19. Geotechnical report(s) shall be required: whenever a potential erosion hazard area or potential landslide Page 66 of 90 Packet Page 756 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 hazard area, as mapped by Edmonds critical areas inventory or shown on other information consistent with ECDC 23.80.030, is located within 50 feet of the proposed development site; whenever a development site is located within a seismic hazard area; or when otherwise determined warranted by the director (e.g. a distance equal to the height of the slope), A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for assessing a potential geologically hazardous area shall be prepared by a geologist licensed in the state of Washington, with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience preparing reports for the relevant type of hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary, the report detailing the mitigation measures and design of the mitigation shall be prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington, with experience stabilizing slopes with similar geotechnical properties. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). B. Area Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for geologically hazardous areas: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; and 2. All geologically hazardous areas within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal. C. Geological Hazards Assessment. A geology hazard assessment ^r-itie ' areas report for a geologically hazardous area shall include a field investigation and contain an assessment of whether or not each type of geologic hazard identified in ECDC 20.80.020 is present or not present and if development of the site will increase the risk of landslides or erosion on or off the site. Geotechnical reports shall be prepared, stamped and signed by a qualified professional. These reports must: 1. Be appropriate for the scale and scope of the project; 2. Include a discussion of all geologically hazardous areas on the site and any geologically _ hazardous areas off site potentially pacted by the proposed project. If the affected area extends beyond the subject property, the _geology hazard assessment may utilize existing data sources pertaining to that area; 3. Clearly state that the proposed project will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat to persons or property either on or off site and provide a rationale as to those conclusions based on geologic conditions and interpretations specific to the project; 4. Provide adequate information to determine compliance with the requirements of ECDC Chapter 23.80; 5. Generally follow the guidelines set forth in the Washington State Department of Licensing Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006). In some cases, such as when it is determined that no landslide or erosion risk is present, a full report may not be necessary to determine compliance with the ECDC Chapter 23.80, and in those cases a letter or abbreviated report may be provided. Page 67 of 90 Packet Page 757 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 6. If a landslide or erosion hazard is identified, provide minimum setback recommendations for avoiding the landslide or erosion hazard, other recommendations for site development so that the frequency or magnitude of landsliding or erosion on or off the site is not altered, and recommendations consistent with ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. PUM �srrr.'se��srs�es:��r:�:srs�-�r� Ts�s�t:rsr�sr�e:�:�:ser�f OPINIONS .y r.♦v...e:�.�r�.e:�:r.0 :.�7soara0.��.�s: s e. The topography, in two foot eontoufs, of the pf aj eet area and all hazard areas adElfessed iH the ) and D. Incorporation of Previous Study. Where a valid critical areas report has been prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions Page 68 of 90 Packet Page 758 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the required critical areas report. The applicant shall submit a hazards assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. E. Mitigation of Long -Term Impacts. When hazard mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the preexisting level of risk to the site and all other a4jaeepA-properties potentially impacted on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation). Proposed mitigation techniques shall be considered to provide long-term hazard reduction only if they do not require regular maintenance or other actions to maintain their function. Mitigation may also be required to avoid any increase in risk above the preexisting conditions following abandonment of the activity. F. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Projects within Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, technical information for any development within pion and subsidence and landslide hazard areas shall meet the requirements of Chapter 19.10 ECDC and include the following information at a minimum: 1. Site Plan. The critical areas report shall include a copy of the site plan for the proposal showing: a. The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the project area; b. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of ground water on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal; and c. The location and description of surface water runoff features; 2. Hazards Analysis. The hazards analysis component of the critical areas report shall specifically include: a. A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover; b. A description of subsurface conditions based on data from site -specific explorations; c. Descriptions of surface and ground water conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural improvements; d. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure; e. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate or an estimate of the percent risk of landslide area expansion that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year storm event; f. Consideration of the run -out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run -out on down -slope properties; g. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed cuts, fills, and other site grading; Page 69 of 90 Packet Page 759 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 h. Recommendations for building siting limitations; and i. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion; 3. Geotechnical Engineering Report. The technical information for a project within a landslide hazard area shall include a geotechnical engineering report prepared by a licensed engineer that presents engineering recommendations for the following: a. Parameters for design of site improvements including appropriate foundations and retaining structures. These should include allowable load and resistance capacities for bearing and lateral loads, installation considerations, and estimates of settlement performance; b. Recommendations for drainage and subdrainage improvements; c. Earthwork recommendations including clearing and site preparation criteria, fill placement and compaction criteria, temporary and permanent slope inclinations and protection, and temporary excavation support, if necessary; and d. Mitigation of adverse site conditions including slope stabilization measures and seismically unstable soils, if appropriate; 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. For any development proposal on a site containing an erosion hazard area, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required. The erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. G. Limited Report Requirements for Stable Erosion Hazard Areas. At the director's discretion, detailed critical areas report requirements may be waived for erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability. Report requirements for stable erosion hazard areas may be met through construction documents that shall include at a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. H. Seismic Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, a critical areas report for a seismic hazard area shall also meet the following requirements: -21. The hazards analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity on the site (for example, forces generated and fault displacement). -32. A geotechnical engineering report shall evaluate the physical properties of the subsurface soils, especially the thickness of unconsolidated deposits and their liquefaction potential. If it is determined that the site is subject to liquefaction, mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of the development shall be recommended and implemented. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 70 of 90 Packet Page 760 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Part IV. Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.060 Development standards — General requirements-1 SHARE a A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and 4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. B. Critical Facilities Prohibited. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is no other practical alternative. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards.C3 sHRRE A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or landslide hazards shall meet the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards — General Requirements, and the specific following requirements: 1. Minimum Building Setback. The minimum setback shall be the distance reauired to ensure the proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, considered to be one hundred and twenty (120) years and will not cause an increased risk of landslides taking place on or off the site. . A setback buff-ershall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The size of the setbackbuff-ef shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional. 2. Buffer Requirements. A buffer may be established with specific requirements and limitations, including but not limited to, drainage, grading, irrigation, and vegetation. Buffer requirements shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by activities within the buffer area, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared byqualified professional. 1 , rMffivrMu • msm Page 71 of 90 Packet Page 761 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 -23. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area, minimum building setback and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that: a. The alteration deve rmen will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; b. The alterationdeve opme„* will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Design Standards within erosion and landslide hazard areas. Development within an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are: a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed development site is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties; b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas; c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation; e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties; f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage; Page 72 of 90 Packet Page 762 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 4. Vegetation Retention. Unless otherwise provided or as part of an approved alteration, removal of vegetation from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited; 5. Seasonal Restriction. Clearing shall be allowed only from May 1 st to October 1 st of each year; provided, that the director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case -by -case basis depending on actual weather conditions, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal, may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the city of Edmonds or the Washington State Department of Natural Resources; 6. Point Discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from an erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibited except as follows: a. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazard areas downstream from the discharge; b. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed storm water runoff in the predeveloped state; or c. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low -gradient, undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and storm water runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope; and 7. Prohibited Development. On -site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers. B. Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. In addition to the requirements of this chapter, development proposals for lands located within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as indicated on the critical areas inventory shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC. C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the standards of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards — General Requirements. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Page 73 of 90 Packet Page 763 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Figure 23.80.000 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Geologically Hazardous Areas Geologically Geo-Hazard Assessment Geo-Hazard assess- Geotechnicat Report Development hazardous area REQUIREMENTS to ment co nctudes REQUIREMENT to encroaches within (geo-hazard may be identify classification and jurisdictional delineate boundaries delineated delineated located on or near location of geo-hazard. geo-hazard area and extent of geo-hazard area subject parcel. located within 200 k geo-hazard area, and / or minimum of subject parcel. building setback. Geo-Hazard assessment concludes nojurisdic- Development avoids Geotechnical Report tional geo-hazard geo-hazard area and REQUIREMENT to identify located I 20C ft from required minimum design mod ifications and subject parcel. building setback mitigation sufficient to buffer. avoid additional potential I risk associated with • development in and around geo-hazard areas. No additional compliance requirements. No additional Compliance required. No additional compliance requirements upon implementation of geotechnicat recommendations "Report requirements maybe met through submission of a single critical area report or multiple reports in combination. Page 74 of 90 Packet Page 764 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Chapter 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart. 23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping —Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Part II. Additional Report Requirements — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.020 Special study and report requirements — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Part I1I. Development Standards — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.030 Development standards — General requirements. 23.90.040 Development standards — Specific habitats. Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart. — SHRRE See Figure 23.90.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. SHARE A. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in the city of Edmonds include: 1. Streams. Within the city of Edmonds streams shall include those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Streams shall be classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16- 030) hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows: a. Type S: streams inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW; b. Type F: streams which contain fish habitat; Page 75 of 90 Packet Page 765 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 c. Type Np: perennial nonfish habitat streams; and d. Type Ns: seasonal nonfish habitat streams. All streams included on the inventory that are known to exist within the city of Edmonds do not meet criteria for "shorelines of the state" but contain fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type F waters pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. However, not all Edmonds streams support anadromous fish populations or have the potential for anadromous fish occurrence because of obstructions, blockages or access restrictions resulting from existing conditions. Therefore, in order to provide special consideration of and increased protection for anadromous fish in the application of development standards, Edmonds streams shall be further classified as follows: Anadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds in which anadromous fish are known to occur. As of 2004, Edmonds fishbearing streams are known to include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds Creek; and Nonanadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds which do not support fish populations and do not have the potential for fish occurrence because of barriers to fish passage or lack of suitable habitat. Streams with anadromous fish occurrence were identified in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment, a 2002 report of Pentec Environmental which is incorporated by this reference as if herein set forth. The city of Edmonds advocates and encourages the removal of barriers to anadromous fish passage consistent with the purposes and objectives of this title. The director may provide updated information on the occurrence of anadromous fish in Edmonds streams consistent with changes in existing environmental conditions. 2. Areas with which State or Federally Designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Have a Primary Association, or offer important fish and wildlife habitat within the urban environment_ a. Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Fisheries that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be consulted for current listing status. b. State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-12-011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The state Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most current listing and should be consulted for current listing status. Page 76 of 90 Packet Page 766 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 3. State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Priority habitats and species are identified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4. Habitats and Species of Local Importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those identified by the city of Edmonds, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. 45. Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas. These areas include all public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest, including shellfish protection districts established pursuant to Chapter 90.72 RCW. 56. Kelp and eelgrass beds and herring and smelt spawning areas. 6-7. Naturally Occurring Ponds Under 20 Acres. Naturally occurring ponds are those ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities, unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation. 79. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-031 (or WAC 222-16-030, depending on classification used). B. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title and shall be managed consistent with the best available science, such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Management Recommendations for Priority Habitat and Species. Page 77 of 90 Packet Page 767 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 C. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Resources providing information on the location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas incorporated into the inventory include: 1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species maps; 2. Washington State Department of Natural Resources official water type reference maps, as amended; 3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Puget Sound intertidal habitat inventory maps; 4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources shorezone inventory; 5. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program mapping data; 6. Washington State Department of Health annual inventory of shellfish harvest areas; 7. Anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in the habitat limiting factors reports published by the Washington Conservation Commission; and 8. Washington State Department of Natural Resources state natural area preserves and natural resource conservation area maps. The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants, and/or property owners and should be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical areas designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Additional Report Requirements — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.020 Special study and report requirements — Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. SHFRE In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical area reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas must meet the requirements of this section. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a biologist with experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in preparing critical areas reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). Page 78 of 90 Packet Page 768 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 B. Areas Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; 2. All fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and 3. All shoreline areas, floodplains, other critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and- 4. A discussion of the efforts to avoid and minimize potential effects to these resources and the implementation of mitigation/enhancement measures as required. C. Habitat Assessment. A habitat assessment is an investigation of the project area to evaluate the potential presence or absence of designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat. A critical areas report for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall contain an assessment of habitats, including the following site- and proposal -related information at a minimum: 1. Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and its associated buffer; 2. Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species; 3. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area. D. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Streams. Consistent with specific development standards for Edmonds streams (ECDC 23.90.040(D)), critical areas report requirements for streams may be met, at the discretion of the director, through submission of one or more specific report types. If stream buffer enhancement is proposed to reduce a standard stream buffer width or as part of project mitigation required by the director, a stream buffer enhancement plan may be submitted to fulfill the requirements of this section. If no project impacts are anticipated and standard stream buffer widths are retained, a stream survey report, general critical areas report or other reports alone or in combination may be submitted as consistent with the specific requirements of this section. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas provided in subsections (A) through (C) of this section, technical information on streams shall include the following information at a minimum: 1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the stream and associated hydrologic features within 200 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum: a. Stream survey showing the ordinary high water mark(s); Page 79 of 90 Packet Page 769 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 b. Standard stream buffer boundary; c. Boundary for proposed reduced stream buffers; d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics; e. Soil and substrate conditions; and f. Topographic elevations, at two -foot contours; 2. A detailed description and functional assessment of the stream buffer under existing conditions pertaining to the protection of stream functions, fish habitat and, in particular, potential anadromous fisheries; 3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and stream functions; 4. Proposed buffer enhancement, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps and planting plans for buffer areas to be enhanced, including the following information at a minimum: a. A description of existing buffer conditions; b. A description of proposed buffer conditions and how proposed conditions will increase buffer functioning in terms of stream and fish habitat protection; c. Performance standards for measuring enhancement success through a monitoring period of at least three years; and d. Provisions for monitoring and submission of monitoring reports documenting buffer conditions as compared to performance standards for enhancement success; 5. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect stream functions and habitat value through maintenance of vegetation density within the stream buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Development Standards — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.030 Development standards — General requirements.0 SHARE A. Alterations. A fish and wildlife habitat conservation area may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the habitat. There are no specific development standards for upland habitats of local importance unless these areas include another critical area (streams, heron rookeries, steep slopes, etc.). City staff will review the critical areas report (ECDC 23.90.020) and work with the applicant to minimize effects or improve conditions to upland habitat. Page 80 of 90 Packet Page 770 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 B. Approvals of Activities. The director shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or adjacent to a habitat conservation area or its buffers as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions shall be based on the best available science and may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Establishment of buffer zones; 2. Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as snags and downed wood; 3. Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access; 4. Seasonal restriction of construction activities; 5. Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities; and 6. Requirement of a performance bond, when necessary, to ensure completion and success of proposed mitigation. C. Mitigation and Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions. Mitigation of alterations to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis. Mitigation shall be located on -site except when demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an off -site location. Mitigation shall be detailed in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area mitigation plan, which may include the following as necessary: 1. A native vegetation planting plan; 2. Plans for retention, enhancement or restoration of specific habitat features; 3. Plans for control of nonnative invasive plant or wildlife species; and 4. Stipulations for use of innovative, sustainable building practices. D. Approvals and the Best Available Science. Any approval of alterations or impacts to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall be supported by the best available science. E. Buffers. 1. Establishment of Buffers. The director shall require the establishment of temporary or permanent buffer areas for permitted activities adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas which may result in fish or wildlife disturbance (e.g., construction, grading, etc.) when needed to protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Establishment of buffers shall follow recommendations set forth by a qualified biologist in the project critical areas report. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity Page 81 of 90 Packet Page 771 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 of the habitat and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted nearby and shall be consistent with the management recommendations issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. Seasonal and Daily Timing Restrictions. When a species is more susceptible to adverse impacts during specific periods of the year or day, seasonal restrictions on permitted activities within or adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas may be required at the discretion of the director pursuant to recommendations set forth in a critical areas report. F. Signs and Fencing of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field as required by the director in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of a metal face and attached to a metal post or another material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restriction b. The provisions of subsection (F)(2)(a) of this section may be modified by the director as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Fencing. a. The director shall determine if fencing is necessary to protect the functions and values of the critical area. If found to be necessary, the director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter to require the applicant to install a permanent fence at the edge of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. Page 82 of 90 Packet Page 772 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 b. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on -site. c. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes habitat impacts. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.90.040 Development standards — Specific habitats.0 SHARE A. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species. 1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency. 2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the director. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies. 3. Bald eagle habitat is subject to the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Washington State bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-12-292) shall not be required as long as bald eagles are not listed as a State Endangered or Threatened species. Bald eagle habit * shall be teetea piffstiant to the Washing4en State bald eagle pr-oteetion mies (WAG 232 12 292). Whenever- aetivities are pr-epe within 900 feet of a verified nest teffiter-y or- eemmtmal r-oost, a habita4 management plan shall be developed by a qualified pr-ef&sienal. The dir-eeter- shall ver-if�, the leeation of eagle management a-Feas for- eaeb proposed aefivit-y. Approval of the aefivity shall not eeettr- prior- to approval of the habit management the Washington Depaf:tmefA-eFish -and B. Anadromous Fish. 1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following standards: a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species; b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible; Page 83 of 90 Packet Page 773 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; d. Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and e. Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report. 2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. 3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water -dependent use. C. Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels. As a provision of this title, the director shall require retention of a minimum of 30 percent of native vegetation on undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 per Chapter 16.10 ECDC. This standard for development shall apply to all undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20 regardless of the potential for- designation as a fish and wildlife habitat eensefvatian area or other- eritieal are that contain a landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 23.80.020.13; a stream or stream buffer; or a wetland or wetland buffer, except for as provided in ECDC 23.90.040.C.4._This provision for native vegetation retention will provide increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Edmonds jurisdiction, and shall be applied consistent with the following criteria: 1. Achieving the minimum 30 percent retention requirement for native vegetation shall be determined by assessing the existing site area that supports native vegetation. For purposes of this provision, areas that support native vegetation shall include areas dominated by plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region, which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site, and within which native trees over 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH)make up more than 70 percent of the canopy cover. 2. The goal of 30 percent native vegetation can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation, establishing native vegetation, or a combination of both. 3. A vegetation management plan, subject to the approval of the director, is required for approval of the proposed development. 4. For undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 that currently do not support any native vegetation areas meeting minimum requirements in ECDC 23.90.040.C.1, the director may waive the requirements of this provision. D. Streams. No alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted unless consistent with the provisions of this title and the specific standards for development outlined below. Page 84 of 90 Packet Page 774 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 1. Standard Stream Buffer Widths. Buffers for streams shall be measured on each side of the stream, from the ordinary high water mark. The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing in the city of Edmonds: a. Type S: 150 feet; b. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 100 feet; c. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: 75 feet; d. Type F nonanadromous fishbearing stream: 75 feet; e. Type Np: 50 feet; f. Type Ns: 2-5-40 feet. General areas and stream reaches with access for anadromous fish are indicated on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. The potential for anadromous fish access shall be confirmed in the field by a qualified biologist as part of critical areas review and determination of standard stream buffer widths. 2. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths. Standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 59 twenty five percent (25%)of the standard stream buffer width concomitant to development and implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the provision of wildlife habitat. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and: a. , will provide equivalent to or- gr-ea than a s*.,n.a.,r buffer- without orha„eomei#The buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer reduction provides evidence that functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the stream; b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; Page 85 of 90 Packet Page 775 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success for a minimum of thfee-five 5 years in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D) and (E); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in stream buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Protection of anadromous fisheries; iv. Enhancement of fish habitat; and v. Restricting intrusion and disturbance. 3. Stream Buffer Width Averaging with Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a standards stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a stream buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional demonstrates that: a. The buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer averaging provides evidence that functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will be: i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the stream; b. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a stream extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; be. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than -5075 percent of the reduced or standard width; and 4. Additions to Structures Existing within Stream Buffers. Page 86 of 90 Packet Page 776 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 a. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this chapter (ECDC 23.90.030 and this section) -,provided that a buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantingsg and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard stream buffers, buffer- r-e"etieadffettgh enhaneement, and stream buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions through enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: ai. Outside of the standard stream buffer; bii. Outside of a stream buffer r-edueed through enha ^emw„*averaged with enhancement) per subsection (D)(23) of this section; Eiii. Outside of a stream buffer reduced (with enhancement) *h,.ettghauff r ^..� per subsection (D)(�2) of this section; or div. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25°) percent of the standard stream buffer width ugh the use of botL, b.,,f — r ,-eduetio and b uff-er ^ e -with no more than three hundred (300)square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner fifty_percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact). v. Outside of the inner 25 aercent of the standard stream buffer width with no more than five hundred (500)square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio(enhancement-to- impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID,) techniques or other measures that enhance existing buffer condition are included as part of the stream buffer enhancement plan. b. Where meeting stream buffer enhancement reauirements reauired by H.1. of this section would result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative enhancement approaches may be qpproved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area. c. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. 5. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a stream buffer, provided that the following conditions are met: a. The footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.320; Page 87 of 90 Packet Page 777 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 b. The proposed development within the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment is sited as far away from the stream edge as is feasible; c. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existingdvelopment are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the stream and not represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development. d. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent remaining stream buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development; e. Enhancement is provided as buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within in the footprint of existingdevelopment evelopment occurring in stream buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer; and f. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the stream buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantingsg and following construction of the allowed alteration. 56. Stream Crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed only if all reasonable construction techniques and best management practices are used to avoid disturbance to the stream bed or bank. Upon completion of construction, the area affected shall be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted with native species and/or otherwise protected according to a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan approved by the director, and maintained and monitored per the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and providing for buffer enhancement in accordance with the requirements of subsection (D)(2) of this section. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that best management practices will be used during construction to provide the following: a. Fisheries protection, including no interference with fish migration or spawning; b. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow periods and shall be timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when stream use is critical to salmonids; c. Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas unless no other possible crossing site exists; d. Crossings and culverted portions of the stream shall be minimized to the extent feasible and serve multiple purposes and multiple lots whenever possible; e. Roads may cross streams only on previously approved rights -of -way, provided no practical alternative exists and adequate provision is made to protect and/or enhance the stream through appropriate mitigation. Roads shall be designed and located to conform to topography, and maintained to prevent erosion and restriction of the natural movement of ground water as it affects the stream; f. Roads and utilities shall be designed in conjunction to minimize the area of disturbance to the stream; and Page 88 of 90 Packet Page 778 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 g. Roads shall be constructed so as to minimize adverse impacts on the hydrologic quality of the stream or associated habitat to a degree acceptable to the city1 h. An alternative alignment or location with less impact is not feasible; and i. The crossing will be designed as near as perpendicular with the water body as possible.. 67. Trails. After reviewing the proposed development and technical reports, the director may determine that a pedestrian -only trail may be allowed in a stream buffer; provided, nenimpervioussafface materials are used, all appropriate provision is made to protect water quality, and all applicable permit requirements have been met. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed within a stream or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance or security. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect streams by limiting vehicular access to designated public use or interpretive areas. -8. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within stream buffers; provided, that: a. No other location is feasible; b. Pipes and conveyance facilities will be in the outer twenty. f�percent (25%) of the buffer; c. Stormwater dispersion outfalls, bioswales, and bioretention facilities may be allowed anywhere within stream buffers: d. Such facilities are designed consistent with requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30; and be. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream or stream buffer. 89. City Discretion in Protection, Enhancement and Preservation of Streams. The city of Edmonds is unique within the state of Washington as a built -out community with streams that have been incorporated within, and often located immediately adjacent to, residential development. This title allows the director full discretion to condition proposals for development on parcels containing, adjacent to, or potentially impacting streams to enhance conditions consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions on development shall be required to enhance streams and stream buffers as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to provide increased protection of anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include: a. Removal of stream bank armoring; b. In -stream habitat modification; c. Native planting; Page 89 of 90 Packet Page 779 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat; e. Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading; f. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species; g. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers; and h. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses. The right of discretion in provisioning development in regard to streams is maintained in order to provide for the creation of enhanced conditions over those currently existing around streams in the city of Edmonds. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard stream buffer widths as provided in subsection (D)(1) of this section can be accommodated by project development, the applicant shall be required to submit a stream buffer enhancement plan or a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report indicating that post -project site conditions will provide equivalent or greater protection of stream functions and fish habitat over a standard stream buffer and existing site conditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Figure 23.90.000 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas Compliance Requirements* Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Flsb and 4YddUile Cririral Areu R�Ir1rn Ccal Arta hoarse 11, l I! •. Crrea irinl ARePorl [:riuca ANS miliprinn Rlan Habims Coreervatioa nt;RE4U]RL•51LN71u idtniifirs jurisdictional 1S4's+ MgUIREMEN7 t<1 Ileporlo Chides _ REQUIRED la Arta 4 WkCA)11My sdenriep arc enrrrn WA wili1tn211U fi of T I—i& L1 -r_P' dsar idowralo ,d-ILN -tinny n, behead on or near juriwlictinlu] E1191[h. vhja, panel. of h.,hital sod i,k,ntfy FWJ�C:A will l&* retain nr,, u• Ihu tabjeer puati wiehin 11ir nF P131-1 -1 nnpw, .,idling xsWr f"I proien 111 16—S and valu�v sul+icn purc�l. Imps P.4ald—lnpn L dn+dopnrrnr. ul Mldtifr Ubd.Lt aidwl Aum Rrpore fupas[mncltld<s �ondudea no thatbnbiret ill n-K 1-t N„utdilirmal juridictional ercnz se and values will not hr mrnpliansr ] Kotud within 310 R nr 0 dcrxs-d 1hrogh proim Tequi rrn,enrs. ulhierr parcel. � +k+xlupmrnr. vn ui�ili,rn�r Na odditinnal ix,mPliorrsr campluna raquiTementx. rcquircrrtrnit- 9lxaam S�eeos Survey REQUIRED it . REQUlJlLM sn 1n d,wulj 11.,�un1 a"d +r-iml will re 111 dtmomtrow rtmlon of JYofrxr i•ruld, sitt or in lam,mor hllfkr 1itnNln and buffer fulkl"i Impannlo strcnrn w:htam uad buffer l+infer x,ll lti 1�npa<1ed In lad vshlesxirh reduced huger voided ihmugh 1 in1 L�rn'It led Lr1 "^Peas w,lh xlundeN-1 buf crwdudion. wtI standard buffer prujer p i,+,Rsr widths, bufl'cr widrhiw w'bS, wedyshs. %U1 irrd.3iuflcr width. T Nk-ddij... I Noaddidional Stream buficrrvroging Further burr- Noa& Wunrl minipbar r wntphonm allawcd with odieinnal — red-ti— needed 1n wnlpll 10. mquirc lc TcquiMnle ts. bufferrnhenwnienl. —* huller inslrcicm relrLUMHenrs. 'Report requirements may be met through submission of In single critical area report or multiple reports in combination. Page 90 of 90 Packet Page 780 of 1075 City of Edmonds — City Code and Community Development Code Environmentally Critical Areas — Proposed Code Updates, October 19, 2015 Page 91 of 90 Packet Page 781 of 1075 Proposed Frequently Flooded Areas Code Amendment Building Code Amendment Amendment to Building Code requiring structures to be constructed two feet above base flood elevation: 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments O. IBC section 1612.4.1. Lowest Flood Elevation. is added and reads: For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map_ Development Code Amendment to Address Heiuht Issues — Definition of Heiuht 21.40.030 Height. A. Height means the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure. (See subsection (D) of this section for exceptions to this rule.) B. "Average level' shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls off the site, its elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of the rectangle cross the property line. (See subsection (D) of this section for exceptions to this rule.) C. Accessory buildings that are attached to the main building by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection so that the accessory building is separated by 10 feet or less from the main building shall be considered to be part of the main building for purposes of determining the average level. For the purposes of this section, in order for an accessory building to be considered to be attached to and a part of the main building, the connecting structure must have a roof and be constructed of similar materials to both the main building and the accessory building so that it appears to be a unified and consistently designed building. D. Height Exceptions. 1. (Rese ved4 For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA flood hazard may. ; 2. Church steeples; 3. Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit; 4. Chimneys, not to exceed nine square feet in horizontal section or more than three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit. In RM districts, chimneys shall be clustered. No multiple -flue chimney shall exceed 39 square feet in horizontal section. The first chimney shall not exceed nine square feet in horizontal section, and other chimneys shall not exceed six square feet in horizontal section; 5. Vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches in height above the height limit; 6. Standpipes not to exceed 30 inches in height above the height limit; Packet Page 782 of 1075 7. Solar energy installations not to exceed 36 inches in height above the height limit. Such an installation may be approved as a Type II staff decision if it is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar access while limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties; and 8. Replacement of existing rooftop HVAC equipment which exceeds the existing height limit, so long as the replacement equipment does not exceed the height of the existing equipment by more than 12 inches. The replacement equipment must have earned the Energy Star label. [Ord. 3866 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3728 § 2, 2009; Ord. 3654 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3569 § 2, 2005]. Packet Page 783 of 1075 __ h f Prepared by: EDAW Inc. 815 Western Avenue Suite 300 Seattle Washington 98104 Prepared for: The City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds Washington 98020 Packet Page 784 of 1075 Packet Page 785 of 1075 The City of Edmonds 2004 Best Available Science Report Prepared by: EDAW, Inc. 815 Western Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared for: The City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 November 2004 Packet Page 786 of 1075 Packet Page 787 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ I 1.1 Purpose..............................................................................................................2 1.2 Best Available Science Overview.....................................................................2 1.3 Integration of the CAO and Shoreline Master Program...................................3 1.4 City of Edmonds Overview..............................................................................4 2.0 REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.............................................................7 2.1 Related Actions and Regulations......................................................................7 3.0 CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE MECHNISMS SUMMARY...............................9 4.0 WETLANDS...............................................................................................................11 4.1 Wetlands: Code Review and Comparison......................................................11 4.2 Review of Scientific Literature.......................................................................15 4.3 Assessment of Wetland Ordinance.................................................................24 4.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment..................................................................26 5.0 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS.........................................................................29 5.1 Frequently Flooded Areas: Code Review and Comparison ............................29 5.2 Review of Scientific Literature.......................................................................30 5.3 Assessment of Frequently Flooded Areas Ordinance......................................33 5.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment..................................................................33 6.0 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS..............................................................35 6.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas: Code Review and Comparison ....................35 6.2 Review of Scientific Literature.......................................................................39 6.3 Assessment of Geologically Hazardous Areas Ordinance..............................40 6.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment..................................................................41 7.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS..............................43 7.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: Code Review andComparison...............................................................................................44 7.2 Review of Scientific Literature.......................................................................51 7.3 Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Ordinance .....53 7.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment..................................................................54 8.0 CAO ORGANIZATION..............................................................................................55 8.1 Organizational Code Review and Comparison...............................................55 8.2 Assessment of Critical Areas Ordinance Organization..................................56 8.3 Conclusions and Risk Assessment..................................................................57 9.0 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................59 Best Available Science Report Page i Packet Page 788 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report List of Tables Table 4-1. Wetlands code comparison...............................................................................13 Table 4-2. Wetland rating systems.....................................................................................18 Table 4-3. Buffer effectiveness..........................................................................................20 Table 5-1. Frequently flooded areas code comparison......................................................31 Table 6-1. Geologically hazardous areas code comparison...............................................37 Table 7-1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas code comparison ........................47 Best Available Science Report Page ii Packet Page 789 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Acronyms and Abbreviations BAS Best Available Science CAO Critical Areas Ordinance cfs cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CTED Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development CWA Clean Water Act DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DOE Washington Department of Ecology ECDC Edmonds Community Development Code ESHB Engrossed Substitute House Bill FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps GIS geographic information system GMA Growth Management Act RCW Revised Code of Washington SAO Sensitive Areas Ordinance SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program T/E Threatened/Endangered TES Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Best Available Science Report Page iii Packet Page 790 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Best Available Science Report Page iv Packet Page 791 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties in the state to protect critical areas within their jurisdiction to preserve the natural environment and protect the public's health and safety. To respond to this mandate, jurisdictions have developed Critical Areas Ordinances (CAO) that define buffers and other standards to protect these resources. The GMA was amended in 2002 to require jurisdictions to update their comprehensive land use plan and critical areas ordinance every 7 years to ensure the protection of sensitive resources. Five critical areas are identified by the GMA (RCW 36.70A.030[5]): • Wetlands • Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water • Frequently flooded areas • Geologically hazardous areas • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas Each of these categories is discussed in detail later in this document, except aquifer recharge areas, which are not a concern in Edmonds. Protecting these critical areas within a jurisdiction aids in reducing risk to natural disasters such as floods and landslides, and for retaining the ecosystem functions of elements of the landscape such as streams and wetlands. Counties and cities are required to include the best available science (BAS) in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities are required to give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish populations (those that mature in salt water and spawn in freshwater). Protecting the function and values of a critical area does not mean exclusion of all uses or development within or adjacent to these areas, but requires managing changes in land use, new activities, and development that can harm these resources (CTED 2003). According to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED), there are four primary steps in developing a local critical areas program. These steps can progress concurrently: 1. Identify the local critical areas; 2. Review BAS information relevant to local critical areas; 3. Set goals and policies under the comprehensive plan for protecting critical areas; and 4. Define, designate, and protect critical areas. Identification of critical areas and mapping these resources is the first step in the update process. Most jurisdictions have some level of inventory data and will use the CAO update process to refine these data. Comprehensive plan updates help define the broader goals and policies of managing the landscape within a jurisdiction. These goals are then used as a framework to update existing CAO codes and regulations. Some classifications Best Available Science Report Page 1 Packet Page 792 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report of critical areas, such as streams and wetlands, have changed on a state level, and these elements also need to be updated in the new code. Finally, jurisdictions will provide public comment on the daft CAO and will submit the final regulations to CTED for review and comment. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this BAS review is to provide technical information to City staff regarding the efficacy of protection measures regarding critical areas within their jurisdiction. This information will allow decision -makers to update the Edmonds CAO in accordance with GMA and CTED guidelines that reflect the available resources and particular needs of the City. 1.2 Best Available Science Overview In 1995, the Washington State Legislature added a new section to the GMA that requires cities and counties to use reliable scientific information when developing policies and development regulations regarding critical areas. This new requirement (RCW 36.70A.172) requires all counties and cities in Washington to "include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas." It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction that their CAO update includes a review of BAS relevant to the resources within their boundary. In 1998, CTED organized a technical team of experts from state and local agencies to clarify the issue of BAS for jurisdictions undertaking CAO updates. CTED eventually adopted six new sections to the Procedural Criteria, Part Nine, WAC 365-195. The science rules are codified at WAC 365-195 through 925 and took effect on August 27, 2000. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board applies three factors to determine if a local or county government has included BAS in their process: • The scientific evidence contained in the record. • Whether the local government's analysis of the "scientific evidence and other factors involved a reasoned process." • Whether the local government's decision was within the parameters of the GMA as directed by the provisions of RCW 3 6.70A. 172(l). The local jurisdiction's record supporting their CAO process and decisions should include the following (WAC 365-195-915): • The specific policies and regulations adopted to protect the functions and values of critical areas. • Copies of (or references to) the best available science used in the decision -making and the nonscientific information used as a basis for departing from science -based recommendations. Best Available Science Report Page 2 Packet Page 793 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report • The rationale supporting the local government's reliance on the nonscientific information. • Actions taken to address potential risks to the functions and values of the critical areas that policies and regulations are intended to protect. Jurisdictions also must give special consideration to anadromous fish when developing their CAO. Specifically, WAC 365-195-192 explains what "special consideration" entails: • The county or city should take the same steps it takes to demonstrate it has included the best available science. It should make a record showing that its critical areas policies and regulations identify and address "conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries" that are grounded in BAS. • The "conservation or protection measures" for anadromous fisheries should include measures that preserve or enhance habitat for all life stages of anadromous fish. Protection of critical areas can preserve and enhance anadromous fish habitat through a variety of mechanisms including buffers around streams and wetlands that provide protection from ground -disturbing activities, erosion, and surface water runoff. Requirements for proper erosion control and stormwater control also protect aquatic habitats. These and other protection measures are explored in the following chapters. 1.3 Integration of the CAO and Shoreline Master Program In reaction to a decision in Everett Shorelines Coalition v. the City of Everett (Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board No. 02-30009c), the 2003 Washington Legislature adopted Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1933, which clarifies the relationship between the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and GMA. Among other items, the bill stipulates that critical areas that occur within or exist as shorelines of the state (as defined by SMA) are to be protected by the jurisdiction's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Local governments must ensure this protection while updating their SMP to meet Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) new SMP guidelines. Regulations for critical areas under the SMP must be as stringent under the SMP as the CAO. During the period of time between the effective date of ESHB 1933 and a local government's update of its SMP, the local government's GMA critical areas regulations continue to apply to designated critical areas throughout the jurisdiction, including those in the vicinity of shorelines of the state. The City of Edmonds is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan and CAO and plans to update its SMP in 2005. Thus, the City's CAO will cover critical areas within shorelines until the updated SMP is adopted. Best Available Science Report Page 3 Packet Page 794 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 1.4 City of Edmonds Overview The City of Edmonds is located in southeastern Snohomish County along Puget Sound just north of the Town of Woodway and south of the City of Lynwood. The Burlington Northern/Amtrak train line runs parallel to the shoreline for the entire north -south shoreline of Edmonds. While no comprehensive critical areas geographical information system (GIS) database was previously available for the resources within the City limits, a number of unconnected data sources were available for wetlands, streams, steep slopes, landslide areas, and some critical wildlife habitat zones. Because of the City's topographic position and its relatively small size, the drainages that flow through the jurisdiction are relatively small. No streams meet the 20 cubic foot per second (cfs) annual flow threshold for classification as a water of the state. While a few streams provide limited access for coho salmon, these are limited to the lower reaches of the streams (Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, and Willow Creek). Stream reaches that flow through parks or other protected public lands or are adjacent to undevelopable land (steep slopes) have defined riparian habitat. In contrast, many lower stream reaches have been subject to historical residential development and have no riparian zones, with grass, concrete, or other man-made banks. Larger wetland systems in the City, such as the Edmonds Marsh and Good Hope Marsh, are protected within public open space. Lake Ballinger (partially within the City limits), however, in the southeastern corner of the City, is developed down to its shoreline with little or no native vegetation buffer. Many smaller wetland complexes are associated with the headwaters of streams such as Shell Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Fruitdale Creek. Other less significant wetlands are scattered throughout the jurisdiction. Most of the creeks within Edmonds originate within the City limits and flow directly into Puget Sound. While the wetlands present in these small watersheds may be minor in size, because of past development and loss of riparian zones, these wetlands provide significant functions within these small watersheds. Steep slopes and landslide issues, particularly in the Meadowdale portion of the City, have been constant concerns for City staff trying to balance public safety and reasonable development. Several recent engineering studies have helped refine the issues, map susceptible areas, and provide input into the CAO update process. Continued vigilance and accurate assessment of proposed development in this area is required. The City contains a number of important fish and wildlife habitat zones in addition to wetlands and streams. While the interaction between upland areas and the Puget Sound shoreline has been diminished from the construction of the railroad right-of-way and other developments, the Edmonds shoreline still provides productive estuarine habitat for a number of fish species, marine mammals, and recreation in the form of the designated underwater diving park. Riparian zones, wetlands, and adjacent buffers form some connected patches of habitat, particularly along the stream corridors. Where these are Best Available Science Report Page 4 Packet Page 795 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report supplemented by public open space, such as Yost Park and Southwest County Park, the area and connectivity of wildlife habitat is substantially increased. These features are important in providing limited and connected wildlife habitat within a relatively urban zone. The City of Edmonds is unique in two particular areas when compared to other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area: • There are few parcels of land that have not previously been developed • Historical building practices have left minimal and often no buffers along the small streams that flow through the City. The small streams that are present in the City often traverse through residential lots where they have been diverted around structures, are located directly adjacent to houses, are bridged by driveways, or have been incorporated into residential landscaping. Developing buffer recommendations that are practical and enforceable for the CAO is difficult because of this urban residential context of few undeveloped parcels and historical integration of residential housing and these small streams. Best Available Science Report Page 5 Packet Page 796 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 2.0 REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION The update of the Edmonds CAO is being completed under CTED guidelines regarding BAS. The concept of BAS is to have jurisdictions review the science of resource protection in the context of the critical areas within their jurisdiction. Much of the data regarding protection of resources from development impacts concerns the appropriate width of buffers of native vegetation between critical areas and development. There is no one answer, however, regarding the width of buffers needed to protect resources such as streams and wetlands. Often, it depends on a specific research topic addressed, such as protection from nutrient loading, excess sediment, excess stormwater flow, or protection of wildlife habitat. Ultimately, the larger the buffer, the greater protection will be provided, up to an often undefined threshold. As an example, some of the literature suggests buffers of over 900 feet along streams to attain protection of wildlife habitat (Knutson and Naef, 1997, FEMAT 1993), while buffers of 50 feet are sufficient to protect streams from the majority of pollutants from runoff (Lee et al. 2000). GMA sets up an inherent conflict for urban growth areas. The primary goal of the act is to discourage sprawl and the damage to natural resources from unplanned growth, and encourage denser growth in urban zones. In contrast, urban growth jurisdictions are also directed to protect and enhance resources within their boundaries. Thus, policy -makers must decide on the level of resource protection (such as buffer widths) that are appropriate for their resources that does not unduly restrict urban growth directed by GMA. While the science can provide some clear guidelines regarding these issues, ultimately, this is a policy and public -process decision. 2.1 Related Actions and Regulations The City is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan and coordinating this update effort and the CAO update. In addition, once the Comprehensive Plan and CAO are adopted by the City Council, a joint State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document will be completed on the implications of these updates. The updated GMA rules stipulate that special emphasis must be given to anadromous fish, those that spend their adult life in marine waters but return to spawn in freshwater rivers and streams. A number of anadromous species in Puget Sound are protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act; thus, jurisdictions should be aware of the effects of their CAOs to these species. Protection in the CAO is generally provided from buffers along streams, wetlands, and the estuarine shoreline. CAO regulation of activities near wetlands and streams often overlaps with wetland fill laws under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). CAOs usually provide very specific guidelines regarding such items as buffer widths and mitigation rations for wetland enhancement or replacement from development loss where the Corps' guidelines do not. In addition, the minimum size of wetland fill under the Corps' guidelines is generally much larger that Best Available Science Report Page 6 Packet Page 797 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report the minimum size for compliance with CAOs. Thus, in general, local ordinances can provide added protection for these resources as appropriate for their community above the Federal requirements. Best Available Science Report Page 7 Packet Page 798 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 3.0 CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE MECHANISMS SUMMARY Several general strategies can be incorporated into CAO for resource protection. These include: • Engineering analysis and design • Buffer requirements • Mitigation requirements • Incentives and public education • Upland native vegetation retention Reports on steep slopes and landslide hazard areas are often required in CAO to determine if and how development can proceed. Specific buffer widths are often recommended for these areas but can be adjusted if a report, provided by a qualified geotechnical expert, determines that development can be accommodated with certain engineering or construction elements. The primary concern with these critical areas is public safety. Many jurisdictions do not include specific recommendations in their CAO but refer to guidelines within their building code. Buffer requirements are often the primary mechanism used to protect sensitive resources, which range from wetlands and streams to bald eagle nest sites. The general idea is to allow development only at a set distance from the resource to protect it from physical, chemical, and noise effects. Most often, the buffers must consist of native vegetation, which also provides a visual screen important for some wildlife species. If impacts to a wetland or stream, or its buffer, cannot be avoided, then CAOs usually provide a ratio of mitigation or enhancement to compensate for the development impact. The ratios are usually based on the relative value of the lost resource and the estimated time to regain those lost functions. For instance, a high ratio of habitat replacement to habitat loss would be appropriate for loss of forested wetland because of the time it would take for a forested wetland to become established compared to the loss of a wetland dominated by emergent, non -woody vegetation. CTED recommends that mitigation ratios be increased when: • Uncertainty about potential success exists; • A significant period of time is expected before a functioning wetland recovers; • Mitigation results in a lower category wetland or diminished function; and • Wetland impacts were not authorized. While not often directly part of a CAO, incentives and public education are important components of retention of native vegetation in urban zones. Particularly in Edmonds, historical residential development is already a part of the landscape adjacent to streams and within recommended buffer zones. It is important to foster community awareness of the functions of stream and wetland buffers so residents will protect existing native vegetation and potentially enhance areas with native species outside a regulatory construct. Best Available Science Report Page 8 Packet Page 799 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Upland areas outside of sensitive area buffer zones are generally key development parcels within urban growth boundaries. However, undeveloped upland parcels often also provide habitat for wildlife and may be components of habitat corridors comprised of adjacent open space parcels around stream corridors, steep slopes, or wetlands. Rather than clear an entire developable lot and then implement landscaping with non-native plant species, it can be beneficial to consider the placement of structures, driveways, and roads to limit the amount of clearing of vegetation. CAOs can include provisions for retention of a certain percentage of existing native vegetation on undeveloped lots to help preserve small-scale habitat segments, particularly if they contribute to a larger parcel or corridor of open space. Development of a Vegetation Management Plan to assess the options for retaining vegetation on undeveloped sites can provide the required analysis for City staff to work with project proponents. Flexibility on both sides is often needed in these cases to accommodate reasonable development and protection of resources in an urban environment. Best Available Science Report Page 9 Packet Page 800 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 4.0 WETLANDS Wetlands in Washington State are fragile ecosystems that perform a number of important beneficial functions. As such, wetlands are identified in the Washington GMA as a distinct critical area for which continued protection is imperative (see WAC 365-190- 080[l]). Wetlands reduce the risk of erosion, siltation, flooding, and ground and surface water contamination as well as provide valuable habitat for wildlife, plants, and fish. Wetland destruction or degradation may result in increased public and private costs or property losses through increased risk of flooding. In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, jurisdictions are required to use the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(20) as follows: "Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass - lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. In addition, to comply with definitive mandates of BAS, CTED encourages counties and cities to develop protective measures consistent with the intent and goals of "protection of wetlands," Executive Orders 89-10 and 90-04 as issued on September 1, 1990. Additionally, counties and cities must consider updated guidance on wetlands protection provided by DOE. Recent CAO updates typically include modification of wetland classification systems to conform with the state system developed and intensively reviewed by DOE for consistency with BAS. Although adoption of DOE's system is not mandatory, CTED encourages counties and cities that do not rate wetlands or intend classification updates to consider a wetland rating system to reflect the relative function, value, and uniqueness of wetlands in their jurisdictions. In developing wetland rating systems, CTED guidance (CTED 2003) instructs counties and cities to consider the following: • The Washington State four -tier wetlands rating system; • Wetlands functions and values; • Degree of sensitivity to disturbance; • Rarity; and • Ability to compensate for destruction or degradation. Best Available Science Report Page 10 Packet Page 801 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 4.1 Wetlands: Code Review and Comparison The City of Edmonds' current CAO uses a modified three -tiered system for wetland classification (Table 4-1). This system is not consistent with CTED guidance on classifying Washington State wetlands in accordance with BAS. As indicated in Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas, CTED encourages adoption of the four -tiered wetland classification system developed by DOE. This four -tiered system — in both its 1993 revised (DOE 1993) and recently updated (2004a) draft form — allows refined distinction of wetland categories based upon function and value, especially in regard to "lower quality" wetland types. DOE has prepared a draft document that reviews the science of wetland management and buffers in Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (DOE 2004b). DOE provided input to CTED regarding the appropriate buffers for wetlands and streams. Best Available Science Report Page 11 Packet Page 802 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Table 4-1. Wetlands code comparison. City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Draft Mukilteo CAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents. Wetland Classification Uses 4-tiered wetland classification Uses 4-tiered wetland Basically uses a 3-tiered system Adopts DOE 4-tiered wetland • In general, all jurisdictions in Washington are adopting the 4- system per DOE: classification system per DOE's with a 4th category (Category 4 classification system: tiered system developed by DOE, typically with slight Existing Code: Three categories 1993 wetland rating system: wetlands) defining wetlands modification. defined as follows. Category 1 associated with a specific Category 1 • Edmonds code currently only specifies use of the Federal Category 2 Category 1 hydrologic system (Lake Burien). Category 2 manual for wetland delineations. CTED and most Category 1 Category 3 Category 2 Category 3 jurisdictions typically specify use of the State manual, which Category 2 Category 4 Category 3 Category 1 Category 4 is based upon the Federal manual. In practicality, both Category 3 Category 4 Category 2 manuals are used for field delineation and updated code Category 3 should allow for use of both. Category 4 — Lake Burien and • Edmonds code only regulates wetlands larger than 2,500 associated wetlands. square feet in size. This regulatory minimum is inconsistent with guidance provided by CTED and DOE, although most jurisdictions retain minimum size requirements in updated CAO. Wetland Buffers Category 1 Category 1 — 160 ft Category 1 — 200 ft Category 1 — 300 ft • "Intensity" classification for wetland buffers in CTED's high intensity — 300ft Category 2 — 100 ft Category 2 — 200 ft Example Code Provisions refer to "land use intensity." Existing code: moderate intensity — 250 ft Category 2 — 100 ft Category 3 — 50 ft Category 3 — 100 ft Numerous jurisdictional precedents reflect an opposite low intensity — 200 ft Category 4 — 30 ft Category 4 — 50 ft correlation between regulated buffer widths and "intensity" Category 1 — 100 ft Category 3 — 75 ft of land use: i.e., buffers are typically reduced in size in urban, Category 2 — 50 ft Category 2 built -out jurisdictions to accommodate existing development Category 3 — 25 ft high intensity — 200 ft Category 4 — 50 ft and land uses. moderate intensity — 150 ft • Currently, Edmonds code allows for a minimum spot low intensity — 100 ft (As programmatic mitigation for reduction through buffer averaging to 50% of standard buffer use of smaller buffers, Mukilteo width. This is inconsistent with CTED guidance, which Category 3 requires development of a allows spot reduction to 75% of standard width or to 35 ft, high intensity — 100 ft Buffer Enhancement Plan for whichever is larger. Other jurisdictions (e.g., King County) moderate intensity — 75 ft any parcel containing a do not stipulate a minimum but, instead, include text low intensity — 50 ft regulated wetland.) confirming that wetland functions and values will not be reduced. Category 4 • Many jurisdictions include details on wetland buffer High intensity — 50 ft enhancement plans. Mukilteo, to provide systematic low and moderate intensity — 35 ft mitigation for the potential adoption of reduced standard buffer widths, stipulates in its updated wetland ordinance that a buffer enhancement plan is required for all parcels containing a wetland regardless of the potential for impacts. Wetland Mitigation Category 1 — 6:1 Category 1 — 6:1 Category 1 and 2 — 3:1 On -site: • CTED's Example Code Provisions stipulates mitigation ratio Category 2 — 3:1 Category 2 — 3:1 Category 3 and 4 — 2:1 Restoration. increases when: (a) uncertainty about potential success exists; Existing code: Compensatory Category 3 — 2:1 Category 3 — 2:1 Category 1,2,3 — 3:1 (b) a significant period of time is expected before wetland mitigation ratios as follows. Category 4 — 1.5:1 Category 4 — 1.5:1 Category 4 — 2:1 functioning recovers; (c) mitigation results in a lower Enhancement or creation. category wetland or diminished functions; and (d) wetland Category 1-6:1 Category 1,2,3 — 4:1 impacts were not authorized. Category 2-forested 3:1, shrub Category 4 — 3:1 • King County allows for reduced compensatory ratios under Best Available Scince Report Page 12 Packet Page 803 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Table 4-1. Wetlands code comparison. City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Draft Mukilteo CAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents. 2:1, emergent 1.5:1 various — very specific — conditions, typically requiring an Category 3-1.25:1 Off -site same drainage basin. applicant to provide valid proof (hydrological data, Restoration. monitoring precedents, etc.) of mitigation success. Category 1,2,3 — 4:1 • Currently, alternatives for mitigation other than compensation Category 4 — 3:1 are not directly addressed in Edmonds CAO. Many Creation. jurisdictions provide managers with leeway in determining Category 1,2,3 — 5:1 appropriate strategies for wetland impact mitigation. Many Category 4 — 4:1 jurisdictions (e.g., Burien, King County, etc.) include Enhancement: provisions for wetland enhancement as mitigation. Under Category 1,2,3 — 6:1 such provisions, applicants are allowed to enhance existing Category 4 — 4:1 wetlands and buffers in lieu of compensatory wetland creation. Off -site different drainage basin: Restoration. Category 1,2,3 — 5:1 Category 4 — 4:1 Creation. Category 1,2,3 — 6:1 Category 4 — 5:1 Enhancement. Category 1,2,3 — 8:1 Category 4 — 5:1 Wetlands — Permitted Uses Stormwater management facilities, "Stormwater Management Sewer utility corridors may be Practically allows stormwater • Jurisdictions incorporating BAS generally allow stormwater limited to stormwater dispersion Facilities [... ] shall not be allowed in certain wetlands and discharge and utilities in facilities in wetland buffers and establish mechanisms in the Existing code: outfalls and bioswales, may be located within the required stormwater facilities are allowed wetlands and wetland buffers as code for variances to allow planning departments leeway with allowed within the outer 25% of buffer unless no other locations consistent with requirements based long as wetland function and placement of facilities as practical. However, all code Depending on wetland category, the buffer of Category 3 and 4 are feasible and the location of upon wetland category. values are maintained or updated in accordance with BAS includes text specifically wetlands may be used for wetlands only provided that: no such facilities will not have an enhanced from original stating that all attempts should be made to exclude stormwater treatment. other location is feasible; and, adverse impact on the wetland. conditions. stormwater facilities from wetlands and wetland buffers. facilities do not degrade the Stormwater detention ponds facilities may be incorporated into wetlands and buffers only function and values of such shall not be allowed in wetlands as necessary. wetlands. or their buffers." Best Available Scince Report Page 13 Packet Page 804 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Inclusion of a fourth wetland category in the Edmonds CAO will provide consistency with BAS and the updated classification systems of jurisdictions throughout Western Washington. In addition, use of a four -tiered classification system will allow for standards of development that are not unduly restrictive and provide a level of protection suited to the lower functions and values associated with Category 4 wetlands common to urban, built -out environments. Edmonds CAO currently mandates wetland protection by category, with the following buffer widths: • Category 1 — 100 ft • Category 2 — 50 ft • Category 3 — 25 ft These existing code mandates are not consistent with CTED and DOE guidance or provisions for increased buffer widths adopted by other local jurisdictions in accordance with BAS (Table 4-1). CTED and DOE guidance on wetland buffer protection provides a range of buffer widths depending upon the degree of "land -use intensity" in surrounding areas. DOE and CTED provide guidance on buffer widths for wetland protection by category based upon land -use intensity as follows: • Category 1 Wetland high intensity — 300 ft moderate intensity — 250 ft low intensity — 200 ft • Category 2 Wetland high intensity — 200 ft moderate intensity — 150 ft low intensity — 100 ft • Category 3 Wetland high intensity —100 ft moderate intensity — 75 ft low intensity — 50 ft • Category 4 Wetland high intensity — 50 ft moderate and low intensity — 35 ft Given the density and size of residential lots in the City of Edmonds, buffer widths specified by CTED and DOE — especially those prescribed for high intensity land -use areas — may be unreasonable and overly restrictive. In addition, provisions for some buffer flexibility along low quality wetlands may be appropriate for the Edmonds CAO to allow for use of reduced buffer widths. The City of Mukilteo is using such a strategy to mitigate for the proposed adoption of reduced wetland buffer widths in its updated draft CAO. Although Mukilteo's updated draft wetland ordinance deviates from CTED guidance by mandating reduced wetland buffers widths (Category 1 — 160 ft; Category 2 — 100 ft; Category 3 — 75 ft; Category 4 — 50 ft), the ordinance also requires that any Best Available Scince Report Page 14 Packet Page 805 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report applicant seeking a permit for a parcel containing a regulated wetland develop a buffer enhancement plan, regardless of the potential for impact to the wetland. As indicated in the draft 2004 Critical Areas Inventory, only two Category 1 and two Category 2 wetland are known to exist within the entire jurisdiction of Edmonds. Potential wetland buffer width reduction should necessarily focus on Category 3 and 4 wetlands to limit the potential for land -use conflicts within the Edmonds City limits. Current compensatory replacement ratios for wetland mitigation specified in the existing Edmonds CAO are consistent with CTED and Ecology guidance on BAS for Category 1 wetlands (6:1) and forested Category 2 wetlands (3:1). However, existing replacement ratios for Category 2 shrub (2:1) and emergent wetlands (1.5:1), and Category 3 wetlands (1.25:1) are lower than those prescribed under CTED guidelines (all Category 3 wetlands 2:1; Category 4 wetlands 1.5:1). Surrounding jurisdictions (e.g., Mukilteo) are generally adopting replacement ratios per CTED guidelines. King County's updated draft CAO modifies CTED's suggested ratios to allow decreased ratios for on -site and local compensatory mitigation. Mitigation sequencing to be specified in Edmonds updated CAO will mandate compensation only as "last resort" mitigation. If compensatory mitigation is necessary, it is likely to be implemented on or near a project site. Thus, reduced replacement ratios or modification similar to that proposed by King County for on -site and local wetland compensation may be appropriate for consideration by the City of Edmonds. Other elements of the City of Edmond's existing ordinances pertaining to wetlands that will likely require modification in accordance with BAS include: specification of both the State and Federal manual for use in delineation and wetland boundary determination, and reduction of the minimum size requirement for a regulated wetland. Although the State manual, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, is based on the Federal manual, in Washington State, both manuals are used for field delineation. Currently, the City regulates only those wetlands larger than 2,500 square feet in area. This minimum requirement is inconsistent with CTED and DOE guidance on BAS — neither advocate adoption of a minimum wetland size requirement. However, many jurisdictions have retained original or modified minimum wetland size requirements through the BAS update process to minimize land -use restrictions on private parcels (Table 4-1). 4.2 Review of Scientific Literature Scientific literature documenting the effectiveness of wetland protections has been in a dynamic state of flux since wetlands were first emphasized as a valuable and declining natural resource in the 1970s. Studies typically do not provide a "right" or a "wrong" but rather a range of parameters or conditions that result in an estimated probability of protection. Identification of those parameters indicative of increased wetland protection is also subjective to a degree. Wetlands perform a variety of beneficial functions — e.g., Best Available Scince Report Page 15 Packet Page 806 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report flood protection, sediment removal, water quality control, wildlife habitat provision, etc. — and individual studies typically focus on only a single parameter. The sections below provide a summary of empirical evidence documented on the effectiveness of wetland classification, buffers, and mitigation regarding preservation of different beneficial wetland functions. Comparison of the data provided in these summaries and Table 4-2 will allow development of CAO wetland protections consistent with both updated information on BAS and the needs of the Edmonds community. Wetland Classification Just as there is no single definition of wetlands used by ecologists, land managers, and regulators (Dennison and Berry 1993, Mitsch and Gosselink 1993), there is no universal system of wetland classification. Wetland classification is simply a tool to assist land managers in the identification and protection of those areas located at the fringe of aquatic and upland ecosystems that are known to provide important beneficial functions in terms of wildlife habitat, flood control, maintenance of water quality, nutrient cycling, etc. Empirical study of wetland classification focuses on the percentage of such areas existing in a region that are afforded protection under different systems of wetland classification. Classification based on vegetation has been the most common approach to rating wetlands since the publication of Cowardin et al. (1979). Even newer systems of classification — such as the hydrogeomorphic method (Brinson 1993) and classifications based on trophic status (Rieley and Page 1990) or hydrology (Kistritz and Porter 1993) — still largely rely on delineation of plants and vegetation communities existing within a wetland complex. Basing wetland categories on vegetation has the advantage of allowing for rapid field assessment due to the conspicuous nature of plants and the ease with which they can be identified, often at a distance. Most systems of wetland classification in use in Washington are based on one of two models. The older system was first developed by King County in the 1980s. It is a three - tiered system in which the major factors are total wetland size and the number of different vegetation classes present, with vegetation classes defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). DOE developed a more complex wetland rating system in 1993 (DOE 1993) that is currently being revised and updated based on BAS. Both DOE's 1993 and revised 2004 draft wetland rating systems are based on a four -tiered system of classification that incorporates the number of vegetation classes and additional vegetative analysis on factors such as vegetative class interspersion, intra-class plant species diversity, and the presence of unwanted, invasive species. In addition to plant data, the DOE system considers many other factors such as the presence of threatened or endangered plant or animal species and whether the wetland is regionally rare (such as a mature forested wetland) or has greater than average sensitivity to disturbance (such as bogs or fens). Table 4-2 provides a summary of different wetland rating systems used in the state. Ecology's most recent (2004) revised system allows for greater distinction between wetlands with varying degrees of function and value. Best Available Scince Report Page 16 Packet Page 807 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Best Available Scince Report Page 17 Packet Page 808 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Table 4-2. Wetland rating systems. Rating System Summary Basis Notes 3-Tiered Rating System Original system Adopted and modified by other • One of the first state jurisdictional systems of Based on King County designed to distinguish jurisdictions based on practical distinguishing wetland types to vary protection. Model (1980s) among wetland types in understanding without • Developed without extensive scientific validation prior King County. standardization or empirical to GMA BAS mandates. study of effectiveness. DOE's 1993 4-tiered Defines wetland types Based on classification of 122 • DOE system — often with slight modification — adopted Wetland Rating System based on 7 criteria: reference wetlands: by many state jurisdictions. sensitivity, rarity, • First state system developed with extensive scientific Natural Heritage status, Cat. 1 — 27 (22%) review and standardization. replacement potential, Cat. 2 — 68 (56%) • Source: Washington State Wetland Rating system for functions, T/E species, Cat. 3 — 20 (16%) Western Washington. (DOE 1993). local significance. Cat. 4 — 7 (6%) DOE's 2004 Updated 4- Refines 1993 system Based on classification of 122 . Increased emphasis on lower quality wetlands, more tiered Draft Wetland based upon 10+ years reference wetlands: accurately reflecting Washington conditions. Rating System of practical use. • Five of seven criteria for categorization retained from Reduces number of Cat. 1 — 24 (20%) 1993 DOE system. criteria for wetland Cat. 2 — 50 (41 %) . Removes consideration of Threatened and Endangered categorization to 5. Cat. 3 — 39 (32%) Species and "local significance." Cat. 4 — 9 (7%) • Source: Washington State Wetland Rating system for Western Washington — Revised. (Hruby 2004). Best Available Scince Report Page 18 Packet Page 809 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Best Available Scince Report Page 19 Packet Page 810 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Use of this system in an urban residential community like Edmonds would limit the misclassification or over -valuation of lower quality wetlands most typically occurring in a built -out environment. Use of DOE's revised system would also allow for more stringent regulatory protections for the one Class 1 and one Class 2 wetland existing in Edmonds: the Edmonds Marsh and the wetlands associated with Good Hope Pond, respectively. Wetland Buffers For wetland protection, protective buffers are typically vegetated upland areas immediately adjacent to a wetland. Existing Edmonds code defines buffers for aquatic areas as "a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem" (ECDC 20.1513.020 D). Although many factors, including vegetation density, soil composition, and adjacent land -use, affect the functioning of a wetland buffer, most buffer regulations focus primarily on buffer width. Many studies have been published summarizing the effectiveness of various buffer widths (e.g., Castelle et al. 1992, Castelle and Johnson 2000, Desbonnet et al. 1994, FEMAT 1993, etc.). Table 4-3 provides a summary of empirical studies and literature surveys documenting the efficacy of wetland buffers based on buffer width. As indicated, it is difficult to discern a direct valid correlation between the width of a wetland buffer and its effectiveness in regard to maintaining water quality. All aspects of water quality protection — control or removal of sediment, phosphorous, nitrate, fecal coliform, bacteria, etc. and water temperature control — may be affected by the type of wetland buffer, the vegetation established within the buffer, and the environment in which a wetland and its buffer is located. In general, studies indicate that buffers with dense vegetative cover on slopes less than 15% are most effective for water quality functions, and buffer widths most effective at preventing water quality impacts are generally 100 feet or greater. The majority of empirical studies on wetland buffer efficacy focus on the effectiveness of protective buffers at maintaining or improving water quality (Table 4-3). However, wetland buffers also function to maintain wetland hydrology, provide habitat for wetland associated wildlife species, and minimize impacts from direct human disturbance. An assessment of wetland buffer effectiveness in terms of these beneficial buffer functions is provided in DOE's Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness (Castelle et al. 1992). Wetland buffers maintain wetland hydrology by preventing large, sudden fluctuations associated with flash surface run-off in developed areas with impervious surfacing. In terms of maintaining wetland hydrology, there is a direct correlation between the amount of undisturbed, pervious vegetated lands adjacent to a wetland and the degree to which severe hydrological fluctuation is minimized (Castelle et al. 1994). While larger buffer widths better limit hydroperiod extremes, it is generally thought that buffer widths of 100 feet or more function to effectively maintain wetland hydrology (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1991, Wenger 1999) Best Available Scince Report Page 20 Packet Page 811 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Best Available Scince Report Page 21 Packet Page 812 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Table 4-3. Empirical Studies on Buffer effectiveness. Buffer Function Effectiveness Source/Location 10-20 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction — 66-77%. • Source: Lee et al. 1999. Phosphorous control. Phosphorous reduction — 37- • State: Iowa. Nitrogen control. 52%. Nitrate control. Nitrogen reduction — 28-42%. Orthophosphorous Nitrate reduction — 25-42%. control. Orthophosphorous reduction — 34-43%. 13-30 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction — 84%. • Source: Dillaha et al. 1989. Nitrogen control. Nitrogen reduction — 73%. • State: Virginia. Phosphorous control. Phosphorous reduction — 79%. 16 ft grass buffer Nitrate and Nitrate and orthophosphate • Source: Madison et al. 1992. Orthophosphorous reduction 90%. control. 16-30 ft grass buffer Nutrient control. Nutrient reduction — <50%. • Source: Magette et al. 1989. • State: Maryland 16-30 ft grass buffer Herbicide control. Herbicide reduction — 28-72%. • Source: Mickelson et al. 1995. • State: Iowa. 20-59 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction — 30-60%. • Source: Daniels and Gilliam 1996. Phosphorous control. Phosphorous reduction — 60%. • State: North Carolina. Total Kedall N. Total Kedall N — 35-50%. Ammonia control. Ammonia reduction — 20-50%. Nitrate control. Nitrate reduction — 50-90%. Orthophosphorous Orthophosphorous reduction — control. 50%. 23-52 ft mixed buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction — 70-90%. • Source: Lee et al. 2000. Phosphorous control. Phosphorous reduction — 46- . State: Iowa. Nitrogen control. 93%. Nitrate control. Nitrogen reduction — 50-80%. Orthophosphorous I Nitrate reduction — 41-92%. Best Available Scince Report Page 22 Packet Page 813 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Table 4-3. Empirical Studies on Buffer effectiveness. Buffer Function Effectiveness Source/Location control Orthophosphorous reduction - 28-85%. 30 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction - 85%. • Source: Ghaffarzadeh et al. 1992. 62 ft forested buffer Nitrogen control. Nitrogen reduction - 89%. • Source: Shisler et al. 1987. Phosphorous control. Phosphorous reduction - 80%. • State: Maryland. 65 ft grass buffer Herbicide control. Herbicide reduction - 8-100%. • Source: Arora et al. 1996. Sediment control. Sediment reduction - 40-100%. • State: Iowa 75 ft grass buffer Fecal coliform control. Fecal coliform reduction - • Source: Schellinger and Clausen 1992. 30%. 80 ft grass buffer Nitrate control. Nitrate reduction - 96%. • Source: Chaubey et al.1994. Phosphorous control. Phosphorous reduction - 88%. . State: Arkansas. Sediment control. Sediment reduction - 80%. Bacteria control. Bacteria reduction - 0%. 82 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction - 92%. • Source: Young et al. 1980. • State: Minnesota. 85 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction - 45%. • Source: Schwer and Clausen 1989. Phosphorous control. Phosphorous reduction - 78%. • State: Vermont Total Kedall N. Total Kedall N - 76%. Ammonia control. Ammonia control - 2%. 89 ft grass buffer Nitrogen control. Nitrogen reduction - 84%. • Source: Young et al. 1980. • State: Minnesota. 100 ft forested buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction - 75-80%. • Source: Lynch et al. 1985. 100 ft grass buffer Fecal coliform control. Fecal coliform reduction - • Source: Grismer 1981. 60%. 115 ft grass buffer Microorganism control. Microorganism reduction - • Source: Young et al. 1980. <1,000/100ml. 200 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction - 80%. • Source: Horner and Mar 1982. • State: Washington. 100 ft Wildlife habitat Buffer size effective for • Source: Emmons and Olivier Resources. Best Available Scince Report Page 23 Packet Page 814 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Table 4-3. Empirical Studies on Buffer effectiveness. Buffer Function Effectiveness Source/Location provision. unthreatened (non -special status) wildlife species. 200-300 ft Wildlife habitat and Effective for special status • Source: Emmons and Olivier Resources 2001. corridor protection. (TES) wildlife species. 50 ft in rural area Maintenance of wildlife Effective for maintenance of • Source: Emmons and Olivier Resources 2001. 100 ft in urban area species diversity. species diversity. 50-175 ft Preventing wildlife Maintenance of 175 ft buffers • Source: Josselyn et al. 1989. disturbance. effective in preventing direct . State: California disturbance to avian species. 200-300 ft plus Preventing avian Concludes 300 ft buffers may • Source: WDFW 1992. species disturbance not be sufficient to prevent (flushing). direct avian disturbance. 20 ft forested Reducing noise Loss of 4-6 decibels of noise • Source: Harris 1985. impacts. (equivalent to tripling the distance to the noise source. 50-100-200 ft Maintenance of wildlife Buffers of 50 to 100 to 200 feet . Source: Milligan 1985. species diversity. were found to effectively maintain diversity dependant on wetland size. 100 ft Maintenance of suitable 100-ft buffer effective at • Source: Raleigh 1982, Raleigh et al. 1984. fish habitat. providing aquatic fish habitat if 50-75% shading at midday. Best Available Scince Report Page 24 Packet Page 815 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Best Available Scince Report Page 25 Packet Page 816 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Wetland buffers larger than 100 feet in width have generally been advocated to provide habitat area suitable to maintain wetland -associated populations of wildlife (Dodd and Cade 1998). The vegetated uplands adjacent to wetlands are considered to be one of the richest zones for aquatic organisms, mammals, and birds (Clark 1977, Williams and Dodd 1978). In Washington State, 85% of terrestrial vertebrate species are known to use wetlands and their buffers: 359 of 414 species in western Washington (Brown 1985a), and 320 of 378 species in eastern Washington (Castelle et al. 1992). In association with DOE's 1992 assessment of wetland buffer effectiveness, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) prepared a report entitled Buffer Needs of Wetland Wildlife (WDFW 1992) to, in part, assess buffer widths necessary to maintain healthy wetland - associated wildlife populations. WDFW concluded in their report that: To retain wetland -dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland. This is especially the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provided feeding for heron. The size needed would depend upon disturbance from adjacent land use and resources involved. (WDFW 1992) The increased buffer width of 200 to 300 feet suggested by WDFW for protection of wetland -associated wildlife provided the justification for DOE to include increased buffer width mandates for high quality (Category 1 and 2) wetlands in their guidance on critical areas protections. Wetland buffers provide an important protective function by limiting human intrusion and impacts in a wetland area (WDFW 1992). Direct human impacts to wetlands most often consist of refuse dumping, trampling of vegetation, and noise. Cooke (1992) studied 21 wetlands in King and Snohomish counties in a post -project evaluation to assess the effectiveness of buffers in protecting wetlands from human disturbances. Efficiency was measured qualitatively, using observations of human -caused disturbance to the wetland and buffer to indicate loss of buffer effectiveness. Buffers functioned most effectively when adjacent development was of low intensity; when buffer areas were 50 feet wide or greater and were planted with shrub and/or forested plant communities; and when the buffers were next to residential lots or land owned by individuals who understood the rationale for establishing buffers. Nearly all buffers less than 50 feet wide at the time they were established demonstrated a significant decrease in effective size within a few years; in some instances, degradation was so great that the buffers were effectively eliminated. Fewer than half of the buffers that were originally at least 50 feet wide showed demonstrable degradation (Cooke 1992). Wetland Mitigation Wetland mitigation refers to any action serving to compensate for a potential impact to or degradation of the functioning and/or value of a wetland. Wetland replacement ratios are a regulatory tool used to standardize the extent of replacement, and are expressed as a Best Available Scince Report Page 26 Packet Page 817 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report ratio of wetland area replaced to wetland area lost. There is a growing body of literature and scientific consensus recommending ratios greater than 1:1 in order to ensure full replacement of wetlands. These recommendations stem from research that demonstrates a significant rate of failure in current wetland replacement projects, as well as a loss of wetland function over the time it takes for a created wetland to represent a fully functioning ecosystem (Ossinger 1999, National Academy of Sciences 2001, Johnson et al. 2000). Some investigators doubt that created systems can ever reach the functional equivalent of a natural system (Johnson et al. 2002). Thus, to ensure that mitigation is successful, ratios of wetland replacement area should be higher than the area of wetland lost. Wetlands of greater value require higher replacement rations than wetlands with low value. 4.3 Assessment of Wetland Ordinance The City's updated wetland ordinance will include a four -tiered wetland rating system. The four wetland rating categories (Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4) will be defined and delineated in accordance with CTED and updated DOE guidance (Hruby 2004) as provided below: "Category 1 Wetlands. Category 1 wetlands are those that meet one or more of the following criteria: i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; ii. Wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as high quality wetlands; iii. Bogs larger than'/2 acre; iv. Mature and Old growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; v. Wetlands in coastal lagoons; vi. Wetlands that perform many functions well as indicated by a score of 70 or more on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. Category 2 Wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are: i. Estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; ii. A wetland identified by the state Department of Natural Resources as containing "sensitive" plant species; Ili. A bog between'/4 and'/2 acre in size; or, iv. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions as indicated by a score of 51-69 on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. Category 3 Wetlands. Category 3 wetlands are: Wetlands with a moderate level of functions as indicated by a score of 30-50 points on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. Category 4 Wetlands. Category 4 wetlands are those with the lowest levels of functions as indicated by scores below 30 on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. Best Available Scince Report Page 27 Packet Page 818 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Wetland ratings will largely be based upon field assessment using the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. The City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form was modified for use in the Edmonds vicinity from the Draft Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington used in DOE updated wetland classification and assessment system (Hruby 2004). Protective buffer widths for revised wetland categories will be mandated in Edmonds updated code as follows: Category 1— 200 ft Category 2 — 100 ft Category 3 — 50 ft Category 4 — 35 ft These wetland buffer widths are consistent with BAS, CTED, and DOE minimum requirements for wetland protection and ordinances for wetland protection recently adopted by Western Washington jurisdictions. Edmonds updated ordinances will also include provisions for buffer reductions for Category 3 and 4 wetlands if a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan is developed and implemented. Specific requirements for a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan including requirements for performance standards used to measure success will be provided in the updated code. Development of a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan will be required prior to approving applicant requests for buffer reductions. In addition, the updated wetland ordinance will include provisions for retaining wetland function and values if buffer averaging will be used for spot reductions of wetland buffer widths. To the extent practical, proof of retention of wetland functions and values will be required for both buffer reductions and buffer averaging. Provision for spot buffer reductions up to 50% of the standard buffer width, as stipulated in Edmonds existing code, will be retained. However, updated wetland provisions will allow for buffer averaging only across the extent of a wetland buffer existing on an applicant's property and not the entirety of a wetland buffer. These updated provisions and additional requirements pertaining to wetland buffer reductions and use of buffer averaging will allow Edmonds updated wetland code to meet or exceed wetland protections mandated by BAS. Compensatory mitigation ratios for wetland replacement currently specified in the existing Edmonds code are largely consistent with CTED and DOE guidance and BAS. However, the updated Edmonds code must include additional compensatory mitigation ratios to accommodate the additional wetland category in the updated four -tiered system of wetland classification. Compensatory mitigation ratios in the updated code will be mandated as follows: Category 1— 6:1 Category 2 — 3:1 Category 3 — 2:1 Category 4 —1.5:1 Best Available Scince Report Page 28 Packet Page 819 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report These updated compensatory mitigation ratios are consistent with CTED and DOE guidance and BAS information on compensatory mitigation efficacy. The updated CAO will include specific requirements for a Wetland Mitigation Plan to be developed and submitted to the Edmonds Planning Department for approval when the function or value of a wetland is anticipated to be affected by project development. Wetland Mitigation Plan requirements will be designed to discourage the use of compensatory mitigation and wetland replacement to the extent practical. Instead, the focus will be on avoidance of impacts directly to wetlands and buffers. Compensatory mitigation should be viewed as a last resort. This "re -focusing" of mitigation strategies in the updated Edmonds code will increase conformance with recent BAS information emphasizing the high probability of failure often associated with compensatory wetland replacement as mitigation. As with the update of ordinances pertaining to other critical area types, the most notable alterations to Edmonds wetland ordinances will likely result from general organizational changes. The Edmonds CAO update will include the re -organization of existing code to simplify the organization and language, and make the code more accessible to users. The Edmonds critical areas code will be re -organized to include separate chapters pertaining to each of the five GMA-identified critical areas types. As with other updated code sections, the Wetlands Chapter will include four subsections consistent with CTED and DOE guidance: Designation, Rating, and Mapping; Allowed Activities; Additional Report Requirements; and Development Standards. The revised wetland ordinances will include specific directions on the process of managing wetlands in the vicinity of a subject parcel and specifically identify report requirements and steps in the process of classifying, assessing, and mitigating wetlands in accordance with the requirements of project development (see Section 8.0 below). 4.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment Overall, revision and update of the City of Edmonds wetland provisions will increase protection of area wetlands and decrease the risk to the continued preservation of these important habitat areas. In addition, update of the Edmonds wetland ordinances will generally increase protection to the community and City public and private facilities through increased flood protection and water quality control. The text below provides a risk assessment for anticipated changes resulting from the three central conceptual revisions to Edmonds wetland ordinances: update of Edmonds wetland classification to a four -tiered system; revision of Edmonds wetland protective buffer widths for consistency with agency and BAS guidance; and alteration to the potential wetland mitigation alternatives offered under City code. It should be emphasized that the adoption of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory for the City of Edmonds will immediately decrease risk to both the continued preservation of wetland areas located within the jurisdiction and to the flood and water quality protection afforded by these important environmental areas. Although current Edmonds wetlands ordinances refer to the existence of critical areas inventory, no such tool has been available for use by City planning to identify potential land -use conflicts between Best Available Scince Report Page 29 Packet Page 820 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report wetland areas and potential future development. Instead, Edmonds planning relied on a number of dispersed data sources and applicant disclosure to identify wetlands to which protective code provisions might apply. The 2004 inventory identifies all significant wetland areas existing in Edmonds. However, the inventory may not include all small wetlands and applicants will still be required to conduct a field delineation regardless of designation on the inventory. Under the revised four -tiered system of wetland classification with associated buffer provisions to be prescribed in the updated Edmonds code, protection of wetland areas will increase, resulting in a decreased risk to continued preservation of area wetlands. The value of wetlands will be more clearly defined and subject to appropriate protection levels. With the revised buffer requirements, it is likely that wetland buffer widths will increase jurisdiction -wide. However, the potential for increases in land -use conflicts resulting from such wetland buffer width increases will be mitigated substantially by the alternatives for mitigation and discretion offered the City planning department under the updated wetland provisions. In addition, wetland buffers for the least valuable wetlands are the smallest. This, in combination with some flexibility in buffer requirements, will allow City staff to accommodate growth while protecting these resources. Adoption of provisions for effective alternatives to compensatory wetland creation will decrease the risk to wetlands. Buffer averaging and spot buffer width reductions will only be approved with the submittal of a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan by a project applicant. This represents a significant increase in wetland protection in comparison to the existing code. In addition, the required development of a viable Wetland Mitigation Plan for projects anticipated to impacts a wetland's function and/or value will decrease risk to area wetlands as well as decrease risk to the Edmonds community. Furthermore, updated Edmonds code provisions will discourage reliance on compensatory wetland mitigation and instead focus mitigation strategy on preservation of existing wetlands and enhancement and/or restoration of degraded wetland areas. Updated Wetland Buffer Widths Updated wetland buffer widths (Category 1 — 200 ft; Category 2 — 100 ft; Category 3 — 50 ft; Category 4 — 35 ft) will effectively double the width of wetland buffers for Category 1, 2, and 3 wetlands (the updated width for Category 4 wetlands [35 ft] represents a 40% increase over the existing buffer width for Category 3 wetlands in Edmonds). If buffer width directly correlated with environmental protection, then buffer width increases mandated in the updated CAO would constitute a doubling of protection for wetlands within the jurisdiction of Edmonds. However, though the width of a wetland buffer largely influences protective efficacy (Keller et al. 1993), buffer width is not the only factor affecting buffer effectiveness. Establishment of wetland buffer widths in accordance with BAS must necessarily consider the environmental conditions and general land uses of the region in which they will be implemented. For urban built -out areas, the emphasis in establishing suitable buffer widths must be on preserving existing sensitive wetland habitat types and on protecting those features, Best Available Scince Report Page 30 Packet Page 821 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report functions and values most important in an urban environment. Expansive wetland buffers advocated by Ecology (e.g., Category 1 — 300 ft; Category 2 — 200 ft; Category 3 — 100 ft; Category 4 — 50 ft) are not suited to or based upon BAS for urban areas and may in fact provide an inappropriate level of protection for functions and values that are not germane in urban settings. For instance, very large buffer widths (200 or 300 ft plus) have been shown to be important in the provision and protection of maximum habitat function for wildlife (Milligan 1985, Wenger 1999). However, the City of Edmonds is estimated to be 96% built -out and it is likely that wildlife diversity has already been influenced by habitat fragmentation, road density, residential development and general human disturbance. Wildlife species that would most benefit from expansive buffer widths — typically mammals with large home ranges and species intolerant of increased human disturbance — likely no longer occur in the region or could not be sustained regardless of buffer widths. Thus, updated wetland buffer widths for the City of Edmonds have been established to preserve wetland and habitat functions most important within an developed, built -out community. In assessing the potential effectiveness of Edmonds updated wetland buffer widths and comparing them to mandates of BAS, it is important to remember that much of the literature on wetland buffer widths cited above was developed from studies in rural areas, forested regions, and generally more pristine natural environments. As mentioned above, areas within the jurisdiction of Edmonds cannot be expected to provide habitat for species requiring large contiguous areas of forest habitat. Without this consideration, BAS indicates that those functions and values most important within a built -out urban area like Edmonds (e.g., water quality protection, flood storage, provision of habitat for species common to developed areas) can be adequately protected with buffer widths commensurate with those proposed in the updated CAO. The City of Edmonds is largely built -out with approximately 96% of the land previously developed. GMA density goals will be met through redevelopment. Instituting large buffers that would extend into residential yards that were previously developed would offer no additional protection for the resource. To ensure improvement in wetland buffer function over time the new CAO requires buffer enhancement for redevelopment that expands an existing structure footprint into a buffer. The CAO provides flexibility for City staff to work with landowners in developing a scientifically -based enhancement plan for such redevelopment. Best Available Scince Report Page 31 Packet Page 822 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 5.0 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Frequently flooded areas are one of five critical area types specifically identified for protection in the Washington GMA (see WAC 365-190-080[3]). Floodplains and areas subject to flooding perform important hydrologic functions and can present a risk to persons and property. According to DOE and CTED guidance on critical area classification (CTED 2003), frequently flooded areas should at least include those areas within the 100-year floodplain designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood Insurance Program. According to CTED guidance (CTED 2003), jurisdictions should consider the following when designating and classifying frequently flooded areas: • Effects of flooding on human health and safety and on public facilities and services. • Available documentation including Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and programs; local studies and maps; and Federal flood insurance programs. • The future flow floodplain, defined as the channel of the stream and that portion of the adjoining floodplain that is necessary to contain and discharge the base flood flow at build -out without any measurable increase in flood heights. • The potential effects of tsunami, high tides with strong winds, sea level rise resulting from global climate change, and greater surface runoff caused by increasing impervious surfaces. 5.1 Frequently Flooded Areas: Code Review and Comparison In general, there is little divergence among jurisdictions in the definition, delineation, and regulation of frequently flooded areas. Most jurisdictions' existing CAO — including Edmonds' — are consistent with minimum guidelines on frequently flooded areas provided by CTED. Within all Washington State jurisdictions, frequently flooded areas include those lands located within the 100-year floodplain as delineated on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). FIRMs provide the basic critical areas designation tool for frequently flooded areas used, almost universally, by cities and counties in the state. However, CTED guidance advocates the use of newer, more refined data in the delineation of frequently flooded areas whenever possible (CTED 2003). Data supplementing FIRM floodplain information should focus on those areas within a jurisdiction known to be susceptible to frequent flooding. Inclusion of supplemental data and designation of areas outside the FEMA 100-year floodplain is the principal exception to the noted consistency among jurisdictions on frequently flooded area designations (Table 5-1). Table 5-1 provides a comparison of Edmonds' existing frequently flooded area ordinance with the CTED example code provisions and other jurisdictions' regulations. CTED suggests incorporation of additional specific data on "channel migration, maps showing Best Available Scince Report Page 32 Packet Page 823 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report built -out conditions, riparian habitat areas, etc." (CTED 2003). The drainages that occur within the City are small and often confined by ravines or the built environment. Thus, channel migration zones, which are more applicable to large alluvial rivers, are not an issue within the City. As indicated in Table 5-1, protection of frequently flooded areas typically focuses on avoiding development within the 100-year floodplain and/or incorporating design modifications and providing for compensatory storage within the floodplain to limit the risk of flooding. The existing Edmonds CAO does not provide specific development standards or protective provisions for frequently flooded areas. Instead, frequently flooded areas are regulated under ECDC Chapter 19.97, the Floodplain Management section of the building code. However, ECDC Chapter 19.97 provides no direct reference to frequently flooded areas. Although it may be appropriate to retain regulation of frequently flooded areas within the City's building code, to be compliant with CTED guidelines, the Edmonds updated CAO should, at a minimum, include development standards for frequently flooded areas with reference to ECDC Chapter 19.97. 5.2 Review of Scientific Literature For many cities and counties in Washington, little emphasis is placed on frequently flooded areas simply because the extent of the 100-year floodplain within the boundary of a jurisdiction may be limited. This is certainly the case in Edmonds where FIRM data indicate that, aside from the shoreline of Puget Sound itself, the FEMA 100-year floodplain only includes: the Edmonds Marsh; a small portion of the Shell Creek drainage extending about 0.25 mile upstream from stream outfall; and shoreline areas of Lake Ballinger located within the City limits (FEMA 2003). In total, these areas include only 84 acres or 0.67% of Edmonds' total jurisdictional area. These limited floodplain areas are clearly indicated on the 2004 Edmonds Critical Areas Inventory (EDAW 2004). Technical literature and documents potentially identifying areas outside of the FEMA 100-year floodplain to be identified as frequently flooded areas include Edmonds' 2003 Comprehensive Plan (City of Edmonds 2003a), the 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan (City of Edmonds 2003b), and the Meadowdale Drainage Investigation (RW Beck 2000). In particular, Section IX of the City's Stormwater Comprehensive Plan identifies specific areas with drainage problems that are prone to flooding brought to the attention of the City of Edmonds Public Works, often through public complaint. In addition, public response to a mailer distributed as part of the Meadowdale Drainage Investigation (RW Beck 2000) identified seven problem areas in the Meadowdale region alone that Best Available Scince Report Page 33 Packet Page 824 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Table 5-1. Frequently flooded areas code comparison. City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents. Frequently Flooded Areas — Consistent with current Edmonds Defines frequently flooded areas Does not include the term Does not include the term • Need to ensure CAO pertaining to Frequently Flooded Areas FEMA Consistency code with language allowing for as all areas within the 100-year "frequently flooded areas" per se, "frequently flooded areas" per are consistent with the Washington Model of the Flood more liberal delineation (i.e., FEMA floodplain. but regulates lands within the 100- se, but regulates lands within the Damage Prevention Ordinance prepared by FEMA and DOE. Currently defined by 100-year inclusion of other areas important year floodplain as "flood hazard 100-year floodplain as "flood floodplain — "those lands in the for flood prevention). areas" consistent with FEMA and hazard areas" consistent with floodplain subject to a one CTED guidance. FEMA and CTED guidance. percent or greater chance of "Classifications of frequently flooding in any given year." flooded areas include, at a Includes provisions for specific Flood hazard areas: those areas minimum, the 100-year floodplain areas within the floodplain: in King County subject to designations of the Federal inundation by the base flood and Emergency Management Agency A. Floodplain; those areas subject to risk from and the National Flood Insurance B. Flood fringe; channel relocation or stream Program." C. Zero -rise floodway; and meander including, but not D. FEMA floodway. limited to, streams, lakes, wetlands and closed depressions. (Ord. 11621 § 31, 1994: 10870 § 135, 1993). Frequently Flooded Areas — Example code provisions provide Regulated under Chapter 21.56 Provides development standards Provides development standards • Although the provisions provided in ECDC Chapter 19.97 are Regulatory Protection specific protective provisions for of Kirkland Municipal Code and specific provisions, focusing and specific provisions, focusing generally consistent with CAO development standards for frequently flooded areas within (Flood Damage Prevention on building design and safety on building design and safety frequently flooded areas, this critical area type is not Protections and provisions for distinct CAO chapter. section of the Buildings and modifications, within the CAO. modifications, within the CAO. specifically referenced in the building code. frequently flooded areas Construction Code) • Many jurisdictions delineate and provide specific provisions currently regulated under Includes specific provisions for Includes specific provisions for for distinct areas within the 100-year floodplain. However, Edmonds building code, ECDC distinct areas within the floodplain distinct areas within the this level of detail may not be appropriate given the limited Chapter 19.97. including both the zero -rise floodplain including both the extent of the 100-year floodplain within Edmonds floodway and the FEMA zero -rise floodway and the jurisdiction. floodway. FEMA floodway. Frequently Flooded Areas — Example code provisions designate Does not include call -out of CAO does not include call -out of CAO does not include call -out • Given the limited extent of the floodplain within Edmonds, Identification of Specific frequently flooded areas as: specific areas within the or reference to specific areas prone of or reference to specific areas call -out of specific areas prone to flooding may be more Areas jurisdiction prone to flooding. to flooding within Burien. prone to flooding within King appropriate than reference to separate zones within a 1. Areas Identified on the Flood However, code includes County. floodplain in general (i.e., floodway and flood fringe). Current Edmonds CAO does Insurance Map(s). provisions for separate sections Provides distinct provisions for not include specific call -out of 2. Areas Identified by the Director. within the flood -plain including risk management within: Includes provisions for distinct areas within the City know to be the flood -way and shallow- areas within the floodplain as prone to flooding. Example code provisions do not flooding areas. A. Floodplain; well as separate regulations for mandate inclusion of specific B. Flood fringe; management within "channel ECDC Chapter 19.97 does not provisions for distinct areas within C. Zero -rise floodway; and migration zones." include separate provisions for the floodplain (i.e., flood fringe and D. FEMA floodway. distinct areas within the floodway). floodplain (i.e., flood fringe and floodway). Best Available Scince Report Page 34 Packet Page 825 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Best Available Scince Report Page 35 Packet Page 826 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report were prone to frequent flooding (problem areas were often associated only with a single residence). The updated CAO should allow City discretion in the delineation and identification of frequently flooded areas existing in Edmonds outside of the 100-year floodplain. 5.3 Assessment of Frequently Flooded Areas Ordinance Aside from organizational changes to the Edmonds CAO (see Section 8.0), update of provisions pertaining to frequently flooded areas will focus on establishing consistency between Edmonds CAO and ECDC Chapter 19.97. Chapter 19.97 only regulates "areas of special flood hazard." Such areas are consistent with the CAO definition of frequently flooded areas — all areas existing within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. However, neither the existing CAO nor Chapter 19.97 provide a "link" equating the two areas. The updated code will define frequently flooded areas and include language specifying equivalency with special flood hazard areas as regulated in Chapter 19.97. Revision of Edmonds provisions pertaining to frequently flooded areas will also include specific requirements for geotechnical review and report development necessary to ensure the continued protection of frequently flooded areas. As in the revision of wetland ordinances where lists of specific requirements will be provided in the CAO text, updated critical areas provisions pertaining to frequently flooded areas will include a description of the process, field assessments, and reports required for review of areas containing or adjacent to frequently flooded areas. Jurisdictions with substantial areas included within the FEMA 100-year floodplain and/or with complex river systems with large corridors for channel migration identify specific areas within the floodplain (e.g., flood fringe, flood way, etc.) for specific protective provisions. Update of the Edmonds CAO will not include call -out of these specific sub- areas within the 100-year floodplain. This level of detail is inappropriate for the extent of floodplain areas and types of drainage systems existing within the Edmonds jurisdiction. However, prior to adoption of the 2004 Comprehensive Critical Area Inventory, Edmonds Planning and Public Works Departments will review historical data on area flooding to determine if additional areas outside of the 100-year floodplain should be specifically identified on the inventory. This review and potential inclusion of additional areas as frequently flooded areas, and the additional discretion afforded the City by the updated code, will represent a substantial improvement to the City's CAO. 5.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment Although provisions for the protection of Edmonds areas located within the FEMA 100- year floodplain will remain largely unchanged through the update of the City's CAO, adoption of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory and organization changes to code provisions pertaining to frequently flooded areas will substantially reduce the risk to continued preservation of such areas. Currently, Edmonds planning has no consistent methodology for the identification of frequently flooded areas within the jurisdiction. City planners have previously relied on applicant disclosure and geotechnical Best Available Scince Report Page 36 Packet Page 827 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report consultation to identify frequently flooded areas. With the adoption of the 2004 inventory, the City will be able to conclusively identify those properties where protective provisions for frequently flooded areas are applicable. Review of the 2004 inventory and the discretion offered the City of Edmonds to identify areas prone to frequent flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain will result in an increased level of protection to the Edmonds community and a decreased risk of catastrophic flood damage. Re -organization of the code to include specific provisions on frequently flooded areas will clarify the requirements within the code. Best Available Scince Report Page 37 Packet Page 828 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 6.0 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS The Washington State GMA identifies a broad range of potential geologically hazardous areas for protection as environmentally critical areas (See WAC 365-190-080[4]). This critical area includes areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. Geologically hazardous areas pose a threat to health and safety when incompatible commercial, residential, or industrial development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Geologically hazardous areas can also function to maintain habitat integrity and facilitate important ecological processes. Mass wasting events, such as landslides and debris flows, contribute sediment, brush, and nutrients to develop healthy, complex instream habitats, estuarine marshes, and beaches important for fisheries, wildlife, and recreation. At the same time, mass wasting events may pose a substantial risk to habitat and developed communities. The risk from geological hazards can often be significantly mitigated through engineering, design, and/or modified construction and development techniques. When mitigation alternatives cannot viably reduce risks to human health and safety to acceptable levels, building in geologically hazardous areas should be avoided. However, risk mitigation and protections for this critical area generally emphasize specialized development standards to avoid unduly limiting the amount of buildable lands. In interpreting WAC 365-190-080[4] (CTED 2003), CTED guidance indicates that areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards should be classified as a geologically hazardous area: • Erosion hazard (including river and coastal streambank erosion areas and channel migration areas). • Landslide hazard. • Seismic hazard. • Areas subject to other geological events such as coal mine hazards and volcanic hazards including: mass wasting, debris flows, rock falls, and differential settlement. 6.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas: Code Review and Comparison Table 6-1 provides a comparison of Edmonds' current ordinance pertaining to geologically hazardous areas with the CTED example code provisions and those of other jurisdictions. In general, delineation and protection of geologically hazardous areas under current Edmonds CAO is consistent with other jurisdictions and BAS guidance provided by CTED. However, there are notable inconsistencies in the organization of the existing ordinance (see Table 6-1 and Section 8.0). The principal difference between Edmonds' existing geologically hazardous areas ordinance and CTED example code provisions lies in the classification of specific hazard areas. CTED's example code provisions identify only three specific types of geologically hazardous areas regarding Edmonds' environment: erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard Best Available Scince Report Page 38 Packet Page 829 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report areas, and seismic hazard areas. Existing Edmonds code includes provision for four distinct categories of geologically hazardous areas: erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, and steep slope hazard areas. Aside from the existence of an additional category in Edmonds code, CTED example code and Edmonds' provisions are consistent because CTED incorporates Edmonds' definition for steep slope hazard areas — slopes of 40% or greater with a minimum vertical rise of 20 feet — into the criteria for delineating landslide hazard areas. Limiting the number of specific geologic hazards to three would effectively streamline the Edmonds CAO and avoid confusion where areas may currently meet criteria for multiple classes of geologically hazardous areas. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas are typically ancillary to the principal mitigation of risk provided by geologically hazardous areas. The majority of protections for geologically hazardous areas stem from specific recommendations developed as part of a geotechnical report and assessment required for development sited in the vicinity of hazard areas. Typically, detailed requirements for geotechnical reports associated with different classes of geologically hazardous areas are provided in a jurisdiction's CAO (Table 6-1). However, report requirements are not specifically addressed in Edmonds' current CAO. Instead, existing Edmonds CAO references and defers to chapters of the City's building code (ECDC Chapter 18.30, 18.45,19.05) for specific protective provisions. To be consistent with CTED guidance, the Edmonds geologically hazardous areas ordinance should be re -organized and include details on geotechnical report requirements at a minimum consistent with the requirements of the City's building code The City of Edmonds Planning Department has reported regulatory confusion resulting from the criteria delineating steep slope hazard areas in the current CAO. Under ECDC 20.1513.060 Me, steep slope hazard areas are defined as: [... J any ground that rises at an inclination of 40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet (a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance). A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 20 feet of vertical rise. Best Available Scince Report Page 39 Packet Page 830 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Table 6-1. Geologically hazardous areas code comparison. City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents. 20.15B.060 A 3 a "...at least those areas identified by Defines as follows: Geologically Hazardous Areas are Erosion hazard areas. Erosion • Current reference to soil type parameters for this critical area Erosion Hazard Areas the USDA's Natural Resources not clearly defined in Burien SAO. hazard areas: those areas in may be unnecessary as the soil types are prevalent and Conservation Service as having Erosion Hazard Areas — Those No definition for Erosion Hazard King County underlain by soils common throughout Snohomish County. Currently defined as: moderate to severe,"severe,' or areas containing soils which, Area could be found. which are subject to severe Slopes of 15% or greater with `very severe' rill and interrill according to the USDA Soil erosion when disturbed. Such specific soil types. erosion hazard. Erosion hazard Conservation Service King County soils include, but are not limited areas are also those areas impacted Soil Survey dated 1973, may to, those classified as having a by shoreland and/or stream bank experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils severe to very severe erosion hazard according to the USDA erosion and those areas within a includes, but is not limited to, the Soil Conservation Service, the river's channel migration zone." 1 following when they occur on 1990 Snoqualmie Pass Area Soil slopes of 15 percent or greater: Survey, the 1973 King County Alderwood gravelly sand loam Soils Survey or any subsequent (AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD), revisions or addition by or to Ragnar Indianola Association these sources. These soils (RdE) and portions of the Everett include, but are not limited to, gravelly sand loams (EvD) and any occurrence of River Wash Indianola Loamy fine sands (InD). ("Rh") or Coastal Beaches ("Cb") and the following when they occur on slopes 15% or steeper: (Lists soil types.) 20.15B. 110 Minimum buffer width is 50 feet or Does not include specific Standard buffer for Geologically King County does not define • In accordance with Example Code Provisions incorporating Geologically Hazardous Area the height of a slope, whichever is provisions for geologically Hazardous Areas (Burien includes and regulate Geologically all BAS, Edmonds development standards for Geo Hazard Buffers greater. The buffer may be reduced hazardous areas protection (e.g., Seismic, Erosion and Landslide Hazardous Areas per se. Instead, areas may allow for more varied design alternatives as to 10 ft through geotechnical buffers). Instead, protection of Hazard Areas) is 50 ft which may typical subclassifications of determined by City staff. Currently 50 ft reducible to 10 recommendation. areas is subject to the discretion be reduced to zero if allowed by Geologically Hazardous Areas • Buffer distances offifty (50) feet, height of slope, or ft. of the planning department and planning department. (e.g., Landslide, Steep Slope, potentially ten (10) feet are commonly used by jurisdictions consulting engineers. Seismic hazard Areas) are to protect against erosion and landslide hazards. However, defined and regulated as such distances may not be appropriate in all jurisdictions, separate distinct critical area. and they should be scientifically evaluated in relation to local hazards before being adopted. (CTED Example Code Provisions A-89) Steep Slope Hazard Area Steep Slope Hazard Areas are not Does not include steep slope Steep Slope Hazard Areas are not Steep Slope Hazard Area • Consistent with Example Code Provisions developed with included as a Geologically hazard areas as a geologically included as a Geologically included as a distinct critical BAS, Edmonds may eliminate the Steep Slope Hazard Area Currently: Hazardous Area. In the Example hazardous area subtype. Hazardous Area by the City of area though not addressed in as a specific classification of Geologically Hazardous Area. Any ground that rises at an Code Provisions, similar Burien although protections for BAS documentation directly. inclination of 40 percent or parameters — 40% slope over 10 steep slopes are include within the more within a vertical elevation feet of vertical rise — are used to SAO. No specific development change of at least 20 feet. define a Landslide Hazard Area. standards are included for Steep Slope Hazard Areas although a distinction is made between Best Available Scince Report Page 40 Packet Page 831 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Table 6-1. Geologically hazardous areas code comparison. City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents. landslide hazard areas greater and less than a 40% slope. Development within a Steep CTED Example Code Provisions Does not include as a Not applicable: Burien does not No specific development • Zipper Zeman Associates (2000) recommend modification of Slope Hazard Area such areas are protected and geologically hazardous area. define or regulate Steep Slope standards are included for Steep development standards for Steep Slope Hazard Areas to allow defined as Landslide Hazard Areas. Allows development in vicinity Hazard Areas. Slope Hazard Areas although a for development on slopes > 40% that are not also defined as Currently: Example Code allows development of steep slopes at the discretion distinction is made between a Landslide Hazard Area. (See specific language in ZZA Development is not allowed in such areas with submittal of a of the planning department and landslide Hazard Areas greater memo dated 8/17/2000). Zipper Zeman Associates also unless a reasonable use suitable hazard analysis indicating consulting engineers. and less than a 40% slope. provide further description of recommended parameters for exception or variance is granted. development would not increase or exemption from Steep Slope development standards. would mitigate the hazard. • Zipper Zeman's recommendation may not be necessary give that development may be allowed on Steep Slope Hazard Areas in accordance with a RUE or variance. • This specific critical area definition may be incorporated in to the Landslide Hazard Area subcategory of Geologically Hazardous Area as suggested by the CTED Example Code Provisions. • Edmonds code should include mandates for a specific geotechnical hazards analysis prior to issuance of a RUE or variance for development in areas currently defined as Steep Slope Hazard Areas. Landslide Hazard Areas Defined as: Defined as: Landslide Hazard Areas are Landslide Hazard Areas are • As defined in both current code and CTED Example Code 1. Areas of historic failures. Landslide Hazard Areas — Both regulated as a Geologically specifically regulated in the new Provisions most undeveloped marine embankments (coastal Code refers to 1979 and 1985 2. Areas with all of the 3 of the following: Hazardous Area by the City of draft King County CAO. The areas) should be delineated as Landslide Hazard Areas. geotechnical reports and 5 characteristics: a. High Landslide Hazard Areas Burien although a definition could classification for Landslide parameters in 20.15B.060 3 b. • slope steeper than 15% — Areas sloping 40 percent or not be located in the code. Hazard Areas seems to • hills intersecting geologic greater, areas subject to previous encompass the classification and contacts with permeable landslide activities and areas protection for Steep Slope sediment overlying sloping between 15 percent and Hazard Areas — the distinction impermeable substrate 40 percent with zones of between the 2 Geologically • springs or ground water emergent groundwater or Hazardous Areas is unclear in seepage underlain by or embedded with the new draft King County impermeable silts or clays. CAO. b. Moderate Landslide Hazard Areas — Areas sloping between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by relatively permeable soils consisting largely of sand and gravel or highly competent glacial till. (Definition includes steep slope areas > 40%.) Best Available Scince Report Page 41 Packet Page 832 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report The Planning Department notes that problems in delineating the toe and top of a slope arise when slopes exist along oblique ridgelines. Additional parameters for delineating steep slopes and/or definitions effectively used by other jurisdictions (Table 6-1) should be considered in updating the CAO. 6.2 Review of Scientific Literature The 2004 Critical Areas Inventory for Edmonds identifies geologically hazardous areas based on Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Divisions of Geology and Earth Resources data, as well as from historic landslide information provided by the City. Regardless of classification, the City throughout its development has successfully managed risk from multiple areas prone to landslides, erosion, and other mass wasting events. Edmonds is located in the Puget -Willamette Lowland physiographic province. The Puget Sound region and Edmonds area have been shaped by several advances of continental ice sheets from the north followed by post -glacial meltwater, interglacial stream action, and periods of marine submergence. The Edmonds area consists of a series of semiconsolidated and unconsolidated sediments bordered on the west by Puget Sound. In the vicinity of Edmonds, Vashon age till (approximately 13,000 years old and approaching thicknesses of up to 30 ft), forms a relatively strong and resistant cap that covers much of the uplands and highlands and protects softer, less cohesive underlying layers from erosion. Although till is in many places impermeable to groundwater, fractures and gullying in the till surface can allow percolation into the lower sedimentary layers. The till in the Edmonds area commonly overlies advance outwash deposits locally known as the Esperance Sand (DNR 2004). Esperance Sand, deposited by streams issuing from melting glacial ice as the Puget glacial lobe advanced into the Puget Sound area, is highly permeable and poorly consolidated due to the general lack of silt and clay. The advance outwash deposits are underlain by transitional beds and undifferentiated Pleistocene deposits. These units range from sand and gravel to silt and clay and are transitional between the overlying advance glacial outwash deposits and the underlying older non -glacial related deposits. The older non -glacial deposits in Edmonds consist of the Whidbey Formation. This formation consists of compact medium to coarse -grained sand with interbeds of gravel and peat layers. The unit also contains sequences of silt and clay. Small areas of Edmonds are underlain by post -glacial sediments deposited as the Puget lobe retreated (recessional outwash) and alluvial sediment deposited in low-lying areas by streams. Low-lying areas along the shoreline and adjacent to wetland and marsh areas have also been filled. Types of landslide hazards typical of the high, steep slopes underlain by glacial deposits in the Puget Sound region include high bluff peel -off (earth fall or topple), shallow colluvial sliding (debris slide and debris flow), groundwater blow-out (debris flow, earth Best Available Scince Report Page 42 Packet Page 833 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report flow), and deep-seated landslides (rotational slide, deep translational slide, large earth flow). High bluff peel -off occurs on very steep slopes underlain by very compact deposits such as glacial till or high cohesion sand and gravel deposits. Slabs up to a few feet thick will pull off and topple due to weathering and surface and/or groundwater flow. Shallow colluvial sliding takes place within loose colluvial soils and top soils, especially on slopes steeper than 70%. These slides commonly occur on steep slopes during periods of wet weather when pore pressure in the soil rises. Groundwater blow-out occurs within layers of permeable soils overlying less permeable soils. In typical Esperance Sand deposits (advance glacial outwash), the upper part may be dry, even in winter, whereas groundwater flows rapidly through its basal zone, where the water is perched on underlying clays and silts, if present. The seepage of perched groundwater toward the free face of a steep slope can cause pore -water pressures sufficient to cause the sand unit to fail and flow as a debris flow or earth flow. Deep-seated landslides can involve large areas of the slope. A deep-seated landslide occurred in the Meadowdale area of north Edmonds in the past. Deep-seated slides are controlled by the underlying geologic units, local stresses on the geologic units, and the local water table. 6.3 Assessment of Geologically Hazardous Areas Ordinance In general, the City of Edmonds currently regulates geologically hazardous areas in accordance with BAS, CTED and DOE guidance, and consistent with updated provisions adopted by similar and/or neighboring Western Washington jurisdictions. However, the Edmonds CAO pertaining to geologically hazardous areas is not in compliance with GMA mandates because specific provisions for protection are not included within the City's CAO. Instead, provisions stipulating the protection of areas potentially meeting criteria for geologically hazardous areas are contained within ECDC Chapter 18. However, nomenclature within Chapter 18 often does not specifically identify or reference geologically hazardous areas as defined in the City's CAO. In large part, update of critical areas provisions pertaining to geologically hazardous areas will involve incorporating protections and development standards contained within Chapter 18 into the Edmonds CAO and ensuring consistency between chapters. The updated CAO will include only three subclasses of geologically hazardous areas: Erosion Hazard Areas, Seismic Hazard Areas, and Landslide Hazard Areas. (Note: Steep Slope Hazard Areas will no longer be included as a subclass of geologically hazardous areas within the updated CAO.) However, provisions for protection of areas meeting current criteria for Steep Slope Hazard Areas within the City's existing CAO will remain largely unchanged and be incorporated into provisions protecting Landslide Hazard Areas. The exclusion of Steep Slope Hazard Areas as a subclass is consistent with CTED guidance — Steep Slope Hazard Areas are not identified as geologically hazardous areas in CTED's Best Available Scince Report Page 43 Packet Page 834 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas — and will streamline the updated code. The existing Edmonds CAO does not include a description of the process of review and compliance pertaining to geologically hazardous areas. The updated Edmonds CAO will include a distinct chapter on geologically hazardous areas (see Section 8.0) with specific requirements for geotechnical report development. Although Steep Slope Hazard Areas will no longer be included as a geologically hazardous area subclassification under the City's updated CAO, areas meeting criteria for Steep Slope Hazard Areas under the existing code will be protected as Landslide Hazard Areas. Slopes between 15% and 40% will be protected as Erosion Hazard Areas and slopes greater than 40% will be defined as Landslide Hazard Areas. Delineation of the top and toe of such slopes for geotechnical analysis will remain necessary. As mentioned above, Edmonds planning has identified the code text defining the toe and top of slopes as problematic for slopes with oblique ridgelines and for slopes where the toe or top is located off a subject parcel. To eliminate confusion in the delineation of slopes as Landslide Hazard Areas, the updated code will include the modification of text defining the toe and top of slopes as follows: The current text — "A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 20 feet of vertical rise. Will be replaced with - "A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over the full rise and run of the slope from toe to top, which must include at least 20 feet of vertical rise. If the toe and/or top of a slope is located off of a subject parcel, the toe and/or top of the slope will be delineated 200 feet from the property boundary or at its topographic location, whichever is closer, following the steepest possible incline. " With this text modification, the toe and/or top of a slope located off a subject parcel will be arbitrarily delineated 200 feet from the property boundary following the steepest possible incline. This modification to the current text defining the toe and/or top of a slope will eliminate confusion in the assessment of slope inclines. In addition, it will allow for geotechnical recommendations consistent with the incline of a slope within and immediately adjacent to a subject parcel. 6.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment Adoption of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory for Edmonds and the conceptual modifications to CAO pertaining to geologically hazardous areas described above will significantly improve the process of review of geologically hazardous areas existing on a parcel and the development and enforcement of suitable associated protections. The Best Available Scince Report Page 44 Packet Page 835 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report improvement and facilitation of this process, in turn, will decrease risk to the Edmonds community potentially associated with development within or adjacent to geologically hazardous areas. The 2004 Critical Areas Inventory identifies known geologically hazardous areas in the Edmonds vicinity. This helpful tool will ensure that geotechnical review is completed commensurate to the risk of existing site conditions and potential geological hazards. By increasing the facility of identification of geologically hazardous areas for both permit applicants and the City Planning Department, the updated inventory substantially decreases the potential risk to the Edmonds community. Perhaps the most substantial benefit resulting from the update of the CAO pertaining to geologically hazardous areas is the clarification of the process of critical areas review regarding geohazards. The City of Edmonds has noted that the existing critical areas code is not "user friendly" and requires familiarity with multiple sections of City code additional to Chapter 21.15B. Update of the Edmonds CAO will include a separate chapter on geologically hazardous areas with information necessary to complete review and meet requirements for compliance. The development of a report analyzing the geologically hazardous areas existing in the vicinity of a subject parcel is central to critical areas compliance. The updated CAO will include geotechnical report requirements based on geologically hazardous area sub -class. Clarification and facilitation of the process of critical areas review and compliance will result in uniform application of regulation pertaining to geologically hazardous areas within the jurisdiction. Best Available Scince Report Page 45 Packet Page 836 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 7.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS The Washington GMA requires jurisdictions within the state to address land use issues that directly and indirectly impact fish and wildlife habitat. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation requires the management of land for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations subject to increased risk of extinction are not created. This does not require the protection of all individuals of all wildlife species at all times. However, the GMA mandate does specifically emphasize that cooperative and coordinated land -use planning is critically important among jurisdictions within a region. The principal mechanism for preservation of wildlife species and habitat in Washington State is through the designation and protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as stipulated in WAC 365-190- 080[5]. In some cases, intergovernmental cooperation and coordination among jurisdictions may be sufficient to ensure that wildlife species populations remain viable in counties and cities in a region. However, to ensure protection of wildlife species and fisheries important to the State, CTED guidance suggests that designation of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include (CTED 2003): • Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association. • Habitats and species of local importance. • Commercial and recreational shellfish areas. • Kelp and eelgrass beds. • Mudflats and marshes. • Herring, surf smelt, and sand lance spawning areas. • Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat. • Waters of the state. • Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity. • State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. • Areas critical for habitat connectivity. In addition, CTED suggests adherence to the following principles in classification and designation of this critical area: • Creating a system of fish and wildlife habitat with connections between larger habitat blocks and open spaces. • Providing for some level of human activity in such areas including presence of roads and level of recreation type (passive or active recreation may be appropriate for certain areas and habitats). • Protecting riparian ecosystems. • Evaluating land uses surrounding ponds and fish and wildlife habitat areas that may negatively impact these areas. Best Available Scince Report Page 46 Packet Page 837 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report • Establishing buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat areas. • Restoring lost salmonid habitat. 7.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: Code Review and Comparison While city and county planning departments have been aware of the need for protection of some important community environmental resources — notably wetland and streams — since the late 1970s and early 1980s, jurisdictions have struggled with the appropriate identification and protection of habitat areas used by fish and wildlife. Prior to recent CAO updates, most jurisdictions have identified fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas without providing specific protective provisions within CAO. Furthermore, most jurisdictions have not identified fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on existing critical areas inventories. In practicality, enforced protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas has been largely overlooked to date in most Western Washington jurisdictions. Existing Edmonds code defines three fish and wildlife habitat conservation area subtypes under ECDC 20.1513.060 Al as follows: "a. Critical Habitats. i. Known or documented habitat for any species listed by the state or federal process as rare, endangered, threatened, or sensitive. Approximate locations of such habitats will be available for city staff review on maps located at City Hall and provided by the Washington State Department of Wildlife. Mapped locations of habitat for known listed species shall not be made available for public disclosure. ii. Streams, rivers, and wetlands used by salmonids. Refer to ECDC 20.15B.120 and 20.15B.130 for further detail. b. Significant Habitats. i. Inventoried and mapped habitat for species identified as having local significance within the city of Edmonds. Areas may include, for example, specific areas known to be utilized by large numbers of migratory waterfowl; or ii. Habitats of significance within the city of Edmonds as inventoried and mapped during the city's critical area mapping process. c. Habitats and Species of Local Importance. To be determined and defined in locally adopted administrative procedures." Although current code provides additional explanation in regard to these subtypes, identification of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas has previously been left to the discretion of the planning department and/or a permit applicant. In practicality, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas have not been consistently regulated by the City. Other jurisdictions define fish and Best Available Scince Report Page 47 Packet Page 838 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report wildlife habitat conservation areas by the presence of particular species as defined in the critical areas code (Table 7-1). Typically, jurisdictions do not rely on buffers to provide protection for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Instead, the focus of protection has often been on the restriction of development in areas known to support important fish and wildlife populations. When impacts from development to such areas cannot be avoided, jurisdictions often require the development of mitigation plans utilizing native plant species for landscaping to retain and support wildlife populations as practical. Jurisdictions differ in the designation and identification of streams as critical areas. Previously, most jurisdictions identified and classified streams as a separate critical area type, with limited exceptions (e.g., City of Seattle). However, CTED and DOE guidance suggests that streams should be included as a sub -class of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. This directive from CTED is intended to emphasize the importance of streams to both fish and terrestrial wildlife species (pers. comm., Doug Peters, Senior Planner, CTED). Jurisdictions updating their CAO in accordance with BAS mandates have utilized various methodologies to designate and protect streams as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Many jurisdictions have developed nomenclature (e.g., riparian corridors, City of Seattle; aquatic areas, King County; riparian areas, King County) that reiterate the importance of critical areas to fish and wildlife conservation. Other jurisdictions have retained streams as separate critical area types, contrary to CTED and DOE guidance. Edmonds' existing code includes streams as a separate critical area and uses a three - tiered system of classification (Table 7-1). Both inclusion of streams as a separate critical area type and the three -tiered system of classification run contrary to CTED and DOE guidance. Most jurisdictions with updated critical areas code have adopted either DNR's five -tiered interim system of stream classification or a modified version of DNR's permanent water typing system. DNR's permanent system of water typing is to be adopted by jurisdictions statewide upon completion of fish habitat water type maps showing the location of classification of streams, rivers, lakes, and other waterways throughout the state (WAC 222-16-030). DNR's permanent water typing system, as described in WAC 222-16-030, classifies streams as follows1: • "Type S Water" means all waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands. "Type F Water" means segments of natural waters other than Type S Waters, which are within the bankfull widths of defined channels and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of 0.5 acre or greater at 1 Abbreviated text. Additional information and classification criteria can be found in WAC 222-16-030. Best Available Scince Report Page 48 Packet Page 839 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report seasonal low water and which in any case contain fish habitat or are described by one of the following four categories: (a) Waters, which are diverted for domestic use by more than 10 residential or camping units. (b) Waters, which are diverted for use by federal, state, tribal or private fish hatcheries. (c) Waters, which are within a federal, state, local, or private campground having more than 10 camping units. (d) Riverine ponds, wall -based channels, and other channel features that are used by fish for off -channel habitat. • "Type Np Water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial nonfish habitat streams. • "Type Ns Water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np Waters. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Existing Edmonds code mandates protective buffer widths for streams as follows: Category 1— 50 ft Category 2 — 25 ft Category 3 — 10 ft These buffer widths are far smaller than those suggested by BAS (see detailed buffer discussion for wetlands Section 4.0) that have been incorporated into CTED and DOE guidance, and are generally smaller than protective stream buffer widths adopted by other jurisdictions with updated critical areas code (Table 7-1). Many of the provisions for protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas contained within Edmonds' existing code may be retained through the update process, but clearer definitions of the critical areas are needed. Increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat within the Edmonds jurisdiction will result primarily from the formal delineation of this critical area type on the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory. CTED and DOE guidance, developed in consultation with WDFW, advocate protection of the following specific habitat areas and species through fish and wildlife habitat conservation area provisions (Table 7-1): • Areas with which State or Federally designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species have a primary association. • State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Best Available Scince Report Page 49 Packet Page 840 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Table 7-1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas code comparison. City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Includes the three critical are Includes only significant habitat Includes: Specifically defines Wildlife • As per protections for streams included in updated CAO to be Conservation Area Subtypes identified in current Edmonds CAO areas, defined as: Conservation Areas as: adopted by reference in SMPs, specific protections for the in addition to others. CTED A. Areas with which endangered, marine habitats and shoreline areas identified as Fish and Currently 3 subtypes: Example Code Provisions "An area that provides food, threatened, and sensitive species A. Bald Eagle Nests Wildlife Habitat Conservation in CTED's Example Code 1. Critical Habitat specifically identify 10 types of protective cover, nesting, listed by the federal Provisions should be developed. 2. Significant Habitat Fish and Wildlife Habitat breeding, or movement for government or the State of B. Great Blue Heron Rookeries • Typically, jurisdictions either vaguely or very specifically 3. Habitat/Species of Conservation Areas. threatened, endangered, Washington have a primary define Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. For Edmonds, it Local Importance sensitive, monitor, or priority association; C. Marbled Murrelet Nest may be appropriate to do both: generally define areas in 1. Areas with which State or species of plants, fish, or B. All public and private tidelands accordance with CTED's example provisions; and, Federally designated wildlife. The terms threatened, or bedlands suitable for D. Goshawk Nest specifically cite important habitat features (e.g., Bald Eagle Endangered, Threatened, endangered, sensitive, monitor, commercial or recreational Nests, Kelp and Eelgrass beds, Pigeon Guillemot breeding and Sensitive Species have and priority pertain to lists, shellfish harvest; E. Osprey Nest colonies) with detailed specific associated protections. a primary association. categories, and definitions of C. Kelp and eel -grass beds • Note: King County and other jurisdiction with detailed CAO 2. State Priority Habitats and species promulgated by the identified by the Washington F. Peregrine Falcon Nest provide specific guidance on buffer widths and compensatory Areas Associated with Washington Department of Department of Natural Resources; mitigation ratios — King County's is very specific — for State Priority Species. Wildlife (Non -Game Data D. Herring and smelt spawning G. Spotted Owl Nest Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas. 3. Habitats and Species of Systems Special Animal areas as outlined in Chapter 220- Local Importance. Species), as identified in WAC 110 WAC and the Puget H. Townsend's Big -Eared Bat 4. Commercial and 232-12-011 or 232-12-014, or in Sound Environmental Atlas as Nursery or Hibernacula Recreational Shellfish the Priority Habitat and Species presently constituted or as may be Areas. (PHS) program of the subsequently amended; 1. Vaux's Swift Nest 5. Kelps and Eelgrass Beds Washington State Department of E. Naturally occurring ponds under and Herring and Smelt Wildlife, or in rules and 20 acres and their submerged Specific guidance on protection Spawning Areas. regulations adopted from time to aquatic beds that provide and buffer widths around each 6. Naturally Occurring Ponds time by the U.S. Fish and fish or wildlife habitat; of these areas is provide in the Under 20 Acres. Wildlife Service." F. Bald eagle habitat protected CAO. 7. Waters of the State. pursuant to the Washington State 8. Lakes, Ponds, Streams, and Bald Eagle Protection (Note: King county also Rivers Planted with Game Rules (WAC 232-12-292); or regulates Wildlife Habitat Fish by a Government or G. Heron rookeries or active Networks as distinct critical Tribal Entity. nesting trees. area. Such areas are more 9. State Natural Area generally defined to include Preserves and Natural wildlife corridors and open Resource Conservation space areas providing significant Areas. wildlife habitat in the County.) 10. Areas of Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems. 11. Land Useful or Essential for Preserving Connections Between habitat Blocks and Open Spaces. Streams as Fish and Wildlife Regulates Streams as Fish and Streams retained as distinctly Streams regulated as distinct Under the new draft KC CAO, • CTED has included streams within the critical area of Fish Habitat Conservation Areas Wildlife Habitat Conservation regulated critical area. critical area category. streams are regulated as a type and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas to emphasize that Best Available Scince Report Page 50 Packet Page 841 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Table 7-1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas code comparison. of Edmonds Currently, streams are regulated as a distinct critical area. Stream Classification Currently a 3-tiered system of stream classification. Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Stream Categories Currently 1,2,3. Currently no length parameter included in stream definition. Stream Buffers Class 1-50 ft Class 2-25 ft Class 3-10 ft Best Available Scince Report CTED Example CAO Areas — as either a Water of the State or as "Lakes, Ponds, streams, and Rivers Planted with Game Fish by a Government or Tribal Entity." Stream categories defined in WAC 222-16-031 include 5 (1,2,3,4,5) types of Waters of the State. Type 1 and 2, shorelines of the State, or shorelines of Statewide significance — 250 ft Type 3; and perennial and/or fish - bearing streams 5-20 ft wide — 200 ft 3 <5 ft wide — 150 ft Kirkland SAO 3-tiered system of stream classification: Class A Streams — Streams that are used by salmonids. Class A streams generally correlate with Type 3 streams as defined in the Washington State Hydraulic Code. Class B Streams — Perennial streams (during years of normal precipitation) that are not used by salmonids. Class B streams generally correlate with Type 4 streams as defined in the Washington State Hydraulic Code. Class C Streams — Seasonal or ephemeral streams (during years of normal precipitation) not used by salmonids. Class C streams generally correlate with Type 5 streams as defined in the Washington State Hydraulic Code. (Provisions for protection differ depending upon if stream is within a Primary or Secondary basin.) Stream Class Primary Basins Secondary I Basins A 75 feet N/A B 60 feet 50 feet C 35 feet 25 feet Burien CAO 4-tiered classification system: i. Type 1: Streams inventoried as "Shorelines of the State" under Chapter 90.58 (RCW). ii. Type 2: Streams that are natural streams that have perennial (year round) or intermittent flow and have documented use by salmonids. iii. Type 3: Streams that are natural streams that have perennial flow and are not used by salmonids. iv. Type 4: Streams that are natural streams with perennial or intermittent flows that are not used by fish. [Ord. 394 § 1, 2003] Type l-125 Type 2 - 100 Type 3 - 50 Type 4 - 25 Draft King Countv CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other of Aquatic Area. An Aquatic Area is a distinct type of critical area. King County uses a 4-tiered water typing system consistent with DNR's water typing unmodified. Water types include: Type S Type F Type N Type O Note: water types include but are not limited to streams. Within the King County Urban Growth Area Type S and F — 115 ft Type S and F (special urban type water*) — 165 ft Type N — 65 ft Type O — 25 ft wildlife habitat is to be protected and not simply a watercourse. BAS precedents suggest Edmonds should adopt the 4-tiered stream classification or water typing system. However, stream protections will have to be highly modified to suit the incorporation of native stream channels into the landscaping of contiguous tracts of urban/residential lots as exist in Edmonds. The delineation of streams as critical area is currently in a state of flux. Although streams have, in the past, been consistently regulated as critical area, the `Everett ruling" suggests stream protection is to be afforded through a jurisdiction's SMP. However, CAO updates for all jurisdictions include streams as critical area and typically adopt DOE's (DNR's) classification for waters of the state. Page 51 Packet Page 842 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Table 7-1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas code comparison. City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents. Type 4 and 5 or intermittent with (Outside Urban Growth Area low mass wasting potential — 150 ft Type S and F — 165 ft Type N — 65 ft Type 4 and 5 or intermittent Type O — 25 ft) streams with high mass wasting potential — 225 ft *CAO specifically calls out many streams within the Urban growth Boundary identified as such. Best Available Scince Report Page 52 Packet Page 843 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Best Available Scince Report Page 53 Packet Page 844 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report • Habitats and Species of Local Importance. • Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas. • Kelps and Eelgrass Beds and Herring and Smelt Spawning Areas. • Naturally Occurring Ponds Under 20 Acres. • Waters of the State. • Lakes, Ponds, Streams, and Rivers Planted with Game Fish by a Government or Tribal Entity. • State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas. • Areas of Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems. • Land Useful or Essential for Preserving Connections Between habitat Blocks and Open Spaces. In development of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory, these specific areas and resources were included by focusing the identification and designation of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on four important general categories and habitats: • Streams • WDFW-identified priority habitat and species • Shoreline habitat • Urban open space WDFW data identified priority habitats and species existing in Edmonds including: • Bald eagles and bald eagle breeding territories • Heron rookeries • Sand lance and surf smelt spawning grounds • Marine mammal haul -out sites These species and their associated habitats represent important natural resources that help define the character of the City of Edmonds. Most of these WDFW-identified Priority Habitats and Species are associated with City shoreline areas. In addition, the shoreline reaches of Puget Sound along Edmonds are known to be valuable areas for recreational shellfishing and scuba diving. The emphasis on urban open space allowed for designation for remaining areas of contiguous upland forested areas and smaller patches of remaining undeveloped habitat that have been shown to be vitally important to the maintenance of natural wildlife populations in built -out regions of the Pacific Northwest (see below). 7.2 Review of Scientific Literature Researchers and biologists tend to agree on the importance of protecting small areas of actively used wildlife habitat and habitat features, such as nesting trees and hibemacula sites (Rodrick and Milner 1991, Van Horne and Wiens 1991). It is also widely accepted that wildlife habitat, Best Available Scince Report Page 54 Packet Page 845 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report ecosystems, and habitat features vary in usage and distribution over time. For example, nesting sites for sensitive avian species found in the Pacific Northwest, such as bald eagles and red-tailed hawks, may blow down or degrade from year to year. Thus, these bird species, and other wildlife associated with specific natural habitat features, must constantly respond to environmental changes to find suitable habitat in which to thrive. To maintain viable populations, wildlife species must have access to alternate sources of habitat and appropriate habitat features (Thomas 1979, Marzluff and Ewing 2001). Conservation of active breeding, foraging, and refugia habitat is essential to maintaining native wildlife populations within a region. However, it is equally important to maintain alternate potential habitat areas within a region to accommodate temporal and spatial environmental changes (Gotzwiller 2002, Peterson and Parker 1998, Bissonette 1997, Forman 1995). Identification and protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are intended to maintain area wildlife populations through the preservation of suitable habitat areas regardless of active usage. Management of wildlife in urban areas is often difficult because of the competing and simultaneous demands on the land (Milligan-Raedeke and Raedeke 1995). In such areas, a delicate balance must be achieved between the needs of a community and the needs of wildlife populations. Two general strategies are often utilized to strike a balance of needs and maintain populations within urban areas. The first is to focus wildlife preservation within large, contiguous ecological reserves that are relatively homogenous in vegetative composition and habitat structure regardless of adjoining land use (e.g., forested ecological reserves; Soule and Wilcox 1980; Frankel and Soule 1981; Wright 1998). The second approach strives to protect wildlife species across an entire region by enhancing and maintaining the quality of existing habitat where available, even in small non-contiguous habitat patches (Franklin 1993, Morrison et al. 1998). While the second approach may be more difficult to implement, it is often the only viable option for wildlife management in developed built -out regions. In general, large patches of suitable habitat have been found to be more valuable to wildlife populations than small patches (Brown 1985b). In Western Washington, habitat patches larger than 75 acres have been found to support a broad diversity of native terrestrial wildlife species (Donnelly 2002). However, numerous studies have demonstrated the value to wildlife of preserving and maintaining small, isolated patches of diverse habitat (Potter 1990, Burel 1989). Small habitat patches (e.g., 5-20 acres) have been postulated to both provide habitat suitable to maintaining small wildlife populations, and to act as "stepping stones" for species (notably birds) to move between larger habitat areas (Fahrig and Merriam 1994). Studies on how habitat should be maintained, and which habitat parameters should be enhanced, generally point to the importance of maintaining sufficient forested cover. A study by Marzluff and Donnelly (2002) conducted in the Puget Sound region concluded that to conserve native forest species within the context of an urban environment, policy -makers should: 1. Limit development to 52% of the landscape; 2. Maintain at least 64% of remaining forested areas in single contiguous patches, with an emphasis on preserving stands greater than 103 acres (42 hectares); and Best Available Scince Report Page 55 Packet Page 846 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 3. Maintain a tree density of at least 4.0 per acre (9.8 per hectare) with a minimum of 23% conifers. In another Puget Sound area study, Rohila and Marzluff (2002) found that cavity -nesting bird species — an avian group often identified for special status protection — may be adequately protected in urban areas if at least 30% is retained in develop areas and high live -tree densities and large tree diameters are retained. The authors recommend that forested areas be retained in the largest patches possible (74 acres [30 hectares] or greater) and that average patch size does not fall below 7.4 acres (3 hectares); (Rohila and Marzluff 2002). 7.3 Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Ordinance Streams will be distinguished as a sub -type of fish and wildlife habitat conservation area for which buffer protections will be based on an updated stream classification system consistent with DNR's four -tiered permanent water typing system (S, F, Np, Ns). Protective buffer widths for streams will be increased for consistency with BAS and jurisdictional precedents as follows: Type S-150ft Type F — 100 ft (anadromous) 75 ft (non-anadromous) Type Np — 50 ft Type Ns — 25 ft All streams currently existing in the City of Edmonds provide general "fish" habitat but are not designated as "shorelines of the state." Thus, all Edmonds streams currently meet DNR criteria for Type F waters. However, some Edmonds streams - Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds Creek — are known to support anadromous fish. In order to provide special consideration for and increased protection of anadromous fisheries, Edmonds updated CAO will further classify streams as either Anadromous Fishbearing Streams or Non-Anadromous Fishbearing Streams. Buffers for Anadromous Fishbearing Streams will be increased by 30% (100 ft for Anadromous Fishbearing Streams vs. 75 ft for Non- Anadromous Fishbearing Streams) to provide increased protection for anadromous fish and associated habitat. Provisions will be provided in the code to allow stream buffer reductions with the development of a viable Buffer Enhancement Plan, similar to provisions to be included in the updated wetland ordinances. The updated code will include specific requirements for development of the Buffer Enhancement Plan to be completed by the applicant or representative. Aside from the special consideration for anadromous fish, the most practical improvement to the protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas under the 2004 code update stems from the development of the Critical Areas Inventory. The 2004 inventory includes the delineation of all areas to be designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas within the jurisdiction of Edmonds. The inventory delineates areas based on WDFW data on TES (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive) species presence, fish spawning areas, raptor nests, heron rookeries, Best Available Scince Report Page 56 Packet Page 847 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report breeding species aggregations, shellfish areas, marine mammal haul -out areas, and contiguous areas of undeveloped open space suitable to supporting native wildlife species populations. Delineation of terrestrial areas on the inventory emphasizes riparian habitat and forested open space unlikely to be developed in the future. The inventory will be used as an effective tool by the City Panning Department to identify projects that may result in impacts to important fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Aside from the provisions for stream buffering to be included in the updated code, provisions for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas will principally focus on the regulation of development in and around these areas, and the mitigation of potential impacts. Although land -use conflicts are unlikely given the minimal potential for development on fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as delineated on the 2004 inventory, provisions within the updated code will allow for development in and around some identified fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas upon completion of a suitable mitigation plan. Mitigation will be dependent upon the wildlife species and/or natural resources likely supported within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. In general, an increased emphasis will be placed on retention of native vegetation on undeveloped parcels. New development or expansion of existing development into fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas would require a native vegetation enhancement plan. Buffers for estuarine shoreline habitat would be consistent with Edmonds SMP and BAS. In order to protect potential fish and wildlife habitat throughout the jurisdiction of Edmonds, the updated CAO will include specific provisions for native vegetation retention on undeveloped, sub -dividable lands. Although this provision will not specifically apply to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, it will allow for increased protection of fish and wildlife species and populations. Updated CAO will require that 30% of native vegetation be retained on undeveloped, subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20. The focus of this provision will be on retention of large trees suitable for perching and use by bald eagles, a protected wildlife species known to occur in the Edmonds vicinity. In addition to providing general wildlife habitat, retention of vegetation can reduce surface water runoff and sedimentation, and can contribute to slope stability. 7.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment Overall, update of the Edmonds CAO pertaining to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas will substantially decrease risk to the continued preservation of habitat important to area fish and wildlife populations. As mentioned above, the process of critical areas review and compliance for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas had not previously been systematic or coordinated in Edmonds due to a lack of formal designation for such areas. Adoption of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory will provide City planning with an effective tool for identifying areas important to fish and wildlife where critical areas provisions apply. In addition, the updated code will include a provision requiring the development of a mitigation plan to preserve the function and value of fish and wildlife habitat if development will potentially result in impacts to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. These updated provisions along with the requirement for 30% native vegetation retention on select undeveloped land, will represent a significant Best Available Scince Report Page 57 Packet Page 848 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report improvement in the sustainable management of fish and wildlife habitat in the Edmonds area and reduce the risk to the very natural resources that define the unique character of the City. The buffers proposed for streams in Edmonds do not meet the recommendations listed by CTED, DOE, or WDFW. These agencies recommend buffer widths of 200-250 ft wide on either side of a stream. While these larger buffers could provide benefits if a streamside was not developed, the majority of streams in Edmonds flow through previously developed residential neighborhoods and have limited streamside vegetation. There are exceptions where streams flow through public land or within steep ravines that were never developed. Given the built -out nature of Edmonds and the minimal potential buffers that can be developed in this urban area, smaller buffers were chosen as practical alternatives that provide increased protection over the existing CAO. In addition, the new CAO requirement for stream buffer enhancements for construction projects that increase a structure's footprint into a buffer will provide some benefit to streams over the long term. Updated Stream Buffer Widths Stream buffer widths mandated under the updated CAO (Type S — 150 ft; Type F — 100 ft [anadromous] 75 ft [non-anadromous]; Type Np — 50 ft; Type Ns — 25 ft) constitute a tripling of buffer widths from those proscribed under the existing CAO (Category 1 — 50 ft; Category 2 — 25 ft; Category 3 — 10 ft). However, updated stream buffer widths are less those recommended by DOE. As is the case with wetland buffer widths (see above), this apparent discrepancy between updated Edmonds stream buffer widths and DOE guidance largely stems from the context and environmental settings used to assess stream buffer width efficacy. Though smaller stream buffer sizes have been proven to provide adequate protection of functions important in urban setting (flood storage, water quality protection, sediment removal etc.) wildlife species requiring large home ranges benefit from increased stream buffer sizes. As mentioned above, such species are unlikely to occur within the jurisdiction of Edmonds. The mandated smaller stream buffer widths will effectively provide protection of Edmonds streams and aquatic habitat while balancing other important policy objectives — e.g., allow for focused growth and density increase in UGAs and built -out areas, provide for a variety of uses along shoreline areas, etc. — with the updated CAO. Because approximately 96% of the City's land area is already developed, incremental effects to stream buffers will occur from redevelopment. The City has addressed this issue by an overall doubling of buffer widths on fish -bearing streams with similar increases for high gradient and seasonal water courses. In addition, the new CAO includes requirements for enhancement of stream buffers when a proposal increases the footprint of an existing structure into a stream buffer. Buffer width flexibility, only with the backing of a scientific -based enhancement plan, will provide incremental buffer improvements for areas is residential neighborhoods where current buffer function is minimal. Best Available Scince Report Page 58 Packet Page 849 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 8.0 CAO ORGANIZATION AND CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW PROCESS The 2004 Edmonds CAO update will include broad -scale re -organization of the City's critical areas code from its current structure. The proposed re -organization has been requested and approved by the Edmonds Planning Department and will, perhaps, be the most prominent overall change to the existing code. Edmonds planning has noted that the City's current critical areas code is not "user friendly" and requires permit applicants to have a working knowledge of a complex and arguably byzantine code structure and/or coordinate closely with City personnel. As opposed to separate chapters or sections on the five GMA-mandated critical areas types, the current code interweaves definitions and directions on the process of critical areas review and compliance in an amalgam of code text. As mentioned above, many provisions for critical areas protection are contained within other ECDC chapters, and references to code sections often do not use nomenclature consistent with ECDC Chapter 21.1513 (Critical Areas). It is anticipated that both the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory and the updated critical areas code will be available for public access on a City -hosted interactive website. This noted increase in user accessibility should clarify and streamline the process of critical areas review and compliance and decrease the burden on City planning. Integral to the code re -organization and increase in "usability" is the inclusion of separate chapters germane to each of the five GMA- mandated critical areas types. Each distinct critical areas chapter will include both updated provisions for critical areas protection as well as applicant instructions on the process of critical areas review and compliance, including a description of specific requirements and report outlines and/or templates as appropriate. Not only will this notable re -organization increase the usability of the code and decrease confusion and complications in regard to the process, but it will also bring the code into compliance with GMA mandates and CTED and DOE guidance. In addition, the substantial potential effects of the re -organization should not be discounted within the context of a comprehensive risk assessment. By increasing the code usability and potential access to information on critical areas compliance to the Edmonds community, both the risk to the continued preservation of critical areas and the risk posed to the Edmonds community by the destruction or degradation of these important environmental resource areas may be substantially decreased. Adoption of the updated and re -organized CAO will result in a substantial change in the City of Edmonds' process of critical areas review and approval. This change will provide consistency with CTED guidance on the process of critical areas review and help to streamline the process for the Edmonds planning division. Currently, the Development Services Department relies upon the issuance of Reasonable Use Exceptions when development proposals are anticipated to impact critical areas, regardless of mitigation. This is a public process requiring review by the City hearing examiner. Consistent with the critical areas review process for most Washington State jurisdictions, CTED guidance advocates a critical areas determination process. Under this process, the Development Services Director has authority to approve, condition or deny critical areas determinations (often included as part of an initial SEPA determination) without hearing Best Available Scince Report Page 59 Packet Page 850 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report examiner review. The process becomes public and requires hearing examiner review only if an applicant pursues a variance, a public agency and utility exception, or a reasonable use exception. This avenue for critical areas ordinance compliance, however, should only be considered if an applicant cannot maintain the function and values of critical areas through mitigation, enhancement or restoration pursuant to the requirements of mitigation sequencing as part of the critical area determination process. 8.1 Organizational Code Review and Comparison CTED and DOE guidance on critical areas code organization provided in Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas includes separate code chapters divided by critical areas type. Most jurisdictions updating critical areas ordinances in accordance with GMA mandates follow this basic organizational protocol. However, some jurisdictions (e.g., Kirkland, Burien, etc.) have deviated from this general organizational structure, with varying degrees of success. It is not uncommon for updated CAO to include reference to other code sections (e.g., building code, stormwater code, etc.) for specific provisions. This strategy is problematic, however, when inconsistencies in cross-referencing and nomenclature across code sections do not provide the modicum of protection mandated under GMA for specific critical areas types. Under Edmonds' current code, provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas are generally provided in alternative code sections (ECDC Chapter 18 and 19). However, because nomenclature is inconsistent across these sections and critical area types are often not referenced by name, the existing code does not meet compliance standards mandated under Washington's GMA. Notably absent from Edmonds' existing critical areas ordinances, in comparison with those of other jurisdictions, is specific direction on the process of critical areas review and compliance. Updated CAO typically include step-by-step directions for permit applicants and representatives on the sequencing of critical areas review and necessary requirements, depending on the type of critical area associated with a subject parcel. While Edmonds existing code does include a minimal amount of direction and information on requirements, the code organization is not conducive to applicant understanding of process based on the type of critical area of concern. The updated CAO will include a General Provisions sections providing a basic overview of the critical areas review process, as well as separate section within each chapter relating to different critical areas types on process sequencing, including written report requirements. In addition, each chapter will include an outline of necessary reports and a list of requirements necessary for critical areas review. 8.2 Assessment of Critical Areas Ordinance Organization Most critical areas code follows a sub -structure within each critical areas type section similar to that provided in CTED's Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas. In general, separate sections on each of the five GMA-mandated critical areas include four sub -sections: Designation, Rating, and Mapping; Allowed Activities; Additional Report Requirements; and Development Standards. Edmonds' existing critical areas code includes no Best Available Scince Report Page 60 Packet Page 851 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report such subsections, and the code structure follows no typical critical areas code protocol outline. The updated code will include separate sections for each critical area type and sub -sections consistent with CTED and DOE guidance and the general CAO structure of other Western Washington jurisdictions. While the overall structure of Edmonds' existing critical areas code will be altered substantially as part of the 2004 update, alterations to code content and provisions will generally be limited to the conceptual changes described for each critical areas type above. Most of the specific development standards within Edmond's existing code are consistent with BAS and agency guidance. An effort will be made to retain text and code content from Edmonds' existing CAO to the extent practical through the 2004 update. Additional wording will be necessary, primarily to provide description of the process and sequencing of critical areas review and compliance, and as narrative text in support of the inclusion of outlines, templates and requirements for applicant produced reports. 8.3 Conclusions and Risk Assessment Re -organization of Edmonds' critical areas code to increase usability and applicant understanding of the process of critical areas review and compliance will significantly reduce the risk to critical areas and to the Edmonds community. The very process of CAO review and update has increased public awareness on the importance of local critical areas to the protection of the public and Edmonds' community facilities. The re -organization and update of Edmonds' critical areas code, coupled with the development of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory, will increase access and understanding of code provisions and critical areas protections by permit applicants and the Edmonds public. This revision will go a long way toward reducing the risk to the continued preservation of Edmonds critical areas and the benefits to community protection such areas afford. Best Available Scince Report Page 61 Packet Page 852 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Best Available Scince Report Page 62 Packet Page 853 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report 9.0 REFERENCES Arora, K., S.K. Mickelson, J.L. Baker, D.P. Tierney, and C.J. Peters. 1996. Herbicide retention by vegetative buffer strips from runoff under natural rainfall. Trans. ASAE. 39:2155- 2162. Bissonette, J.A., ed. 1997. Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. 410 pp. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Brown, E.R. (ed.). 1985a. Riparian Zones and Freshwater Wetlands. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington, Part I - Chapter Narratives. pp. 57-80. Brown, Reade E. (ed.). 1985b. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington, Part 1 and 2. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Burrel, F. 1989. Landscape structure effects on carabid beetles spatial patterns in western France. Landscape Ecology. 2:215-226. Castelle, A.J., and A.W. Johnson. 2000. Riparian vegetation effectiveness. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Technical Bulletin No. 799.26 p. Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Connolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements - a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878-882. Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, M. Bentley, D. Sheldon, and D. Dole. 1992. Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios: Defining Equivalency. Adolfson Associates, Inc., for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Pub. No. 92-08. Chaubey, I., D.R. Edwards, T.C. Daniel, P.A. Moore Jr., and D.I. Nichols. 1994. Effectiveness of vegetative filter strips in retaining surface applied swine manure constituents. Trans ASAE 37:845-850. City of Edmonds. 2003a. City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. City of Edmonds. Mayor: Gary Haakenson. City of Edmonds. 2003b. City of Edmonds 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Mayor: Gary Haakenson. Clark, J. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management. John Wiley, New York, 811 pp. Cooke, S.S. 1992. Wetland Buffers: A Field Evaluation of Buffer Effectiveness in Puget Sound. Included as Appendix in Wetland Buffers: Use and effectiveness. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Best Available Scince Report Page 63 Packet Page 854 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2003. Critical areas assistance handbook: Protecting critical areas within the framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. Available at URL = www.ocd.wa.gov/growth Daniels, M.B., and J.W. Gilliam. 1996. Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass and riparian filters. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 60:246-251. Dennison, M.S., and J.F. Berry. 1993. Wetlands: guide to science, law, and technology. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey, USA. Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone: A summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, Narragansett, Rhode Island. Technical Report No. 2064. 72 pp. DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2004. Puget Sound Bluffs: the where, why, and when of landslides following the holiday 1996/97 storms. Washington Geology. vol. 25, no. 1. March 1997. Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural non -point source pollution control, Transactions of ASAE 32 (2), 491-496. 5 Dodd, C.K., and B.S. Cade. 1998. Movement patterns and the conservation of amphibians breeding in small, temporary wetlands. Conservation Biology 12:2, 331- 339. DOE 2004a. (Washington State Department of Ecology). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised. Publication 04-06-025. DOE 2004b. Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands. Publication 04-06-024. DOE. 1993. Washington State wetland rating system for Western Washington. Publication #93-74. DOE 1997. Washington State wetlands identification and delineation manual. Publication #96- 94. Donnelly, R.E. 2002. Design of habitat reserves and settlements for bird conservation in the Seattle metropolitan area. PhD Dissertation. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Dunne, Thomas, and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning: W. H. Freeman & Co. [San Francisco], 818 p. EDAW, Inc. 2004. Draft 2004 Comprehensive Critical Areas Inventory for the City of Edmonds. Emmons and Olivier Resources. 2001. Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A Study of Functions, Values and Size. Prepared for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Available at: http://www.eorinc.com/Projects/MCWD_Buffer Study_Final_Report.pdf Best Available Scince Report Page 64 Packet Page 855 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Fahrig, L, and G. Merriam. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology. 8(1):50-59. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2003. Flood Insurance Manual. National Flood Insurance Program, Includes flood insurance rate maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. May 2003 Edition. FEMA and DOE. 2003. Washington Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Available at:http://www.mrse.org/Subj ects/PubSafe/emergency/floodord.aspx. FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service and other agencies. Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Frankel, O.H., and M.E. Soule. 1981. Nature reserves. Pp. 97-132 in Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3:202-205. Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater: Prentice -Hall [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.], 604 p- Ghaffarzadeh, M., C.A. Robinson, and R.M. Cruse. 1992. Vegetative filter strip effects on sediment deposition from overland flow. Agronomy Abstracts, American Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI. Gerstel, W.J., M.J. Brunengo, W.S. Lingley, R.L. Logan, H. Shipman, and T.J. Walsh. 1997. Puget Sound Bluffs: The Where, Why, and When of Landslides Following the Holiday 1996/97 Storms: Washington Geology, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 17-29. Gotzwiller, K.J., ed. 2002. Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer. 518 pp. Grismer, M.E. 1981. Evaluating dairy waste management systems influence on fecal coliform concentration in runoff. M.Sc. Oregon state University, Corvalis. OR. Harris, R.A. 1985. Vegetative Barriers: An Alternative Highway Noise Abatement Measure. Noise Control Engineering Journal 27:4-8. Horner, R.R., and B.W. Mar. 1982. Guide for water quality impact assessment of highway operations on maintenance. WSDOT. No. WA-RD-39.14. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington - Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-014. Best Available Scince Report Page 65 Packet Page 856 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Johnson, P.A., D.L. Mock, A. McMillan, L. Driscoll, and T. Hruby. 2002. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study, Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Washington State Department Ecology Publication #02-06-009. Olympia, Washington. Johnson, P.A., D.L. Mock, E.J. Teachout, and A. McMillan. 2000. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study, Phase 1: Compliance. Washington State Department Ecology Publication #00-06-016. Olympia, Washington. Josselyn, M.N., M. Martindale, and J. Duffield. 1989. Public Access and Wetlands: Impacts of Recreational Use. California Coastal Conservancy. 56 pp. Keller, C.E., C.S. Robbins, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands. 13(2): 137-144. Kistritz, R., and Glen Porter. 1993. Proposed Wetland Classification System for BC: a discussion paper. Report (Victoria, BC: Kistritz Consultants Ltd., 1993). Allen Banner, Research Branch, MOF, 31 Bastion Square, Victoria, BC, V8W 3E7. Lee, D., T.A. Dillaha, and J.H. Sherrard. 1999. Modeling phosphorous transport in grass buffer strips. J. Env. Eng. ASCE 115:409-427. Lee, K.H., T.M. Isenhart, R.C. Schultz, and S.K. Mickelson. 2000. Landscape scale patterns of forest fragmentation and wildlife richness and abundance in the southern Washington Cascade Range. in USFS PNW-GTR-285, Portland Oregon. Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best management practices for controlling non -point source pollution on forested watersheds. J. of Soil and Water Conservation. 40:164-167. Madison, C.E., R.L. Blevins, W.W. Frye, and B.J. Barfield. 1992. Tillage and grass filter strip effects upon sediment and chemical losses. Madison Wisconsin. Agronomy Abstracts, ASA p 331. Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer, and J.D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by vegetated buffer strips. Trans. of the ASAE 32:663-667 Marzluff, J.M., and K. Ewing. 2001. Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: a general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecology. 9:280-292. Marzluff, J.M., and R.E. Donnelly. 2002. Conserve native birds in residential neighborhoods by managing neighborhood forests and limiting surrounding development. Fact sheet. Online at URL = www.urbanecology.washingotn.edu/products/FactsheetReserve.pdf Mickelson, S.K., I.L. Bakerf, K. Arora, and A. Mistra. 1995. A summary report: the effectiveness of buffer strips in reducing herbicide loss. Proc. 50th Mtg. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Milligan, D.A. 1985. The ecology of avian use of urban freshwater wetlands in King County, Washington. M.S. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Best Available Scince Report Page 66 Packet Page 857 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Milligan-Raedeke, D.A., and K.J. Raedeke. 1995. Wildlife habitat design in urban forest landscapes. Pp. 139-149 in G.A. Bradley, ed. Urban forest landscapes: integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. The University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA. Morrison, M., B.G. Marcot, and R.W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife -habitat relationships: concepts and applications. Second Edition. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 2004. Website. City and county codes for Washington State jurisdictions available at URL = http://www.mrsc.org/codes.aspx National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press. Washington DC. Ossinger, M. 1999. Success Standards for Wetland Mitigation Projects- a Guideline. Washington State Department of Transportation. Olympia, WA. (Available at URL = http://www.wsdot.wa. gov/environment/biology/docs/success_guidelines.pdf). Peters, Doug, Senior Planner, CTED telephone communication with Kirk Prindle, biologist/wetlands specialist, EDAW Inc. May 2004. Peterson, D.L., and V.T. Parker, eds. 1998. Ecological scale: theory and applications. Columbia University Press. 615 pp. Potter, M.A. 1990. Movement of North Island brown kiwi between forest fragments. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 14:17-24. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. R.W. Beck. 2000. Meadowdale Drainage Investigation. April 2000. Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brook Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.24. Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat Suitability Information: Rainbow Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.60. Rieley, J.O. and S.E. Page. 1990. Ecology of Plant Communities: A Phytosociological Account of the British Vegetation. Longman Scientific and Technical, with John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Rodrick, E., and R. Milner, editors. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat Management Divisions, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Rohila, C.M., and J.M. Marzluff. 2002. Landscape and local effects on snags and cavity -nesting birds in an urbanizing area. Masters Thesis. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. Schellinger, G.R., and J.C. Clausen. 1992. Vegetative filter treatment of dairy barnyard runoff in cold regions. J. Env. Qual. 21:40-45. Best Available Scince Report Page 67 Packet Page 858 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report Schwer, C.B., and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Vegetated filter treatment of dairy milkhouse wastewater. J. Env. Qual. 18:446-451. Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal wetland buffer delineation. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. Soule, M.E., and B.A. Wilcox, eds. 1980. Conservation biology: an evolutionary -ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. Thomas, J.W., ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Serv. Agri. Handb. No 553. Forest Service US Department of Agriculture. 512 pp. Thorsen, G.W. 1987. Soil bluffs + rain = slide hazards: Washington Geologic Newsletter, v. 15, no. 3, p. 3-11. Van Horne, B., and J.A. Wiens. 1991. Forest bird habitat suitability models and the development of general habitat models. Fish and Wildlife Research. 8:1-30. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1992. Buffer needs of wetland wildlife. Washington State Department of Wildlife Habitat management Division. Final Draft: February 12. 1992. Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation. Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, 59 p. Williams J.D., and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 1978. Importance of Wetlands to Endangered and Threatened Species. pp. 565-575. In: Phillip E. Greeson, John R. Clark, and Judith E. Clark (eds.), Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association. Wright, J.B. 1998. The role of conservation easement sites in biogeoghraphic and biological research in the USA. Environmental Conservation. 25:85-89. Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of riparian buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 9:483-487. Zipper Zeman Associates. 2000. Memo dated 8/17/2000. Best Available Scince Report Page 68 Packet Page 859 of 1075 Final CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE Best Available Science Addendum Prepared for City of Edmonds March 16, 2015 r ESA Packet Page 860 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................ Purpose........................................................................................................................... Background.................................................................................................................... Updates to City of Edmonds Setting.............................................................................. Methods............................................................................................................................. Wetlands............................................................................................................................ Updates to Scientific Literature..................................................................................... Assessment of Current Wetland Provisions and Summary of Code Recommendations Frequently Flooded Areas.................................................................................................. Updates to Scientific Literature..................................................................................... Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded Areas Provisions and Summary of CodeRecommendations........................................................................................... Geologically Hazardous Areas........................................................................................... Updates to Scientific Literature..................................................................................... Assessment of Current Geologically Hazardous Areas Provisions and Summary of Code Recommendations........................................................................................... Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.................................................................. Updates to Scientific Literature..................................................................................... Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Provisions and Summary of Code Recommendations...................................................................... Critical Areas Inventory Mapping..................................................................................... CAO Organization and Critical Area Review Process ...................................................... References......................................................................................................................... . .........................1 ......................... 1 ......................... 1 .........................1 ......................... 2 ......................... 3 ......................... 3 ......................... 7 ......................... 7 ......................... 8 ......................... 9 .......................10 .......................10 ....................... 11 .......................11 .......................12 .......................13 .......................14 .......................16 .......................17 Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................. See 2004 BAS Report Attachments Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix — Final March 2015 Page i ESA Packet Page 861 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds (City) is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The CAO is adopted into the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) within Title 23 (Natural Resources), sections ECC 23.40 thru 23.90. The GMA requires the use of best available science (BAS) in the development of critical areas policies and regulations. This report reviews the existing CAO, additions to BAS and regulatory changes since the last update, and recent changes to the Edmonds setting in the context of updates to BAS since 2004. Purpose The purpose of this addendum report is to provide technical information to City staff regarding the efficacy of the City's current critical areas protection measures, and to provide recommendations for CAO updates that improve consistency with BAS. Background In 2005, the City reviewed the BAS and updated the CAO to comply with the GMA. The 2005 update to the CAO was comprehensive, with BAS documented in The City of Edmonds 2004 Best Available Science Report (EDAW, 2004). This Report is provided as an addendum to the City's 2004 BAS Report. Current assessment of BAS is focused on considerations and changes for critical areas protection that have emerged from recent regulatory agency guidance, regional and local studies, or other scientific information since 2004. More recently, the City has been completing a comprehensive update to its Shoreline Master Program (SMP); approval of the updated SMP is anticipated in 2015 (City of Edmonds 2014; Lien 2014). The Planning Board Recommended Draft SMP (updated SMP) will integrate the majority of the City's CAO protections. This integrated SMP requires a shoreline variance process for specific provisions (providing allowances for buffer reduction and other activities) related to wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, and FWHCA where they occur within shoreline jurisdiction, and excludes other provisions of the CAO related to reasonable economic use, exemptions, variances. Additionally, an alternative regulatory approach for wetlands, applicable to wetland ratings, buffer widths, mitigation ratios, and other standards, is proposed within the SMP in order to improve consistency with new BAS and guidelines from Ecology and the Corps (see Section 24.40.020 of the updated SMP for specifics). Many of the same changes are provided as recommendations for the City-wide CAO update within this BAS Addendum report. The City expects the current CAO update to be relatively limited in scope, with the majority of the focus on provisions relating to wetlands, existing development within buffers, upland vegetation in larger tracts, and tree protection within critical areas and buffers. Updates to City of Edmonds Setting Since 2004, the City of Edmonds has seen relatively low population growth, with 39,709 residents according to the 2010 US census and an estimated 40,727 residents as of 2013 (approximately 340 new residents per year, less than 1 percent annually). This estimated growth in the last four years is actually a slight increase from very low population change between 2000 and 2010, during which time the City added approximately 200 residents. Over the same ten year period, the City added approximately 850 housing units, close to a 5% increase (2000 and 2010 US Censuses). The majority of these units were added as part of the Point Edwards development which occurred at an abandoned oil tank farm site on the March 2015 Page 1 ESA Packet Page 862 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update western edge of the City. The relatively steady residential population is consistent with the largely built - out character of land use across the City. Outside of completion of the multifamily development at Point Edwards (development was occurring at the time of the last CAO update, and was permitted before the existing CAO was adopted), no major development activities affecting critical areas within the City has occurred since the last CAO update. Development adjacent to critical areas has occurred primarily as redevelopment and additions on existing single-family residential lots. This pattern is anticipated to continue into the future. The City has not annexed any new areas since 1999. METHODS According to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), Washington's counties and cities are required to continually review, evaluate, and update comprehensive land use plans and development regulations using BAS, with the intent of identifying, designating and protecting critical areas and giving special consideration to anadromous fisheries. Critical areas include the following elements: wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (RCW 36.70A.030). There are no critical aquifer recharge areas within Edmonds and thus are not discussed below. BAS is defined as scientific information about critical areas, prepared by local, tribal, state, or federal natural resource agencies, or qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with the following criteria: • Scientific information is produced through a valid scientific process that includes: o Peer review, o A discussion of methods used to gather information, o Logical conclusions, o Data analysis, o Information used in the appropriate context, and o References of literature and other sources of information used. • Scientific information is obtained through a common source such as: o Research, o Monitoring, o Inventory, o Survey, o Modeling, o Assessment, o Synthesis, or o Expert opinion. In the context of critical areas protection, a scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies and regulations that are effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas. Page 2 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 863 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Non -scientific information can supplement, but it is not an adequate substitute for valid and available scientific information. Common sources of non -scientific information include: anecdotal information; non -expert opinion; and hearsay. This addendum relies upon several regulatory guidance and BAS documents pertaining to critical areas. Current examples of regulatory language pertaining to critical areas can be found in Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007). BAS documents specific to each critical area are discussed in the following sections. ESA reviewed the City's CAD for consistency with the current scientific literature and applicable regulatory agency guidance. For provisions specific to geologic hazards, The Stratum Group provided technical review as a subconsultant to ESA. The ESA team also reviewed recently updated critical area codes from other neighboring jurisdictions and recommended changes that would help Edmonds achieve greater consistency with current standards and practices. Our recommendations also reflect our professional judgment and experience assisting numerous cities and counties with code interpretation and administration. To organize our review and recommendations, we created a matrix (attached to this memo) documenting consistency between CAO provisions and GMA regulations, relevant agency guidance and BAS published since 2004. WETLANDS Wetlands are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by the Growth Management Act (WAC 365-190-080[3]). The current CAO provides standards for protection of wetlands in ECDC Chapter 23.50. This section summarizes new scientific literature and regional policy concerning wetlands protection and management, provides an assessment of current CAO provisions, and summarizes recommendations for updates to ensure consistency with BAS. Updates to Scientific Literature In general, the latest documents in the record pertaining to wetlands have been prepared by state and federal agencies. Since the City's last major CAO update, new scientific findings have been published describing methods for assessing wetlands on a watershed -based and landscape -scale, alternative mitigation strategies (mitigation banking and in -lieu fee programs), improving the success of compensatory mitigation, and buffer effectiveness. For example, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) released a two -volume BAS document that is still the primary source of new information for wetland management: Wetlands in Washington State — Vol. I A Synthesis of the Science (Sheldon et al. 2005) and Vol. 2 Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. 2005). Wetland Model Code The wetland model code found in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007) was updated in 2012 and can be found in Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012). This model code offers example language that reflects many of the updates to BAS described in this section. March 2015 Page 3 ESA Packet Page 864 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Wetland Delineation and Rating hi 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts (Corps, 2010). The regional supplement updates portions of the 1987 Corps' Wetland Delineation Manual and provides additional technical guidance and updated procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands. State law requiring the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997) was repealed in 2011, and the state manual is no longer required or supported by Ecology. The Regional Supplement is now required by state law (WAC 173-22-035). Ecology released an update to their wetland rating system, the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014), that goes into effect January 2015. Most of the material in the 2014 updated manual remains the same as that in the 2004 manual. The updated wetland rating manual includes a new scoring range (i.e., between 9 and 27 under the updated manual versus 1 to 100 in the 2004 manual) that is based on a qualitative scale of functions from high, medium, or low. The new approach to scoring wetland functions on a high, medium, or low scale is more scientifically supportable (Hruby, 2014). The 2014 updated manual also includes new sections for assessing a wetland's potential to provide functions and values on a landscape -scale. Alternative Miti ag tion One of the most significant changes in BAS since Edmonds last code update involves alternative mitigation strategies. According to the National Research Council, compensatory mitigation implemented in the past, particularly on -site mitigation installed by the permittee, has frequently been unsuccessful and has not achieved the national policy of "no net loss" of wetland area and functions (NRC, 2001). Traditionally, permit applicants have constructed mitigation projects to compensate for effects to aquatic resources (e.g., wetlands, streams, marine waters) with limited oversight and enforcement of mitigation requirements. This type of mitigation is referred to as "permittee-responsible" mitigation. Additionally, alternative forms of mitigation, such as mitigation banks and in -lieu fee (ILF) programs, and advance mitigation were not established uniformly across the country, or within individual states, and there were numerous cases where alternative mitigation programs were operated unsuccessfully. To address these mitigation deficiencies, in early 2008 the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released revised regulations governing compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to waters of the US, including wetlands. The Federal Rule, formally known as the Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, lays out criteria and performance standards designed to improve the success and quality of mitigation activities (Corps, 2008). The Federal Rule emphasizes a watershed approach to mitigation as part of the planning, implementation, and management of mitigation projects. A watershed approach is an analytical process for making compensatory mitigation decisions that support the sustainability or improvement of aquatic resources in a watershed; it involves consideration of watershed needs, and how locations and types of compensatory mitigation projects address those needs. Alternatives to permittee-responsible mitigation are increasingly implemented within Washington State and around the country to compensate for authorized effects to aquatic resources. Common forms of alternative mitigation include: • Mitigation Banks— restoring, establishing, enhancing, and/or preserving aquatic resources through funds paid to a public or private Sponsor to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements Page 4 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 865 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update for Corps permits. At banks, the Sponsor has already secured a mitigation site and initiated mitigation activities before fees are accepted. Typically, mitigation banks exist at one location and the Corps does not have authority over bank expenditures. In -Lieu Fee (ILF) Programs —restoring, establishing, enhanceing, and/or preserving aquatic resources through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit natural resources management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for Corps permits. In -lieu fee programs accept mitigation fees before securing and implementing projects. These programs implement mitigation at multiple sites as funds become available and after the Corps approves project funding. Consolidated Off -site Mitigation— restorating, establishing, enhancing, and/or preserving aquatic resources through funds paid to a public or private entity Sponsor. Mitigation typically occurs at a single location in a phased approach; as compensatory mitigation fees are paid to the public or private entity by permit applicants, portions of the mitigation site are constructed. • Advance Mitigation— restorting, establishing, enhancing, and/or preserving of aquatic resources, undertaken by public or private permit applicants in advance of permitted impacts. This type of mitigation is considered permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation because only the permit applicant who implements the advance mitigation may use it to satisfy their compensatory mitigation obligations. Alternative forms of mitigation do not change the requirements for permit applicants to adhere to "mitigation sequencing" required by regulatory agencies. These are step -wise requirements under federal and state laws that mandate permit applicants to demonstrate that avoidance and minimization measures have been taken before the remaining aquatic resource effects are determined unavoidable. Avoidance and minimization measures occur during project design and are intended to avoid and reduce a project's effects prior to construction. Once a determination is made that project effects are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation is required. In the Federal Rule, the Corps outlined a mitigation hierarchy, preferring mitigation banks over ILF programs and ILF programs over permittee-responsible mitigation. Compensatory Mitigation Where compensatory mitigation (permittee-responsible) is the best option for mitigating wetland impacts, recent guidance has been developed to improve mitigation success. Ecology, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), developed a two-part guidance document intended to improve the quality, consistency, and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation in Washington State. Part I of the document, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State —Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology Publication #06-06-01 la, March 2006a), provides regulatory background and outlines information that regulatory agencies use. Some of this information has been superseded by recent guidance discussed in the Alternative Mitigation section; however, wetland mitigation ratios listed in this document are the basis for many local jurisdictions' mitigation requirements. Part 2 of the document, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State —Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology Publication #06- 06-01 lb, March 2006b) provides specific technical guidance on developing a compensatory wetland mitigation plan. As an alternative to using mitigation ratios, Ecology developed Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Hruby, 2012) for estimating whether a March 2015 Page 5 ESA Packet Page 866 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update project's compensatory mitigation plan adequately replaces lost wetland functions and values . Termed the "Credit -Debit Method," this manual uses a functions and values -based approach to score functions lost at the project site (i.e., "debits") compared to functions gained at a mitigation site (i.e., "credits"). A mitigation project is considered successful when the "credit" score for a compensatory mitigation project is higher than the "debit" score. Based on our local experience, the Corps and Ecology are increasingly relying on the Credit -Debit Method instead of mitigation ratios alone. Buffer Effectiveness In 2005, Ecology and WDFW released Wetlands in Washington State — Vol. I A Synthesis of the Science (Sheldon et al. 2005) that synthesized literature related to wetland buffers and buffer effectiveness. In 2013, the Department of Ecology updated the 2005 synthesis with a literature review of scientific documents published between 2003 and 2012, titled Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report (Hruby, 2013). The updated buffer synthesis confirmed that buffers perform an important water quality function by trapping pollutants before they reach a wetland. Generally, the wider the buffer, the more effective it may be at protecting water quality; however, recent research reveals that several other factors contribute to the effectiveness of water quality functions (e.g., slope, type of vegetation, surface roughness, soil properties, type and concentration of pollutants, etc.). Specifying only the width of a buffer as a means for protecting water quality functions can be complicated and may not address these other factors (Hruby, 2013). With respect to protecting habitat quality, research in the past decade reveals that larger buffers are needed to protect wetland -dependent species, which may require larger areas of relatively undisturbed uplands for survival (Hruby, 2013). Ecology's model code outlines a combined fixed -with and variable -width approach to wetland buffers, with a minimum buffer prescribed based on a wetland's category and an additional buffer based on increasing habitat points (Bunten et al., 2012; Table XX.1 revised December 2014). For reductions to a standard buffer width, an applicant should demonstrate that a smaller buffer will protect wetland functions and values, with additional mitigation measures applied where needed to support "no net loss" of those functions and values (Granger et al., 2005). In highly developed communities, such as Edmonds, standard buffer widths may be difficult to achieve. As noted in the 2004 BAS Report, many wetland and stream buffers extend into residential yards that have been previously developed and likely provide limited function in terms of wetland protection. Furthermore, some buffers are substantially developed and contain impervious surfaces, commercial or residential buildings. While not explicitly stated in BAS and buffer guidance documents, a scientific judgment of these areas would conclude they do not provide the same function and values as a vegetated or undeveloped buffer due to the physical separation. Ecology's model code (Table XX.2) outlines required mitigation measures that can be used to protect wetlands (Bunten et al., 2012). The model code recommends that standard buffers should not be reduced below 25 percent of the standard buffer with mitigation measures (Bunten et al., 2012). Granger et al. (2005) notes that for some situations where the buffer is composed of non-native vegetation, and therefore providing limited functions and values, simply applying a fixed width buffer may fail to provide the necessary characteristics to protect a wetland's functions. In these cases, it can be better to restore the buffer through enhancement activities. Other Sources of Information Other scientific sources have also generated relevant information, which we reviewed and have referenced in the gap analysis matrix and in the references section of this report. Page 6 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 867 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Assessment of Current Wetland Provisions and Summary of Code Recommendations The wetlands section of the CAO needs to be updated in a few key areas to improve its consistency with BAS and current agency guidelines, as detailed in the attached matrix. A summary of key recommendations follows: Update references to newer manuals (e.g., Corps Regional Supplement and the updated Wetland Rating Manual). • Update buffer widths to reflect those recommended in Ecology's "Table XX.1" and in the City's draft SMP. Note that Table XX.1 was revised in December 2014 to reflect the new scoring system used in the 2014 updated Wetland Rating Manual. • Prioritize buffer averaging with enhancement over buffer reductions with enhancement: Buffer averaging results in the same amount of buffer area, while buffer reductions result in a net loss of area. • Update provisions for buffer reductions with enhancement or for buffer averaging to be no greater than 25 percent of the standard buffer width and include the list of mitigation measures from Ecology's Table "XX.2" (Bunten et al., 2012) to further protect wetlands. Where additions to legally constructed structures will occur beyond the 25 percent reduction in the standard buffer (Section 23.50.040.H), a development footprint threshold and buffer mitigation measures (e.g., enhancement plan and elements from Table XX.2) should be required for consistency with BAS and "no net loss." • Include provisions to address for physically separated and functionally isolated buffers and development within the previously developed footprint to be consistent with the City's draft SMP. Update wetland mitigation requirements to reflect BAS regarding wetland mitigation guidance (e.g., compensatory mitigation technical guidance, watershed -based documents, and the Credit - Debit Method) and the mitigation preference sequence (federal- and state -approved mitigation banks, in lieu fee programs, then compensatory mitigation). FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Frequently flooded areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by GMA (WAC 365- 190-110). The current CAO provides standards for protection of frequently flooded areas in ECDC Chapter 23.70, which includes standards for identification, reporting, and protection of floodplains, and additionally references floodplain standards for new development and structures within the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC), both adopted by reference in ECDC Title 19. In addition, the updated SMP includes flood hazard reduction regulations (proposed ECDC 24.40.030) that were not in effect at the time of the last CAO update (City of Edmonds 2014). This section summarizes new scientific literature and regional policy concerning frequently flooded areas protection and management that has emerged in the last 10 years, provides an assessment of current CAO provisions, and summarizes recommendations for updates to ensure consistency with BAS. March 2015 Page 7 ESA Packet Page 868 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Updates to Scientific Literature There is relatively little area of floodplain within Edmonds. For this reason, as noted within the 2004 BAS, little emphasis is placed on frequently flooded areas. The currently effective FIRM for the City (revised and effective on January 30, 1998) remains consistent with floodplain mapping that was available during the 2004 BAS review; however, in November 2014 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released draft flood zone maps that include coastal floodplains subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. The 2004 BAS notes several City documents that detail areas of potential flooding outside of the flood zones depicted on FIRMs. The 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan (City of Edmonds 2003b) was updated by the 2010 Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (City of Edmonds 2010). Chapter 3 of the 2010 Plan details flooding issues in the City, including discussion of flooding associated with increased impervious surfaces and runoff during storm events, and site -specific problems. Many of the site -specific problems are associated with undersized and/or failing stormwater infrastructure that results in flooding issues. Some site -specific problems (and proposed capital improvement solutions) are located within FIRM flood zones (Edmonds Marsh, Perrinville Creek at Talbot Road, Lake Ballinger); however many others are located outside of flood zone mapping (for example, high priority flood protection projects within the Southwest Edmonds Basin). The 2004 BAS discussed frequently flooded areas chiefly from the perspective of flood effects on human health, safety, and property, and the effects of human activities on flooding. Floodplains perform a variety of beneficial functions including providing for natural flood and erosion control, water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge, biological productivity, fish and wildlife habitat (Steiger et al. 2005), production and of wild and cultivated products, recreational opportunities, and areas for scientific study and outdoor recreation (Kusler 2011). Floodplains typically contain several major types of habitats including aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland habitat. Recent BAS and regional guidance for protection of ecological functions within a floodplain emphasizes the importance of other critical areas (including wetlands, streams, riparian areas, and FWHCAs) within floodplains, and emphasizes the importance of protection of these critical areas (PSP 2010; NMFS 2009). Guidance highlights the importance of other critical areas provisions in ensuring that floodplain ecological functions are protected into the future. Due to a 2009 Biological Opinion by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding protection Endangered Species Act listed salmonid species from the effects of floodplain development activities, assessment of floodplain habitat impacts and new standards for protection are now required for NFIP participating communities (NMFS 2009; FEMA 2013). Climate Change and Frequently Flooded Areas in Edmonds A recent review of the effects of climate change (ISAB 2007) identified the following probable consequences of global warming along the Pacific coast of North America, as relevant to Edmonds: • Sea level rise will shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of unstable bluffs (Huppert et al. 2009) • Urban stormwater infrastructure - regional climate model simulations generally predict increases in extreme high precipitation over the next half -century; existing drainage infrastructure designed using mid-20th century rainfall records is anticipated to reach capacity and result in urban flooding more frequently (Rosenberg et al. 2009). Page 8 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 869 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Both of these consequences suggest that hazards associated with both coastal and urban flooding could increase in the decades ahead. Management of frequently flooded areas provides an opportunity for the City to anticipate increased flood hazards related to climate change and provide standards to further minimize future risks. Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded Areas Provisions and Summary of Code Recommendations Current frequently flooded areas provisions remain generally consistent with minimum guidelines provided by FEMA for NFIP communities and Washington State (WACs 173 and 365). ECDC includes provisions that ensure adequate reporting of development activities within frequently flooded areas, including standards to ensure that areas important to floodplain habitat functions (wetlands, streams, and other critical areas) are documented where they occur within floodplains. The updated SMP, which includes almost all floodplain areas (both along the City's Puget Sound shoreline and along Lake Ballinger), includes proposed standards that restrict development and redevelopment from occurring where it would require structural flood hazard reduction measures. Furthermore, the updated SMP only permits structural flood control works when necessary to protect health/safety or existing development, and only when documented that permitted facilities would not result in a net loss of ecological functions. ECDC Chapter 23.70 primarily relies on reference to the IBC and IRC, as adopted by reference in ECDC Title 19. The IBC and IRC include flood hazard protections (IBC Section 1612 Flood Loads and IBC Appendix G Flood Resistant Construction). While these adopted by reference standards are consistent with minimum requirements for NFIP communities, most other Western Washington communities adopt their own flood hazard regulations. Including flood damage prevention standards directly within the City's Development Code would make requirements more readily apparent and may improve compliance for future floodplain development. ECDC Title 19 building code requires that the lowest living space in a residential structure be at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) (1% chance flood zone). This meets the minimum standards of the NFIP, but FEMA recommends and many communities have adopted higher standards — either 1 or 2 feet above the BFE. It has become a widely accepted policy to require at least a 1-foot above BFE for residential structures to reduce their potential loss or damage from flooding. While the majority of the City's floodplain occurs along the marine shoreline of Puget Sound, the frequently flooded areas also extend along the shorelines of Lake Ballinger. In this area, recent BAS and guidance highlighting the importance of requiring compensatory floodplain storage is relevant (Steiger et al. 2005, FEMA 2013). Lake Ballinger, as well as upstream reaches of Hall Creek and downstream reaches of McAleer Creek have known flooding issues (Otak et al. 2009). For the Lake Ballinger floodplain, the City should consider amending ECDC Chapter 23.70 to require compensatory storage for new floodplain development. Additionally, current frequently flooded areas provisions (either as adopted by reference or as proposed within the updated SMP) do not include any higher standards that would greatly reduce flood risks within coastal floodplains (Coastal A zones and V zones). The risks associated with wave run-up and impact forces within coastal floodplains are significant. A number of recommendations for additional flood hazard reduction are provided within the attached Matrix. March 2015 Page 9 ESA Packet Page 870 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Geologically hazardous areas are specifically identified as a critical area by GMA (WAC 365-190-120). Three geologic hazard areas are located in Edmonds: 1) erosion hazard areas, 2) landslide hazard areas, and 3) seismic hazard areas. The current CAO provides standards for protection of safety of citizens from geologically hazardous areas in ECDC Chapter 23.80, which includes standards for identification, report requirements for geologic hazard areas, and development and mitigation standards for geologically hazardous areas The 2004 BAS Report states that the risk from geological hazards "can often be significantly mitigated through engineering, design, and/or modified construction and development techniques." While some geology hazards may be reduced through engineered mitigation measures, it is also important to emphasize that where possible geological hazardous areas should be avoided by locating structures outside of potential hazard areas. When mitigation alternatives cannot viably reduce risks to human health and safety to acceptable levels, building in geologically hazardous should not be permitted. In addition to CAO standards for geologically hazardous areas, as last comprehensively updated in 2004, the City developed and implemented standards for development activities within "designated earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas" of the City in ECDC Chapter 19.10 (Building Permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas). These standards, which were adopted in 2007 and last amended in 2013, were developed primarily to address risks associated with a specific landslide hazard area in Edmonds, the Meadowdale Landslide. This section summarizes new scientific literature and regional policy concerning geologically hazardous areas that has emerged in the last 10 years, provides an assessment of current CAO provisions (including considerations for integration with ECDC Chapter 19.10), and summarizes recommendations for updates to ensure consistency with BAS and risk management policies. Updates to Scientific Literature The two most noteworthy new science additions applicable to Edmonds are the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Area Summary Report (Landau, 2007) and the availability of LiDAR (light detection and ranging) imagery. The Meadowdale Landslide summarized in the Landau (2007) summary is a large, deep-seated landslide that is called out in the existing CAO but has specific regulations for that hazard area in Chapter 19.10 EDC. The LiDAR data should provide a clearer means of identifying potential landslide hazard areas as steep slopes potentially subject to landslides can be readily identified. Ongoing seismic research has better characterized fault zones to the north and south of the Edmonds, the South Whidbey Fault Zone and the Seattle Fault Zone (Kelsey et al. 2004a; Kelsey and Sherrod, 2004b; Liberty and Pape, 2006; Liberty and Pape, 2013). Edmonds is located approximately mid -way between these two identified fault zones. The United States Geologic Society (2014) has updated seismic hazard maps for the area and shows similar peak ground acceleration risk as previous mapping in 2008 and 2002. Walsh and others (2014) have modeled potential tsunami hazards associated with a maximum credible seismic event on the Seattle Fault and found wave amplitudes in the Edmonds area to be approximately 4.5 feet. Modeling of seismic induced landsliding associated with the Seattle Fault (Allstadt and Vidale, 2012) suggests many landslides would be triggered and these effects will be of significant consequence. While not new science, communities throughout Washington State have been grappling with best practices for addressing geologically hazardous areas. Some additional languages and changes have been added to the BAS to reflect lessons learned elsewhere. Washington State Department of Licensing Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006) provides reference Page 10 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 871 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update guidance for preparation of geologic reports that can be utilized for simplifying code language regarding geology hazard reports. Assessment of Current Geologically Hazardous Areas Provisions and Summary of Code Recommendations In general, the City currently regulates geologically hazardous areas in accordance with BAS, CTED and DOE guidance, and consistent with updated provisions adopted by similar and/or neighboring Western Washington jurisdictions. However, the current Edmonds CAO pertaining to geologically hazardous areas does not include a full listing of potential landslide areas that should be evaluated per WAC guidance language. The code should be updated to capture the range of potential landslide hazards as provided in the WAC guidance. Utilizing the language in the WAC guidance for slopes greater than 40% will eliminate confusion regarding measurement of slope break. The code should be updated to define slopes greater than 40% as potential landslide hazard areas regardless of toe and top of slope. That is if a 40% slope is present that is at least 10 feet high it will be considered a potential landslide area. Potential geologic hazardous areas should be treated as potential hazards that require further assessment to determine if in fact the site is a geologic hazardous area. That determination should be made by a geologist. The code should be clarified to reflect that the specific areas considered as potential landslide and erosion hazard areas that should be reviewed by a qualified geologist to determine if they are a landslide or erosion hazard, and if they area what actions should be taken. The current code provides a lengthy description of what should be included in geology and geotechnical reports but is not clear in what is required. A flow chart in the existing CAO suggests a clear path of types of reports and content. The CAO language should better reflect the flow chart which is consistent with the best available science and guidance and clarifies report requirements with the goal of establishing clear reports that assess the geologic hazards and mitigation as applicable. Standard buffers should no longer be used. Buffers and setbacks should be determined by a geologist specific for the site. Additionally, clarity on the setback criteria should be added so that structures will not be at risk for the life of the structure (120 years) and that in evaluation of the geologic hazard there is a determination that there will be no on- or off -site increase in risk of erosion or landslides. The Meadowdale Landslide area is covered in a separate code section in 19.10 and is referenced within the CAO. The Meadowdale Landslide is a deep-seated landslide and policy for development and/or denial of development is established within EDC 19.10. EDC 19.10 allows for development in an area where there is a known geologic hazard. For consistency the CAO should treat this particular landslide hazard differently than other landslide and erosion hazard areas. EDC 19.10 should be modified to better reflect the specific zone recommendations presented in Table 1 of the Landau report and each zone should be treated somewhat differently as the risks vary from zone to zone. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by the Growth Management Act (WAC 365-190-080[3]). The current CAO provides standards for protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in ECDC Chapter 23.90. This section summarizes new scientific literature and regional policy concerning wetlands protection and management, provides an assessment of current CAO provisions, and summarizes recommendations for updates to ensure consistency with BAS. March 2015 Page 11 ESA Packet Page 872 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Updates to Scientific Literature The latest documents in the record pertaining to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas have been prepared predominantly by state, federal, and tribal agencies. Much of this science is related to protecting salmon and fisheries habitat. For example, in 2009, WDFW published Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout: A Land Use Planner's Guide to Salmonid Habitat Protection and Recovery as part of an initiative to integrate local planning programs with salmon recovery efforts (Knight, 2009). Other documents are related to managing biodiversity and habitat quality with urban development. In 2009, WDFW also published Landscape Planning for Washington's Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas, which provides guidance for wildlife issues related to rural and urban residential development. Ecology has published guidance on minimum riparian buffer widths for implementing riparian restoration or planting projects that use water quality -related state and federal pass -through grants or loans (Appendix L in Ecology, 2013). The buffer widths are recommended by the NMFS to help protect and recover Washington's salmon populations. NMFS recommends a 100-foot minimum buffer for surface waters that are currently or historically have been accessed by anadromous or listed fish species and a 50-foot buffer for surfaces that do not have current or historic access. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Model Code The model code found in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007) is the most recent related to fish and wildlife habitat conservations areas; however, portions of Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012) are applicable or were referenced for code consistency. Buffer Effectiveness When discussing BAS for buffers and buffer effectiveness for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, one must distinguish between stream/riparian buffers (those areas providing functions related to fish habitat and stream processes) and habitat buffers (areas including riparian buffers and the terrestrial areas adjacent to them which provide wildlife functions for a variety of species). Recommendations for stream buffers have remained relatively similar since the City's last CAD update, with recommended buffer widths varying from 75 feet to well over 300 feet to protect a suite of ecological functions (Brennan et al., 2009; May, 2003; Knutson and Naef, 1997). As mentioned previously with regard to wetland buffers, achieving these recommended widths in the highly developed landscape of Edmonds may be difficult to achieve. Some stream/riparian buffers include commercial or residential buildings with actively maintained landscapes or impervious surface. These areas provide limited functions in comparison to fully vegetated buffers. In these cases, enhancement activities of the existing buffer width may be more effective in improving the functions and values of the stream/riparian buffer than simply increasing the buffer width (Granger et al. 2005). Much of the recent scientific research regarding buffer effectiveness and habitat quality is related specifically to wetlands and wetland -dependent species, and is summarized in Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report (Hruby, 2013). Although this synthesis of the science is directly related to wetlands and wetland -dependent species, these species may also use riparian buffers for travel or life processes. Research indicates that uplands surrounding wetlands and streams can serve as critical habitat for some species, a concept that expands the notion of a buffer beyond simply protecting wetland and riparian Page 12 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 873 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update functions to protecting aquatic -dependent species (Hruby, 2013; Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001). Several literature sources have suggested that these terrestrial areas adjacent to wetlands and streams be termed "core habitat." Studies on wetland -dependent species report that core habitat needs to extend between 1,000 feet to 0.6 mile from the wetland edge to be effective in supporting population survival; however, there is little information on how much connectivity is needed between a critical area and core habitat (Hruby, 2013). Research indicates that stream/riparian buffers alone will not be enough to protect certain species and that a broader approach to protecting wildlife is needed, especially in areas that are intensely developed (Hruby, 2013; Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001). Research related to general wildlife habitat connectivity, however, indicates that connectivity is important for species to travel and carry out life processes. Small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles are generally more sensitive to changes and gaps in connectivity compared to larger mammals and birds (WDFW, 2009). Areas with less than 50 percent undisturbed land cover (i.e., developed urban environments) need assistance to ensure that habitat connectivity is maintained (WDFW, 2009). In addition to using local critical areas inventory information and Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data, WDFW recommends protecting large undeveloped habitat patches and open space areas as part of planning and building habitat corridors (WDFW, 2009). Habitat corridor widths greater than 1,000 feet generally provide the most benefit for the most species (WDFW, 2009). In general, the standards related to wetland buffer reductions and averaging discussed earlier are deemed to be applicable to fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffers, although specific requirements and protections may be required for local, state, and federally listed species. The mitigation measures outlined in Ecology's model code (Table XX.2; Bunten et al., 2012) can also be used to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, which are mainly geared towards improving water quality, can also have secondary benefits to wildlife (WDFW, 2009). Other Sources of Information Other scientific sources have also generated relevant information, which we reviewed and have referenced in the gap analysis matrix and in the references section of this report. Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Provisions and Summary of Code Recommendations The fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas section of the CAO needs to be updated in a few key areas to improve its consistency with BAS and current agency guidelines, as detailed in the attached matrix. A summary of key recommendations follows: • Increase buffer widths to reflect BAS guidance. Buffer widths of 300 feet or greater are not feasible given the developed nature of the City. At a minimum, we suggest Type Ns streams be increased to a 40-foot buffer. Type F streams with anadromous fish habitat can continue to be protected with a 100-foot buffer, which is consistent with NMFS riparian buffer recommendations (Appendix L in Ecology, 2013). • Prioritize buffer averaging with enhancement over buffer reductions with enhancement: Buffer averaging results in the same amount of buffer area, while buffer reductions result in a net loss of area. • Update provisions for buffer reductions with enhancement or for buffer averaging to be no greater than 25 percent of the standard buffer width and include the list of mitigation measures from March 2015 Page 13 ESA Packet Page 874 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Ecology's Table XX.2 (Bunten et al., 2012) to further protect fish and wildlife conservation areas. Where modifications or additions to legally constructed structures will occur in addition to the 25 percent reduction in the standard buffer, we suggest that a development footprint threshold and buffer mitigation measures (e.g., enhancement plan and elements from Table XX.2) be required for consistency with BAS and to achieve "no net loss." Include additional subsection for physically separated and functionally isolated buffers and development within the previously developed footprint to be consistent with the City's draft SMP. Include additional discussion of how piped/culverted stream systems are approached with respect to buffers. • Revise vegetation retention section for parcels zoned RS-12 or RS-20: The vegetation retention requirement is not currently related to critical areas functions; therefore, we suggest this section be revised to focus on retaining "core habitat." There are several ways this can be achieved: o Requiring larger critical areas buffers for wetlands, streams, and local habitats and species of importance for parcels zoned RS-12 or RS-20. This approach would likely be the easiest for the City to implement. o Including a vegetation retention requirement for core habitats—i.e., uplands within a certain distance (e.g., 1000 feet) from wetlands, streams, or habitats and species of local significance that have connectivity with those critical areas. Vegetation retention can also be achieved by requiring LID strategies, which have secondary benefits to wildlife. This approach might protect more overall areas for vegetation retention, but would need clarification and criteria for the City to implement this effectively (i.e., clearly defining core habitat and requirements for connectivity with wetlands, streams, buffers, etc.). o Outlining a management approach which prioritizes areas for vegetation and habitat retention and tying this to the requirement for a habitat assessment in Section 23.90.020. Typically this would require development of a habitat model or completion of a City- wide assessment. This approach would likely be more costly than the approaches above, but could be incorporated with the City's current development of an Urban Forestry Management Plan. CRITICAL AREAS INVENTORY MAPPING Currently the data that exists for the City's critical areas are as follows: • Stream and fish habitat layers; • Wetland layers — wetland known extents, wetland boundaries not completely delineated, potential wetlands, areas with potential wetlands, 2003 NWI wetlands; and • Geologic hazards — WDNR seismic hazards, earth subsidence hazard areas, 40% slopes, severe erosion hazard areas, and erosion hazard areas. The City also maintains detailed mapping of stormwater infrastructure. This dataset integrates natural flow pathways, including streams and wetland areas, along with built conveyance features. Upon initial review, the current breadth of potential critical areas mapped by the City is very good, because it covers the relevant critical areas including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (streams), wetlands, and geologically hazardous areas. Inventory data sets include features extending across the City's jurisdiction, suggesting that there are no major gaps in terms of coverage. That said, Page 14 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 875 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update additional datasets including LIDAR provide opportunity to improve the precision of critical areas inventory mapping. LIDAR coverage for the region, including the City and its Municipal Urban Growth Areas, was provided by the Puget Sound LIDAR Consortium (PSLC) and is a subset of the 2000-2005 Puget Sound Lowlands data. High resolution aerial imagery dated from 2012 was also provided by the City. LIDAR data is a measurement of the earth's surface, and therefore is a good tool for evaluating topographic driven critical areas including streams, wetlands, and geological hazards. LIDAR would be less effective in updating frequently flooded areas mapping; as methods for determining the extent of these areas are well defined, relying on multiple data sources and/or modeling. Integrating LIDAR into Stream and Wetland Mapping: Surface water tends to flow from high areas of elevation to low lying areas, unless a barrier interrupts that flow. Since we have accurate elevation data in the form of LIDAR, the direction of water flow is determined by the direction of steepest descent, or maximum drop, from each cell of elevation data. This method of deriving flow direction is presented in Jenson and Domingue (1988). Once the direction each cell will flow towards is known, the accumulated flow into each cell can be determined. Identification of flow direction and accumulation can be derived from tools integrated into ArcGIS. The output of the flow accumulation is the number of cells flowing into each cell, which essentially creates a network of the lowest lying areas. ArcHydro's stream definition tool has been used to develop a water network dataset indicating areas where wetlands and streams could likely occur. The dataset derived from LIDAR is being evaluated, refined, and verified with additional datasets, including the City's existing inventories for streams and wetlands, stormwater infrastructure, recent 2012 aerial imagery, land cover, and soils. The following specific steps are being implemented to integrate LIDAR into inventory datasets for streams and wetlands: 1. Use LIDAR data to create potential water flow network dataset using ArcGIS / ArcHydro tools, as indicated above; 2. Identify dense areas of flow networks to be evaluated further as potential streams and/or wetlands; 3. Verify LIDAR approach by comparing identified areas with City's "wetlands known extent" dataset; 4. Compare potential wetland and stream areas with existing land use / land cover conditions using high resolution aerial imagery; eliminate highly urbanized / impervious areas from further evaluation. 5. Evaluate vegetative cover within remaining potential wetland and stream areas to refine potential wetland extent; 6. Update wetland and stream inventory mapping: a. Streams — compare remaining identified areas to City's stream mapping, stormwater network mapping and DNR hyro mapping; rely on detailed LIDAR topo to update and improve accuracy of stream inventory. b. Wetlands — compare remaining identified areas to City's current wetland data layers; update the "potential wetlands" data layer to include newly identified wetland areas. 7. Complete field review of updates to stream and wetland inventories for targeted areas. March 2015 Page 15 ESA Packet Page 876 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Updates to stream and wetland inventory mapping is still underway. Evaluation of water flow network has revealed approximately 20 sites where existing inventory layers for wetlands could be updated. As anticipated, very minor updates to stream inventory mapping have been identified and will be completed as part of the update process are underway. CAO ORGANIZATION AND CRITICAL AREA REVIEW PROCESS In general, the Edmonds CAO is one of the better ordinances in the region in terms of clarity, completeness, and comparable structure with state guidelines. The Edmonds CAO needs to be updated in a few key areas to improve its consistency with BAS and current agency guidelines, as detailed in the attached matrix, but no major overhaul or additional review is needed at this time. The Critical Areas General Provisions (Section 23.40) should be updated with the following revisions to improve consistency with BAS and other code sections: • Include additional information on the review process and the information or criteria needed related to critical areas (e.g., criteria for granting a waiver, criteria for critical areas reports and mitigation reports). These are minor revisions. • Update mitigation language to be consistent with wetlands mitigation guidance (Corps, 2008; Ecology 2006a, 2006b; Hruby 2012). • Minor updates to allowed uses, especially provisions for trails and walkways in critical areas. • Increasing the standard monitoring period from 3 to 5 years to be consistent with BAS (CTED, 2007). • Revise the penalties for critical areas violations. The tree removal portion of the CAO (Section 23.40.220.C.7.b.0 is generally consistent with BAS; however, portions of Section 18.45—Land Clearing and Tree Removal are not consistent with this section and would allow clearing and tree cutting within wetland and stream buffers without mitigation or reference to the provisions in Section 23.40. Section 18.45 should be revised to be consistent with Section 23.40. Page 16 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 877 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update REFERENCES GENERAL REFERENCES City of Edmonds. 2014. Planning Board Recommended Draft City of Edmonds SMP. Available: http: //www. edmondswa. gov/govemment/departments/development-services-home/planning- division-home/plans-long range-planning/shoreline-master-pro r�pdate.html CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2007. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protection Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. Lien, Kernen. 2014. Personal Communication. Email and phone call from November 21, 2014 regarding City's Shoreline Master Program Update. VATWI W.1e17.y Literature Cited Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia, WA. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Massachusetts. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. Hruby. 2012. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington. Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/Publications/100601 I.pdf Hruby, 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report, October 2013. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-11. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington Department of Ecology (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA. National Research Council [NRC]. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/ Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. March 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps]. 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70): 19594-1970. March 2015 Page 17 ESA Packet Page 878 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps]. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts. Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 173-22-035. Wetland Identification and Delineation. Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas. Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development [CTED]. Revised 2007. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], and US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication: #06-06-011 a. March 2006. Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], and US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans. Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb. March 2006. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012. Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/ 1206015.pdf Other Literature Reviewed But Not Cited Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. 2009. Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach. Washington State Department of Ecology (Publication #09-06-032). Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. 2008. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum. Ecology Publication No. 08-06-018. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0806018.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. 2012. Guidance on In -Lieu Fee Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-012. https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206012.pdf FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Literature Cited City of Edmonds. 2003b. City of Edmonds 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Mayor: Gary Haakenson. City of Edmonds. 2010. Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants and City of Edmonds. October 14, 2010. Available: Page 18 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 879 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update http://www.edmondswa.govlgovernmentldepartments/development-services-home/planning- division-home/plans-long range -planning html FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Model Ordinance for Floodplain Management under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act. FEMA - Region 10. Bothell, WA. April 2011 Huppert, D.D., A. Moore and K. Dyson. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on the Coasts of Washington State. Available: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach8coasts65l.pdf ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River basin fish and wildlife. ISAB, Report 2007-2, Portland, Oregon Kusler, J.A. 2011. Functions of floodplains: Issues and approaches; future directions. Prepared for the Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. Berne, NY. October 18, 2011. NMFS. 2009. Final Biological Opinion Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region Otak, Inc., Golder Associates, Inc., Clear creek Solutions, Inc. and EnviroIssues. 2009. Greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Study — Strategic Action Plan. Prepared for the Lake Ballinger / McAleer Creek Forum. Available: http://www.cityofinit. com/cityServices/publicWorks/stonnWaterDivision/LkBallingerWatershed Forum.htm PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2010. Floodplain Management: A Synthesis of Issues Affecting Recovery of Puget Sound. Prepared by Millie Judge (Lighthouse Natural Resource Consulting, Inc.); David St. John (PSP) and Caitlin Imaki (PSP) Rosenburg, E.A., P. Keys, D. Booth, D. Hartley, J. Burkey, A. Steinemann, D. Lettenmaier. 2009. Precipitation Extremes and the Impacts of Climate Change on Stormwater Infrastructure in Washington State. Available: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach9stonninfra652.pdfc Steiger J., E. Tabacchi, S. Dufour, D. Corenblit, and J.L. Peiry. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic processes affecting riparian habitat within alluvial channel-floodplain river systems: A review for the temperate zone. River Research and Applications 21(7): 719-737. Other Literature Reviewed but Not Cited Mantua, N.J., I.Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on Key Aspects of Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Climate Impact Group, 2009, Ch. 6, pp. 217-253; The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. M. McGuire Elsner, J. Little and L. Whitely Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Literature Cited Allstadt, Kate; Vidale, John. 2012. Seismically induced landsliding in Seattle --A magnitude 7 Seattle Fault earthquake scenario: U.S. Geological Survey, External research support --Final technical reports --Funded research, Pacific Northwest, 8 p. March 2015 Page 19 ESA Packet Page 880 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Kelsey, H.M., Sherrod, B., Johnson, S.Y. and Dadisman, S.V. 2004a. Land -level changes from a late Holocene earthquake in the northern Puget Lowland, Washington. Geology, 32, 469-472. Kelsey, Harvey M. and Sherrod, Brian S. 2004b. Investigation of north -side -up reverse faults of the Seattle Fault zone using uplifted and offset wave -cut platforms and exploratory trenching --Final technical report. U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program, External Research Support, Funded Research Final Technical Reports, 12 p. Landau Associates. 2007. North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Summary Report. Prepared for the City of Edmonds. Liberty, L. and K. Pape. 2013. Seismic Characterization of the Seattle and Southern Whidbey Island Fault Zones in the Snoqualmie River Valley, Washington. Center for Geophysical Investigation of the Shallow Subsurface (CGISS) - Boise State University. Liberty, L.M. and Pape, K.M. 2006. Seismic characterization of the Seattle and Southern Whidbey Island fault zones in the Snoqualmie River valley, Washington --Final technical report: U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program, External Research Support, Funded Research Final Technical Reports, 17 p. Sherrod, Brian L.; Blakely, Richard J.; Weaver, Craig S.; Kelsey, Harvey M.; Barnett, Elizabeth; Liberty, Lee; Meagher, Karen L.; Pape, Kristin. 2008. Finding concealed active faults --Extending the southern Whidbey Island fault across the Puget Lowland, Washington: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, B05313 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. Two -percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map of peak ground acceleration http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2014/2014 pga2pct50yrs.pdf Washington State Department of Licensing. 2006. Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Literature Cited Brennan, J., H. Culverwell, R. Gregg, and P. Granger. 2009. Protection of Marine Riparian Functions in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife by Washington Sea Grant. June 15, 2009. 148 pp. Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia, WA. Hruby, 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report, October 2013. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-11. Knight, K. 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Page 20 March 2015 ESA Packet Page 881 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Knutson, K. L., and Naef, V. L. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 181 pp. May, C.W. 2003. Stream -riparian ecosystems in Puget Sound lowland eco-region: A review of best available science. Watershed Ecology LLC. Semlitsch and Jensen. 2001. Core Habitat, Not Buffer Zone. National Wetlands Newsletter: 23(4). Accessible at: http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/training/media/2011/0614201 I IsolatedWetlands/RESOURCE S/CO RE—HABITAT.pdf Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 232-12-292. Bald Eagle Protection Rules. Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2013. Appendix L- Riparian Restoration and Planting in Funding Guidelines State Fiscal Year 2015 — Water Quality Financial Assistance. Ecology Publication No. 13-10-041. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Landscape Planning for Washington's Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas. Other Literature Reviewed But Not Cited Cramer, Michelle L. (managing editor). 2012. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines. Co -published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Transportation and Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Puget Sound Partnership, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington. CRITICAL AREAS INVENTORY MAPPING Jenson S. K. and J. O. Domingue. 1988. Extracting Topographic Structure from Digital Elevation Data for Geographic Information System Analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54 (11): 1593-1600. Schulz, William H. "Landslide Susceptibility Revealed by LIDAR Imagery and Historical Records, Seattle, Washington." Engineering Geology 89.1-2 (2007): 67-87. Web. March 2015 Page 21 ESA Packet Page 882 of 1075 of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance Attachments Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix March 2015 Page 23 ESA Packet Page 883 of 1075 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix March 2015 Final version with recommended actions for code revision Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance 23.40 Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.010 Authority Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.020 Relationship to Generally consistent, but CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS other regulations could be strengthened 23.40.030 Severability Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.040 Jurisdiction - Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 and None; consistent with BAS Critical Areas Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et at. 2012) 23.40.050 Protection of Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS critical areas 23.40.060 General Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS requirements 23.40.070 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS preapplication consultation 23.40.080 Notice of initial Generally consistent, but Section B.2 could be Add the following statement to Section B.2.: CTED, 2007 Revise to remove vague Page 1 of 31 Packet Page 884 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance determination could be strengthened strengthened by including "A waiver may be granted if there is decision criteria language (do criteria for granting a waiver. substantial evidence that all of the following not use the term "substantial requirements will be met: evidence"). a. There will be no alteration of the "A waiver may be granted if critical area or buffer; the director determines that b. The development proposal will not all of the following affect the critical area in a manner requirements will be met:..." contrary to the purpose, intent, and requirements of this Title; and c. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 23.40.090 Critical areas Generally consistent, but Additional detail could be added Revise Section D to include the following CTED, 2007 and Revise Section D to include report - Requirements could be strengthened to strengthen reporting requirements: Wetlands and CAO Updates: only the first, second, and requirements in Section D. - Astatementspecifyingtheaccuracyofthe Guidance for Small Cities. fourth requirements in report and all assumptions made and relied Western Washington Version. suggested change. upon; Revised October2012 Ecology -A description of the methodologies used to Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten conduct the critical areas study, including et at. 2012) references These recommendations will -An assessment of the probable cumulative clarify for the City how and what effects to critical areas resulting from was done for a critical areas development of the site and the proposed report as well as bolster the development; concept of mitigation - Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed sequencing and appropriate to offset any effects, in accordance with the mitigation. Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section 23.40.130 23.40.100 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS report - Modifications to Page 2 of 31 Packet Page 885 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance requirements 23.40.110 Mitigation Could be brought closer Section B sets the standard for Revise Section B to include allowances for: Improve internal code Revise to include specific requirements to consistency the types of mitigation allowed off -site and out -of -kind mitigation, in lieu fee consistency with 23.50. reference to Ecology as: "in -kind and on -site, when programs, mitigation banks, or other Credit/Debit methodology, possible, and sufficient." With mitigation strategies according to the and allowance for out -of -basin respect to wetlands and streams criteria set forth in Innovative Mitigation mitigation with an approved especially, a watershed -based Section 23.40.140. mitigation bank or ILF focus may be more successful or program. provide more ecological benefit. Language in this section is not fully consistent with mitigation banking discussed in 23.50.050. H. 23.40.120 Mitigation Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 and None; consistent with BAS sequencing Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et at. 2012) 23.40.130 Mitigation plan Section C Does not specify that impact and Revise Section C to include areas of CTED, 2007 Make suggested change requirements Generally consistent but mitigation areas should be proposed effects to critical areas or buffers. could be strengthened shown on plans. Section D Requires monitoring for 3 years Revise Section D last sentence to read: "The CTED, 2007 Make suggested change. Inconsistent with BAS instead of 5. compensation project shall be monitored for Provide City with citation for a period necessary to establish that 5-year requirement for all performance standards have been met, but critical areas mitigation not for a period less than 5 years without monitoring and make sure this approval from the director. item is addressed and cited in BAS Addendum Report. Page 3 of 31 Packet Page 886 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Suggested Change Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance 23.40.140 Innovative Consistent with BAS Could provide additional clarification of CTED, 2007 and Revise to include clearer, more mitigation types of innovative mitigation allowed (e.g., Wetlands and CAO Updates: detailed definition of in -lieu in lieu fee programs). Guidance for Small Cities. fee mitigation programs. Use Western Washington Version. example language from Revised October 2012 Ecology Bunten et at. (20012). Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et at. 2012) 23.40.150 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS decision 23.40.160 Review criteria Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.170 Favorable Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS critical areas decision 23.40.180 Unfavorable Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS critical areas decision 23.40.190 Completion of Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS the critical areas review 23.40.200 Appeals Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.210 Variances Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.220 Allowed Generally consistent, but Can add additional clarity Revise Section C.l.c. to include "There is no CTED, 2007 and Make suggested change activities could be strengthened new information available that is applicable Wetlands and CAO Updates: to any critical area review of the site or Guidance for Small Cities. particular critical area;" Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et at. 2012) Section C4 Any activities that directly affect Revise Section CA to include CTED, 2007 and Revise Section CA language to Inconsistent with BAS a wetland or stream should "Except those activities that alter a wetland Wetlands and CAO Updates: include only the second bullet receive further review or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges, Guidance for Small Cities. in suggested change. Do not Page 4of31 Packet Page 887 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance or result in the transport of sediment or Western Washington Version. include requirement for increased stormwater; subject to the Revised October 2012 Ecology increased buffer widths. following: Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten - Critical area and/or buffer widths et at. 2012) shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the right-of- way improvement, including disturbed areas; and - Retention and replanting of native vegetation shall occurwherever possible along the right-of-way improvement and resulting disturbance. 23.40.220 Allowed Section C.6 Updated model code for Revise Section C.6. first sentence to read: " Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change as activities Partially inconsistent wetlands and wetland buffers Public and private trails, except in wetlands, Guidance for Small Cities. described below under (continued) suggests more strict fish, and wildlife habitat conservation areas, Western Washington Version. 23.50.040, which will allow requirements for trails and or their buffers,..." Revised October 2012 Ecology trails in buffers under a set of walkways. See discussion for Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten criteria. 23.50.040.F.8 below. et at. 2012) Section C.7 BAS suggests several strategies Revise Section C.7.a. to include an Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change. Partially inconsistent including but not limited to: additional information regarding invasive Guidance for Small Cities. Ensure that all references to hand removal, chemical removal: "Removal of invasive plant species Western Washington Version. chemical treatments in code treatment, shading, or other shall be restricted to hand removal unless Revised October 2012 Ecology are revised similarly. techniques may be appropriate permits or approval from the appropriate Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten Also add a square foot depending on the species and regulatory agencies have been obtained for et at. 2012) threshold for limiting invasive situation. See discussion in approved biological or chemical treatments vegetation removal activities. 23.50.020. or other removal techniques. All removed Language will be developed plant material shall be taken away from the during code revision stage, but site and appropriately disposed of. Plants suggest something similar to that appear on the Washington State City of Seattle Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious Environmentally Critical Areas weeds must be handled and disposed of Page 5 of 31 Packet Page 888 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance according to a noxious weed control plan Code (SMC 25.09.320), which appropriate to that species." permits restoring or improving Add additional allowed activities in Section vegetation and trees through C 7: invasive plant removal (by - Chemical Applications. The hand) to "promote application of herbicides, maintenance or creation of a pesticides, organic or mineral- naturally functioning derived fertilizers, or other condition that prevents hazardous substances, if necessary, erosion, protects water as approved by the City, provided quality, or provides diverse that their use shall be restricted in habitat... when the area of accordance with state Department work is under one thousand of Fish and Wildlife Management five hundred (1,500) square Recommendations and the feet in area calculated regulations of the state Department cumulatively over three (3) of Agriculture and the U.S. years..." Environmental Protection Agency. Section C.7.b. Generally consistent with BAS Revise 18.45 for internal consistency with Inconsistent with BAS and No changes to 23.40. City to Inconsistent with BAS and model code language; Section 23.40. Clearing and tree cutting internal code make revisions to 18.45 per and City code however, portions of 18.45— should not be allowed within critical areas ESA suggestion, which is the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting or buffers without review and compliance more appropriate ECDC are not consistent with Section with Section 23.40. chapter. 23.40 and would allow clearing and cutting within wetland and The terms "environmentally sensitive site" stream buffers. There is no and "environmentally sensitive areas" reference to Section 23.40. should be revised to refer to environmentally critical areas for consistency. 23.40.230 Exemptions Could be brought closer No definition in Section C.2 to Revise Section C.2 to include: "Operation CTED, 2007 Make suggested change. Will to consistency clarify what actions constitute and maintenance also includes vegetation address lack of clarity operations and maintenance management performed in accordance with regarding vegetation Page 6 of 31 Packet Page 889 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance activitiesfor vegetation removal. best management practices that is part of maintenance for viewsheds ongoing maintenance of structures, under definitions. infrastructure, or utilities, provided that such management actions are part of See row 23.40.320 below. regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an endangered or threatened species." 23.40.240 Unauthorized Generally consistent Section E. references tree code, Revise Section E. to include a daily penalty Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change, but critical areas alterations with BAS, but can be which sets a penalty for tree per day per violation (this is the Guidance for Small Cities. use a square foot cost and and enforcement strengthened cutting, but other types of recommended language used in the model Western Washington Version. threshold instead of a daily violations are not covered. code). Revised October 2012 Ecology penalty. Threshold will be Penalties could be included for tree cutting Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten developed during code in addition to violation penalty. et at. 2012). revision stage. Both Lynnwood and Mountlake Revise Section E to include a Terrace have a fine of $1,000 penalty equal to the cost of and/or 90 days in jail. the permit and a square Snohomish County has a penalty footage cost ($3/SF of impact). scale, with a $500 penalty for the first 20 days and the penalty increasing with time thereafter to a max of $10,000 (SCC 30.85.170). 23.40.250 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS markers and signs 23.40.270 Critical areas Partially Inconsistent Section E: Use of herbicides is Section E. Update text to include herbicide Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change tracts prohibited; however, BAS treatment (aquatic approved herbicides Guidance for Small Cities. suggests several strategies when wetlands and streams are present) Western Washington Version. including but not limited to: where recommended by the Noxious Weed Revised October 2012 Ecology hand removal, chemical Control Board. Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten Page 7 of 31 Packet Page 890 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance treatment, shading, or other et al. 2012) techniques may be appropriate depending on the species and situation. See discussion in 23.40.220 and 23.50.020. These Sections should all be consistent. New subsection No discussion of notice on title Include discussion of notice on title or CTED, 2007. Make suggested change or Native Growth Protection Native Growth Protection Areas for all lots, This informs subsequent Areas notjust subdivisions. ESA can provide purchases of property of critical example language during code revision areas present on their process. properties. 23.40.280 Building Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS setbacks 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure Could be brought closer Section D requires that a bond Revise Section D to reflect a 5 year period for CTED, 2007 and Make suggested change. mitigation, maintenance, to consistency be held for 3 years. The standard holding the bond, to ensure consistency Wetlands and CAO Updates: Provide City with citation for and monitoring is typically 5 years. with 5 year monitoring period. Guidance for Small Cities. 5-year requirement for all Western Washington Version. critical areas mitigation Revised October 2012 Ecology monitoring and make sure this Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten item is addressed and cited in et at. 2012) BAS Addendum Report. 23.40.300 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS inspections 23.40.310 Best available Could be brought closer Section D mentions "anecdotal Revise Section D to include "Non -expert CTED, 2007 Make suggested change science to consistency information" but leaves out opinion and hearsay" as forms on other forms of nonscientific nonscientific information information 23.40.320 Definitions Generally consistent, but Definitions out of date Update definitions of: CTED, 2007 and Make suggested changes. Page 8 of 31 Packet Page 891 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance pertaining to critical areas could be brought closer -Adjacent Wetlands and CAO Updates: Also add definitions for: to consistency -Habitats of local importance (include Guidance for Small Cities. -Normal maintenance concept of core habitat) Western Washington Version. (vegetation) - Suggested -Noxious weeds Revised October2012 Ecology definition: Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten "Removal of shrubs/non- et al. 2012) woody vegetation and trees Add definitions for: (less than 3-inch diameter at -in lieu fee program breast height) that occurs at -Wetland mitigation bank least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years" -Previously developed area - Language for definition will be developed during code revision stage 23.50 Wetlands 23.50.000 Wetlands Partially consistent The flow chart states that no Revise this to state that the Corps Wetland jurisdictional Make suggested change compliance requirements additional compliance is determines a wetland is notjurisdictional, or determinations are made at a flowchart required when a revise text to clarify. federal level (Corps). Even if a "reconnaissance determines a wetland is exempt under City wetland is notjurisdictional." code, it may be regulated at a federal and/or state level. An applicant would need to request a jurisdictional determination from the Corps to get assurance that a wetland is not jurisdictional. 23.50.010 Designation, Not consistent Sections A, B, and E reference Revise Sections A, B, and E to refer to the WAC 173-22-035, WAC 365-190- Make suggested change rating and mapping - outdated wetland delineation approved federal wetland delineation Page 9 of 31 Packet Page 892 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance Wetlands and rating manuals. manual and applicable regional 090 supplements and the Washington State The federal wetland delineation Wetland Rating System for Western manual and regional Washington, 2014 Update. supplements and updated 2014 wetland rating manual constitute BAS for wetland identification, delineation, and rating. Section B.1 References wetland function Revise Section B.1. to reflect the updated Washington State Wetland Make suggested change. Could be strengthened scores from the City of wetland function scores for each wetland Rating System for Western to be more consistent Edmonds's wetland field data Category based on the point system used in Washington: 2014 Update. form, which is based on an older the updated 2014 rating manual. Consider Ecology Publication #14-06-029 version of the wetland rating revising the City's wetland field data form or (Hruby 2014) manual. referencing the appropriate state or federal manual instead. Section E Does not specify how long a Section E could be improved for consistency User -friendliness and clarity, Make suggested change. Add Could be strengthened wetland delineation is valid. with BAS by specifying that wetland improved consistency with BAS a provision regarding critical to be more consistent delineations are valid for five years. Corps of Engineers Regulatory area assessment reports and Guidance Letters RGL 05-02 and statute of limitations earlier in 08-02 set a five year standard on CAO chapter (23.40.090). wetland determinations.' 23.50.020 Allowed Section D The Washington State Noxious Update Section D to include that those BAS suggests several strategies Make suggested change activities - Wetlands Could be revised to be Weed Control Board has noxious weeds listed on the Washington including but not limited to: more consistent. recommendations and resources State Noxious Weed Control Board list must hand removal, chemical for controlling state listed be handled and disposed of according to a treatment, shading, or other noxious weeds and invasive noxious weed control plan appropriate to techniques may be appropriate species. that species. depending on the species and situation." Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Page 10 of 31 Packet Page 893 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.50.030 Special study Generally consistent CTED, 2007 and None; consistent with BAS and report requirements - with BAS Wetlands and CAO Updates: Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.50.040 Development Section E Scientific literature does not Revise Section E to include provisions for Wetlands and CAO Updates: No change. This provision is standards - Wetlands Inconsistent with BAS support exempting wetlands considering wetland functions in addition to Guidance for Small Cities. not related to exemptions and based on size or category alone, the requirement for mitigation. Western Washington Version. therefore does not need to be since small wetlands may Revised October 2012 Ecology revised. perform important functions. Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten Note: ESA's recommended However, Ecology has developed et at. 2012) changes regarding exempt a strategy for exempting small wetlands occur below under wetlands when wetland Section I. functions are considered and mitigation is required. 23.50.040 Development Section F.I. Buffer widths are inconsistent Revise Section F.1. to reflect recent BAS Wetlands in Washington State, Make suggested change standards - Wetlands Inconsistent with BAS with BAS and with Draft SMP updates for buffers (Ecology, 2013)iii The Volume 2: Guidance for (continued) buffers. BAS supports increased draft SMP uses Ecology's Table "XXT' for Protecting and Managing standard buffer widths or wetland buffers in shoreline areas. Table Wetlands, Ecology Publication modified buffer widths based on XX.1 was recently revised in December 2014 #05-06-008 (Granger et al. 2005). intensity of impacts from based on habitat scores used in the updated adjacent land use or based on 2014 wetland rating manual. Ecology's wetland functions. updated Table XX.1 for standard buffer widths requires additional measures (Table "XX.2") to minimize wetland impacts. The Page 11 of 31 Packet Page 894 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance draft SMP incorporates these measures. The CAO should be revised to reflect these BAS updates and to be consistent with the SMP section F.2. Section F.I. Can supplement section by Supplement F.1 with additional discussion User -friendliness Revise Section F1 to: "If the Supplemental material expanding inadequate of previously disturbed areas. These are vegetation is inadequate vegetation to include previously generally considered those areas which are buffer is composed of disturbed areas and also not composed of an intact native vegetation nonnative vegetation, lawn, or requiring revegetation pursuant community, but still consist of pervious bare ground, then, at the to an approved planting plan. surfaces. Previously disturbed areas would discretion of the director..." include non-native vegetation, lawn, and Add reference to the location gravel. Include requirement for revegetation of the definition of "previously according to an approved planting plan. disturbed area" Section F.2. Partially Increased bufferwidths required This section can be revised to be more Improve clarity regarding when Revise Section F2 to: inconsistent in general when needed "to specific by referencing federal or state listed an increased buffer is needed. Add new subsection "d.": "If a protect other critical areas." endangered, threatened, candidate, wetland is occupied by a sensitive, monitored or documented species federally listed threatened or or habitats, or essential habitat (e.g., nesting endangered species, a bald sites or rookeries).iv eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or at the discretion of the director to protect species considered locally important" 23.50.040 Development New subsection in F Create a new subsection for Create a new subsection that incorporates User -friendliness and clarity. Will Make suggested change standards - Wetlands "Buffer Modification" that criteria for allowing a buffer modification improve internal consistency (continued) contains code for buffer (outlined in F.3.) and outlines the sequence and make criteria easy to follow. averaging and buffer reductions. for preferred buffer modifications: buffer averaging with enhancement, then buffer reductions with enhancement. Section F.3 A buffer reduction of up to 50 Model codes typically allow up to a 25 Inconsistent with BAS and City's Make suggested change percent is allowed. Buffer percent modification through averaging, Page 12 of 31 Packet Page 895 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance Inconsistent reduction with buffer which affords better protection to wetlands SMP. enhancement is not discussed in than a 50 percent reduction. Recommend Wetlands in Washington State, BAS documents (Granger et al., revising code to only allow a reduction up to Volume 2: Guidance for 2005; or Ecology, 2012). 25 percent of the standard buffer width with Protecting and Managing However, the City's code buffer enhancement. The draft SMP includes Wetlands, Ecology Publication requires that functions will be a 25 percent reduction; Revise code to be #05-06-008 (Granger et al. 2005). increased or retained, which is consistent with draft SMP text. Since buffer consistent with the state's reductions are not discussed in BAS and requirement of no net loss. buffer reductions result in a net loss of area (even if functions are improved or retained), this step should follow after buffer averaging in the sequence and be used only when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on -site. This is also more consistent with the wetlands review flow chart in 23.50.000 Section FA. Code appears to allow reduction Revise Section F.4., first sentence, to exclude Inconsistent with BAS and City's Make suggested change Inconsistent and averaging. Buffer averaging mention of a "reduced" wetland buffer. Only SMP. of up to 50 percent is allowed. allow a reduction up to 25 percent of the Wetlands in Washington State, BAS does not support the use of standard buffer width. Buffer averaging Volume 2: Guidance for both tools in conjunction. should also include a requirement for buffer Protecting and Managing enhancement, as many urban buffers are Wetlands, Ecology Publication degraded. The draft SMP includes a 25 #05-06-008 (Granger et al. 2005). percent reduction; revise code to be consistent with draft SMP text. See discussion above regarding prioritizing buffer averaging before buffer reductions where possible. ESA can provide example code language during code revision stage. 23.50.040 Development Section F.8. Some of the uses allowed in Revise to include uses allowed in wetlands Improved internal consistency Make suggested change standards - Wetlands Generally consistent, but wetlands are not listed as buffer that would also be allowed in wetland uses, but would presumably be buffers. For example (not an inclusive list): Page 13 of 31 Packet Page 896 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance (continued) could be clarified. necessary. Could be revised to -Education and scientific research address applicable uses and -Normal and routine maintenance and parallel treatment. repair of public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way Section F.8. Inconsistent Walkways and trails are allowed Revise text to limit walkways and trails to Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change, but in buffers with minimal the outer 25 percent of the wetland buffer Guidance for Small Cities. add clarification regarding provisions. Scientific research perimeter and avoid trees. Revise text to be Western Washington Version. application. Revise F8 to (Ecology, 2013; Granger, 2005) consistent with draft SMP. Revised October 2012 Ecology include a priority for limiting indicates that human Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten trails to the outer 25 percent disturbance in wetland buffers et at. 2012) of the wetland buffer can affect wetland functions. Wetlands in Washington State, perimeter and avoid trees, or Volume 2: Guidance for in cases where the buffer is Protecting and Managing below the regulatory Wetlands, Ecology Publication minimum, trails could be #05-06-008 (Granger et al. 2005). outer 25 % of existing buffer. Specific language to be developed during code revision stage. New subsection in F Section F. Include discussion of Include text from draft SMP related to Improve clarity/user-friendliness No new subsection F. physically separated and physically separated and isolated buffers. Physically separated and functionally isolated buffers. isolated buffers are addressed below in Section H (and do not belong in Section F) 23.50.040 Development Section G. Permanent fencing is not Section G. Revise text to discuss perimeter Improve consistency with Make suggested change standards - Wetlands Inconsistent discussed as a form of wetland fencing. Perimeter fencing is mentioned as a internal code requirements and (continued) protection. measure to avoid impacts in Ecology's Table consistency with BAS. "XX.2" and in the draft SMP. Clarify that fencing, if required, should be designed so it doesn't interfere with wildlife migration and should be constructed in a way that minimizes impacts to the wetland, buffer, Page 14 of 31 Packet Page 897 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance and associated habitat. Section H. Additions to structures existing Section H. Revise text to prioritize buffer Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change Inconsistent within buffers lists a sequence of averaging before buffer reductions. Consider Guidance for Small Cities. steps. Buffer reduction through a threshold for limiting the size of the Western Washington Version. Add a new H5 to include enhancement is prioritized addition when occurring outside of the inner Revised October 2012 Ecology provisions from Interim before buffer averaging. The 25 percent (e.g., 150 square feet or another Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten )rdinance regarding additions sequence also allows number based on planning staff experience et at. 2012) in wetland buffers that are development beyond the 25 and feedback). Include a requirement for Reduction beyond the 25 physically separated and percent reduction in the buffer enhancement and fencing or other percent standard buffer would p functionally isolated. standard buffer, which is not mitigation measures (e.g. LID, etc.) to avoid be considered an impact and Language to be developed supported by BAS. See further encroachment. therefore requires mitigation. during code revision stage. discussion in Section F.3. Section I: Scientific literature does not Revise Section I to allow exemptions for Mitigation is required to be Make suggested change. Inconsistent support exempting wetlands isolated wetlands under 500 square feet and consistent with BAS. Also revise title of Section I to: based on size or category alone include additional provisions for considering Wetlands in Washington State, "Small, hydrologically isolated without mitigation. Small wetland functions/connectivity/habitat and Volume 2: Guidance for wetlands". wetlands may perform a requirement for mitigation. ESA can Protecting and Managing Revise 1.2 to better define important functions. However, provide example suggestions during code Wetlands, Ecology Publication "low -quality" by using scores Ecology has developed a revision process. #05-06-008 et al. 2005). (Granger from Ecology Wetland Rating strategy for exempting small System. wetlands when wetland functions are considered and Revise 1.3 to include a wildlife mitigation is required. habitat score (value or range) that defines "no significant habitat value". 23.50.050 Mitigation Intro Introductory paragraph refers to Revise introductory paragraph to include Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change requirements - Wetlands Inconsistent with BAS outdated mitigation guidance. latest mitigation guidance documents: Guidance for Small Cities. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State —Part Western Washington Version. 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology, Revised October 2012 Ecology 2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology, 2009). et at. 2012) Page 15 of 31 Packet Page 898 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance Section A Mitigation preference is not Consider specifying that mitigation using Compensatory Mitigation for Make suggested change, but Inconsistent with BAS consistent with federal and state banks or ILF programs is preferred over Losses of Aquatic Resources. add prioritization for in -basin guidance. Federal and state permittee-responsible mitigation Final Rule. (Federal Register mitigation followed by agencies are requiring the use of (regardless of location). 73(70): 19594-1970) mitigation within City limits. mitigation banks and ILF BAS indicates that mitigation programs. banks and ILF programs have a significantly greater likelihood of mitigation success, as opposed to permittee-responsible mitigation. Section F. Mitigation Mitigation ratios are appropriate Include mitigation ratios in a table. Clarity/user-friendliness Make suggested change. Do Ratios and generally consistent with Include reference to the Credit/Debit Improved consistency by not need to include Partially consistent BAS. This section could be Method. incorporating discussion of the calculation guidance if clarified by adding a table with Credit/Debit method method is referenced (do not mitigation ratios for each type of Calculating Credits and Debits need this level of detail in mitigation action. As an for Compensatory Mitigation in EDCD; a reference is alternative to mitigation ratios, Wetlands of Western adequate). the Credit/Debit method may be Washington: Final Report used, and in some cases, may be (Hruby, 2012) required by Ecology. Section H.3. Wetland This section can be strengthened Incorporate text from model code (Ecology, Improved consistency Make suggested change to Mitigation Banks with additional discussion of in 2012) to clarify the credit -debit process. ESA incorporate provisions from Generally consistent, but lieu fee programs. These can provide example code language during model wetland code that could be strengthened programs should also have a code revision stage. allow use of ILF programs only system of calculating debits and with an approved instrument. credits specified in the approved instrument. 23.50.060 Performance Consistent with BAS None; consistent with BAS standards - Subdivisions 23.50.070 Wetland field Inconsistent with BAS The City of Edmonds's wetland Consider revising the City's wetland field The wetland rating manual was Make suggested change. field data form is based on an data form or referencing the appropriate Page 16 of 31 Packet Page 899 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance data form older version of the wetland state or federal manual instead. updated in 2014 (Hruby, 2014) rating manual. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Ecology Publication #14-06-029 (Hruby 2014). 23.70 Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.010 Designation, Generally consistent, but Sub -section A references Revise Section A to reference the correct CTED 2007 guidance notes that Make suggested change rating and mapping could be strengthened currently effective FIRM panels, effective date for FIRMS - "Snohomish both Zone A and Zone V flood and sub -section B notes that County, Washington and Incorporated hazard areas should be newer and/or more restrictive Areas" study and maps, effective date included. Zone V areas are updated information would be November8, 1999. coastal floodplains subject to used. However, sub -section A inundation by the 1-percent- references an incorrect effective Revise Section A to state that both Zone A annual -chance flood event with date (January 30, 1998), only and Zone V areas on effective FIRMS should additional hazards associated notes inclusion of Zone A be designated as frequently flooded areas. with storm -induced waves. floodplain areas, whereas November 2014 draft flood zone maps include both Zone A and Zone V floodplains. 23.70.020 Special study Reference to the IBC and This section notes that new Consider adopting a standalone flood Including flood damage No change. Do not need to and report requirements IRC - Generally development within frequently damage prevention code or integrating prevention standards directly have a standalone flood consistent, but could be flooded areas must meet minimum NFIP requirements / Washington within the City's Development damage prevention code to strengthened. requirements of the State requirements from WACs 173 and 365 Code would make requirements meet BAS standards. International Building Code (IBC) directly into Chapter ECDC 23.70 more readily apparent and may and International Residential improve compliance for future Code (I RC), as adopted by floodplain development. Page 17 of 31 Packet Page 900 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance reference in ECDC Title 19. While the IBC and IRC include flood hazard protections (IBC Section 1612 Flood Loads and IBC Appendix G Flood Resistant Construction), most Western Washington communities tend to adopt their own flood hazard regulations. 23.70.020 Special study Sections A thru D - CTED 2007; PSP 2010 None; consistent with BAS and report requirements Consistent with BAS and Guidance IBC Appendix G - Subdivision standards Subdivision standards allow for Add new section "Additional Provisions for CTED 2007; NMFS 2009 No change. This Floodplain Subdivision (G301) - Inconsistent creation of new lots within Flood Hazard Reduction" - prohibit creation recommendation is better standards with BAS and Guidance floodplain (only prohibit within of new buildable lots within the floodplain. addressed through revisions floodways, which are not to Title 19 and not the CAO mapped along the City's coastal chapter. City to consider floodplain); potential for new revisions to Title 19. development should be minimized by prohibiting subdivision that creates new buildable lots within floodplain. Site Improvement Standards for coastal floodplain Add new section "Additional Provisions for PSP 2009; FEMA 2013 No change. This Standards (G401) - development (coastal A zones Flood Hazard Reduction"; consider the recommendation is better Inconsistent with BAS and V zones) are limited to following standards for coastal A zones and addressed through revisions prohibiting development V zones: to Title 19 and not the CAO waterward of "mean high tide" . require buildings be elevated on pilings or chapter. City to consider and use of structural fill. columns; revisions to Title 19. Additional standards are . require enclosures below the base flood available to significantly reduce elevation to be free of obstruction; property damage and human • require that building designs be certified Page 18 of 31 Packet Page 901 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance health and safety risks. by an engineer that it will resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement resulting from combined wind and hydrostatic loads; Site Improvement No standard for compensatory Add new section "Additional Provisions for NMFS 2009; PSP 2009; FEMA May add provision under Standards (G401) - floodplain storage is provided for Flood Hazard Reduction" - Consider 2013 23.70.040 Development Inconsistent with BAS riverine floodplains. requiring compensatory storage for all Standards, but item needs permitted floodplain fill within the Lake additional discussion with Ballinger floodplain. City. Elevation standards- The IBC and IRC require that new Add new section "Additional Provisions for PSP 2009; FEMA 2013 May add provision under Inconsistent with BAS residential construction be Flood Hazard Reduction" - require at 23.70.040 Development elevated such that the lowest minimum 1-foot of freeboard above the base Standards, but item needs floor of the manufactured home flood elevation. additional discussion with is elevated to or above the City. Language to be design flood elevation. This determined during code provides protection only revision stage. consistent with FIRM mapping (to the 1 percent chance annual flood), so does not provide any additional protection to further minimize risk or anticipate increasing flood risks (either from increased runoff or climate change). 23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas (Review conducted by Stratum Group, subconsultant to ESA) 23.40.090 Critical areas Inconsistent with BAS Language does not reflect the Add language to clarify the role of geologists Clarify the distinctive roles of Make suggested change report- Requirements applicable role of geologists and and engineers in report preparation geologists and engineers in engineers preparation of reports Page 19 of 31 Packet Page 902 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix — March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance 23.40.220 Allowed Code consistency Not consistent with geologic Add language regarding need for geology Will make code internally No change activities hazard section assessment for vegetation management in consistent Hazard trees may be removed geologic hazardous areas without a geohaz assessment; City currently uses Hazard Risk Assessment forms for live trees. 23.40.280 General critical Code consistency Setbacks are established Remove the additional setback distance of Setbacks are determined based No change. This suggested areas protection measures elsewhere in code 15 feet. on other sections of the code. change would remove - Building setbacks This code section discusses what setbacks on all critical areas, is permissible in the setback. which was not the intent of the recommendation. 23.40.320 Definitions Delete redundant language regarding It should be up to the Make suggested change geologists Department of Licensing to ensure that geologists licensed in Washington have the appropriate education, skills and experience. 23.80.010 Designation, Consistent with BAS and CTED 2007 None; consistent with BAS rating and mapping Guidance 23.80.020 Designation of Subsection A.2 - The language is from landslide Delete: current subsection 2 and 3 replace Current language is associated Add suggested language as a specific hazard areas Inconsistent with BAS hazards not erosion with: with landslides. Suggested separate item (A4) and do not and Guidance 2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which change reflects the other type of delete subsections 2 and 3 are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion hazard. because they related to erosion related to moving water such as erosion hazards. stream channel migration and shoreline Action will be confirmed by retreat. Stratum Group during code ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ revision stage. Section B - Generally Add the word "potential" before landslide Not all of the areas that should Make suggested change consistent with BAS and hazard areas in the last sentence require a landslide hazard Guidance assessment are in fact a Page 20 of 31 Packet Page 903 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Recommended Action landslide area. Subsection B.1-Add reference to more The 2007 Landau report recent report on Meadowdale Landslide provides further guidance on (Landau 2007) this specific hazard area 23.80.020 Designation of Subsection 13.2 - Takes into account a broader Delete: current subsection 2, and replace Make suggested change. For specific hazard areas, Inconsistent with BAS range of potential geology with new subsections 2 - 5 (keep existing #4 add detail that indicates continued and Guidance hazards subsections 3 and 4): the provision excludes 2. Coastal areas mapped as class u This captures a resource rockeries that have been (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs recommended by guidance and engineered and approved b g pp y (unstable recent slides) in the Department of captures any new mapping that the engineer as having been Ecology Washington coastal atlas; or may be completed in the future. built according to the engineered design. Stratum 3. Areas designated as quaternary slumps, notes that rockery walls or earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps engineered walls have high published by the United States Geological potential for failure due to Surveyor Washington State Department of poor construction, so Natural Resources. provision to approve as -built design is critical here. 4. Any slope of 40 percent or steeper that Simplifies and matches similar Excluding solid rock from #4 is exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25- approaches that do not include not applicable as there is no foot horizontal runerosion determination of toe and top of bedrock in Edmonds slope for determining the 40 percent slope 5. Areas with all three of the following Wet low angle slopes with The list in section B is a list of characteristics: perched water may be potential landslide hazard (i) Slopes steeper than fifteen percent; potentially subject to landslides areas. It is not to be used by (ii) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts staff as determining where with a relatively permeable sediment this criterion is met (e.g, overlying a relatively impermeable springs or groundwater sediment; and seepage). The actual mapping is covered in B.3. Page 21 of 31 Packet Page 904 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance (iii) Springs or groundwater seepage. Subsection B.1, Figure 1 See above Modify Figure 1 Match text changes Make suggested change - Inconsistent with BAS and Guidance 23.80.020 Designation of Section C - Inconsistent Revise section to read as follows: Make suggested change specific hazard areas, with BAS and Guidance Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas except remove the words continued are areas subject to severe risk of damage as "near" at end of last sentence. a result of earthquake -induced ground Also add quotations around shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil the designations "high" and liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface "moderate to high" faulting. These areas are designated as having a high and moderate to high risk of Although no "moderate to liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction high risk" areas are mapped in Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County by Edmonds, the definition the Washington State Department of Natural should be added as suggested Resources or areas located within or near since both "high risk" and landslide hazard areas. "moderate to high risk" areas as mapped make up the definition. Designations will be clarified by adding quotations. 23.80.050 Special study Inconsistent with BAS Geologic determinations must Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A State licensing -required by Make suggested change and report requirements and State Law be made by licensed geologists. critical areas report for assessing a potential State law. Engineered designed mitigation geologically hazardous area shall be should be designed by an prepared by a..—.1... eeF 8F geologist engineer in most cases. licensed in the state of Washington, with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience preparing reports for the Page 22 of 31 Packet Page 905 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Recommended Action relevant type of hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary, the report detailing the mitigation measures and design of the mitigation shall be prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington, with experience stabilizing slopes with similar geotechnical properties. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090 23.80.050 Special study Section C - Inconsistent Guidance for preparing Add new language consistent with Geology Geology Licensing Board Make suggested change and report requirements with BAS engineering geology reports has Licensing Board; new language will have guidance been prepared by the Geology added benefit of greatly simplifying this Licensing Board section. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Subsection F.2.e - Bluff retreat rate is likely not Add the phrase "or an estimate of the Bluff retreat rate may be Make suggested change, Inconsistent with BAS applicable for most bluffs in percent risk of landslide area expansion" appropriate for some slides, but which keeps the bluff retreat Edmonds in some cases the percent risk of rate phase in place, but adds a expansion of the slide area may second phrase to apply to be a better approach. other bluffs. The bluffs in question all formed by shoreline erosion processes and are over steep due to past landslides having been eroded by waves. That process has been discontinued with the construction of the railroad, but the railroad itself continues to operate as a force of erosion at the toe of these bluff slopes. Each time there is a landslide, the collapsed soil is removed Page 23 of 31 Packet Page 906 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance from the toe of the slope so the higher bluffs are still a long way from angle of repose and will continue to retreat. Eventually that will come to an end after enough bluff failures. But the railroad at the base of the slope should not be viewed as a protection of the toe as any failures will be removed. Subsection H. 1- There are no known faults in Delete H 1 "The site Fnap shall show all No known faults and main Make suggested change Inconsistent with BAS Edmonds knewn and mapped active faults 200 purpose is recognizing that within feet ^Fthe 'that have the specific soil types are pFejeEt area potential to be affe .ted by the proposal." susceptible to higher risk during seismic events 23.80.060 Development Generally consistent CTED 2007 None; consistent with BAS standards - General with BAS and guidance; requirements see ECDC 23.80.070 for details. 23.80.070 Development Subsection A.1- Does not match BAS Setbacks should meet specific criteria to A specific policy value should be Make suggested change standards - Specific Inconsistent with BAS ensure the structure is not at risk for the life set for homes and homes are hazards. of the structure (120 years). Term setback is considered to have a life of 120 used to avoid confusion with buffers such as years. Other values or periods riparian, wetland or habitat buffers. can be used dependent upon policy consistency. Separating setback and buffer terms may reduce potential confusion regarding activities within the buffer. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Subsection A.2 - BAS for geohazards Buffers requirements should be established Buffer requirements will vary Make suggested change, but Inconsistent with BAS within the geology hazard assessment and in some case no restrictions need replace with a clear Page 24 of 31 Packet Page 907 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance report may be needed in the buffer. trigger for City staff during initial application review. Language to be determined during code revision stage. Also consider revising Buffer Reduction language to City of Seattle code, which is allows buffer to be reduced if a geotech report concludes no risk. Seattle has recently adopted a requirement for a specifically worded statement by the geotech that says in effect that there will be minimal risk to the development by the steep slope conditions and that the development will present a minimal risk to the steep slope and surrounding properties. 23.90 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.000 Fish and wildlife Inconsistent Flow chart will need to be Change allowed buffer reduction from 50 Inconsistent with BAS; Internal Make suggested change habitat conservation updated to include change in percent to 25 percent of buffer. Mention consistency with 23.90.040 areas compliance allowed buffer reductions and buffer reduction with enhancement and requirements flowchart mitigation measures. buffer averaging with enhancement. improved clarity p y The flow chart handles streams Create a separate flow chart for streams and improved user -friendliness and p No change. City doesn't need. and FWHCA in the same manner. FWHCA. clarity. 23.90.010 Designation, Consistent May be able to strengthen this Include discussion of "core habitat" in Internal consistency. See Do not make suggested rating and mapping - Fish section by referencing core Section AA discussion of 23.90.040.0 below. change. Rather, develop a Page 25 of 31 Packet Page 908 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Recommended Action and wildlife habitat habitat. See discussion and map of FWHCAs in the City. conservation areas references in 23.90.040.C. This Include the following steps: will provide a science -based - Modify WDFW maps of framework for vegetation Biodiversity Areas (the old retention and habitat protection Urban Open Space) so they discussed in 23.90.040.C. more accurately depict conditions in the City. - Edit CAO to eliminate reference to the laundry list of WDFW habitats that are not used in the CAO. - Require a critical areas report for land clearing in the Biodiversity Areas of more than 200 sf (?) to show avoidance, minimization, and enhancement/mitigation of lostfunctions. (Threshold to be determined during code revision stage) 23.90.020 Special study Generally consistent May be able to strengthen this See above Improved internal consistency. See above and report requirements - section by referencing core Fish and wildlife habitat habitat. See discussion and conservation areas references in 23.90.040.C. This will provide a science -based framework for vegetation retention and habitat protection discussed in 23.90.040.C. Ensure consistency of Section D. Ensure internal consistency. Make suggested change (if with Section 23.90.030. needed) Page 26 of 31 Packet Page 909 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance 23.90.030 Development Generally consistent Section A. May be able to See above Internal consistency. See above standards - General with BAS strengthen this section by requirements referencing core habitat. See discussion and references in 23.90.040.C. This will provide a science -based framework for vegetation retention and habitat protection discussed in 23.90.040.C. 23.90.040 Development Section A.3 References outdated rules for Remove Section A.3. for bald eagle habitat. Bald eagles were federally Make suggested change standards - Specific Inconsistent with BAS bald eagles. Habitat protections are still captured under delisted in 2007 and downlisted habitats Section A.2. to a state sensitive species. WAC 232-12-292 has been revised (effective May 29, 2011) Section C Vegetation retention is not tied There are several options for promoting See footnote discussing core Develop a map of FWHCAs as Inconsistent with BAS to BAS vegetation and habitat retention, which habitat. described above include but are not limited to: Source: Ecology, 2013 -Outline a management approach which Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001 prioritizes areas for vegetation and habitat provide an informative graphic. retention and tie this to the requirement for Redmond and Bellevue both use critical areas report is 200 sf of vegetation habitat assessment models to removal is proposed - tie to Biodiversity score an upland's ability to Areas. provide wildlife habitat. The City of Bellevue's manual is the most recent (2009); however, the City of Redmond is currently revising their manual. Bellevue's scoring system ranks a parcel's ability to provide functional habitat and Page 27 of 31 Packet Page 910 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance their guidance requires closer review for development proposals that would affect higher -functioning habitat. Mitigation actions are specified on a site -specific basis, depending on the site and habitat present. 23.90.040 Development Section D No discussion of physically Revise Section D to include discussion of Clarity/user-friendliness Make suggested change. standards - Specific Consistent with BAS, can separated and functionally physically separated and functionally Language to be developed habitats strengthen and provide isolated buffers. No discussion of isolated buffers, consistent with other during code revision stage. (continued) more clarity. piped stream segments and provisions of the code. To further clarify buffers where buffers are required, consider additional text discussing piped streams and development (e.g., no development allowed over piped streams without a variance, no buffers required over piped or culverted streams. 23.90.040 Development Section D.1. City's standard buffers range Consider increases to standard stream Source: Brennan et al. 2009, May Revise stream buffer widths as standards - Specific Inconsistent with BAS from 25 feet (Type Ns) to 150 feet buffer widths, but at a minimum, increase 2003, Knutson and Naef 1997 all follows: habitats (Type S). BAS supports wider the stream buffer for Type Ns streams to 40 suggest BAS based buffers wider Type Ns: change from 25 to 40 (continued) standard buffer widths. BAS or 50 feet. Mountlake Terrace has the same than those currently required. feet suggests widths from 75 feet to buffer for Type 1 streams (150 feet). Recommended approach well over 300 feet to protect a Woodways's code requires larger standard improves consistency with suite of ecological functions. buffers (250 feet for a Type 1 stream, 50 feet neighboring jurisdictions such as Upper ranges are likely not for a Type 4), but has smaller buffers allowed Woodway. Alternative strategies feasible given existing platting as minimum buffer widths for low impact to BAS-based buffers can and development patterns. land uses. Where it is not feasible to achieve provide some of the ecological BAS-recommended buffers due to existing functions provided by riparian conditions, specific alternative strategies buffers, and should be should be required (e.g., required use of LID; considered (especially where Page 28 of 31 Packet Page 911 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Recommended Action Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Section & Guidance elevated mitigation requirements for narrow or reduced buffers are habitat, longer -term maintenance and allowed). monitoring). Section D.1. Does not include language Section D.1. Include language regarding Supplemental information to Make suggested change, but Supplemental regarding intact native intact native vegetation and previously improve internal code also need additional Information vegetation and previously disturbed buffers areas so the concept of consistency. discussion of previously disturbed buffers areas. See buffers will be consistent with the language developed area. Language to Section 23.50.040.F.1 in Section 23.50.040.F.1 be developed during code revision stage. Section D.2. Stream buffer width reductions Section D.2. Revise section to allow CTED, 2007 Make suggested change Inconsistent greater than 25 percent are not reductions no greater than 25 percent of the supported by BAS. standard buffer width with mitigation. Suggest prioritizing buffer averaging with enhancement before buffer reductions with enhancement. See wetland buffer discussion. 23.90.040 Development Section D.2.c. Requirement for 3 years of Revise Section D.2.c. to require 5 years of CTED, 2007 Make suggested change standards - Specific Inconsistent monitoring. Five years is monitoring. habitats considered the standard (continued) monitoring period. Section D.3 Code appears to allow stream Revise Section D.3. to exclude the term Inconsistent with BAS, User- Make suggested change Inconsistent buffer reduction and averaging. "reduced" in the first sentence. Revise the friendliness. Section D.3. also allows a 50 section to allow buffer averaging reductions CTED 2007 percent reduction of the no greater than 25 percent of the standard standard buffer with no buffer buffer. Include buffer enhancement and enhancement. performance standards similar to Section D.2. as a requirement for buffer averaging. Suggest prioritizing buffer averaging with enhancement before buffer reductions with enhancement. See wetland buffer discussion. Page 29 of 31 Packet Page 912 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/ Basis for EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance Section D.4 Allows additions to existing Section D.4. See suggested revisions for Inconsistent with BAS. Make suggested change Inconsistent legally constructed structures wetland buffers in 23.50.040.H. Reduction beyond the 25 outside of the inner 25 percent of percent standard buffer would the standard stream buffer. be considered an impact and therefore requires mitigation. Source: Bunten et at., 2012; Ecology, 2013. Section D.5. Can strengthen this section with Section D.5. Include provisions: CTED, 2007 Make suggested change Generally consistent but additional requirements that -An alternative alignment or location with can be strengthened protect fish and water quality. less impact is not feasible -The crossing will be designed as near as perpendicular with the water body as possible. Section D.6. Trails should be located along Section D.6. See recommendation in CTED, 2007 and Make suggested change Inconsistent the outer edge of the buffer. See 23.50.040.F. Wetlands and CAO Updates: discussion in 23.50.040.F. Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.90.040 Development Section D.7. Storm water management Revise D. 7 to include provision to allow CTED, 2007 and Make suggested change standards - Specific Partially Inconsistent facilities should only be allowed stormwater management facilities in the Wetlands and CAO Updates: ESA reviewed new stormwater habitats in the outer 25 percent of the outer 25 percent of the buffer. Guidance for Small Cities. permit requirements and the (continued) buffer Western Washington Version. Stormwater Management Revised October 2012 Ecology Manual for Western Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten Washington Guide Sheet 2 in et at. 2012) App I-D and confirmed that this recommendation is not inconsistent with those standards. Page 30 of 31 Packet Page 913 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix - March 2015 Final w/ recommended actions Footnotes Regulatory Guidance Letters 05-02: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civiIworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_f_rg[05-02.pdf and 08-02: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/pdf/RGL08-02.pdf "Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/ Ecology's buffer recommendations (Table XX.1; Ecology, 2014) are based on a moderate -risk approach to protecting wetland functions. Bufferwidth recommendations in Table XX.1 are based on the assumption that the buffer is well -vegetated with native species. A recent synthesis regarding buffer functions and required widths, titled Update on Wetland Buffers: State of the Science (Hruby, 2013), recommends an approach to buffer widths based on buffer functions. Adequate performance of key buffer functions typically require the average bufferwidth ranges (depending on the site and landscape setting): 100 feet to 1,000 feet for wildlife, 30 to 100 feet for sediment removal, 100-180 feet for nitrogen removal, and 30 to 100 feet for phosphorus removal (Environmental Law Institute, 2008 in Hruby, 2013). Recent research indicates that fixed -width buffers may not adequately address issues of habitat fragmentation and population dynamics; rather, bufferwidths and fragmentation are only two of many variables that affect wildlife population dynamics (Hruby, 2013). Surrounding land use, plant community structure, intensity of human disturbance are additional factors that affect wetland -dependent species (Hruby, 2013). Water quality and quantity factors may also be influenced by adjacent pollution sources and stormwater inputs. Measures included in Table XX.2 are intended to further minimize the impact of these factors. 'Recent buffer synthesis (Ecology, 2013) confirms that buffer width requirements for wildlife need to be targeted at the species of interest and their life requirements. Uplands surrounding a wetland can serve as critical habitat for certain species, termed "core habitat" (Hruby, 2013). The concept of core habitat expands the idea of the wetland buffer from simply protecting the wetland to protecting the species in the upland (Hruby, 2013). Semlitsch and Jensen. 2001. Core Habitat, Not Buffer Zone. National Wetlands Newsletter: 23(4). Accessible at: http://www.northintet.sc.edu/training/media/2011/061420111solatedWetlands/RESOURCES/CORE_HABITAT.pdf Page 31 of 31 Packet Page 914 of 1075 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix August 2015 Final version — consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance 23.4o Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.olo Authority Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23•40.02o Relationship to Generally consistent, but CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS other regulations could be strengthened 23•40.030 Severability Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23•40.040 Jurisdiction — Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 and None; consistent with BAS Critical Areas Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #lo-o6-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.40.050 Protection of Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS critical areas 23.40.o6o General Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS requirements 23.40.070 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS preapplication consultation 23.40.o8o Notice of initial Generally consistent, but Section B.2 could be Add the following statement to Section B.2.: CTED, 2007 Revise to remove vague determination could be strengthened strengthened by including criteria "A waiver may be granted if there is decision criteria language (do Page 1 of 27 Packet Page 915 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action for granting a waiver. substantial evidence that all of the following not use the term "substantial requirements will be met: evidence"). a. There will be no alteration of the "A waiver may be granted if critical area or buffer; the director determines that all b. The development proposal will not of the following requirements affect the critical area in a manner will be met:..." contrary to the purpose, intent, and requirements of this Title; and Subsection c. not included c. The proposal is consistent with because consistency with other applicable regulations and "other applicable regulations standards. and standards" is not determined with the critical D. Critical areas determinations shall be D. Provides for consistency with area review. considered valid for five years from the date 23.40.o9o.F z3.4o.zzo.C.1.c, and in which the determination was made; after 23•50•oso.E such date the city shall require a new determination, or at minimum documentation of a new assessment verifying the accuracy of the previous determination . 23.40.090 Critical areas Generally consistent, but Additional detail could be added Revise Section D to include the following CTED, 2007 and Revise Section D to include report — Requirements could be strengthened to strengthen reporting requirements: Wetlands and CAO Updates: only the first, second, and requirements in Section D. - A statement specifying the accuracy of the Guidance for Small Cities. fourth requirements in report and all assumptions made and relied Western Washington Version. suggested change. upon; Revised October 2012 Ecology -A description of the methodologies used to Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten conduct the critical areas study, including et al. 2012) references These recommendations will -An assessment of the probable cumulative clarify for the City how and what effects to critical areas resulting from was done for a critical areas development of the site and the proposed report as well as bolster the concept of mitigation sequencing Page 2 of 27 Packet Page 916 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance development; and appropriate mitigation. - Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed to offset any effects, in accordance with the Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section 23.40.130 23.40.100 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS report— Modifications to requirements 23.40.110 Mitigation Could be brought closer Section B sets the standard for Revise Section B to include allowances for: Improve internal code Revise to include specific requirements to consistency the types of mitigation allowed off -site and out -of -kind mitigation, in lieu fee consistency with 23.50. reference to Ecology as: "in -kind and on -site, when programs, mitigation banks, or other Credit/Debit methodology, possible, and sufficient." With mitigation strategies according to the criteria and allowance for out -of -basin respect to wetlands and streams set forth in Innovative Mitigation Section mitigation with an approved especially, a watershed -based 23.40.140. mitigation bank or ILF focus may be more successful or program. provide more ecological benefit. Language in this section is not fully consistent with mitigation banking discussed in 23.5o.o5o.H. 23.40.1.20 Mitigation Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 and None, consistent with BAS sequencing Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-o6-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.40.130 Mitigation plan Section C Does not specify that impact and Revise Section C to include areas of proposed CTED, 2007 Make suggested change requirements Generally consistent but mitigation areas should be shown effects to critical areas or buffers. could be strengthened on plans. Section D Requires monitoring for 3 years Revise Section D last sentence to read: "The CTED, 2007 Make suggested change. instead of 5. compensation project shall be monitored for Page 3 of 27 Packet Page 917 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance Inconsistent with BAS a period necessaryto establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than 5 years without approval from the director. 23.40.140 Innovative Consistent with BAS Could provide additional clarification of types CTED, zoo? and Revise to include clearer, more mitigation of innovative mitigation allowed (e.g., in lieu Wetlands and CAO Updates: detailed definition of in -lieu fee programs). Guidance for Small Cities. fee mitigation programs. Use Western Washington Version. example language from Revised October 2012 Ecology Bunten et al. (20012). Publication #so-o6-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.40.150 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS decision 23.40.16o Review criteria Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.17o Favorable critical Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None, consistent with BAS areas decision 23.40.18o Unfavorable Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None, consistent with BAS critical areas decision 23.40.190 Completion of Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS the critical areas review 23.40.20o Appeals Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.210 Variances Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS 23.40.21.5 Critical Area New section Insert new section that provides relief for The City does not want to Insert new section 23.40.215 Restoration Projects restoration projects that are not required as discourage projects that would that would grant relief for mitigation for development proposal. provide a net benefit to the City's restoration projects associated critical areas. with a stream or wetland allow buffer reduction of up to 50% standard buffer if certain criteria are met. Page 4 Of 27 Packet Page 918 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance 23.40.22o Allowed Generally consistent, but Can add additional clarity Revise Section C.i.c. to include "There is no CTED, zoo? and Make suggested change activities could be strengthened new information available that is applicable Wetlands and CAO Updates: to any critical area review of the site or Guidance for Small Cities. particular critical area;" Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #so-o6-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) Section C4 Any activities that directly affect Revise Section C.4 to include CTED, 2007 and Make suggested change Inconsistent with BAS a wetland or stream should "Except those activities that alter a wetland Wetlands and CAO Updates: receive further review or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges, Guidance for Small Cities. or result in the transport of sediment or Western Washington Version. increased stormwater; subject to the Revised October 2012 Ecology following: Publication #so-o6-002 (Bunten - Retention and replanting of native et al. 2012) vegetation shall occur wherever possible along the right-of-way improvement and resulting disturbance. 23.40.22o Allowed New subsection Physically separated and Provide code language to allow for Improve clarity/user-friendliness Make suggested change. activities functionally isolated buffers are development within a physically separated (continued) not directly addressed by the and functionally isolated buffer. existing CAO. Section C.6 Updated model code for Revise Section C.6. first sentence to read: Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change as Partially inconsistent wetlands and wetland buffers "Public and private trails, except in wetlands, Guidance for Small Cities. described below under suggests more strict fish, and wildlife habitat conservation areas, Western Washington Version. 23.50.040, which will allow requirements for trails and or their buffers,..." Revised October 2012 Ecology trails in buffers under a set of walkways. See discussion for Publication #so-o6-002 (Bunten criteria. 23.50.040.F.8 below. et al. 2012) Section C.7 BAS suggests several strategies Revise Section C.7.a. to include an additional Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change. Partially inconsistent including but not limited to: hand information regarding invasive removal: Guidance for Small Cities. Ensure that all references to removal, chemical treatment, "Removal of invasive plant species shall be Western Washington Version. chemical treatments in code Page 5 of 27 Packet Page 919 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action shading, or other techniques may restricted to hand removal unless permits or Revised October 2012 Ecology are revised similarly. be appropriate depending on the approval from the appropriate regulatory Publication #10-o6-002 (Bunten Also add a square foot species and situation. See agencies have been obtained for approved et al. 2012) threshold for limiting invasive discussion in 23.50.020. biological or chemical treatments or other vegetation removal activities. removal techniques. All removed plant Language will be developed material shall be taken away from the site during code revision stage, but and appropriately disposed of. Plants that suggest something similar to appear on the Washington State Noxious City of Seattle Environmentally Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds Critical Areas Code (SMC must be handled and disposed of according 25.09.320), which permits to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to restoring or improving that species." vegetation and trees through Add additional allowed activities in Section invasive plant removal (by C.7: hand) to "promote - Chemical Applications. The maintenance or creation of a application of herbicides, pesticides, naturally functioning condition organic or mineral -derived that prevents erosion, protects fertilizers, or other hazardous water quality, or provides substances, if necessary, as diverse habitat... when the approved by the City, provided that area of work is under one their use shall be restricted in thousand five hundred (1,5oo) accordance with state Department square feet in area calculated of Fish and Wildlife Management cumulatively over three (3) Recommendations and the years..." regulations of the state Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section C.7.b. Generally consistent with BAS Revise 18.45 for internal consistency with Inconsistent with BAS and No changes to 23.40. City to Inconsistent with BAS and model code language; Section 23.40. Clearing and tree cutting internal code make revisions to 18.45 per and City code however, portions of 18.45—Land should not be allowed within critical areas or ESA suggestion, which is the Clearing and Tree Cutting are not buffers without review and compliance with more appropriate ECDC consistent with Section 23.4o and Section 23.40. chapter. would allow clearing and cutting Page 6 of 27 Packet Page 920 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance within wetland and stream The terms "environmentally sensitive site" buffers. There is no reference to and "environmentally sensitive areas" should Section 23.40. be revised to referto environmentally critical areas for consistency. 23.40.23o Exemptions Could be brought closer No definition in Section C.2 to Revise Section C.2 to include: "Operation and CTED, zoo? Make suggested change. Will to consistency clarify what actions constitute maintenance also includes vegetation address lack of clarity operations and maintenance management performed in accordance with regarding vegetation activities for vegetation removal. best management practices provided that maintenance under such management actions are part of regular definitions. and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the critical area, are not the See row 23.40.32o below. result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an endangered or threatened species." 23.40.240 Unauthorized Generally consistent with Section E. references tree code, Revise Section E. to include a daily penalty Wetlands and CAO Updates: Revise Section E to include a critical areas alterations BAS, but can be which sets a penalty for tree per day per violation (this is the Guidance for Small Cities. penalty equal to the cost of the and enforcement strengthened cutting, but other types of recommended language used in the model Western Washington Version. permit and a square footage violations are not covered. code). Revised October 2012 Ecology cost ($3/SF of impact) and a Penalties could be included for tree cutting in Publication #io-o6-002 (Bunten per tree penalty where addition to violation penalty. et al. 2012). applicable. Both Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace have a fine of $i,000 and/or go days in jail. Snohomish County has a penalty scale, with a $Soo penalty for the first 20 days and the penalty increasing with time thereafter to a max of $10,000 (SCC 30.85.1-70). 23.40.250 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS markers and signs 23.40.270 Critical areas Partially Inconsistent Section E: Use of herbicides is Section E. Update text to include herbicide Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change prohibited; however, BAS treatment (aquatic approved herbicides Guidance for Small Cities. Page 7 of 27 Packet Page 921 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance tracts suggests several strategies when wetlands and streams are present) Western Washington Version. including but not limited to: hand where recommended by the Noxious Weed Revised October 2012 Ecology removal, chemical treatment, Control Board. Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten shading, or other techniques may et al. 2012) be appropriate depending on the species and situation. See discussion in 23-40.22o and 23.50.020. These Sections should all be consistent. New subsection No discussion of notice on title or Include discussion of notice on title or Native CTED, 2007. Make suggested change Native Growth Protection Areas Growth Protection Areas for all lots, notjust This informs subsequent subdivisions. ESA can provide example purchases of property of critical language during code revision process. areas present on their properties. 23.40.28o Building Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 Keep section except for setbacks geologically hazardous areas where buffer and setback will be determined by geotechnical report. 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure Could be brought closer Section D requires that a bond be Revise Section D to reflect a 5 year period for CTED, 2007 and Make suggested change. mitigation, maintenance, to consistency held for 3 years. The standard is holding the bond, to ensure consistency with Wetlands and CAO Updates: and monitoring typically 5 years. 5 year monitoring period. Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et al. zosz) 23.40.300 Critical areas Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS inspections 23.40.310 Best available Could be brought closer Section D mentions "anecdotal Revise Section D to include "Non -expert CTED, 2007 Make suggested change science to consistency information" but leaves out other opinion and hearsay" as forms on forms of nonscientific nonscientific information Page 8 of 27 Packet Page 922 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance information 23.40.32o Definitions Generally consistent, but Definitions out of date Update definitions of: CTED, zoo? and Make suggested changes. pertaining to critical areas could be brought closer -Adjacent Wetlands and CAO Updates: to consistency -Compensatory mitigation (include re- Guidance for Small Cities. establishment and rehabilitation; update Western Washington Version. definition of restoration) Revised October 2012 Ecology -Geologist Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) -Habitats of local importance -Noxious weeds -Qualified critical area professional -Storm Water Management Manual Add definitions for: -Footprint of Existing Development or Footprint of Development -In lieu fee program -Normal maintenance of vegetation -Wetland mitigation bank 23.50 Wetlands 23.50.000 Wetlands Partially consistent The flow chart states that no Revise this to state that the Corps Wetland jurisdictional Make suggested change compliance requirements additional compliance is required determines a wetland is not jurisdictional, or determinations are made at a flowchart when a "reconnaissance revise text to clarify. federal level (Corps). Even if a determines a wetland is not wetland is exempt under City jurisdictional." code, it may be regulated at a federal and/or state level. An applicant would need to request a jurisdictional determination from the Corps to get assurance that a wetland is not Page 9 of 27 Packet Page 923 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance jurisdictional. 23.50.010 Designation, Not consistent Sections A, B, and E reference Revise Sections A, B, and E to refer to the WAC 173-22-035, WAC 365-190- Make suggested change rating and mapping — outdated wetland delineation approved federal wetland delineation manual 090 Wetlands and rating manuals. and applicable regional supplements and the The federal wetland delineation Washington State Wetland Rating System manual and regional for Western Washington, 2014 Update. supplements and updated 2014 wetland rating manual constitute BAS for wetland identification, delineation, and rating. Section B.1 References wetland function Revise Section B.1. to reflect the updated Washington State Wetland Make suggested change. Could be strengthened scores from the City of wetland function scores for each wetland Rating System for Western to be more consistent Edmonds's wetland field data Category based on the point system used in Washington: 2014 Update. form, which is based on an older the updated 2014 rating manual. Consider Ecology Publication #14-06-029 version of the wetland rating revising the City's wetland field data form or (Hruby 2014) manual. referencing the appropriate state or federal manual instead. Section E Does not specify how long a Section E could be improved for consistency User -friendliness and clarity, Make suggested change. Add Could be strengthened wetland delineation is valid. with BAS by specifying that wetland improved consistency with BAS a provision regarding critical to be more consistent delineations are valid for five years. Corps of Engineers Regulatory area assessment reports and Guidance Letters RGL 05-02 and statute of limitations earlier in 08-02 set a five year standard on CAO chapter (23.40.090). wetland determinations.' 23.50.02o Allowed Section D The Washington State Noxious Update Section D to include that those BAS suggests several strategies Make suggested change activities — Wetlands Could be revised to be Weed Control Board has noxious weeds listed on the Washington including but not limited to: hand more consistent. recommendations and resources State Noxious Weed Control Board list must removal, chemical treatment, for controlling state listed be handled and disposed of according to a shading, or other techniques may noxious weeds and invasive noxious weed control plan appropriate to be appropriate depending on the species. that species. species and situation." Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Page so of 27 Packet Page 924 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix — August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.50.030 Special study Generally consistent with CTED, 2007 and None; consistent with BAS and report requirements— BAS Wetlands and CAO Updates: Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.50.04o Development Section F.1. Buffer widths are inconsistent Revise Section F.1. to reflect recent BAS Wetlands in Washington State, Make suggested change standards —Wetlands Inconsistent with BAS with BAS and with Draft SMP updates for buffers (Ecology, 2013)iii The Volume 2: Guidance for (continued) buffers. BAS supports increased draft SMP uses Ecology's Table "XX.1" for Protecting and Managing standard buffer widths or wetland buffers in shoreline areas. Table XX.i Wetlands, Ecology Publication modified buffer widths based on was recently revised in December 2014 based #05-06-008 (Granger et al. intensity of impacts from on habitat scores used in the updated 2014 2005). adjacent land use or based on wetland rating manual. Ecology's updated wetland functions. Table XX.1 for standard buffer widths requires additional measures (Table "XX.2") to minimize wetland impacts. The draft SMP incorporates these measures. The CAO should be revised to reflect these BAS updates and to be consistent with the SMP section F.2. Section F.1. Can supplement section by Supplement F.1 with additional discussion of User -friendliness Revise Section F1to: "If the Supplemental material expanding inadequate vegetation previously disturbed areas. These are vegetation ;s inadequate to include previously disturbed generally considered those areas which are buffer is composed of areas and also requiring not composed of an intact native vegetation nonnative vegetation, lawn, or bare ground, then, at the revegetation pursuant to an community, but still consist of pervious approved planting plan. surfaces. Previously disturbed areas would discretion of the director..." include non-native vegetation, lawn, and Page 11 of 27 Packet Page 925 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action gravel. Include requirement for revegetation according to an approved planting plan. Section F.2. Partially Increased buffer widths required This section can be revised to be more Improve clarity regarding when Revise Section F2 to: inconsistent in general when needed "to specific by referencing federal or state listed an increased buffer is needed. Add new subsection " d.": "If a protect other critical areas." endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitored or documented species wetland is occupied by a federally listed threatened or or habitats, or essential habitat (e.g., nesting endangered species, a bald eagle nest, a great blue heron sites or rookeries).1v rookery, or at the discretion of the director to protect species considered locally important" 23.50.04o Development New subsection in F Create a new subsection for Create a new subsection that incorporates User -friendliness and clarity. Will Make suggested change standards — Wetlands "Buffer Modification" that criteria for allowing a buffer modification improve internal consistency and (continued) contains code for buffer (outlined in F.3.) and outlines the sequence make criteria easy to follow. averaging and buffer reductions. for preferred buffer modifications: buffer averaging with enhancement, then buffer reductions with enhancement. Section F.3 A buffer reduction of up to 50 Model codes typically allow up to a 25 Inconsistent with BAS and City's Make suggested change Inconsistent percent is allowed. Buffer percent modification through averaging, SMP. reduction with buffer enhancement is not discussed in which affords better protection to wetlands than a 5o percent reduction. Recommend Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for BAS documents (Granger et al., 2005; or Ecology, 201.2). However, the City's code requires that functions will be increased or revising code to only allow a reduction up to 25 percent of the standard buffer width with buffer enhancement. The draft SMP includes a 25 percent reduction; Revise code to be Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Ecology Publication #o5-o6-oo8 (Granger et al. zoos). retained, which is consistent with consistent with draft SMP text. Since buffer the state's requirement of no net reductions are not discussed in BAS and loss. buffer reductions result in a net loss of area (even if functions are improved or retained), this step should follow after buffer averaging in the sequence and be used only when Page 12 of 27 Packet Page 926 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on - site. This is also more consistent with the wetlands review flowchart in 23.50.000 Section F.4. Code appears to allow reduction Revise Section F.4., first sentence, to exclude Inconsistent with BAS and City's Make suggested change Inconsistent and averaging. Buffer averaging mention of a "reduced" wetland buffer. Only SMP. of up to 5o percent is allowed. allow a reduction up to 25 percent of the Wetlands in Washington State, BAS does not support the use of standard buffer width. Buffer averaging Volume 2: Guidance for both tools in conjunction. should also include a requirement for buffer Protecting and Managing enhancement, as many urban buffers are Wetlands, Ecology Publication degraded. The draft SMP includes a 25 #05-06-008 (Granger et al. percent reduction; revise code to be 2005). consistent with draft SMP text. See discussion above regarding prioritizing buffer averaging before buffer reductions where possible. ESA can provide example code language during code revision stage. 23.50.04o Development Section F.B. Some of the uses allowed in Revise to include uses allowed in wetlands Improved internal consistency Make suggested change standards— Wetlands Generally consistent, but wetlands are not listed as buffer that would also be allowed in wetland (continued) could be clarified. uses, but would presumably be buffers. For example (not an inclusive list): necessary. Could be revised to -Education and scientific research address applicable uses and -Normal and routine maintenance and repair parallel treatment. of public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way Section F.B. Inconsistent Walkways and trails are allowed Revise text to limit walkways and trails to the Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change, but in buffers with minimal outer 25 percent of the wetland buffer Guidance for Small Cities. add clarification regarding provisions. Scientific research perimeter and avoid trees. Revise text to be Western Washington Version. application. Revise F8 to (Ecology, 2013, Granger, 2005) consistent with draft SMP. Revised October 2012 Ecology include a priority for limiting indicates that human disturbance Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten trails to the outer 25 percent of in wetland buffers can affect et al. 2012) the wetland buffer perimeter wetland functions. Wetlands in Washington State, and avoid trees, or in cases Page 13 of 27 Packet Page 927 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance Volume 2: Guidance for where the buffer is below the Protecting and Managing regulatory minimum, trails Wetlands, Ecology Publication could be outer 25 % of existing #05-06-008 (Granger et al. buffer. Specific language to be 2005). developed during code revision stage. 23.50.04o Development Section G. Permanent fencing is not Section G. Revise text to discuss perimeter Improve consistency with Make suggested change standards —Wetlands Inconsistent discussed as a form of wetland fencing. Perimeter fencing is mentioned as a internal code requirements and (continued) protection. measure to avoid impacts in Ecology's Table consistency with BAS. "XX.2" and in the draft SMP. Clarify that fencing, if required, should be designed so it doesn't interfere with wildlife migration and should be constructed in a way that minimizes impacts to the wetland, buffer, and associated habitat. Section H. Additions to structures existing Section H. Revise text to prioritize buffer Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change Inconsistent within buffers lists a sequence of averaging before buffer reductions. Consider Guidance for Small Cities. steps. Buffer reduction through a threshold for limiting the size of the Western Washington Version. enhancement is prioritized addition when occurring outside of the inner Revised October 2012 Ecology before buffer averaging. The 25 percent (e.g., 150 square feet or another Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten sequence also allows number based on planning staff experience et al. 2012) development beyond the 25 and feedback). Include a requirement for Reduction beyond the 25 percent percent reduction in the standard buffer enhancement and fencing or other standard buffer would be buffer, which is not supported by mitigation measures (e.g. LID, etc.) to avoid considered an impact and BAS. See discussion in Section further encroachment. therefore requires mitigation. F.3. Section I: Scientific literature does not Revise Section I to allow exemptions for Mitigation is required to be Make suggested change. Inconsistent support exempting wetlands isolated wetlands under Soo square feet and consistent with BAS. Also revise title of Section I to: based on size or category alone include additional provisions for considering Wetlands in Washington State, "Small, hydrologically isolated without mitigation. Small wetland functions/connectivity/habitat and a Volume 2: Guidance for wetlands". wetlands may perform important requirement for mitigation. ESA can provide Protecting and Managing Revise 1.2 to better define functions. However, Ecology has example suggestions during code revision Wetlands, Ecology Publication "low -quality" by using scores developed a strategy for Page 14 of 27 Packet Page 928 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance exempting small wetlands when process. #05-06-008 (Granger et al. from Ecology Wetland Rating wetland functions are considered 2005). System. and mitigation is required. Revise 1.3 to include a wildlife habitat score (value or range) that defines "no significant habitat value". 23.50.04o Development New subsection New subsection to allow development within Development in the City of Make suggested change. standards — Wetlands the footprint of existing development (per Edmonds has occurred over (continued) new definition) in exchange for enhancement many years, much of this equivalent to the footprint of the new development occurred prior to development. the established of critical area regulations. Allowing some development within the footprint of existing development in exchange for enhancement of the critical area and/or critical area buffer will result in a net benefit to the City's critical areas. 23.50.050 Mitigation Intro Introductory paragraph refers to Revise introductory paragraph to include Wetlands and CAO Updates: Make suggested change requirements — Wetlands Inconsistent with BAS outdated mitigation guidance. latest mitigation guidance documents: Guidance for Small Cities. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State —Part Western Washington Version. 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology, Revised October 2012 Ecology 2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Publication #io-o6-002 (Bunten Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology, 2009). et al. 2012) Section A Mitigation preference is not Consider specifying that mitigation using Compensatory Mitigation for Make suggested change, but Inconsistent with BAS consistent with federal and state banks or ILF programs is preferred over Losses of Aquatic Resources. add prioritization for in -basin guidance. Federal and state permittee-responsible mitigation (regardless Final Rule. (Federal Register mitigation followed by agencies are requiring the use of of location). 73(70):1.9594-1970) mitigation within City limits. mitigation banks and ILF BAS indicates that mitigation programs. banks and ILF programs have a Page 15 of 27 Packet Page 929 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance significantly greater likelihood of mitigation success, as opposed to permittee-responsible mitigation. Section F. Mitigation Mitigation ratios are appropriate Include mitigation ratios in a table. Clarity/user-friendliness Make suggested change. Ratios and generally consistent with Include reference to the Credit/Debit Improved consistency by Partially consistent BAS. This section could be Method. referencing clarified by adding a table with Calculating Credits and Debits mitigation ratios for each type of for Compensatory Mitigation in mitigation action. As an Wetlands of Western alternative to mitigation ratios, Washington: Final Report the Credit/Debit method may be (Hruby, zo12) used, and in some cases, may be required by Ecology. Section H.3. Wetland This section can be strengthened Incorporate text from model code (Ecology, Improved consistency Make suggested change to Mitigation Banks with additional discussion of in 2012) to clarify the credit -debit process. ESA incorporate provisions from Generally consistent, but lieu fee programs. These can provide example code language during model wetland code that allow could be strengthened programs should also have a code revision stage. use of ILF programs only with system of calculating debits and an approved instrument. credits specified in the approved instrument. 23.50.o6o Performance Consistent with BAS None; consistent with BAS standards — Subdivisions 23.50.070 Wetland field Inconsistent with BAS The City of Edmonds's wetland Consider revising the City's wetland field The wetland rating manual was Make suggested change. data form field data form is based on an data form or referencing the appropriate updated in 2014 (Hruby, 2014) older version of the wetland state orfederal manual instead. Washington State Wetland rating manual. Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Ecology Publication #14-o6-029 (Hruby 2014). Page 16 of 27 Packet Page 930 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAC) Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance 23.7o Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.oso Designation, Generally consistent, but Sub -section A references Revise Section A to reference the correct CTED 2007 guidance notes that Make suggested change rating and mapping could be strengthened currently effective FIRM panels, effective date for FIRMS - "Snohomish both Zone A and Zone V flood and sub -section B notes that County, Washington and Incorporated hazard areas should be included. newer and/or more restrictive Areas" study and maps, effective date Zone V areas are coastal updated information would be November 8, 1999. floodplains subject to inundation used. However, sub -section A bythe 1-percent-annual-chance references an incorrect effective Revise Section A to state that both Zone A flood event with additional date (January 30, i998), only and Zone V areas on effective FIRMS should hazards associated with storm - notes inclusion of Zone A be designated as frequently flooded areas. induced waves. floodplain areas, whereas November 2014 draft flood zone maps include both Zone A and Zone V floodplains. 23.70.020 Special study Sections A thru D — CTED 2007, PSP 2010 None; consistent with BAS and report requirements Consistent with BAS and Guidance Page 17 of 27 Packet Page 931 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action IBC Appendix G — Site Improvement Standards for coastal floodplain Update EMC 3.9.00.025 (International PSP 2009; FEMA 2013 City to consider revisions to Floodplain Subdivision Standards (G4o1) and development (coastal A zones Building Code section amendments) to Title ig. standards elevation standards - and V zones) are limited to require a minimum of 1 to 2 feet of freeboard Inconsistent with BAS prohibiting development above the base flood elevation for coastal A waterward of "mean high tide" zones and V zones. and use of structural fill. Additional standards are available to significantly reduce property damage and human health and safety risks, including an additional i to 2 foot freeboard above base flood elevation standard. This additional protection is intended to further minimize risk or anticipate increasing flood risks (either from increased runoff or climate change). 23.8o Geologically Hazardous Areas (Review conducted by Stratum Group, subconsultant to ESA) Page 18 of 27 Packet Page 932 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance 23.40.090 Critical areas Inconsistent with BAS Language does not reflect the Add language to clarify the role of geologists Clarify the distinctive roles of Make suggested change report— Requirements applicable role of geologists and and engineers in report preparation geologists and engineers in engineers preparation of reports 23.40.28o General critical Code consistency Setbacks for geologically For geologically hazardous areas, remove the For geologically hazardous areas, Revise section to read: areas protection measures hazardous areas are established additional setback distance of 1.5 feet. setback widths are determined "Unless ther i - Building setbacks elsewhere in code based on other sections of the previ&dExcept for code. This code section discusses geologically hazardous areas what is permissible in the where setbacks are setback. determined by a geotechnical report buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet..." 23.40.32o Definitions Delete redundant language regarding It should be up to the Make suggested change geologists Department of Licensing to ensure that geologists licensed in Washington have the appropriate education, skills and experience. 23.80.oio Designation, Consistent with BAS and CTED 2007 None; consistent with BAS rating and mapping Guidance 23.80.02o Designation of Subsection A.2 - Additional language necessary to Provide new section as follows: Suggested change reflects the Make suggested change specific hazard areas Inconsistent with BAS include erosion hazard areas A.2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which other type of erosion hazard. and Guidance related to stream and coastal are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion. erosion related to moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat. ................................................................ Section B - Generally ....... ................................................................................................................................. Add the word "potential" before landslide ..................................................................................._ ............... Not all of the areas that should ............................................ ......... ......... ......... Make suggested change consistent with BAS and hazard areas in the last sentence require a landslide hazard Guidance assessment are in fact a landslide area. Page 19 of 27 Packet Page 933 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Subsection B.i - Add reference to more The zoo? Landau report provides recent report on Meadowdale Landslide further guidance on this specific (Landau 2007) hazard area 23.80.02o Designation of Subsection 13.2 - Takes into account a broader Delete: current subsection 2, and replace Make suggested change. For specific hazard areas, Inconsistent with BAS range of potential geology with new subsections 2 — 5 (keep existing #4 add detail that indicates the continued and Guidance hazards subsections 3 and 4): provision excludes rockeries 2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), This captures a resource that have been engineered and uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recommended by guidance and approved by the engineer as havingbeen built according to g recent slides) in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas; or captures an new mapping that P Y PP 9 the engineered design. 9 9 may be completed in the future. Stratum notes that rockery 3. Areas designated as quaternary slumps, walls or engineered walls have earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps high potential for failure due to published by the United States Geological Surveyor Washington State Department of poor construction, so provision Natural Resources. to approve as -built design is critical here. 4. Any slope of 40 percent or steeper that Simplifies and matches similar Excluding solid rock from #4 is exceeds a vertical height of io feet over a 25- approaches that do not include not applicable as there is no foot horizontal runerosion determination of toe and top of bedrock in Edmonds slope for determining the 40 percent slope 5. Areas with all three of the following Wet low angle slopes with The list in section B is a list of characteristics: perched water may be potential landslide hazard (i) Slopes steeper than fifteen percent, potentially subject to landslides areas. It is not to be used by (ii) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts staff as determining where this with a relatively permeable sediment criterion is met (e.g, springs or overlying a relatively impermeable sediment; groundwater seepage). The and actual mapping is covered in B 3 (iii) Springs or groundwater seepage. Page 20 of 27 Packet Page 934 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAC) Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance Subsection 13.1, Figure i - See above Modify Figure i Match text changes Make suggested change Inconsistent with BAS and Guidance 23.80.02o Designation of Section C - Inconsistent Revise section to read as follows: Make suggested change.. Also specific hazard areas, with BAS and Guidance Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas add quotations around the continued are areas subject to severe risk of damage as designations "high" and a result of earthquake -induced ground "moderate to high" shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface Although no "moderate to faulting. These areas are designated as high risk" areas are mapped in having a high and moderate to high risk of Edmonds, the definition liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction should be added as suggested Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County by since both "high risk" and the Washington State Department of Natural "moderate to high risk" areas Resources or areas located within landslide as mapped make up the hazard areas. definition. Designations will be clarified by adding quotations. 23.80.o5o Special study Inconsistent with BAS Geologic determinations must be Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A State licensing —required by Make suggested change and report requirements and State Law made by licensed geologists. critical areas report for assessing a potential State law. Engineered designed mitigation geologically hazardous area shall be should be designed by an prepared by a+. ei+reer e geologist licensed engineer in most cases. in the state of Washington, with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience preparing reports for the relevant type of hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary, the report detailing the mitigation measures and design of the mitigation shall be prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington, with experience stabilizing slopes with similar geotechnical properties. Page 21 of 27 Packet Page 935 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision EDCD Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason for Consistency/ Lack of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090 23.80.o5o Special study Section C - Inconsistent Guidance for preparing Add new language consistent with Geology Geology Licensing Board Make suggested change and report requirements with BAS engineering geology reports has Licensing Board; new language will have guidance been prepared by the Geology added benefit of greatly simplifying this Licensing Board section. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Subsection F.2.e - Bluff retreat rate is likely not Add the phrase "or an estimate of the Bluff retreat rate may be Make suggested change, Inconsistent with BAS applicable for most bluffs in percent risk of landslide area expansion" appropriate for some slides, but which keeps the bluff retreat Edmonds in some cases the percent risk of rate phase in place, but adds a expansion of the slide area may second phrase to apply to be a better approach. other bluffs. The bluffs in question all formed by shoreline erosion processes and are over steep due to past landslides having been eroded by waves. That process has been discontinued with the construction of the railroad, but the railroad itself continues to operate as a force of erosion at the toe of these bluff slopes. Each time there is a landslide, the collapsed soil is removed from the toe of the slope so the higher bluffs are still a long way from angle of repose and will continue to retreat. Eventually that will come to an end after enough bluff failures. But the railroad at the base of the slope should not be viewed as a Page 22 of 27 Packet Page 936 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix — August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance protection of the toe as any failures will be removed. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Subsection H. i - There are no known faults in Delete H 1 "The site FAap shall show all No known faults and main Make suggested change Inconsistent with BAS Edmonds known faults purpose is recognizing that and mapped aEtive within 2E)e feet the aYea that have the specific soil types are susceptible of prefect or to be by the to higher risk during seismic potential affected proposal." events 23.80.06o Development Generally consistent with CTED zoo? None; consistent with BAS standards —General BAS and guidance; see requirements ECDC 23.80.070 for details. 23.80.07o Development Subsection A.1- Does not match BAS Setbacks should meet specific criteria to A specific policy value should be Make suggested change standards — Specific Inconsistent with BAS ensure the structure is not at risk for the life set for homes and homes are hazards. of the structure (120 years). Term setback is considered to have a life of 120 used to avoid confusion with buffers such as years. Other values or periods riparian, wetland or habitat buffers. can be used dependent upon policy consistency. Separating setback and buffer terms may reduce potential confusion regarding activities within the buffer. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Subsection A.2 - BAS for geohazards Buffers requirements should be established Buffer requirements will vary and Make suggested change, but Inconsistent with BAS within the geology hazard assessment in some case no restrictions may need replace with a clear report. be needed in the buffer. trigger for City staff during initial application review. Language to be determined during code revision stage. 23.90 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.00o Fish and wildlife Inconsistent Flow chart will need to be Change allowed buffer reduction from 50 Inconsistent with BAS; Internal Make suggested change Page 23 of 27 Packet Page 937 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance habitat conservation areas updated to include change in percent to 25 percent of buffer. Mention consistency with 23.90.040 compliance requirements allowed buffer reductions and buffer reduction with enhancement and flowchart mitigation measures. buffer averaging with enhancement. 23.90.04o Development Section A.3 References outdated rules for Remove Section A.3. for bald eagle habitat. Bald eagles were federally Make suggested change standards— Specific Inconsistent with BAS bald eagles. Habitat protections are still captured under delisted in 2007 and downlisted habitats Section A.2. to a state sensitive species. WAC 232-12-292 has been revised (effective May 29, 2011) Section C Vegetation retention as currently Update retention of vegetation standard to Intent is to provide increased Make suggested changes, with Inconsistent with BAS required is not tied to BAS be: protection offish and wildlife details (including definition of • Applicable only for properties with habitat throughout the Edmonds "existing native vegetation" other critical areas; in areas where it currently established during code • Applicable only to portion of site that remains development. supports existing native vegetation, and • Not applicable for sites with no existing native vegetation. 23.90.04o Development Section D.1. City's standard buffers range Consider increases to standard stream buffer Source: Brennan et al. 2009, May Revise stream buffer widths as standards — Specific Inconsistent with BAS from 25 feet (Type Ns) to 15o feet widths, but at a minimum, increase the 2003, Knutson and Naef 1997 all follows: habitats (Type S). BAS supports wider stream buffer for Type Ns streams to 40 or 50 suggest BAS based buffers wider Type Ns: change from 25 to 40 (continued) standard buffer widths. BAS feet. Mountlake Terrace has the same buffer than those currently required. feet suggests widths from 75 feet to for Type 1 streams (150 feet). Woodways's Recommended approach well over 300 feet to protect a code requires larger standard buffers (250 improves consistency with suite of ecological functions. feet for a Type 1 stream, 50 feet for a Type 4), neighboring jurisdictions such as Upper ranges are likely not but has smaller buffers allowed as minimum Woodway. Alternative strategies feasible given existing platting buffer widths for low impact land uses. to BAS-based buffers can provide and development patterns. Where it is not feasible to achieve BAS- some of the ecological functions recommended buffers due to existing provided by riparian buffers, and Page 24 of 27 Packet Page 938 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance conditions, specific alternative strategies should be considered (especially should be required (e.g., required use of LID, where narrow or reduced buffers elevated mitigation requirements for habitat, are allowed). longer -term maintenance and monitoring). Section D.1. Does not include language Section D.1. Include language regarding Supplemental information to Make suggested change, but Supplemental regarding intact native intact native vegetation and previously improve internal code also need additional discussion Information vegetation and previously disturbed buffers areas so the concept of consistency. of previously developed area. disturbed buffers areas. See buffers will be consistent with the language Language to be developed Section 23.50.0401.1 in Section 23.50.040.F.1 during code revision stage. Section D.2. Stream buffer width reductions Section D.2. Revise section to allow CTED, zoo? Make suggested change Inconsistent greater than 25 percent are not reductions no greater than 25 percent of the supported by BAS. standard buffer width with mitigation. Suggest prioritizing buffer averaging with enhancement before buffer reductions with enhancement. See wetland buffer discussion. 23.90.04o Development Section D.2.c. Requirement for 3 years of Revise Section D.2.c. to require 5 years of CTED, zoo? Make suggested change standards —Specific Inconsistent monitoring. Five years is monitoring. habitats considered the standard (continued) monitoring period. Section D.3 Code appears to allow stream Revise Section D.3. to exclude the term Inconsistent with BAS, User- Make suggested change Inconsistent buffer reduction and averaging. "reduced" in the first sentence. Revise the friendliness. Section D.3. also allows a 50 section to allow buffer averaging reductions CTED, 2007 percent reduction of the standard no greater than 25 percent of the standard buffer with no buffer buffer. Include buffer enhancement and enhancement. performance standards similar to Section D.2. as a requirement for buffer averaging. Suggest prioritizing buffer averaging with enhancement before buffer reductions with enhancement. See wetland buffer discussion. Section D.4 Allows additions to existing Section D.4. See suggested revisions for Inconsistent with BAS. Reduction Make suggested change Inconsistent legally constructed structures wetland buffers in 23.50.040.1-1. beyond the 25 percent standard outside of the inner 25 percent of buffer would be considered an Page 25 of 27 Packet Page 939 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates Existing CAO Provision Degree of Reason for Consistency/ Lack EDCD Chapter / Consistency with BAS of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action Section & Guidance the standard stream buffer. impact and therefore requires mitigation. Source: Bunten et al., 2012; Ecology, 2013. Section D.S. Can strengthen this section with Section D.S. Include provisions: CTED, 2007 Make suggested change Generally consistent but additional requirements that -An alternative alignment or location with can be strengthened protect fish and water quality. less impact is not feasible -The crossing will be designed as near as perpendicular with the water body as possible. Section D.6. Trails should be located along the Section D.6. See recommendation in CTED, 2007 and Make suggested change Inconsistent outer edge of the buffer. See 23.50.040.F. Wetlands and CAO Updates: discussion in 23.50.040.F. Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten et al. 2012) 23.90.04o Development Section D.7. Storm water management Revise D. 7 to include provision to allow CTED, 2007 and Make suggested change standards— Specific Partially Inconsistent facilities should only be allowed stormwater management facilities in the Wetlands and CAO Updates: ESA reviewed new stormwater habitats in the outer 25 percent of the outer 25 percent of the buffer. Guidance for Small Cities. permit requirements and the (continued) buffer Western Washington Version. Stormwater Management Revised October 2012 Ecology Manual for Western Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten Washington Guide Sheet 2 in et al. 2012) App I-D and confirmed that this recommendation is not inconsistent with those standards. Footnotes Page 26 of 27 Packet Page 940 of 1075 City of Edmonds CAO Update — Gap Analysis Matrix —August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates 'Regulatory Guidance Letters 05-02: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_f_rgIO5-oz.pdf and o8-02: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/pdf/RGLo8-02.pdf Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/ Ecology's buffer recommendations (Table XX.i; Ecology, 2014) are based on a moderate -risk approach to protecting wetland functions. Buffer width recommendations in Table XX.1 are based on the assumption that the buffer is well -vegetated with native species. A recent synthesis regarding buffer functions and required widths, titled Update on Wetland Buffers: State of the Science (Hruby, 2013), recommends an approach to buffer widths based on buffer functions. Adequate performance of key buffer functions typically require the average buffer width ranges (depending on the site and landscape setting): soo feet to s,000 feet for wildlife, 30 to soo feet for sediment removal, soo-18o feet for nitrogen removal, and 30 to soo feet for phosphorus removal (Environmental Law Institute, 2oo8 in Hruby, 2013). Recent research indicates that fixed -width buffers may not adequately address issues of habitat fragmentation and population dynamics; rather, buffer widths and fragmentation are only two of many variables that affect wildlife population dynamics (Hruby, 2013). Surrounding land use, plant community structure, intensity of human disturbance are additional factors that affect wetland -dependent species (Hruby, 2013). Water quality and quantity factors may also be influenced by adjacent pollution sources and stormwater inputs. Measures included in Table XX.z are intended to further minimize the impact of these factors. 'Recent buffer synthesis (Ecology, 2013) confirms that buffer width requirements for wildlife need to be targeted at the species of interest and their life requirements. Uplands surrounding a wetland can serve as critical habitat for certain species, termed "core habitat" (Hruby, 2013). The concept of core habitat expands the idea of the wetland buffer from simply protecting the wetland to protecting the species in the upland (Hruby, 2013). Page 27 of 27 Packet Page 941 of 1075 r �� 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www.esassoc.com r Suite 200 J Seattle, WA 98107 J 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax memorandum date October 22, 2015 to City of Edmonds City Council Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds Planning Division from Aaron Booy, ESA subject Edmonds CAO Update — Rationale for Proposed Development Flexibilities The City of Edmonds is in the process of updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA; RCW 36.70A). City Planning Division staff and the Planning Board completed development and review of the Proposed CAO Code Updates (Proposed CAO), with Planning Board forwarding a recommended redline/strikethrough version to the City Council on July 22, 2015. The purpose of this memorandum is to highlight several development allowances proposed by staff within the Proposed CAO that are not entirely consistent with Ecology guidance, discuss applicable "best available science" (BAS) related to these provisions, and to provide rationale for including these provisions as flexibilities for specific development activities. CAO Update and Best Available Science Background In 2005, the City completed a comprehensive update to the CAO in 2005, with BAS documented in The City of Edmonds 2004 Best Available Science Report (EDAW, 2004). To ensure consideration of BAS since 2004, in 2015 the City contracted with environmental consulting firm Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to assess BAS focused on considerations and changes for critical areas protection that have emerged from recent regulatory agency guidance, regional and local studies, and other scientific information published in the last 11 years (The City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance Update —Best Available Science Addendum, ESA, March 2015)1. The GMA requires that Edmonds designates and protects critical areas functions and values. As part of developing protections, GMA requires the consideration of BAS during its update (RCW 36.70A.172 and WAC 365-195-915). The State provides specific guidance for how BAS should be included in developing critical areas protections, including allowances for use of "nonscientific information" as a basis for departure from recommendations derived from BAS. For such instances, guidance indicates that jurisdictions should: • Identify information that supports the departure from BAS recommendations; • Explain rationale for departing from BAS recommendations; and • Identify potential risks to the functions and values of the critical area or areas at issue and any additional measures chosen to limit such risks. (WAC 365-195-915) 1 All references cited within this Memorandum are included in the References section of the Best Available Science Addendum. Packet Page 942 of 1075 Edmonds CAO Update — Rationale for Proposed Regulatory Flexibilities October 22, 2015 The guidance provides limited flexibility in the consideration of BAS based upon specific local conditions. While ESA does not believe that the proposed development allowances summarized in this memorandum are complete departures from the protection measures and standards recommended by published scientific literature, they have been identified by Ecology2 as inconsistent with Ecology guidance for critical areas management. As such, this memorandum has been prepared for the City to be consistent with guidance from WAC 365-195-916. Proposed Flexibilities for Specific Development Activities As noted within the 2004 BAS Report, Edmonds is unique when compared to many other Puget Sound jurisdictions in two notable ways: 1) Almost all parcels have some existing development; and 2) Historical development practices (predating CAO standards) have resulted in many streams and wetlands with minimal or no buffer. There are many instances where the existing areas adjacent to streams and wetlands do not support native vegetation, and instead are currently landscaped with lawn, ornamental shrubs, or paved areas. Historical development has also resulted in the culverting of streams, even where not necessary for right-of-way crossings (examples on Northstream, Hindley Creek, Shell Creek, and Willows Creek, as documented within Pentec Environmental's 2002 Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment). Early in the current CAO Update effort, Planning Division staff identified development requests/activities that have often been difficult to review under the existing CAO standards (as codified through Chapters 23.50 and 23.90 ECDC). These circumstances primarily have to do with existing, legally established development occurring adjacent to wetlands and/or streams. For these areas, applying large buffers that extend into previously developed areas offers no additional protection for the City's wetlands or streams, and instead creates challenges associated with evaluating modifications to existing, nonconforming uses and variances from critical areas standards. Planning Division staff worked with ESA to develop new strategies and refine existing strategies that provide limited allowances for expansion and/or redevelopment of historically developed properties, while ensuring that where these allowances are used that mitigation will be provided. The intent of these allowances is to not only provide flexibility for limited expansion of structures on existing developed lots, but also to require mitigation so that the City's critical area and critical area buffers are enhanced over existing conditions. Through this approach, the Proposed CAO is intended improve conditions in riparian buffers along streams and wetland overtime as well as ensure protection of critical areas functions and values, consistent with GMA requirements. The following sections detail Proposed CAO provisions that provide allowances for historically developed properties, and that are not entirely consistent with Ecology guidance as provided in Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012) and other sources (cited below). Documentation of these allowances for specific development activities is provided consistent with State guidance (WAC 365-195-915). Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffer Areas — ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 Summary: This update to the CAO allows flexibility for development of areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established roadways, existing paved trails 12 feet or more in width, or other legally established existing structures or paved areas 12 feet or more in width that are located between the area in question and the stream or wetland. Under the amendment, these areas may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated from the stream or wetland, and not be subject to the 2 Draft Proposed Update to Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapters 23.40 and 23.50) comment letter, provided to the City on August 19, 2015 from Doug Gresham (Wetland Specialist with Ecology's Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program) 2 Packet Page 943 of 1075 Edmonds CAO Update — Rationale for Proposed Regulatory Flexibilities October 22, 2015 standard stream and wetland buffer provisions. In these cases, the portion of the buffer abutting the stream or wetland will still be protected and managed, but the outer physically separated and functionally isolated buffer would not be considered part of the protected buffer. This provision is intended for use solely on existing development. What does BAS say? — The Ecology report Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report (Hruby, 2013) confirms that buffers perform important water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions. While most standards related to stream and wetland buffers are focused on buffer width, BAS indicates that many other factors (vegetation density, soil composition, stormwater management, and adjacent land -use) influence the effectiveness of buffers in protecting the associated critical area (CTED, 2007; Knight, 2009). There is no BAS that directly supports or provides criteria for determining when existing modification makes an adjacent area physically separated and functionally isolated. That said, existing interruptions in surrounding buffers is one of the primary criteria used to evaluate the habitat functional value of wetlands under the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). Where existing development results in physical separation and functional isolation between a stream or wetland and adjacent area, it is clear that the functional value of maintaining the adjacent area as buffer is negligible or eliminated. What is the rationale? — The proposed amendment is intended to allow for future development/redevelopment in physically separated and functionally isolated areas where such activity would have no impact on the nearby stream or wetland. These circumstances, highlighted by the residential example provided during the September 8th presentation to City Council, occur commonly in Edmonds. Additionally, from ESA's experience there are many Puget Sound jurisdictions that in practice will stop stream and/or wetland buffers along existing roadways or other linear developed features that result in physical separation and functional isolation. For most of these jurisdictions, the determination is made on a case -by -case basis without any specific, documented criteria available. By codifying the proposed criteria for development within physically separated and functionally isolated areas, Edmonds is providing clear expectations as to the specific circumstances where this allowance could apply. What are potential risks, and what are proposed measures to limit risk? — Risks associated with this proposed allowance are primarily associated with misinterpretation and over -application during project review and permitting. This provision is not intended to be applied broadly without consideration of specific on -site conditions. The proposed regulation minimizes this risk by providing clear criteria as to what existing, legally established structures are applicable to this allowance, including providing a 12 foot minimum width as recommended through Planning Board review. The allowance additionally states that the "director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated" (Proposed CAO 23.40.220.C.4). To further limit risk of misinterpretation, the Planning Division also recommends including the following additional language within the physically separated and functionally isolated buffer allowance: 4. Development Proposals ... ... shall be allowed in these areas. The director may require a site assessment and functional analysis documentation by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated. In determining whether an area is physically separated and functionally isolated from the adjacent stream or wetland, the director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the interruption. Packet Page 944 of 1075 Edmonds CAO Update — Rationale for Proposed Regulatory Flexibilities October 22, 2015 Wetland and Stream Buffer Width Reduction through Buffer Enhancement — ECDC 23.50.040.G.4 and ECDC 23.90.040.D.2 Summary: This update to the CAO maintains the existing allowance for Category III and IV wetland and stream buffer width reduction (with enhancement); however, further limits applicability to those situations where wetland and stream buffer averaging (with enhancement) is not feasible due to site constraints, and reduces the maximum reduction from 50% to 25% of the standard buffer width. Criteria are augmented to ensure that buffer enhancement included as part of the proposed buffer reduction will ensure that wetland and stream functions and values are increased or retained through plan implementation. What does BAS say? — BAS provided in recent Ecology guidance does not explicitly support reduction of standard buffers. These guidance materials include Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report (Hruby, 2013), Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology, Corps, and EPA, 2006a), Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, (Granger et al., 2005), and Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012). In summary, buffer averaging without loss of overall buffer area is preferred at the state level. That said, Hruby, 2013 and other Ecology materials do detail the range in buffer widths that are suggested by BAS, with widths needed for protection of amphibian and/or bird core habitats ranging from 130 feet to greater than 1,000 feet. For protection of water quality functions, BAS also suggests a relatively broad range of buffer widths, and more recent BAS has documented the importance of buffer condition (including vegetation species, density and spacing, soil characteristics, and surface/groundwater flow paths) alongside buffer width in maintaining water quality functions (Hruby, 2013). Review of the variable buffer widths suggested by BAS, and the influence of buffer conditions and surrounding development, suggests that alternative strategies beyond just fixed -width buffers may be useful to maintain wetland functions and values. What is the rationale? — The proposed amendment maintains the CAO allowance for limited wetland and stream buffer reduction with buffer enhancement, providing flexibility for new development or redevelopment on highly constrained parcels. Maintaining this flexibility is recommended by Edmonds Planning Division staff and the Planning Board, as it provides options for allowable use of constrained parcels and will result in improved conditions along the City's streams and wetlands by requiring enhancement within the riparian buffer remaining. What are potential risks, and what are proposed measures to limit risk? — Risks associated with this proposed allowance are primarily associated with misinterpretation and/or over -application through project review and permitting. If buffer reduction were to be approved for wetlands and streams with intact buffer conditions, such reduction would result in lost functions. To limit this risk, the proposed amendment provides specific criteria highlighting when buffer reduction would be allowed. New restrictions require that buffer averaging with buffer enhancement be the preferred approach for buffer width modification. Only on constrained sites, where the standard buffer or averaged buffer is not feasible, will buffer reduction be an option. Further, criteria detail that buffer reduction with enhancement must result in increased or retained functions and values. In practice, this means that buffer reduction would not be allowed for wetlands and streams surrounded by an intact, native vegetation community that extends throughout the full width of the standard wetland or stream buffer. Critical Area Restoration Projects — ECDC 23.40.215 Summary: The new section within the Proposed CAO would provide flexibilities for stream-daylighting and wetland creation/expansion projects that are completed as elective restoration (not required as mitigation for critical areas impacts). Flexibilities would allow for reduced buffers to be applied for these projects, with 4 Packet Page 945 of 1075 Edmonds CAO Update — Rationale for Proposed Regulatory Flexibilities October 22, 2015 reduction up to 75% of the applicable standard buffer width allowed automatically. Reduction up to 50% would be allowed when documented that the restoration project would be: • Infeasible without the addition reduction due to site constraints, including use of the property for existing or permitted uses; • The minimum buffer reduction necessary to achieve the restoration project; • A net environmental benefit; and • Consistent with purposes of the City's critical area regulations What does BAS say? — BAS provided in recent Ecology guidance does not explicitly support reduction of standard stream or wetland buffers, even for restoration projects (Granger et al., 2005; Ecology, Corps, and EPA, 2006a; Bunten et al., 2012). Ecology guidance does support provisions to facilitate elective restoration of streams and wetlands, including relaxing and/or streamlining some critical areas requirements; however notes that protections must still be provided as part of restoration projects that adequately maintain functions associated with the establish / re-established critical area (Granger et al., 2005). Further, WDFW is currently focused on removal of fish passage barriers (primarily culverts) as a high priority for salmon recovery3. Prioritizing the restoration of streams over the ability to provide standard buffers within urban areas appears to be consistent with the science as long as the restoration project serves to improve salmonid habitat overall (Knight, 2009). What is the rationale? — The proposed restoration projects section is modeled after the Washington State Shoreline Management Act provision (RCW 90.58.580) that grants relief for shoreline restoration projects from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations. This proposed new allowance is intended to avoid placing undue restrictions on opportunities for stream daylighting and/or wetland creation that could result if standard buffers are required, and thus providing a disincentive for implementing restoration projects. The City Planning Division believes these projects would result in environmental and social value for the community, and wants to provide flexibilities that facilitate restoration projects. As an example, the City is currently underway in preliminary design and permitting activities for lower Willow Creek daylighting. This Type F stream is piped from Edmonds Marsh to its outlet at Marina Beach Park (1,600 feet). Application of the standard 100 foot buffer on both stream banks throughout areas to be daylighted would encroach on existing marina, public roadway, railroad corridor, and public park uses that occur along the piped route of the stream. Converting these existing, developed uses to vegetated buffer throughout a 200 foot corridor would result in a high economic and social cost, and could make the project unfeasible. Proposed buffer flexibilities for restoration efforts are intended to provide reasonable allowances to facilitate stream daylighting and wetland creation efforts, resulting in environmental, social and economic benefits. What are potential risks, and what are proposed measures to limit risk? — Risks associated with this proposed allowance include future stream segments and wetlands (established or re-established through restoration efforts) with relatively narrow vegetated buffers. This risk is primarily balanced by proposed criteria that are intended to ensure that the widest buffer possible is provided, and that in no case a buffer would be allowed below 50% of the applicable standard buffer width. There is little risk associated with inappropriate application of this allowance for buffer reduction, as the criteria within new section ECDC 23.40.215 are only applicable to elective stream daylighting and wetland creation/expansion restoration projects. These specific restoration projects would be reviewed carefully by staff under this proposed code section. 3 WDFW's Fish Passage Program website highlights the importance of fish passage barrier removal/stream restoration to salmon and steelhead recovery across Washington (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/habitat/fish passage) 5 Packet Page 946 of 1075 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office . 3190160' Avenue SE . Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 . (425) 649-7000 October 29, 2015 Kemen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 51h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Proposed Update to Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapters 23.40 and 23.50) Dear Mr. Lien: We recently provided two comment letters on these updates to the City of Edmonds municipal code. Our comments were based on best available science (BAS) and current Ecology guidance, such as Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Our main concern was that the provisions for allowing buffer reduction with enhancement would not adequately protect wetland resources in the City. The City has provided additional information through a memorandum prepared by ESA dated October 22, 2015. This memorandum provided a thorough explanation of the rationale for these wetland buffer reductions. In light of this explanation, Ecology offers our support of the critical area ordinance updates being considered for adoption by the City Council. If you have any questions or would like to discuss my comments, please give me a call at (425) 649-7199 or send an email to Doug. Greshamkecy.wa. _ og_v. Sincerely, Doug Gresham, PWS Wetland Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program DG: awp cc: Paul Anderson, Donna Bunten, Department of Ecology William Simpson, Department of Commerce Packet Page 947 of 1075 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office . 3190160' Avenue SE . Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 . (425) 649-7000 January 12, 2016 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Edmonds City Council 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Amendment to Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.40) Dear Ms. Fraley-Monillas: We learned that the Edmonds City Council is deliberating on proposed amendments to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.40Environmentally Critical Areas). We believe one proposed amendment should not be approved, and we wish to elaborate on a comment in our letter to Senior Planner Kemen Lien from October 26, 2015. Specifically, we wish to comment on the amendment to strike subsection B.3 (Chapter 23.40.215) allowing a restoration project to reduce the standard buffer between 50 percent and 75 percent if certain conditions are met. We respectfully ask that you consider the following comments during your deliberations and that these comments be entered into the record. In previous comments (August 20, 2015, and October 26, 2015) on proposed updates to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), we expressed concerns that the provision for allowing buffer reduction at restoration projects would not adequately protect wetland resources. Our comments were based on best available science and current Ecology guidance, such as Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, for typical development projects. Restoration projects, however, are not typical development; they provide a net environmental benefit by restoring or increasing ecological function. This functional lift can be especially beneficial in urban settings where habitat is fragmented and patches tend to be smaller. In recognition of the value of restoration in urban landscapes and the limited restoration opportunities, in 2009 the Washington State Legislature amended the Shoreline Management Act (see RCW 90.58.580) to encourage urban restoration. This amendment allows local jurisdictions to grant relief from shoreline permitting requirements when a restoration project causes a landward shift of the ordinary high water mark. Allowing a reduction in the standard buffer is a similar approach to encouraging restoration; not implementing a restoration project because of Packet Page 948 of 1075 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas January 12, 2016 Page 2 inadequate buffers would be an unfortunate loss of opportunities for environmental improvement. In light of these considerations, as well as subsequent discussions with City Planning Division staff and review of a memorandum prepared by ESA (dated October 22, 2015) that provided an explanation of the rationale for these wetland buffer reductions, we respectfully request that the proposed amendment related to buffers on restoration sites (subsection B.3, Chapter 23.40.215) be stricken. The language in the draft (dated October 19, 2015) of the CAO should be retained as written. We believe the environmental benefit of restoration outweighs the potential loss of buffer width, and there should not be a disincentive to voluntary restoration. If you have any questions or would like to discuss my comments, please give me a call at (425) 649-7199, or send an email to Doug. Greshamgecy.wa. og_v. Sincerely, Doug Gresham, PWS Wetland Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program DG:awp Cc: Paul Anderson, Donna Bunten, Department of Ecology William Simpson, Department of Commerce Packet Page 949 of 1075 Packet Page 950 of 1075 negotiated an agreement with the property owner in lieu of him filing a lawsuit in an attempt to settle any claim with the City. The City worked with a consultant to design a remedy; most of it will exist on private property but will connect to the City's stormwater system in the street. The property owner will hire a contractor to build it, the City will inspect it and as long as all the improvements are built in accordance with expectations, the City will pay the property owner for the City's portion of the project and he will release the City from future liability and maintenance on the improvements that will be on his property. Staff worked with the City Attorney's office on the agreement; it is a good resolution, keeps costs down to the City and the homeowner. Councilmember Petso asked if this would ordinarily be discussed in executive session instead of in open session. Mr. Taraday answered there is no ordinary as this is a fairly unusual agreement. Mr. Williams said this is the first agreement of this type. Councilmember Petso said the design is for a 25-year storm event; her understanding is a 25-year storm event occurs far more frequently than every 25 years and a bigger storm event such as a 100-year storm even could occur. She asked whether the property owner was okay with designing for a 25-year storm event. Mr. Williams answered yes, and that is the proper level of design, the same that most of the City's storm system is designed to. Designing to 100-year storm events the pipes become enormous, the basins are huge and it is not cost effective. The latest data was used in calculating the design for a 25-year storm event and a fair amount of conservatism is built in. In addition, some of the upstream drainage has been rerouted in another direction which should lessen the load on this channel by a noticeable amount. He was confident what was designed would be successful. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week's Consent Agenda. E. INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained review of the critical area regulations began in late 2014. In June he provided a precursor of some items being discussed by the Planning Board. Over the past year, the Planning Board has reviewed the critical area regulations over five meetings and at their July 22 forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. Tonight is an introduction; because the critical area regulations can be technical, another work session in scheduled in two weeks followed by a public hearing. Aaron Booy, ESA, advised Jim Keany, ESA was also present tonight to answer questions. They have been supported by a geologist with the Stratton Group. He reviewed the background and purpose • GMA (1990) requires identification, designation, and protection of critical areas • Purpose of the CAO (CAO) is to protect: o Natural environment o Public health and safety o Once lost, function and value of critical areas very difficult to restore. • Existing CAO —established from comprehensive update in 2004 and 2005 He described what critical areas are: • Frequently flooded areas • Geologically hazardous areas o Landslide, erosion, seismic hazards) • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) o Streams o Habitat for listed and sensitive fish and wildlife species o Lakes < 20 acres • Wetlands Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 11 Packet Page 951 of 1075 He reviewed how the CAO protects critical areas: • Prohibiting, limiting and/or allowing certain activities • Requiring buffers or setbacks around critical areas o Landslide and erosion hazards o Wetlands o FWHCAs (streams) • Requiring avoidance and minimization of impacts • Requiring mitigation sequencing for impacts o Avoidance o Minimization/reduction o Rectification o Compensation (for unavoidable impacts) o Monitoring He described the CAO update process: • GMA requires cities to update CAOs on the same 8-year Comprehensive Plan update timeline • Consideration of Best Available Science (BAS) Revise code o Public participation and review ■ July 22: Planning Board recommended update ■ Today: City Council review process initiated Adopt revised Code He described what BAS is: • Research and guidance o Conducted by qualified individuals o Documented methodologies o Verifiable results and conclusions Published bibliographies; state guidance; primary research publications 1995 Amendment to the GMA requires consideration of "best available science" for protecting critical areas Mr. Booy reviewed the BAS Review and Update: • BAS addendum (March 2015) o Companion to 2004 BAS Report (EDAW) o Focused on new science and guidance in last decade • Wetlands o Delineation and rating o Buffer approach o Alternative mitigation strategies; mitigation guidance • Floodplains o Climate change o Coastal flood zones • Geological hazardous areas o North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Area Summary Report (Landau 2007) o Newly available LiDAR data • FWHCAs o Buffer approach o Habitat connectivity Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 12 Packet Page 952 of 1075 Mr. Lien referred to Exhibit 2, 2015 BAS addendum and Exhibit 5, BAS and Gap Analysis Matrix. He reviewed revisions to the CAO: Geologically hazardous areas o Revising how landslide hazard areas are defined o Updating geological report requirements o Setbacks and buffers determined by geotechnical report Wetlands — ECDC 23.50 o Updating delineation manuals o Revising Wetland Categories Consistent with latest criteria o Buffer widths being revised consistent with Ecology's guidance for small jurisdictions (Ecology Publication #10-06-002) o Mitigation Ratios per Ecology guidance (Ecology Publication #10-06-011) o Stream and wetland buffer reduction ■ CAO allows buffer reduction via buffer reduction or buffer averaging ■ Current code allows buffer reduction to be combined with buffer averaging ■ New code does not allow them to be combined, only one allowed with buffering averaging preferred Small Isolated Wetlands (changed from exempt wetlands) o ECDC 23.50.040.J o Based on language in the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions o Category III and IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet o Exempt from buffer provisions o Not subject to avoidance o May be altered if lost functions are replaced o Added habitat score He identified changes proposed to ECDC 23.90.040.0 • Requires retention or establishment of a minimum of 30 percent native vegetation on undeveloped or redeveloped property within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones due to the prevalence of critical areas in those zones • Similar to a King County provision that was struck down by the courts (Citizens Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims) • Provide more definition to specific habitat features to be retained o Indigenous species o Native trees of 10 inches dbh makeup more than 70% canopy coverage • Provisions may be waived for properties that do not support native vegetation Mr. Lien explained Edmonds was developed in a large part before any critical area regulations or environmental regulations were adopted. He provided an aerial image of a stream between two houses and a photograph of the actual stream, noting this situation exists throughout the City. This particular stream came to staff s attention when a house two parcels away from the stream was prevented from constructing an addition because it was within the stream buffer. He recalled 1-2 years ago the Council considered an interim ordinance regarding physically separated and functionally isolated buffers and development within the developed footprint. The ordinance stalled at the Planning Board and was put on hold anticipating the critical areas update. He reviewed a new section within Allowed Activities, ECDC 23.40.20.C.4 that would allow development outright on: • Site separated from a critical area by legally established roads, trails and structures 12 feet or more in width may be physically separated and functionally isolated • The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to make the determination Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 13 Packet Page 953 of 1075 He described changes with regard to development within the previously developed footprint: • Allow development within the legally established footprint of development • "Footprint of Existing Development" definition 23.40.320 o "The area of a site that contains legally established buildings, concrete, asphalt, gravel, paved roads, parking lots, storage areas or other paved areas, driveways, walkways, outdoor swimming pools and patios." • Site new development as far away from critical area as possible • Enhancement required at a ratio of 1:1 Using the photograph and aerial image he described a hypothetical addition of a 600 square foot garage on the graved area adjacent to the stream, noting it would meet the definition of a previously developed area. The addition would require a 600 square foot enhancement of the stream buffer. The intent of the footprint of existing development was to have critical areas enhanced. In this instance if the 75 foot buffer was strictly applied and no development was allowed, the stream buffer would not be enhanced. The addition would not cause any more harm and allowing some development in the previously developed footprint would improve streams and wetlands throughout the City in the long run. He reviewed changes to the code regarding additions: • Additions to existing structures within a buffer that increase the footprint of development • Outside the inner 25% of buffer o No more than 300 square feet addition within the inner 50% ■ Mitigate at a ratio of 3:1 o No more than 500 square feet additional within the inner 50% ■ Mitigate at a ratio of 5:1 He described changes regarding frequently flooded areas: • Currently regulated by building code Title 19 ECDC • Include new flood zones (Zones V and VE) • Amend ECDC 19.00.025 requiring structures within the coastal flood hazard zones to be constructed two feet above base flood elevation o New FEMA flood zone map expands the flood zone along within the waterfront area o Natural Resource Council 2012 study predicts an average sea level rise of 2 feet by 2100. He commented on height implications of the requirement for structures to be constructed two feet above the base flood elevation: Requiring structures to be constructed above the base flood elevation will impact overall allowable height as allowed by zoning Maximum allowable height is measured from an average level of undisturbed soil Modified definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030 so structures within the coastal flood zones measure height from two feet above base flood elevation New section added to critical area regulations: • ECDC 23.40.215 - Critical areas restoration projects o Provide relief from standard critical area buffer for restoration projects that is not required as mitigation for a development proposal o Restoration project involve: ■ The daylighting of a stream, or ■ Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or wetland buffer Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 14 Packet Page 954 of 1075 He described restoration project relief: • May apply a buffer that is not less than 75% of the standard buffer to the restoration project boundary • Request a buffer between 50% and 7% of standard buffer if- * 75% buffer would significantly limit use of the property o Minimum necessary to achieve restoration project o There will be a net environmental benefit o Granting relief is consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations Mr. Lien reviewed next steps: • Comments from state and tribal agencies (Commerce, Ecology, WDFW) • September 22 City Council work session • October 6 City Council public hearing • Consideration for adoption Councilmember Buckshnis commended Mr. Lien on his presentation. She asked him to describe the relationship between the Shoreline Management Program (SMP) and the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Mr. Lien explained the CAO is an outgrowth of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the SMP is an outgrowth of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA); the two do not mesh. Within shoreline jurisdiction, 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, the SMA rules; outside that area, the CAO rules. He recalled during the SMP update, certain areas of the existing critical area regulations were excepted out and provisions included in the SMP. One of the main provisions was regarding wetlands and Ecology requested the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions be included. Ecology is in the process of reviewing the City's SMP and are about to send comments to the City. This CAO update addresses a lot of Ecology's concerns with the CAO. As changes are considered for the SMP, he suggested incorporating the updated CAO. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if BAS addresses temperature change. She referred to a newspaper article by King County Councilmember Larry Phillips regarding how the increase in stream temperature affects fish, habitat, etc. Mr. Lien answered one of the functions of stream buffers is to provide shade. Mr. Booy agree with Mr. Lien, ensuring buffers are adequate to provide a forested canopy that provides adequate shade to the stream is the primary consideration. That was considered when the City's buffers were evaluated against buffer guidance within BAS. The fact that Edmonds is a built out urban area, ensuring residents are able to use their property and not creating a lot of nonconforming structures must be balanced with BAS and guidance for providing riparian habitat along streams. They concluded the stream buffers in the City's existing regulations are adequate for providing an adequate, relative large buffer, 75 — 100 feet for streams with salmon. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the mitigation approach and things the director can require and asked if that director is Shane Hope. Mr. Lien answered yes, it refers to the Development Services Director. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the review is administrative and asked if ever reaches the legislative level. Mr. Lien answered not usually, an appeal of a critical area variance application could come to Council on a closed record review. Councilmember Petso pointed out the BAS document does not seem to support the physically separated and functionally isolated exception and in fact on page 6 it admits it does not support it. She asked staff and the consultant to show where the science supported that type of exception. Her interpretation of the science was that bigger buffers were better and when there were imperfect buffers, the buffer should be even larger. Mr. Lien read from page 6, in highly developed communities such as Edmonds, standard buffer widths may be difficult to achieve. As noted in the 2014 BAS report, many streams and wetland buffers extend into residential yards that have been previously developed and provide limited function in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 15 Packet Page 955 of 1075 terms of wetland protection. Furthermore, some buffers are substantially developed and contain impervious surface in commercial and residential areas. While not explicitly stated in BAS and buffer guidance documents, a scientific judgment of these areas would conclude that they do not provide the same function and value as a vegetated or undeveloped buffer due to physical separation. Mr. Lien pointed out one of issues with BAS is where it was conducted. In large part buffer studies are conducted in areas where buffers actually exist such as rural areas. There is no specific peer reviewed study that looked at a physically separated and functionally isolated buffer but a buffer is something that's adjacent to a critical area and provides value. When it is physically separated and functionally isolated, by definition, it is not providing those values. He concluded the BAS report does address physically separated and functionally isolate buffers. Critical area regulations need to be balanced with the reality on the ground. Councilmember Petso referred to the in -lieu -of fee for mitigation, finding the BAS report more or less says that doesn't work and provides a lot of examples where it has failed. She asked why that would be started in Edmonds. Mr. Lien disagreed the BAS report said that; what fails with regarding to mitigation is requiring mitigation on sites that are not appropriate for mitigation. The fee in lieu of would allow off site mitigation. Washington State Department of Ecology established wetland banking for offsite mitigation, basically a fee in lieu of program, State sponsored banks, where an enhanced wetland is created and credits established and development at another location can buy credits for that bank. Councilmember Petso asked if any the methods allowed mitigation to occur outside the City. Mr. Lien said no, offsite mitigation should occur within same drainage basin. In the example of wetland banks, it could occur outside the City but the likelihood of that happening was slim because wetland banks are usually set up within a certain basin. Edmonds was not likely to be in the service area of one of the larger banks. Councilmember Petso referred to Table XXI regarding proposed new buffer widths where the buffer is based on the category and width is added based on habitat values. She asked why some pages were not included in the ordinance. Mr. Lien clarified she was referring to the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions which was not included in the Council packet. Table XXI lists a number of wetland types; Category 1 wetlands include bogs, natural heritage wetland, forested wetland, none of which exist in Edmonds. The only Category 1 wetland identified in the 2004 BAS is the Edmonds Marsh which is an estuarine wetland. Councilmember Petso said it appeared it may apply to the marsh. Mr. Lien agreed that was the only Category 1 that applied to Edmonds and it could be added. Councilmember Petso observed the buffer is 150 feet which is significant different if that section is not included. Councilmember Petso referred to incentives for critical area restoration and asked whether other cities have done that successfully. Mr. Lien answered not that he was aware of. He based that on the SMA provisions and not wanting to discourage a restoration project. He clarified that is not for mitigation projects required for development but rather something that is being because someone wants to do a restoration project. Councilmember Petso expressed concern it may not be written as tightly as it should; for example it appeared if she agreed to expand a wetland near her property by one inch, she automatically got a 75% reduced buffer which did not seem to match the intent. Mr. Lien offered to research. Councilmember Nelson referred to page 5 of the Gap Analysis Matrix, 23.40.220 Allowed Activities and removal of invasive species, where it is proposed to add, "the application of herbicides, pesticides... or other hazardous substances, if necessary..." He asked the rationale for adding that. Mr. Booy answered per WDFW, Ecology, and King County guidelines for controlling invasive species, some are noxious and persistent enough that chemical treatment is the recommended and preferred strategy such as Japanese Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 16 Packet Page 956 of 1075 Knotweed, Canary Grass, and Himalayan Blackberry. There are very tight guidelines regarding how herbicides are applied to complete maintenance activities such as ensuring the herbicides are safe within an aquatic environment. Councilmember Nelson asked whether the invasive species is more harmful than the herbicide. Mr. Booy answered there is a balance; looking at the long term health of the system, if the invasive species can be replaced with a native, forested community a lot more habitat value is provided. Focused on habitat functions of the system, there is a reasonable expectation that there would be long term good as long as the invasive species removal activities are consistent with available guidance. Councilmember Nelson referred to page 24 of the Gap Analysis Matrix where the bald eagle is removed because it has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act. He noted one of the things that nearly wiped out bald eagles was pesticides. There is no reference to state and federal regulations that require conferring with WDFW if development is done within 660 feet of a nest. Mr. Lien explained in the existing code the bald eagle section 23.90.040 was specifically related to endangered, threatened and sensitive species; the bald eagle no longer falls into that category. The regulations no longer apply since the bald eagle was delisted. Councilmember Nelson referred to the WDFW website which stated although the bald eagle is no longer listed as state threatened specifies, it is still remains classified by WDFW as a state sensitive species and because they are still vulnerable and may continue to decline, cities and counties may continue to protect eagles under local critical area rules pursuant to the GMA. Mr. Lien agreed the City had that option. There used to be 3-4 nests in Edmonds; in the past when development was proposed within that area, developers were referred to the State for regulation. Since the bald eagle was delisted, this section of the code has not been applied. Mr. Booy offered to research, noting in projects outside of Edmonds they have looked at eagle nests through the WDFW requirements for certain kinds of activities such as pile driving. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers refer any substantive questions to Mr. Lien prior to the next work session. Councilmember Mesaros suggested Council be provided the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board's list of noxious weeds. He asked if there were other lists of noxious weeds. Mr. Lien explained the noxious weed list the City uses is the Snohomish County Noxious Weed Board's list because the State Noxious Weed Board delegates to the County. With regard to the bald eagle, Councilmember Mesaros suggested the code refer to the State regulations. Mr. Lien encouraged Councilmembers to contact him with any specific issues they want addressed at the September 22 meeting. He will provide additional information regarding bald eagles and restoration projects. Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers to refer questions to Mr. Lien as only 60 minutes is scheduled for this item on September 22. F. PRESENTATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH QUIET ZONE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE WAYSIDE HORN PROJECT Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City solicited Requests for Qualifications/Proposals and received three responses. A selection committee reviewed the responses and recommends Quiet Zone Technologies as the preferred vendor. This is a professional services agreement as well as a design/build. QZT will do the design of a trackside warming system at Dayton and Main Streets, a highly directional sound generator that mimic railroad horns but in a small footprint that does not spread to the community and reduces the footprint of the noise. It will be a welcome addition to Edmonds for anyone who lives or recreates near the railroad tracks. The agreement for approximately $208,000 includes a management reserve which can only be used by the vendor if specific tasks are authorized by the City. QZT's portion of the contract is approximately $189,000 split between the design and construction phases. The 2015 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 17 Packet Page 957 of 1075 Councilmember Bloom observed the cost of the Sunset Avenue Walkway had increased from $1.9 million to $2.35. Mr. Williams answered until the scope of the project is known, the cost is unknown. A number was developed quite a long time ago associated with a full size Sunset Avenue Walkway that included a raised, decorative pathway all along the west side of the street. The project will likely look different than original scope, be less expensive and robust with fewer improvements and concentrated on the two ends. He did not see the cost estimate being particularly relevant but it could be reduced if the Council wished. Councilmember Bloom asked if the goal was to have that decision made before the Council votes on the CIP/CFP. Mr. Williams answered the cost estimate would not be changed unless the Council requested. The exact scope of the project will not be completed by the time the CIP/CFP is adopted. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. E. CONTINUED REVIEW OF CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the second in-depth review with the Council of the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) update. As he did not receive any questions from Councilmembers as a result of the first review, he will highlight a few items in the update. He described critical area restoration projects: • New Section ECDC 23.40.215 • Provide relief from standard critical area buffer for restoration projects that is not required as mitigation for a development proposal • Restoration Project involves: o The day -lighting of a stream, or o Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or wetland buffer In response to a Council comment at the previous meeting, whether the restoration provisions were tight enough and whether a 1-inch expansion of a wetland would allow a substantially reduced buffer, the restoration project relief was amended slightly: • Expanded buffer: that portion of the stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result of the restoration project (not associated with a development proposal) • May apply a buffer that is not less than 75% of the expanded buffer • Request a buffer between 50% and 75% of expanded buffer if- * 75% buffer would significantly limit use of the property o Minimum necessary to achieve restoration project o There will be a net environmental benefit o Granting relief is consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations Mr. Lien provided a drawing of an example of an existing wetland with a 50 buffer, expanded buffer and a 75% relief buffer. He reviewed changes made in response to a comment at the September 8 presentation that the estuarine wetland buffer was missing from the wetland buffer categories: • Added Category I — Estuarine Wetland Buffers to ECDC 23.50.040.F • Modified Category III wetland buffers to be consistent with the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions He reviewed changes made in response to a comment at the September 8 presentation regarding Bald Eagle habitat: • Existing provisions under Endangered, Threaten, and Sensitive Species o References WAC 232-12-292 o Only applies when threatened or endangered in Washington State • Added new section ECDC 23.90.040.E referencing Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 16 Packet Page 958 of 1075 Mr. Lien highlighted changes related to critical area report and determinations: • Critical area reports and determinations valid for 5 years • Critical area determination after 5-years o New determination, or o New assessment verifying previous determination • Critical area report after 5-years o Determine if revision or additional assessment necessary He highlighted changes to allowed activities and exemptions: • ECDC 23.40.220.C.7 — Select Vegetation Removal • ECDC 23.40.230.C.2 — Operation and Maintenance includes normal maintenance of vegetation performed in accordance with best management practices o Would allow removal of alder seedlings • "Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees (less than 3-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years. He highlighted new provisions related to penalties for critical area violations — ECDC 23.40.240.E: • Currently references tree cutting penalties in ECDC 18.45 • Maintain reference to tree cutting penalties, and • $3 per square foot penalty of impacted critical area and critical area buffer He reviewed next steps: • Comments from state and tribal agencies (Commerce, Ecology, WDFW) • October 6: City Council Public Hearing • Consideration for Adoption Councilmember Petso asked if the City has to follow Best Available Science (BAS) in developing the CAO or does BAS only have to have been considered. Mr. Lien answered generally BAS has to be followed; jurisdictions can deviate from BAS if there is a documented reason to do so. For example, the City deviated with regard to the restoration project, allowing a buffer reduction to 50%; that is not really supported by BAS but it provides a net benefit to critical areas. Other things that may be a slight deviation from BAS include physically separated and functionally isolated; that has not been studied and there is no peer review report but because Edmonds was developed prior to adoption of critical area and environmental regulations, the intent is to provide a net benefit to critical areas. Mr. Taraday said in looking at this in the context of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Shoreline Management Program (SMP), BAS is a factor but not the only factor jurisdictions are allowed to consider. He offered to provide a more detailed explanation in the future. Councilmember Petso referred to development within the previously developed footprint, noting that also may not be entirely consistent with BAS. She suggested gravel be deleted from the definition of previously developed footprint. She questioned why gravel and a structure would be treated the same; she acknowledged a 5-story structure represented previously developed but gravel will revegetate. Mr. Lien answered the interim ordinance regarding previously developed footprint defined developed footprint as all impervious surface areas which included gravel. He displayed an aerial of stream between two house and photograph of the stream adjacent to a gravel parking area. By the definition, that is a previously developed area. If a garage was added to that area, it would not be adding new impervious surface and by allowing some development in exchange of the buffer achieves a net benefit to critical areas instead of no change to the buffer if no development is allowed. Gravel is listed because it is an impervious area and the addition of a building would not increase the impervious surface area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 17 Packet Page 959 of 1075 Councilmember Petso commented she has never had impervious gravel; the gravel she has experienced is pervious to water, vegetation, etc. Mr. Lien said gravel is defined as an impervious surface in the State stormwater regulations. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council could change the definition of previously developed area to be only structures. Mr. Lien answered the definition of previously developed area could be changed; the existing definition includes gravel, blacktop, structures, and several other things. Councilmember Petso recalled discussion at the September 8"' meeting about buffer reduction and buffer averaging; it was her understanding averaging was a better way to protect critical area buffers. Mr. Lien responded both buffer averaging and buffer reduction are allowed but buffer averaging is preferred. A change was made in the draft code related to the amount of buffer averaging and buffer reduction that could occur. In the existing code the buffer can be reduced or averaged up to 50% and a buffer width reduction and buffer averaging could be combined on the same project. The draft code does not allow the buffer to be reduced or averaged not more than 75% and averaging and reduction cannot be combined. Councilmember Petso agreed that was a change for better but asked why buffer reduction would be allowed at all when buffer averaging was a better tool. Mr. Lien responded it is another tool in the toolbox. Jim Keeney, ESA, explained depending on land used on adjacent properties, buffer averaging may not be an option; therefore, a secondary choice would be buffer reduction. Buffer reduction provides some flexibility without overly restricting potential land uses on a property being redeveloped. Councilmember Bloom commented the imperviousness of gravel depends on how deep it is. She agreed with Councilmember Petso's suggestion to eliminate gravel as an impervious surface. She commented the stormwater regulations may consider a different depth. Mr. Lien provided the definition of footprint of development, the area of a site that contains legally established buildings, concrete, asphalt, or gravel paved roads, parking lots, storage areas or other paved areas, driveways, walkways, outdoor swimming pools and patios. He offered to confer with Stormwater Engineer Jerry Shuster to determine how that definition could be tweaked. He pointed out a gravel paved road as well as a graveled parking area that was driven on a great deal and was packed down were impervious. A walkway with two inches of pea gravel may not be impervious. Councilmember Bloom referred to the reasonable use definition that states "while also allowing for reasonable use of private property." She asked whether that meant private property and did not include public property such as the Port, Woodway Fields, School District, City owned property, etc. Mr. Lien provided the definition of reasonable economic uses, "the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid taking and/or violations of substantive due process." The definition was amended a few years ago to omit reference to a single family residence. Mr. Taraday said that raises the question whether a governmental entity could sue the City for a taking. He suspected governments that hold property in a propriety capacity likely have property rights and if violated could lead to a constitutional violation. For example if General Motors is a person for constitutional purposes, a municipal corporation could also be a person and therefore entitled to constitutional rights. If that was an important issue to the Council, further research could be done. Mr. Lien referenced the critical area section, advising A.1 addresses critical area variances for public agencies and A.2 addresses variances for private properties. Councilmember Bloom reiterated the definition refers to private property. Mr. Lien again referenced the definition of reasonable economic use on page 32 of definitions. Councilmember Bloom said she read a statement somewhere, possibly in the introductory statement that included "while also allowing for reasonable use of private property." Mr. Taraday said in the vast majority of instances the City would be dealing with private property. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 18 Packet Page 960 of 1075 Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the proposed $3 per square foot penalty for activities like filling a wetland. She asked if there was also a requirement to rehab what was done. Mr. Lien answered the violation would have to be rectified in addition to paying a penalty. Council President Fraley-Monillas calculated filling a 2,000 square foot wetland would only result in a $6,000 penalty. Mr. Lien said fill was used as an example but mowing down vegetation in a wetland would be another example. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how $3/foot was determined. Mr. Lien said that is the cost of a simple planting plan for wetland mitigation. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not view that as enough for destroying a critical area. Mr. Lien said he compared it to the current tree cutting violation where a violator can be fined up to $9,000 for removing one tree in a critical area. Council President Fraley- Monillas asked if anyone had been ever been fined $9,000 for the removal of one tree. Mr. Lien answered yes, the last tree cutting violation was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and the $23,000 fine was upheld. Another appeal of a $45,000 fine for the removal of multiple trees is coming up. He explained he was comparing the fine to the current tree cutting violations since that was what this section referenced. There could be a critical area violation without removal of a tree but since the section refers to the tree cutting fines, this fine would be comparable. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested separating a tree cutting fine from a wetland violation. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the CAO reads very well. She referred to standard buffers, wetland categories and scoring of habitat and asked how the habitat score was determined. Mr. Lien explained the scores come from a wetland delineation which is a change in the science in the last ten years. When a wetland scientist delineates a wetland, a number of scores are calculated to categorize the wetland. One of those scores, largely on which buffer widths are based, is related to habitat; higher habitat scores require wider buffers. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Category 1 Estuary such as the Edmonds Marsh which requires 150 feet. She asked if that was 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) like the SMP. Mr. Lien answered it is from the edge of the wetland which is same as the OHWM in the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the differentiation between setbacks and buffers in 23.80.070 and the addition of a buffer requirement. She recalled in the SMP some citizens took issue with including the buffer in the setback. Mr. Lien answered it a little different in the critical area regulations. He referenced building setbacks in 23.40.280. In the existing code the buffer is the area adjacent to the wetland, stream, or slope and there is an additional 15-foot building setback. The change in the draft COA is related to geologically hazardous area; the buffer or setback for geologically hazardous area is determined by a geotechnical report. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the section regarding mitigation ratios and the table of wetland categories and ratios for rehabilitation only and enhancement only (packet page 53 of 90). Mr. Lien explained this came from Department of Ecology's Guidance for Small Jurisdictions. Mr. Keeney explained the general concept is it is harder to create a new wetland than to rehabilitate an existing wetland. The intent is to encourage the use of natural systems rather than to make new ones. Ecology reviewed the scientific literature to develop these ratios; the primary driver of that science was Dr. Tom Ruby, Department of Ecology, who has experience in wetland modeling. Mr. Kenney summarized the table is basically Ecology's assimilation of all the science and making it applicable to land planning processes. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of his explanation was Ecology would rather have a wetland enhanced than recreated. Mr. Keeney explained a lot more must be done to get the same credit for creation or reestablishment. Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for the updated information regarding Bald Eagles. He referred to definitions and the experience/qualifications for geologist, geotechnical engineer and qualified critical area consultant, observing a geologist is no longer required to have a license and the experience Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 19 Packet Page 961 of 1075 requirement was removed. Mr. Lien said that information was relocated in the code. He offered to email it to Councilmember Nelson. Councilmember Johnson recommended when a penalty is assessed, restoration or rehabilitation also be required. Mr. Lien referred to 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement; paragraph B addresses requirement for a restoration plan. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS SECONDED, TO EXTEND TO 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bloom recalled the presentation identified tree topping as maintenance and if approval had been given in the past, approval would be given to top trees. She asked if there were any criteria for restricting or prohibiting tree topping. Mr. Lien explained tree topping is considered tree cutting; topping is generally frowned upon by arborists. A tree cutting permit is required to top a tree. A lot of trees in the City have been topped in the past. Once a tree is topped and grows out, the branches are not as strong and do not grow as well and it needs to be maintained which is why that provision is included. He clarified it did not refer to new topping but maintaining trees that had already been topped in a safe manner. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was clarity in the code that tree topping was not allowed unless it was approved in the past. Mr. Lien read the definition of alteration, "Alteration" means any human - induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas." Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the way the City finds out that any of that has occurred is via code enforcement. Mr. Lien answered generally yes. Councilmember Bloom referred to small hydrologically isolated wetland (packet page 50 of 90) where the size was changed from 500 to 1,000. She asked whether the size of the smallest critical area had been increased to 1,000 from 500 square feet. Mr. Lien said most of the language is from the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions but was tweaked slightly so that a small hydrologically isolated wetland was no longer an exempt wetland but a specific category of wetland. Hydrologically isolated means it is not connected to a stream or other wetland complex. This section only applied to Category III and IV wetlands that have a low habitat score. He summarized these wetlands are not exempt but are exempt from a few of the provisions such as they do not necessarily have to have buffers, mitigation sequencing must occur before a wetland can be impacted but a mitigation plan must be developed to replace lost wetland functions and values. For example if a small wetland was filled, an onsite rain garden could be established to replace it. He clarified 500 square feet was in the existing code and 1,000 is from Ecology's Guidance for Small Jurisdictions. Councilmember Bloom asked for an explanation of the in lieu fee program. Mr. Lien responded that was related to mitigation, a small site that impacted a wetland but there was no opportunity to mitigate on site. The in lieu fee program allows a property owner to put money toward wetland mitigation in another location. Councilmember Bloom asked if that wetland would be within the City. Mr. Lien answered typically it is desirable to have mitigation occur within the same drainage basin. The one instance where it may occur outside the City is via a certified wetland bank which has defined service areas. He did not envision Edmonds being within the service area of a certified wetland mitigation bank due to short drainages that go directly to Puget Sound. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 20 Packet Page 962 of 1075 Councilmember Bloom referred to discretion of the director as well as the term shall which appear a lot in the CAO. She was puzzled by the numerous opportunities for the discretion of the director when there were so many statements of shall. She asked how that was resolved. Mr. Lien said often someone in City must make a call; the director is the highest ranking person. There are definitions in the code where shall means imperative. Not everything in the critical area is imperative; when there is a judgment call, the director makes that decision. Councilmember Bloom referred to the definition of director which means the City of Edmonds Development Services Director or his/her designee. She suggested tweaking the language to ensure it was the director's responsibility rather than someone the director designates. Mr. Lien explained ultimate authority falls to the director. How it works, there are four planners in the City, they do not go to the director to interpret every sentence in the code. Questions about the code or how the code is applied are brought to the director. Councilmember Bloom suggested the definition of director be the Development Services Director and delete designee. Development Services Shane Hope said the term "or designee" is used because it means the director makes the decision unless he/she designates someone else in his/her absence. The term director means the highest person responsible. Councilmember Bloom commented these decisions do not have to be made immediately so she felt any important decisions up to the discretion of director should be reviewed by director. She requested eliminating "his/her designee." Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers forward any additional questions to Mr. Lien. Mr. Lien advised he will provide highlights and respond to any additional Council questions at the October 6 public hearing 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported on the AWC legislative meeting he attended yesterday. The focus of the legislative session will be education, education, education. Elections are upcoming in 2016 for some of the Senate and all of the House so the legislative session will only be 60 days. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nelson announced the Diversity Commission is seeking applicants; the deadline for applications is September 30. Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded the public to get a flu shot. The vaccine is a better strain this year and it is important to get vaccinated early. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 21 Packet Page 963 of 1075 Shannon Roeder, Edmonds, spoke regarding Seaview Woods. She was pleased the Council was reviewing the critical area regulations. She has lived in Edmonds for 29 years at this same location and has seen a lot of improvement and things left as they are to help citizens enjoy the Edmonds way of life. She loves the birds, trees and wetlands. She and her son have hiked Seaview Woods and nearby areas for many years; her son's Eagle Scout project was a trail improvement in the woods. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley- Monillas interrupted and suggested she make her comments during the public hearing. Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Taraday to address Mr. Hertrich's comments regarding the ILA. Mr. Taraday responded he has not been interacting directly with the superintendent but has been working with their lawyer. He acknowledged it was conceivable the District was playing games with the City. He sent the District a draft and is awaiting a draft back from the District. He has not reached any conclusion about what that means. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there was a deadline, noting there the funds related to the fields may need to be reallocated and an alternate location found for the community garden. Her impression from Mr. Hertrich's comments is that the District is not involved in negotiations. Mr. Taraday said that is news to him; the District's attorney has not informed him they are not sending the City a draft or that the deal is done, he is still expecting to see a draft. Councilmember Bloom said from her perspective as a Councilmember, she would like to know where the ILA stands and to know soon so the Council can make decisions about the funds that have been allocated. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas suggested have further discussion under Council Comments. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN CHAPTERS 23.40 - 23.90 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) AND ASSOCIATED CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS IN CHAPTER 19.00 ECDC AND CHAPTER 21 ECDC Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the background and purpose: • GMA (1990) requires identification, designation, and protection of critical areas • Purpose of the CAO (CAO) is to protect: o Natural environment o Public health and safety o Once lost, function and value of critical areas very difficult to restore. • Existing CAO —established from comprehensive update in 2004 and 2005 He described what critical areas are: • Frequently flooded areas • Geologically hazardous areas o Landslide, erosion, seismic hazards) • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) o Streams o Habitat for listed and sensitive fish and wildlife species o Lakes < 20 acres • Wetlands • Aquifer recharge areas (none in Edmonds) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2015 Page 4 Packet Page 964 of 1075 He reviewed the CAO update process • GMA requires cities to update CAOs on the same 8-year Comprehensive Plan update timeline • Consideration of Best Available Science (BAS) Revise Code o Five Planning Board meetings including July 8 public hearing and July 22 recommendation o City Council review Adoption of revised code He described consideration of BAS in the critical area update: • RCW 36.70A.172 "...cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect functions of values of critical areas." • Other factors may be considered • WAC 365-195-915 criteria for including and departing from BAS Mr. Lien reviewed significant updates: • Geologically Hazardous Areas o Update requirements for geotechnical reports o Update how buffers are determined o Slight changes in how geologically hazardous area are defined • Wetlands o Bring wetland regulations consistent with Ecology's Guidelines for Small Jurisdictions • Native vegetation in RS-12 and RS-20 zones o Provide more definition to the type of habitat to maintain o Current regulations have similarities to a King County ordnance that was struck down • Physically separated/functionally isolated buffers o Added definition • Development within existing footprint o Added provisions • Restoration project relief o New provision modeled after a SMA provision • Frequently flooded areas o Regulated in building code, require structures in the coastal flood hazard area to be constructed 2 feet above base flood elevation. Change definition of height so that zoning height would be measured from the elevation that is 2 feet above the base flood elevation in the coastal flood hazard area. In response to a question raised at the last meeting regarding whether gravel is considered a developed footprint, Mr. Lien explained Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster indicated stormwater regulations consider compacted gravel impervious surface. He provided a slightly amended definition of Footprint of Development: "Footprint of Existing Development" or "footprint of development" means the area of the site that contains legally established: building; roads, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, walkways or other areas paved with concrete, asphalt or compacted gravel; outdoor swimming pools; and patios." Mr. Lien recalled a suggestion was made at the last Council meeting to reconsider the penalties section ECDC 23.40.240.E: • Currently reference tree cutting penalties in ECDC 18.45 • Maintain reference to tree cutting penalties, and • As a violation could occur that did not include cutting a tree, "up to" $3 per square foot penalty of impacted critical area and critical area buffer was added Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2015 Page 5 Packet Page 965 of 1075 Mr. Lien explained most of Ecology's draft comments have been incorporated into the critical area regulations. Recommendations he did not include are related to: • Buffer reduction - ECDC 23.50.040.G.4 o Currently allow buffer reduction and buffer averaging up t o50% of standard buffer and can do both o Change proposed to no longer allow both, only allow one or the other o Buffer averaging is preferable to buffer reduction o Buffer averaging is within the Ecology's Guidelines for Small Jurisdictions o Both buffer averaging and buffer reduction, the buffer cannot be reduced to more than 75% of the standard buffer Mr. Lien explained the reason he did not make the change in response to Ecology's comments is information in BAS states buffer reduction is consistent with BAS. He read from page 6 of the current BAS report: "Granger et al. (2005) notes that for some situations where the buffer is composed of non- native vegetation, and therefore providing limited functions and values, simply applying a fixed width buffer may fail to provide the necessary characteristics to protect a wetland's functions. In these cases, it can be better to restore the buffer through enhancement activities." He explained Granger et al. is a Wetlands in Washington State Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Department of Ecology's main guidance on BAS for wetlands. In a developed community like Edmonds where there are yards and landscaping up to these areas, simply requiring a flat buffer does not really improve the critical area. One of the goals in developing the regulations was to obtain improvement of some critical areas. He summarized this was consistent with BAS per Ecology's guidance. Another change that was not made is related to: • Critical area restoration projects o Do not want to discourage projects that provide a net benefit. o New Section ECDC 23.40.215 o Provide relief from standard critical area buffer for restoration projects that is not required as mitigation for a development proposal o Restoration project involves: ■ The daylight of a stream, or ■ Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or wetland buffer o Restoration project relief ■ Expanded buffer: that portion of the stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result of the restoration project ■ May apply a buffer that is not less than75% of the expanded buffer ■ Request a buffer between 50% and 7% of expanded buffer if: - 75% buffer would significantly limit use of the property - Minimum necessary to achieve restoration project There will be a net environmental benefit - Granting relief is consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations Mr. Lien displayed a slide illustrating a wetland restoration project, identifying the existing wetland and the standard 50-foot buffer. A restoration project that expands the wetland landward would result in an equivalent expansion of the standard buffer. The relief provision allows the expanded buffer to automatically get the 75% relief for the expanded buffer and could potentially ask for a 50% relief of the expanded buffer. The intent is not to discourage restoration projects. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2015 Page 6 Packet Page 966 of 1075 Mr. Lien recommended Council direct staff to develop an ordinance adopting the proposed amendments to the critical area regulations as contained in Exhibits 1 and 2. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the timeframe for approval, noting she was not ready to take action tonight. Mr. Lien said July was the statutory deadline for all the updates but it needs to be approved this year for sure. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the Council has been receiving emails with no content other than stating the person wants to be a party of record. She asked why a person would want to be party of record but not make any comment regarding the critical area regulations. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered this is a legislative process, not quasi-judicial process where there are parties of record. He was uncertain the City's code defines party of record in the context of a legislative process. He was unclear about the motive behind those emails and requested Councilmember Buckshnis forward one to him. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the date of the stormwater manual referenced in the critical area regulations. Mr. Lien answered the 2005 manual. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Lien's statement that he did not include all Ecology's recommendations and that that decision was supported by BAS. She referred to Ecology's statement regarding buffer width reduction through enhancement, "Reducing wet land buffers to 75% of their standard buffer width and expecting enhancement to maintain the effectiveness of the buffer is not supported by BAS." She asked why Mr. Lien recommended something that Ecology is clearly stating is not supported by BAS. Mr. Lien said what he read was from Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2, Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, which is the guidance from Ecology. He noted BAS is largely conducted in rural areas where buffers already exist. Not a lot, if any, BAS reports address buffers in an urban environment where buffers are largely degraded. The previous BAS also addressed this, "In assessing the potential effectiveness of Edmonds updated wetland buffer widths and comparing them to mandates of BAS, it is important to remember that much of the literature on wetland buffer width as cited above was developed from studies in rural areas, forested regions, and generally more pristine natural environments. As mentioned above, areas within the jurisdiction of Edmonds cannot be expected to provide habitat for species requiring large contiguous areas of forest habitat." He summarized consideration has to be given to the science, where it was done and the environment where it is implemented. What is included in the critical area regulations is consistent with Ecology's guidance and BAS document in the City's BAS report. Councilmember Bloom said she did not understand the majority of what Mr. Lien said because he knows more about it than she does. She reiterated her concern with Ecology's statement regarding buffer width reduction through enhancement. Ecology also states in their comments, "Although we support voluntary restoration of habitat, the buffers should be wide enough to protect the wetland's necessary functions. She said Mr. Lien was making an interpretation based on BAS but Ecology is saying the City's regulations are not meeting it. Mr. Lien disagreed he was making an interpretation, he was reading from Ecology's guidance. Councilmember Bloom referred to the language Mr. Lien read that includes "for some situations." Mr. Lien said "some situations" refer to urban environments like Edmonds where there are landscaped lawns right to the edge of streams and wetlands in many cases. He said just requiring a buffer of a certain distance without enhancement will not improve the critical area. In some situations like Edmonds, it makes more sense to enhance the buffer area to improve the buffer and critical area rather than requiring a standard buffer. He said Ecology's comments are draft comments; he has talked to Ecology and did not know if the City will receive any official comments. He will point out to Ecology the section that he referred to with regard to buffer reduction. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2015 Page 7 Packet Page 967 of 1075 Councilmember Petso cited from the Granger et al. document, paragraph 8.3.8.5 that appears to say while it is true a fixed buffer width is not always good enough, if a properly vegetated buffer cannot be provided, a larger buffer, not a smaller buffer, is necessary. She offered to send that language to Mr. Lien and Council. She offered to speak with Mr. Lien directly or discuss this further at a future meeting. Mr. Lien answered there are provisions in the CAO regarding expansion of buffers in that situation. He referred to page 41, Section F. Lc, "The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the buffer is composed of nonnative vegetation, lawn, or bare ground, then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may be required to either develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard width or widen the standard width to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided." He noted there are situations where it makes sense to allow flexibility in the urban environment. Councilmember Petso asked where that is stated in the Granger et al. document. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas asked when the 2005 stormwater regulations will be updated. Public Works Director Phil Williams answered the City is in the process of updating the existing regulations as part of the overall code update. There will be a separate section regarding stormwater and all cross references corrected in the existing code. Ecology's deadline for updating the stormwater regulations code is the end of 2017; staff s goal is to complete it by the end of 2016. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas assumed the new stormwater regulations will impact the CAO. Mr. Williams answered the stormwater regulations are generally related to development and could apply in a critical area. The effort is to update the development code so that new buildings and qualifying remodels will be brought up to new stormwater management code. Mr. Lien explained Mr. Shuster looked through the critical area regulations update with an eye toward the stormwater update and a few amendments were made so that it is consistent with the stormwater update particularly what is allowed in buffers. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas questioned how the critical area regulations could be updated to meet the stormwater regulations if staff did not know what they will look like. Mr. Williams clarified staff does know what the new stormwater regulations look like, the difficulty is integrating them into the code. Simply adopting the most recent stormwater guidance would create enforcement issues within the existing code; it needs to be done as one effort. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff was using the 2005 stormwater regulations to update the code. Mr. Williams answered when a development proposal is submitted, it is reviewed against the 2005 regulations which are still relatively aggressive. There is a 2012 version and a recent tweak that takes it to 2014. He said those were not major advancements but need to be captured in the City's code. Councilmember Nelson said he would also like more time to review the critical area regulations. He referred to a statement in the agenda memo that more study is needed to fully develop standards for retention and connection of Biodiversity Areas and Corridors. He asked what that would entail. Mr. Lien answered there was reference in the Comprehensive Plan to developing an Urban Forest Management Plan. That plan could include information related to Biodiversity Areas and Corridors such as where the corridors exist, the forest canopy, goals, etc. The provisions in the critical area related to that are in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones; those zones were established in large part due to the presence of critical areas, primarily northern Edmonds. This update provides better definition to the type of habitat that is desired; an Urban Forest Management Plan could include more definition regarding corridors, habitat, etc. Councilmember Nelson asked the timeline for the Urban Forest Management Plan. Mr. Lien answered there is a proposal for funding in the 2016 budget. Councilmember Bloom asked what form the 2005 stormwater regulations were in. Mr. Williams answered they are Ecology's and the City tries to duplicate them but they are not currently in City code. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2015 Page 8 Packet Page 968 of 1075 Councilmember Bloom asked why it was necessary to include the 2012/2014 stormwater regulations in the code. Mr. Williams answered there are specific stormwater regulations that are City regulations; the intent is to make them consistent with the 2005 Ecology document. The City uses its own regulations to evaluate development proposals. Working with the consultant, the stormwater-specific provisions of the code are being rewritten to update it to the 2012 and 2014 regulations. If the City was using the 2005 regulations that are not integrated into the code, Councilmember Bloom asked why not just adopt the 2014 stormwater regulations and integrate them into the code over time. She found that preferable in order to ensure critical areas are preserved and the code fully updated. Mr. Williams answered the 2005 and 2014 regulations are not as different as one might think. The primary difference is everything that happens upfront such as taking into account preservation of native vegetation, minimize the amount of impervious surface, etc. Those issues need to be incorporated into the development code as they may impact stormwater issues. He agreed the stormwater regulations need to be updated but appropriate references to the development code are needed which is part of the current update. He commented it may sound simplistic but it is not easy to do and takes a great deal of effort and expense. Development Services Director Shane Hope said there may be more discussion regarding that effort when staff provides an update on the development code update later this month. She summarized stormwater regulations apply in critical areas. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Gary Nelson, Edmonds, said he was encouraged by the type of questions the Council is asking regarding changes in the CAO. He said many who submitted recommendations, including the Department of Ecology, have lost track of the goals of the GMA. He encouraged Councilmembers to look at RCW 36.70A and 020. Four of his favorite aspects are: 1. Encourage development. As Edmonds is total within the Urban Growth Area, most of that will be accomplished via infill which is becoming more and more difficult due to severe regulations on property owners 2. Encourage affordability of housing 3. Protect private property rights of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions 4. Applicants for state and local government permits will be processed in a timely and fair manner. Mr. Nelson relayed the following with regard to the critical area regulations: • Concern with expanded reporting for anything done in critical area from three years to five years. Most developments are sold within three years. • Support expanded buffer • Support exceptions regarding controlling water courses from intrusion by culverts or bridges • Concerned about $3/square foot penalties • Concern with property owner recording critical areas on their property • Concern with requiring extension of bond holding from 3-5 years Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented this is a big code section and he agreed the Council should allow more time for review. He expressed concern regarding what can and cannot be cut in a critical area. He recalled a comment during Audience Comment at a previous meeting regarding including alders as a tree that can be removed and that state regulations allow removal up to 4-inch diameter. Mr. Hertrich displayed 3-inch and 4-inch sections of a tree and suggested if removal of a 3-inch tree was allowed, 4- inch was not much bigger and suggested removal of up to 6-inch diameter should be allowed. He did not find any scientific evidence regarding the size of trees that can be removed. He pointed out a lot of properties in Edmonds are within critical areas but many have flat yards and only step edges. However, the City will not let a property owner remove a tree without providing a great deal of scientific evidence which he felt was arbitrary. He suggested the City needs to treat citizens fairly and not allow staff to make a determination that a tree in a critical area cannot be removed if it is a safety concern. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2015 Page 9 Packet Page 969 of 1075 Shannon Roeder, Edmonds, said she and her son have hiked through Seaview Woods and the surrounding area for many years and her son did a trail project in Seaview Woods for his Eagle Scout project. She wanted to preserve the Edmonds way of life and to preserve trees. She was pleased the City plans to develop an Urban Forest Management Plan which helps retain native plant species, animals and birds in area. She urged the Council to consider the impact that critical area regulations regarding slopes and wetlands have on the community as a whole. She was concerned Seaview Woods would be overrun with development and wanted the footprint remain and not be developed much beyond what currently exist due to limited infrastructure such as sidewalks in the area. She urged the Council to move forward to preserve Edmonds. Dave Tietzel, Edmonds, reported he learned from Keely O'Connell, Earth Corp, that fish live in Shell Creek, Perrinville Creek and Willow Creek. He naively assumed streams were toxic wastelands, ecology deserts due to pesticides and fertilizers. Ms. O'Connell informed him salmon return partway up Shell Creek. The volunteers at the Shell Creek Hatchery informed him there is a healthy population of Bull trout in Willow Creek. The City has the opportunity to protect those fish and resources and to enhance the quality of water via the CAO to encourage a greater population of fish. He urged the Council to carefully consider the critical area regulations and take steps to preserve the City's waterways. Susan Paine, Edmonds, relayed she drove past the Oso mudslide today and was stunned by the devastation due to logging that occurred in those areas. She was pleased the Council wanted more time to study critical area regulations. She recommended using the most up-to-date state regulations as critical areas deserve the best science available. The City's waterways are all very sensitive to development. Councilmember Bloom read an email from Maggie Pinson, Edmonds, expressing concern the City already has a poor track record of protecting valuable habitat areas, open space areas, natural meadows and other areas included in the defmition of critical areas. Edmonds is not going far enough to protect beautiful, natural spaces and they are rapidly disappearing and future generations will not have the same opportunities to enjoy nature and wetland. The City is not protecting fields, meadows, marshes, wildlife corridors, and more from development. She questioned why the open space fields at the former Woodway High School campus, surrounded by Fish and Wildlife habitat conservation areas and formerly surfaced with grass and therefore providing an obvious recharging effect on the Deer Creek Aquifer, have not received better protection from City code, City planners and City officials. Environmental conservation, air, water and soil quality and human health are critically important conversations for all. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had forwarded emails from Val Stewart and Susan Paine to the City Clerk. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso said she received a number of emails today and asked if she should forward them to staff to have them included in the record. If Councilmembers were contacted by citizens with concerns about the CAO, Mr. Taraday recommended any correspondence be forwarded to Mr. Lien. The purpose of the process is to hear concerns from the public so that the Council can direct staff to be responsive to those concerns or staff can be responsive to the concerns if they deem appropriate. It was the consensus of the Council that they wanted more time for review. Mr. Lien requested the Council email him with any specific concerns for him to address at a future meeting. He offered make another presentation at the October 27 work session. 8. AUGUST 2015 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2015 Page 10 Packet Page 970 of 1075 A. CONTINUED REVIEW OF CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien commented this is the fourth meeting with the City Council to discuss the Critical Areas Ordinance update. Tonight's presentation will relate to Exhibit 3 and address development flexibility for 1) reduced buffer, 2) physical separated and functionally isolated provisions, and 3) restoration projects. Aaron Booy, ESA, recalled Council concern with development flexibilities that were not entirely consistent with Ecology guidance. The City received a comment review letter from Department of Ecology that expressed some of the same concerns. Exhibit 3 provides rationale and Best Available Science (BAS) associated with each of the development flexibilities. He summarized BAS in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update: • BAS should be included • Use of "nonscientific information" is allowed, based on: o Local conditions o Economic consideration o Social considerations • Rational and measures to minimize risk for development flexibilities should be documented He explained the flexibility included in the proposed critical area regulations are not really departures from BAS. Ecology highlighted and he agreed the development flexibilities are not fully consistent with the exact language of Ecology guidance but there is good rationale for why they will be important for ongoing protection of critical area within Edmonds. He displayed an aerial of existing Edmonds conditions, identifying Shell Creek and Hindley Creek and a built out residential development pattern where the streams run through residential neighborhoods. There is some minimal amount of riparian vegetation along the streams but homes, yards and other associated structures are built up to the edge of the streams or within 10-15 feet. There are also many examples where streams are culverted for roads and road crossings as well as other areas of historical development. He described physically separated and functionally isolated buffers: • Allowed activity under new Section, ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 • Applicable to sites separated from a critical area by existing, legally established roads, trails and structures 12 feet or more in width • May be determined to be both physically separated and functionally isolated, and not subject to stream and wetland buffer provisions • The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to make the determination He provided a photographic example of Shellabarger Creek running between two houses with little functioning riparian corridor, rockeries on both sides of the stream, lawn on one side and gravel on the other. He displayed an aerial view of the same area, highlighting two sample scenarios where the physically separated and functionally isolated provision could be applied: 1. Addition fronting central house — not allowed (driveway less than 12 feet wide) 2. Addition on north house — potentially allowed (central house physically separates this area, functional isolation would need to be documented) Councilmember Johnson asked if this was an actual or theoretical example. Mr. Lien answered the property owner in Example #2 came to the City to inquire about an addition but did not move forward with it. Mr. Booy continued his review of physically separated and functionally isolated buffers: • Relevant BAS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 8 Packet Page 971 of 1075 o Buffer effectiveness influenced by many factors, with existing alterations degrading the functional importance o Where full physical separation / functional isolation occurs, the value of maintaining the adjacent area is negligible or eliminated Rationale for allowance — allowing for future development/ redevelopment within areas where such activity would have no impact on the nearby stream or wetland Potential risks — misinterpretation and over -application Measures to minimize — clear criteria, and provisions to require an evaluation of functional isolation (including new language) Give the identified risk of over -application, Councilmember Petso asked whether documentation of applicability should also be required rather than leaving it to the Development Services Director's discretion. Mr. Booy answered that could be an option. There will be situations where a stream runs along a roadway in a ditch during past historical development and the standard buffer associated with the stream would potentially extend across the roadway to properties on the other side. In that situation, where there is a full width City roadway and a clear functional separation from the areas on the opposite side, it would be fairly cut and dry that no function is provided by the separated buffer area and a determination could be made quickly. Councilmember Petso asked why 12 feet versus another number was selected. Mr. Booy answered 12 feet was selected in discussion with the Planning Board; 12 feet is the minimum standard width for a driveway. Councilmember Buckshnis also questioned the rationale for 12 feet and asked whether the new regulations allow pervious or impervious or does it matter. Mr. Lien agreed the width of 12 feet was selected as it is the required minimum driveway width in Edmonds. The first proposal reviewed by the Planning Board was 8 feet and following discussion, they agreed on 12 feet. The 12 feet is for established roadways, paved trails 12 feet in width or more, or legally established structures or other paved areas. Councilmember Johnson observed in this example the creek has a fairly discernable physical area; in a wetland where much of the hydrologic action occurs underground, she questioned how this BAS information could be relevant. Mr. Booy answered for wetlands it would still only apply to physical separation and functional isolation in the buffer area. In a wetland area where hydrology supports wetland conditions, any modifications would not apply in that area. The criterion in the proposed amendments to the critical area regulations requires verification that there is physical separation and function isolation. In a sloped wetland or buffer where information led planning staff to believe there was a functional connection through the physical separation, they could make the determination that the criteria did not apply. It requires some review and interpretation by planning staff but the criteria and putting the onus on the developer/applicant provides the City the ability to say no when there is a functional connection. Councilmember Johnson said gravel or impervious surface seems to change the character of the hydrology. If historically there was a paved area regardless of the hydrology, she asked whether there would be an opportunity to waive the requirement. Mr. Booy agreed for a paved area with sheet flow running off it directly into a wetland or stream, there would be an important connection between the paved area and the adjacent resource. These provisions are not looking at a paved area but the area beyond it where there is no imperious surface and because of the requirement that it be functionally isolated, presumably there would be no surface water connection between the isolated area and the adjacent resource. With regard to the concern with sheet flow from an impervious surface directly into a wetland or stream, there are other provisions for those situations such as allowances for buffer reduction and development within the previously developed footprint. The focus of this provision is on areas that are on the far side of the impervious surface or structure that provides the physical separation and functional isolation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 9 Packet Page 972 of 1075 Councilmember Johnson asked if the physically separated and functionally isolated language came from DOE. Mr. Booy responded this language is not included in DOE's guidance for small cities. Mr. Lien explained there is a similar provision in the Shoreline Management Plan. Staff developed this as a result of encountering it while implementing the critical area regulations over the past 10 years. He referred to the photograph of a stream that is highly channelized; there is a house adjacent to the stream, but because it is technically within the buffer, an addition would not be allowed. This is a means of providing some flexibility given that the City is highly developed and in example #2, the addition would not have any impact on the stream. If the addition is physically separated and functionally isolated, by definition, it will not have any impact on the critical area. A number of jurisdictions have similar language including Tacoma and eight others. Mr. Booy advised through his work with other communities this is often a practice that is not addressed in the code; the standard buffer requirement is not applied for roadways, legally established structures, etc. Including it in the code removes that ambiguity; other cities have done the same, providing criteria so it can be applied fairly and consistently. Councilmember Nelson agreed he had seen physically separated and functionally isolated provisions in other cities' codes. He asked whether other cities included a specific measurement such as 12 feet. Mr. Booy relayed Redmond has a minimum width but he did not recall the amount; Tacoma does not have a minimum width, their code only addresses physical separation and functional isolation and ensuring review is done to verify the functional isolation exists. Councilmember Nelson asked why Tacoma did not have a minimum width but the proposal was to have a minimum width in Edmonds. Mr. Lien explained one of the reasons for a minimum width is to establish a base standard; at least a 12 foot width is required. There were questions with the interim ordinance regarding the width and minimum separation; including a width establishes a minimum requirement. A minimum width also addresses questions that arise such whether a paved path provides physical separation and functional isolation. Mr. Booy continued his presentation, describing buffer reduction through buffer enhancement: • Development standards — ECDC 20.50.040.G.4 (wetlands) and 23.90.040.D.2 (streams) • Existing allowance • Proposed updates would further limit the existing allowance o Only when averaging is not feasible o Maximum buffer reduction = 25% • New criteria to ensure that functions are increased or retained through plan implementation He provided a photographic example taken from the street where Hindley Creek runs through a forested area in a backyard adjacent to lawn, a driveway, a home and ornamental vegetation. He provided an aerial view of the same property and reviewed: • Residential addition proposed • Opportunity for buffer averaging • Restoration feasible, and provided so that stream functions and values are increased or retained He provided further information regarding buffer reduction through buffer enhancement: • Relevant BAS o No explicit support for buffer reduction standards o BAS does suggest a range of buffer widths — no set width that ensures protection o BAS documents the important of buffer condition, and suggests that alternative strategies (beyond just buffer width requirements) may be useful. • Rational for allowance — maintaining some flexibility for new development/redevelopment on highly constrained parcels, while improving conditions • Potential risks — misinterpretation and over -application • Measures to minimize — updated criteria that provide preference for averaging, limit the allowance to 25% maximum, and that ensure any reduction results in increased/retained functions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 10 Packet Page 973 of 1075 Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the buffer reduction, recalling it previously was 50% and was changed to 25%. Mr. Booy explained the existing code allows a 50% reduction; the proposal is a maximum 25% reduction, requiring 75% of the standard buffer width to be maintained. Mr. Booy reviewed critical areas restoration projects - new section ECDC 23.40.215 • Buffer flexibilities for stream-daylighting and wetland creation/expansion projects 0 25% reduction allowed 0 25% to 50% reduction for constrained properties where reduction is the minimum necessary, and there is a net environmental benefit consistent with CAO intent • Relevant BAS o No explicit support for buffer reduction standards, even for restoration projects o Ecology guidance does support streamlining to facilitate restoration o Removal of fish passage barriers is a high priority for WDFW, suggesting prioritizing these efforts over ensuring standard buffers is warranted • Rational for allowance — modeled after a State SMA provision, intended to avoid placing undue (or prohibitive) restriction on important restoration projects • Potential Risks — future stream segments and wetlands with relatively narrow buffers • Measures to minimize — criteria that buffer is at least 50%, and that widest possible is provided Councilmember Nelson questioned a project that would restore a creek or wetland but also reduce the buffer to enhance the environment. Mr. Booy suggested envisioning a stream in a pipe underground that a passerby would not even be aware of, there is no riparian buffer and there is often pavement on top. For example, Willow Creek as it leaves Edmonds Marsh, passes under the railroad tracks, along a roadway, through the park southwest of the marina; for majority of the distance of the culverted stream there is no riparian vegetation. If the City daylighted that stream, removing it from the culvert and restoring the channel, instead of requiring the full 100-foot standard buffer which would have significant impacts to the roadway, the park, and the adjacent marina, this provision would allow the buffer to be reduced to a minimum of 50% of the standard buffer. It is not applicable to an existing stream channel that is already daylighted or an existing wetland. Councilmember Nelson asked if Mr. Booy was saying a 50-foot buffer was just as good as a 100-foot buffer in that situation. Mr. Booy answered he was not saying a 50-foot buffer was as good as a 100- buffer; a 100-foot buffer would be better but to achieve feasible restoration within an urban situation, applying a standard buffer would be very limiting. He clarified a daylighted stream with a 50-foot buffer would be better than leaving the stream in the culvert. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with everything in Mr. Booy's memo (Exhibit 3) except for this provision. She pointed out WRIA8 has done a great deal of work to promote salmon recovery. The economic feasibility sometimes cannot be projected because people cannot visualize how wonderful having salmon returning to an estuary would be. She preferred a trigger or amount, not just allowing it to be the director decision, such as requiring Council approval. For example requiring Council approval if the buffer is proposed to be reduced from 100 feet to 50 feet, similar to spending limits that are established for the Mayor. She suggested a mechanism whereby Council was apprised. She recalled providing an example to Mr. Lien that in the end the Council had no say. Mr. Lien said the opportunity for Council input is via this policy. Staff s position is a daylighted creek with a 50-foot buffer is better than a culverted creek; in the end, there is a net benefit from the project. The intent of this provision is not to discourage a project that will provide a net benefit. This would be applicable to restoration projects, not projects where mitigation is required. This was modeled after a SMA provision where the SMA and SMP would not apply in the expanded area when a shoreline project expands the shoreline jurisdiction. Appeals will come to the Council. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 11 Packet Page 974 of 1075 example she provided was tree cutting in 2005 where the developer paid a fine and the trees were cut again a few years ago The Council had a strong opinion about the situation but the fee was minimal and Council discussed it at length in executive session. Mr. Lien said that is a separate issue. The opportunity for Council input is now and ultimately implementation of development regulation is up to the Development Services Director. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the development permit types in Title 20 are where Council sets policy direction over who makes decisions on permits and the appeals for each permit type. If the Council wanted to establish a special process for certain types of critical area approvals, Title 20 could be changed so that instead of Director approval, it goes to the Hearing Examiner. Just because a permit is currently a Type II staff decision, does not mean it cannot be changed; it can be revisited by the Council. Councilmember Petso asked whether Ecology's comments were in the Council packet. Mr. Lien advised they are in Exhibit 8; he read a paragraph from the October 29, 2015 letter: "The City has provided additional information through a memorandum prepared by ESA dated October 22, 2015. This memorandum provided a thorough explanation of the rationale for these wetland buffer reductions. In light of this explanation, Ecology offers our support of the critical area ordinance updates being considered for adoption by the City Council." Councilmember Petso asked about Ecology's earlier comments. Mr. Lien advised they are also contained Exhibit 8; he referred to an Ecology letter dated October 26, 2015 that mentioned concerns about the restoration project provision and buffer width reductions. Councilmember Petso relayed she was contacted today regarding the previously developed footprint exception. She pointed out there could be a property where development in the buffer is irregularly shaped and the desire would be to cover essentially the same square footage but not the irregular shape of the existing development. She asked how that situation would be addressed under the code as currently drafted. Mr. Lien answered if a house within a critical area buffer burns down, it can be rebuilt in the exact same footprint. Another provision is development in the previously developed footprint, an irregularly shaped house with a lawn between the house and critical area would not meet the definition of developed footprint; anything new would be required to meet different provisions of the CAO. If the existing house were demolished and rebuilt, whatever is rebuilt must comply with the critical area regulations. There is nothing in the draft CAO that addresses that specific situation. He was familiar with the situation Councilmember Petso referenced. Councilmember Petso inquired about changing the regulations to limit it to like -for -like development. For example compacted gravel, considered existing development, is replaced with a 5-story structure; she felt that would have a different impact on the nearby critical area. She suggested the regulations be tweaked to allow a structure to be replaced with a similar size structure or a parking area replaced with a parking area. Mr. Lien observed the provision Councilmember Petso was referring to was development within the previously developed footprint; the definition is a legally established paved area, structures or other pervious surface areas. He recalled development that this provision applied to when the interim ordinance was in place, the American Brewery silo. In that case there was a paved area behind American Brewery where the owner wanted to add a silo that was technically in the Edmonds Marsh buffer. The silo did not add new impervious surface or have any new impact to the critical area. The proposed provision would allow improvement over existing conditions; allowing the silo to be constructed on the blacktop area in exchange for buffer enhancement of the Edmonds Marsh. American Brewery's proposal was for 1,100 square feet and they provided 1,100 square feet of buffer enhancement. Councilmember Petso asked whether protecting the functions and values of critical area also included habitat, temperatures, etc. or was it only impervious surface. Mr. Lien answered habitat is taken into consideration; the physically separated and functionally isolated provision includes criteria related to hydrological, geological, or biological habitat connection. The science studies address a range of buffers; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 12 Packet Page 975 of 1075 each study focuses on the buffer width for a certain function such as removing phosphorous, a specific creature, etc. so the studies provide a range of buffers. The intent of the proposed regulations is to allow some flexibility in developed areas while getting some enhancement of critical areas. That is the reason for flexible standards for development within developed footprint, buffer averaging, buffer width reduction, etc. Councilmember Petso suggested eliminating physically separated and functionally isolated and the buffer reduction as they are noncompliant with BAS, and tweaking previously developed footprint to better reflect the expected impact on the range of functions and values that a critical area can provide. She felt there was a big difference between a compacted gravel area and a tall structure in terms of the impact on adjacent wildlife. Councilmember Johnson recalled staff indicated a 50% buffer for a restoration project was better than a creek in a pipe. Ecology's comments state reducing buffers to between 50% to 75% of the standard buffer for streams and wetlands is not consist with BAS or their guidance for wetland mitigation in Washington State. She referred to Marina Beach and the daylighting Willow Creek which is estimated to cost $5 million and questioned reducing the buffer for economic reasons or adjacent projects if the goal is to improve salmon habitat in the estuary marsh. She said that seems counterintuitive if the goal is to daylight Willow Creek and improve salmon habitat, why start with a reduced buffer. Mr. Lien answered there are tradeoffs. A daylighted stream is better than a culverted stream; Willow Creek is currently culverted for 1,500 feet; daylighting Willow Creek opens the channel which provides an avenue for salmon to reach the marsh. That is a benefit of daylighting the stream. A 50-foot buffer still provides some functions and values. With regard to tradeoffs, a standard 100-foot buffer would essentially wipe out Marina Beach. Daylighting Willow Creek and providing a 50-foot buffer will provide salmon access to the marsh, and provide an area for citizens to enjoy Puget Sound and the daylighted stream. Ultimately a daylighted Willow Creek is better than a culverted Willow Creek. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the Council has not adopted the Marina Beach Master Plan; perhaps there is a problem with the assumption that the dog park needs to be balanced with activities on both sides of the creek. If the purpose of daylighting Willow Creek is to improve salmon habitat, that should be the goal and not balancing other needs. She summarized it was a question of priorities. Mr. Lien said he was only using Marina Beach as an example; there are other areas with the same tradeoffs. Councilmember Johnson questioned those tradeoffs; this is the Council's opportunity to make a policy decision and she did not want to give away salmon habitat or creek enhancements especially if Ecology did not support it. She summarized the proposed provisions were headed in the wrong direction. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Johnson and had similar concerns. She referred to the Development Services Director making decisions regarding critical area waivers, buffer averaging, etc. The definition of director states the City of Edmonds Development Services Director or his/her designee. She objected to allowing those decisions to be made by the director's designee as she felt it was a very serious role, a role of accountability. She asked under what circumstance would a critical area waived need to be done so quickly that the Development Services Director could not be the one that reviewed and made the final decision. Mr. Lien said that relates to how development review is conducted in the City. There are four planners; when a critical area application is submitted, it is assigned to a planner. The planner does a desk review looking at the critical area maps, soils, topography, etc. as well as a site visit to ensure the maps accurately reflect conditions and makes the determination. If the language "director or his/her designee" were changed, the director would need to do all the development review with regard to critical areas in the City. Councilmember Bloom said that was not her suggestion; she understood the director cannot do all the onsite visits, review, etc. She was suggesting the Development Services Director have final authority and accountability for that decision. The planner presents the recommendation to the director but the director Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 13 Packet Page 976 of 1075 signs off on it since it is such an important decision. She noticed in the comments that many citizens are concerned with enforcement of critical areas; allowing planners to make those decisions is not doing a service for those citizens. Development Services Director Shane Hope appreciated the interest in having a good process and ensuring any waivers are carefully thought through. She suggested staff return with a proposal that allows a director -only decision on waivers but recognizing it would be based on knowledge from the direct review, site visit, etc. by the planner. She questioned if there is value added for the director to sign off when he/she relies on the planner who does the work. Councilmember Bloom responded she believed there is. The City did not have a Development Services Director for a number of years and planners signed off on things that were not necessarily done properly. She referred to the situation cited by Mr. Blomenkamp, a critical area waiver done by a planner in 1993 related to the Woodway Fields that the Development Services Director never signed off on it even though the code states he/she is supposed to. She summarized errors can arise later related to the way it has been done in the past and there is value added in having the director be accountable and responsible. Ms. Hope said one of the reason for "director or his/her designee" is it is intended to provide some accountability; the director has the oversight, they may not do the actual review themselves because they count on the work done by staff. She acknowledged were things that were problematic in the past. With the language "director or his/her designee," as long as there is a director, there is an accountability system. Councilmember Bloom reiterated she would like to change it to be the responsibility of the director. If there were an extended leave of absence, one specific designee could be identified such as Mr. Lien's position who knows the code well. She was not comfortable with final decisions being signed off on by a planer and wanted anywhere in the critical area regulations that states "director or his/her designee" changed to "Development Services Director" with any designation done on a case -by -case basis if the director was not available to designate the authority. Ms. Hope questioned what value is added if she signs off on something she does not have knowledge of. She relies on the planner, similar to the building official who relies on the plans examiner. She understood certain things could require the director's involvement but to require the director sign off on everything, there was no way she can know everything. Councilmember Bloom asked if Ms. Hope was suggesting the Development Services Director only sign off on waivers and she could not sign off on everything. Ms. Hope offered to return to Council with options. Councilmember Bloom assumed the CAO also applied to the City such as when trees were removed on a steep slope to replace a sewer line. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Bloom cited an example provided by a Tree Board Member and asked about the City's responsibility to plant trees in an area where a sewer or water line was installed. Mr. Lien answered when the utility engineers plan water and sewer main replacements, they identify any critical areas and ask him what will be required. If a City utility project is located in a critical area, staff must provide a critical area report that is submitted review along with the SEPA. Councilmember Bloom asked whether trees the City removed on a steep slope would need to be replaced. Mr. Lien answered it depends on the project; staff does not usually like to plant trees on top of sewer lines. Councilmember Bloom noted there are some trees that can be planted on top of or adjacent to sewer lines. She said this is an issue because a lot of trees are being lost and the City taking responsibility for replacement would help improve the canopy. Public Works Director Phil Williams did not recall any trees were removed in the example Councilmember Bloom cited. A waterline was replaced on a steep slope; vegetation, jute matting and seeds and native grasses were planted. There was a desire by the neighbors for additional plantings for visual enhancement versus holding slope. Staff offered to buy the plants if the neighborhood wanted to have a planting party. Councilmember Bloom said trees were cut and left as crags along the walkway. She inquired about the City's responsibility if trees are removed for the installation of a sewer or water line. Mr. Williams answered the City must comply with the CAO; if that requires replanting, it would be preferable not to plant along the utility alignment. Mr. Lien recalled another project where trees were Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 14 Packet Page 977 of 1075 removed, the pump station 2 project on Shell Creek a few years ago. In that instance, a critical area report, a stream study, and a wetland report was done and every tree that was cut down was replaced at a ratio of 2:1 as required by the code. He summarized the City also has to comply with critical area regulations. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to email her question to staff. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the City of Sammamish's (population 50,000) wetland development standards that Ms. Stewart provided her which she provided to all Councilmember, City Clerk and Mayor. She suggested Councilmembers review those regulations prior to the Council's next discussion. Councilmember Mesaros asked where removal/replacement of trees was located in the ordinance. He recalled Mr. Hertrich's comments a few weeks ago regarding a 3-inch tree and 4-inch tree. Mr. Lien referred to 23.40.220.C.7, Allowed Activities, where specific species are mentioned that can be removed in a critical area including noxious species, blackberries, English ivy, etc. An additional limitation is added in the draft critical area regulations that allows up to 1,500 square feet of invasive and noxious weeks, English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, Evergreen blackberry, Scot's broom, Hedge and field bindweed to be removed in a critical area within a 3 year period. With regard to a suggestion to allow removal of alders, Mr. Lien referred language added in section, 23.40.220.C.2 that addresses operation, maintenance and repair exemptions, "Operation and maintenance also includes normal maintenance of vegetation performed in accordance with best management practices..." A definition was also added of operation and maintenance and best management practices with regard to vegetation, "Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees (less than 3-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years." As drafted, alders in a critical area less than 3-inches in diameter could be removed as normal maintenance of vegetation. If alders were added to the list in C.7, it would be limited to 1500 square feet of alder removal within a 3-year period. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested the definition of normal maintenance of vegetation should be "chest height" instead of "breast height." Mr. Lien said that was standard terminology. Mayor Earling advised staff will return this to Council for another study session. He declared a brief recess. B. SEPTEMBER 2015 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Scott James provided multiple choice questions, the answers to be revealed at the end of his presentation. He displayed and reviewed 3rd Quarter 2015 Revenue Summary — General Fund Types without bond proceeds and General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual. He displayed a comparison of General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual, highlighting taxes: General Fund Resource Category YTD Actual �9/30/2014 9/30/2015 % Change Taxes Property Taxes $7,413,082 $7,779,098 4.9% Sales Tax 4,267,681 4,937,480 15.7% Utility Tax 5,094,356 5,075,412 -0.4% Other Taxes 667,384 699,942 4.9% Total Taxes $17,442,503 $18,491,932 6.0% Licenses & Permits Business Licenses & Misc Permits $ 169,438 $ 163,897 -3.3% Franchise Fees 817,758 851,573 4.1% Development Related Permits 647,556 537,866 -16.9% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 15 Packet Page 978 of 1075 COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DISASTER DEBRIS MANAGEMENT PLAN. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding "continue in full force and effect until March 31, 2016." Mr. Taraday recommended leaving the existing language in place. For example, if that language were included and a storm cancelled a March meeting, there would be no emergency management plan in effect. He summarized it was safer to leave the plan in effect until amended with the administration's understanding it will be brought back to Council. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. STUDY ITEMS A. PRESENTATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR A MUNICIPAL STORMWATER CAPACITY GRANT City Engineer Rob English explained this is a stormwater capacity grant offered by Department of Ecology (Ecology). In 2015, the Washington State Legislature appropriated funds to Ecology for implementation of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. Each jurisdiction subject to Ecology's Municipal Stormwater Permit receives $50,000 to use in the 2015-2017 The overall goal of the grant program was to improve water quality by reducing stormwater pollutants discharged into the state's receiving waters. The City will use the funding provided in 2016 and 2017 to update the stormwater code and evaluate opportunities for low impact development infrastructure. If any funding remains, it could be used for video assessment of City's stormwater system. Staff recommends approval of the grant agreement on the January 5, 2016 Consent Agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a meeting with Ecology where bringing the stormwater code up-to- date by 2016 was discussed. Mr. English advised the City's stormwater code was updated in 2010. The proposed update which will address the recent Phase 2 requirements will be completed by the end of 2016. Councilmember Buckshnis observed that would be using the 2010 standards, recalling the Woodway Fields used the 2005 stormwater requirements. Mr. English answered the current update will use the 2012 standards. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. REVIEW AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien said this is the fifth meeting regarding the CAO update. The City hired ESA Consultants to review Best Available Science (BSA) associated with the critical area update. The BSA reports and the gap analysis were included in the September 8, 2015 packet. The gap analysis reviewed the City's existing code for gaps with BAS and recommended revisions. At the November 2 meeting, ESA provided a memo with the rationale for proposed development flexibilities; this addressed three specific provisions in the draft code: physically separated and functionally isolated buffers, buffer reductions, and restoration projects. The City received a letter of support from Ecology on the draft regulations. Tonight's packet includes a Q&A to address questions that arose during Council review. This item has delayed a few times due to windstorms, other agenda items, etc. He and Aaron Booy, ESA, are here to answer questions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 10 Packet Page 979 of 1075 Councilmember Mesaros referred to his previous mention of surrounding jurisdictions that identify alders as a noxious weed and asked whether staff had developed an alternate recommendation. Mr. Lien advised alders are not listed on Snohomish County's noxious weed list. Alders are a pioneering species and some see them as a weed species. He displayed code sections related to "allowed activities and exemptions" which although do not specifically identify alters, would address alder management: • ECDC 23.40.220.C.7 — Select Vegetation Removal • ECDC 23.40.230.C.2 — Operation and Maintenance includes normal maintenance of vegetation performed in accordance with best management practices o Would allow removal of alder seedlings • "Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees (less than 3-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years. Councilmember Mesaros recalled Mr. Hertrich provided examples of 3-inch and 4-inch tree sections and felt a 4-inch diameter would not be harmful to remove. Mr. Lien said the current definition of a tree is 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). The above is an exemption from the critical area regulations; with this exemption, a property owner could clear alders in a wetland or stream buffer or geologically hazardous area. The intent of the critical area regulations is to protect critical areas; a small diameter is exempted. Another place this could be addressed is ECDC 23.40.022.0 Allowed Activities, which identifies species that can be removed without a critical area report such as species on the noxious weed list, blackberries, scotch broom, etc. An addition to this section is the limitation of clearing 1,500 square feet within a critical area over a 3 year period. The Council could increase the DBH but if it is included, 23.40.220.0 would restrict the area that could be cleared over a 3 year period. Councilmember Bloom referred to a change she referenced previously related to the director's authority in 23.40.010 Authority, expressing serious concerns about the phrase, "Edmonds development services director or his/her designee." She preferred it be the specific responsibility of the development services director and suggested adding the sentence, "The director may designate the planning manager to make such determination when the director is on vacation or extended leave." Her rationale was there needed to be one person responsible for making these decisions; it has not worked well to have the authority and decision -making spread to line staff members which is what happened for the four-year there was no development services director. Motion #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO CHANGE THE SENTENCE "EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE DIRECTOR" TO "THE EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND THE DIRECTOR MAY DESIGNATE THE PLANNING MANAGER TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATION WHEN THE DIRECTOR IS ON VACATION OR ON EXTENDED LEAVE." Councilmember Buckshnis suggested omitting the reference to vacation or extended leave. Action on Motion #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Motion #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO CHANGE UNDER AUTHORITY TO READ, "EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND THE DIRECTOR MAY DESIGNATE THE PLANNING MANAGER UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 11 Packet Page 980 of 1075 Councilmember Bloom commented one of issues with the Woodway Fields was a 1993 SEPA determination was signed by line staff not the development services director even though it was required to be signed by the development services director at that time and that determination was used to allow the school district to be the lead agency in the determination of non -significance related to Woodway Fields which she did not feel was appropriate. She preferred to have one person accountable at all times for the enforcement and follow up on the CAO. Mr. Lien expressed concern with how that would be implemented. The development services director is mentioned 138 times in the critical area regulations; 23 times it states development services director shall, 25 times it states development services director may and 13 times it is at the discretion of the development services director. He questioned how the development services director and the planning manager would make all decisions on critical area determination. He referred to Councilmember Bloom's reference to a SEPA determination, noting it was actually a critical area determination. The City has four planners; planning staff review critical area maps, do site visits and ultimately make the decision whether further critical area reports are required or there are no critical areas. If the code is changed to require the development services director or planning manager make all decision, he questioned what line staff would do if the development services director made all the decisions. He explained there are some things that are cut and dried in the code; for example a waiver when there is clearly no critical area. When there is ambiguity, line staff describes the situation to the development services director and asks him/her to make the call. He did not think it was appropriate for the development services director to make all the decisions, taking away from their duties as a director. Councilmember Petso expressed support for the motion. The numerous code references regarding the development services director's discretion and other variations are precisely why the motion was made and why an individual needed to be accountable for the decision. She acknowledged it was not necessarily that the development services director would visit every site but he/she would have an active role in the decisions. For example, she recalled a citizen had to walk the Woodway Elementary site with staff to point out the stream. If this proposed amendment provides a way to avoid that type of situation, it would be time well spent and would pay off for the City. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this could be changed in the future but right now someone should be accountable because Edmonds has had so many issues with wetlands in the past. She acknowledged the development services director did not need to be "tromping around in the weeds" but his/her signature should be on the document stating he/she approved it. Councilmember Mesaros did not support the motion as he believed the accountability existed; department directors are accountable for their staff and how they carry out their responsibilities. In the example Councilmember Petso provided regarding a citizen identifying a stream for staff, he doubted the development services director would be walking the site. The intent is department leadership trains staff and holds staff accountable. The planner looks at the facts and then signs the document; both the staff person and the director are accountable for what is signed. Councilmember Bloom read from 23.40.010 Authority, "A. As provided herein, the Edmonds development services director or his/her designee (hereafter referred to as "the director") is given the authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to enforce, this title to accomplish the stated purpose. B. The director may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with this title." She expressed concern that the designee could be anybody; a line staff member, or whoever is in the field making decisions. She preferred there be clarity regarding who is accountable and responsible. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 12 Packet Page 981 of 1075 Development Services Director Shane Hope appreciated the interest in the director being accountable and recognition of the director's responsibility. She agreed the director is responsible but did not think the language needed to state only the director makes the decision. The director is still responsible even if her staff makes the decision. It is up to her to ensure staff knows they are to bring something to her that needs further consideration and up to her to be responsible for her staff. For example in the building code, the building official is responsible for making sure buildings are safe, yet the building official does not make all those decisions, his staff does because the building official cannot visit every site. The building official's designees make those decisions but the building official is still responsible. Ms. Hope explained as a practical matter for the director to be knowledgeable would require hours of work to make a responsible decision. She suggested conferring with the City Attorney regarding common practice related to designating the responsible person. Mr. Taraday said if the motion were adopted, the Council would affectively be asking planners to bring completed decisions to the director's desk for a signature. That is only feasible way that the language regarding designee could be removed and still allow the department to function. Nothing changes in terms of work flow; the planners would continue doing those reviews and visit the sites; the only change would be instead of authorizing a planner to sign the document, the director would be required to sign the documents. The director already takes responsibility for all those documents regardless of who signs them. He clarified the real world effect of the motion was changing whose name was on the signature line because anything else would frankly be infeasible. Action on Motion #2 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO; AND MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Motion #3 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS (ECDC 23.40 - ECDC 23.90) AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 1 AND ASSOCIATED FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODE (ECDC 19.00.025) AND THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT CONTAINED IN ECDC 21.40.030 RELATING TO PROPERTIES IN THE COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD ZONES AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 2. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (PAGE 30 OF 90) TO READ, "FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT" OR "FOOTPRINT OF DEVELOPMENT" MEANS THE AREA OF A SITE THAT CONTAINS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED: BUILDINGS; ROADS, DRIVEWAYS, AND PARKING LOTS, STORAGE AREAS, 3AIALKW A YS OR OT-14 D AREAS D A A7Ti it WITH ' ASPHALT O GRAVEL;COMPACTED OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOLS; AND PATIOS. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Councilmember Petso to provide her reasoning, questioning what happened if a property owner had a swimming pool. Councilmember Petso responded the rationale was this provision was an exception not an excuse to encroach into critical area buffers. Where someone has already constructed something substantial such as building, she understood replacing a building with pretty much anything was not doing further damage to a critical area. The items later in the list are areas that contain only gravel and replacing it with a large building could impact wildlife and have a greater effect than the items on the beginning of the list. She was not overly concerned about the swimming pool example, assuming there were not a lot of them and for the sake of simplicity she ended the sentenced after "parking lots." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 13 Packet Page 982 of 1075 Councilmember Mesaros asked staff the impact of Councilmember Petso's motion. Mr. Lien said including a comma after parking lots would allow roads, driveways and parking areas to be constructed of gravel and fall under the definition of developed footprint. He provided some history of the definition; developed footprint was defined in the interim ordinance as the legally established impervious surface area. There was also an itemized list that included gravel and compacted earthen material. This CAO update was intended to narrow that definition; buildings is one concept; roads, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, parking lots and other areas is another concept. Other concepts include outdoor swimming pools which are by definition impervious surfaces and patios. The impact of Councilmember Petso's proposed change would not address gravel driveways, parking lots, etc.; her amendment would still allow them. He suggested retaining concrete, asphalt, and compacted gravel, noting the qualifier needed to follow those. Councilmember Bloom referred to the term "legally established" and asked if there was a difference between legally established and legally permitted. Mr. Lien answered they are basically the same; legally established is used to avoid someone paving an area and that is now the developed footprint and they can build on top of it. Legally established means it was permitted and not done in violation of the code and then used as a reason for continued development in that area. Councilmember Bloom suggested using "legally permitted." Mr. Lien was hesitant to use "permitted" as things can be done without a permit; for example a building permit is only required on residential property for structures over 190 square feet. A property owner could legally put a structure on a site without a permit but it must still comply with the regulations. He preferred legally established rather than legally permitted. Councilmember Bloom asked about the grandfathering clause which is not in the CAO, which allows buildings to remain if the property owner can prove they were in place before 1981. She asked whether a grandfathered building would be considered a legally established building. Mr. Lien said that is addressed in the nonconforming section; for a structure to be nonconforming, it was legally established originally, built consistent with the regulations established at that time. The nonconforming code addresses an accessory structure that was in place prior to 1981 as legally conforming. He interpreted legally established as something that was deemed nonconforming and would find it falls under this definition. Mr. Taraday added it would make the square footage of those legally established out buildings no longer subject to being replaced with new development. Removing words from the definition of footprint of development further shrinks what can be considered permissible new development within the critical area. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of staff s explanation, if the Council did not pass the amendment, a swimming pool on the edge of steep slope could be considered part of the footprint even if it was built prior to 1981, essentially allowing a large footprint because nonconforming building have been grandfathered. Mr. Taraday said the logic built into the code as currently proposed is this list of items are development so it doesn't matter whether a swimming pool is replaced with an expanded living room because they are both development and neither enhance the critical area. From his perspective the real world effect of the amendment was which things would be allowed to be substituted for each other; could driveway or shed square footage be substituted for building square footage. The first step in a development proposal would be to look at the existing site, the developed footprint and the amount of new development they would be allowed. Action on Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION BASED ON MR. LIEN'S COMMENTS WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND TO READ, "FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT" OR "FOOTPRINT OF DEVELOPMENT" MEANS THE AREA OF A SITE THAT CONTAINS LEGALLY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 14 Packet Page 983 of 1075 ESTABLISHED: BUILDINGS OR PAVED ROADS, DRIVEWAYS, AND PARKING LOTS; STORAGE AREAS, MLALKMLAYS OR OTHER AREAS P�"LED WITH CONCRETE, ASPH AT T- OR COMPACTED GP-4AIEL; OUT -DOOR SIALIMMING POOLS; AND PATIOS. Councilmember Petso asked if this amendment addressed Mr. Lien's concern with the prior amendment. Mr. Lien expressed concern with "paved," the original definition referred to paved with concrete and asphalt; he questioned what was included in paved as typically paved would include concrete and blacktop but not gravel. Councilmember Petso said that was how she would guess it would be interpreted. Action on Amendment #2 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas declared a brief recess. Amendment #3 COUNCIL PRESENT PRO TEM JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO AMEND SECTION 23.40.215 CRITICAL AREA RESTORATION PROJECTS (PAGE 16-17 OF 90) BY DELETING SECTIONS 3a, b, c AND d. Council President Pro Tem Johnson explained this would allow a reduced buffer in a restoration project of 50-70% of the expanded buffer associated with the class of stream. She preferred to protect steams as much as possible; 75% is allowed by the state and she did not support reducing the buffer any further. Councilmember Mesaros commented 23.40.215.B.2 covers what Council President Pro Tem Johnson was interested in doing, "A buffer may be applied to the restored portion of the stream or wetland that is not less than 75% of the expanded buffer associated with the class of stream or category of wetland. Council President Pro Tem Johnson requested Mr. Lien describe what "not less than 75%" means. Mr. Lien explained not less than 75% means the buffer could be reduced 25%. For example, if a 100-foot buffer was required, a 75-foot buffer could be allowed. Councilmember Mesaros recalled one of the reasons this paragraph was included was to encourage restoration projects; removing 3a, b, c and d would eliminate the incentive for restoration projects. Mr. Lien answered this code provision was modeled after a Shoreline Management Act provision; if a shoreline restoration project expands shoreline jurisdiction, you do not have to apply the SMP within that expanded area. The intent was not to discourage restoration projects. For example if daylighting a stream requires a wide buffer that severely limits the use of the property, daylighting of the stream will not happen. A reduced buffer of 75% can be granted up front but can be reduced to 50% if certain criteria are met which is described in 3 a, b, c and d. He pointed out 3c which states there will be a net environmental benefit from the restoration project. He clarified these are restoration projects not required as mitigation. Councilmember Bloom clarified if these sections were removed, anyone wanting to do a restoration project could still apply for a variance for an additional reduction. Mr. Lien agreed they could apply for variance but staff discourages people from applying for variances. Variances are difficult to get; very strict criteria must be met to be granted a variance. Variances can also be expensive; applying for a critical area variance is approximately $6,300 plus the cost of the hearing examiner for which a $1500 deposit is collected; a total of at least $8,000 to apply for a critical area variance in addition to the cost of the restoration project. He anticipated that would discourage someone from applying from a restoration project. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained this would apply to the Marina Beach project and the daylighting of Willow Creek and the impact of the buffers on the park. He displayed a drawing from the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 15 Packet Page 984 of 1075 Marina Beach Master Plan, pointing out one of main reasons for daylighting Willow Creek was to allow salmon access to the Edmonds Marsh. The Master Plan proposed a 50-foot buffer on one side and a 75- foot buffer on the dog park side. He identified how an additional 25 feet of buffer would impact access to Marina Beach. There are other areas in the City with culverted streams such as Shellabarger Creek which is culverted in some places and open in others. If someone wanted to open the stream on their property to provide a stream feature, that would be good for the stream but if by doing that the property owner can no longer construct an addition to their house without going through the variance process, they likely would be discouraged from opening the stream. He acknowledged people were not knocking down the door to do restoration projects but he cautioned against making it difficult to do restoration projects. Councilmember Petso asked whether the amendment was also to remove Paragraph 3 in its entirety as well as a, b, c and d. Council President Pro Tem Johnson answered yes. Council President Pro Tem Johnson commented there is only one restoration project in the City at this time. Based on conversation with Mr. Lien, she learned due to the nature of fish in that stream, the state would allow a 25% reduction of the buffer from 100 feet to 75 feet. However, this provision of the CAO would allow a further reduction that would only be allowed by the City. If the City daylights Willow Creek, that should be the main focus. The assumption in developing the Marina Beach Master Plan was the setback on the dog park side would be 75 feet and the setback on Marina Beach side would be 50 feet to allow better access to the parking lot, etc. She preferred to maximize the critical area which is the stream itself. Within the 75 feet there could be fairly active activities such as kids wading, bridges, etc. and the size and nature of parcel would be a perfect opportunity for a variance. This would not eliminate the opportunity to develop the Marina Beach Master Plan but a degradation of the stream would not automatically be allowed and a different process would be required to allow the parking lot. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion due to information provide by Council President Pro Tem Johnson which differed from what she learned as part of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). Daylighting Willow Creek will not allow kids to play in it at full tide and the salmon are tiny. This has been considered and reviewed with environmentalists and there is nothing wrong with a 50-foot buffer on that side of Marina Beach. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite reminded Council that the PROS Plan, adopted by Council following a very robust public process last year, includes very aggressive goals to increase access to the waterfront for people. Marina Beach Park is a gem; 100-foot or even 75-foot buffers would eliminate the parking lot on the north side. The PAC discussed this at length with the consultant as well as Ecology who recommended buffers between 35 and 75 feet on the dog park side and 50 feet on the north side. The buffer was increased to 75 feet on the dog park side to mitigate any concerns from dogs. Increasing the 50-buffer on the north side by 25 feet would block the parking lot as well as take part of the play area and the walkway. She clarified passive recreation is allowed in buffers such as trails but not active recreation. She summarized increasing the buffer would impact Marina Beach Park and the components that the community planned for the park. There are mutual goals in the PROS Plan; daylight Willow Creek and increase access to the waterfront for people. Those do not have to be mutually exclusive; the goal of the Marina Beach Master Plan was a win -win for salmon and people. Council President Pro Tem Johnson reminded the Council has not approved the marina Beach Master Plan. An assumption was made that the buffers could be reduced to 50% as Ecology indicated but that is not allowed under the current CAO. If the intent was to spend $5 million to daylight Willow Creek, she felt the main emphasis should be on daylighting the creek even at the expense of some active recreation at Marina Beach Park. There could still be passive recreation; nothing would change with regard to Marina Beach's ability to exist in the future and there would be a process whereby the City could request a variance for access to the parking lot. She was concerned with taking a very narrow example and applying Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 16 Packet Page 985 of 1075 it citywide. Mr. Lien clarified the current critical area regulations allow a buffer reduction of up to 50%. If this provision is removed, it could only be reduced 75% and any further reduction would require a variance. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Pro Tern Johnson. The City was not serving its critical areas and environment by applying one example to every project. She recalled that was done with physically separated and functionally isolated related to two projects. She was so upset by what she felt was an inappropriate vote that she went to the Planning Board and brought it back to Council and changed her vote. Mayor Earling ended up vetoing that ordinance. The Council did that for two projects which she did not feel was a good way to deal with critical area. She read a comment from Joe Scordino, a retired fisheries biologist, who stated it was important for the regulations to stipulate that this section applies only to self -standing restoration projects and would not apply to a development activity that includes a restoration project. If the Council did not agree with eliminating 3a, b, c and d, she recommended limiting it to self -standing restoration projects because it could be used to increase the development and reduce the buffer via a restoration project. Councilmember Petso asked whether this project was likely to qualify for a variance if this provision were eliminated. Mr. Lien could not say whether or not it would qualify. For this type of project to go forward, two variances would be required, a critical area variance and a shoreline variance. The hearing examiner makes a recommendation regarding the shoreline variance and the decision is made by Ecology. The criteria for a critical area variance are listed on page 14. The criteria that would apply are the standards for public agency or utility, Section A. The project would need to meet those criteria as well as the SMP variance criteria. Councilmember Mesaros supported providing incentives. He agreed this should not be approved/denied based on Marina Park but felt there was an opportunity to tell citizens if they take the initiative to do a restoration, they may have an opportunity to reduce the buffer. The reduction requires approval and the property owner must show the restoration project brings value and improvement to the stream. He did not anticipate a rush to do restoration projects but nor should it be required to spend $8,000 on a variance. Requiring a variance would limit an activity that the City should be encouraging citizens to do. He did not support the amendment because he wanted to encourage citizens to do restoration. Mr. Lien referred to specific variance criteria in 23.40.210.B.1-6 (page 15 of 90) which probably also applies to public agencies; in order for a variance to be granted all six of the criteria must be met. He referred to item 2, the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, noting if an applicant is daylighting a stream thus creating the buffers, that variance criteria would not be met. Mr. Taraday commented if it is the Council's intent to have a project like the daylighting be done via a variance, he recommended the provisions in 23.40.210.B.1-6 not be applicable to the type of variance described in 23.40.210.A.1 public agency and public utility variances because those could be difficult to satisfy. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the buffer used to be 50% now it's 75%. The intent is to encourage restoration; one way to do that via incentives. She preferred not to continuing to use Marina Beach Park as an example and she did not support the amendment. Action on Amendment #3 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND MESAROS VOTING NO; AND MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 17 Packet Page 986 of 1075 Amendment #4 COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 23.40.220.C.4 (PAGE 18 OF 90), DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITH PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED STREAM OR WETLAND BUFFERS. Councilmember Nelson explained this section addresses physically separated and functionally isolated buffers and the ESA memo states there is no BAS that directly supports or defines criteria for determining when an existing modification makes an adjacent area physically separated and functionally isolated. He expressed concern with reducing buffers, relaying that although there were ways to ensure there was no net loss, the net effect was an overall reduction of buffers via the new sections. He referred to the ESA memo that states almost all parcels have some sort of existing development and historical development practices have resulted in many streams and wetland with minimal buffers. He summarized at some point the Council needs to protect critical area because they are going away. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the amendment. Council President Pro Tern Johnson referred to a letter from Joe Scordino, a retired fisheries expert, that states he was not convinced all ecological functions including hydrologic connections are actually separated by a road or other structure and recommended the proposed allowance for separated development not be approved. She expressed support for the amendment in large part because she has struggled with this since the temporary provision related to the spray pad. In talking with Mr. Lien, there were several examples that seemed like they would be okay but from a logical standpoint she had problems with it. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about the impact of eliminating this paragraph. Mr. Lien displayed a photograph of a channelized stream with no buffer between two houses. He identified a house separated from the stream by another house that wanted to construct an addition. With a 75-foot buffer on the stream, technically that parcel is within the stream buffer and the addition would not be allowed. He provided another example, the Edmonds Marsh currently has a 200-foot buffer; if it is a Category 1 wetland it would have a 150-foot buffer. The marsh's buffer technically extends across the railroad tracks to development west of the tracks. This was an obvious example of physically separated and functionally isolated as development west of the railroad tracks will have no impact on the marsh. Jacobsen Marine was one of the projects permitted under the interim ordinance; they were required to do buffer mitigation on the marsh side. He displayed an aerial map of the City, pointing out other examples of streams that cut through developed areas and places where roads separate development from the buffer making them physically separated and functionally isolated. He concluded allowing development in an area that is physically separated and functionally isolated will have no impact on the critical area. The impact of deleting this section is it removes flexibility. Councilmember Mesaros observed there would be opportunity for a variance. Mr. Lien agreed they could apply for a variance. Councilmember Mesaros asked Councilmember Nelson his rationale for the amendment, commenting he did not want to limit buffers but the examples staff presented illustrate that buffers have been limited by past generations and development will not change the stream. He questioned why Councilmember Nelson wanted to take opportunity away from citizens. Councilmember Nelson said if the City was updating the CAO based on BAS, he was concerned with making decisions based on non -scientific information. If the goal was to protect critical areas, he was concerned with simply accepting because Edmonds is already developed and is an urban area, that's the way it's gonna be and believed the City could do better. Councilmember Mesaros said he has the same goals in mind but was not sure eliminating this paragraph reached those goals. It would seem scientific that a building on the other side of the railroad tracks would not impact the stream on the other side of the tracks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 18 Packet Page 987 of 1075 Councilmember Petso referred to Council President Pro Tem Johnson's comments regarding potential connection either for habitat in critical areas or hydrogeological connections. The fact that there is a house between her property and a stream does not prevent water continuity on the subsurface. Development between her house and the stream was not enough to convince her that the areas were physically separated and functionally isolated, coupled with the fact it is not BAS. She anticipated a tighter provision could be drafted in the future where several experts determined there was no hydrologic or wildlife connection but it did not seem worth the effort. She preferred to remove this section. Aaron Boy, ESA, referred to ESA's memo and the opening language regarding consistency with BAS and where departures from where BAS should be applied. They were looking to State guidance for their evaluation criteria within the GMA with regard to how those departures should be presented. The guidance provided by the State does not specifically address isolated buffers but they were looking at situations where there was an existing physical separation and a functional isolated; from their perspective they did not see there was an issue with allowing development in those areas. The recommendations provided in the memo for additional criteria for the City to evaluate functional isolation were intended to address some of the Council's concerns. In situations where there is an existing roadway or existing structure but the City's review determines there is still a hydrologic or other connection, this provision would not apply. He summarized this section provides a structure where the City could make a determination whether both physical separation and functional isolation occur. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Council President Pro Tem Johnson was the only Councilmember who voted against the spray pad; in her [Councilmember Buckshnis] view, the spray pad was physically separated and functionally isolated by the parking lot. She commented the entire City is hydrologically connected, referring to the marsh and fill on the waterfront. She asked whether Jacobsen Marine would have been allowed without this section even though it is on the other side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Lien responded it may have needed a variance process. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with forcing someone to go through an expensive variance process. Mr. Lien referenced the criteria for determining physically separated and functionally isolated and referred to the last line in the section Councilmember Nelson proposed to remove, "In determining whether an area is physically separated and functionally isolated from the adjacent stream or wetland, the director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the interruption." He clarified all the issues that have been raised are considered and the director may require the assessment be done by a qualified professional. Councilmember Buckshnis said other examples of development that would not be allowed include the spray pad and the senior center. Mr. Lien clarified the senior center is not within any buffer. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmember Buckshnis' statement that there would be no development on the other side of railroad tracks was accurate. Mr. Lien explained the 2014 BAS Report identified the Edmonds Marsh as a Category 1 wetland which has a 200-foot buffer under the existing CAO; under the proposed CAO it would have a 150-foot buffer. He identified the area that would be within the 150-foot marsh buffer. Councilmember Petso recalled Ecology stated the marsh was not a Category 1 wetland and recommended a 60-foot buffer but now Mr. Lien is stating a 150-foot buffer would be required. Mr. Lien responded there has not been an official delineation of the marsh; he says Category 1 because the 2004 BAS Report identified the marsh as a Category 1. Ecology is saying it is a Category 2 because it is a degraded estuarian wetland. Councilmember Petso reiterated Ecology recommended a 60-foot buffer. Mr. Lien cautioned this is mixing different projects. Councilmember Petso pointed out if Ecology recommends a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 19 Packet Page 988 of 1075 60-foot buffer, that buffer will not impair future development on the west side of the tracks. Mr. Lien responded if the marsh is a Category 2 wetland, the CAO would require a 75-foot buffer. If the railroad right-of-way is 100-feet wide, a 75-foot buffer would not extend beyond the railroad right-of-way. Councilmember Petso concluded there was no impact of this amendment under that scenario. Mr. Lien agreed if the marsh is a Category 2 wetland. Action on Amendment #4 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND MESAROS VOTING NO; AND MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Amendment #5 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND BY CHANGING "ONE INCH IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT" IN SECTION 23.40.220.C.b.iv (PAGE 20 OF 90) TO "1% to 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT.. Councilmember Bloom explained a former Tree Board Member indicated Seattle uses 1'/2 to 2 inch caliper for replacement. The reason they do not use a higher caliper and why she did not recommend a higher caliper such as 3 inches is a smaller tree has a better survival rate of the tree but a 1-inch tree is too small to replace a very large tree. Action on Amendment #5 MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Amendment #6 COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND SECTION 23.80.020.7, LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS, (PAGE 32 OF 90) TO CHANGE THE DIAMETER FROM 3 INCHES AT DBH TO 4 INCHES. Councilmember Mesaros recalled when looking at the samples Mr. Hertrich provided of a 3-inch and a 4- inch tree, it was appropriate that homeowners be allowed to remove shrubs/non-woody vegetation less than 4-inches as part of normal maintenance of vegetation. Action on Amendment #6 MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO AND MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it would be appropriate to add a 3-year maintenance responsibility that would require replacement if a tree died or was that assumed. She was concerned there was no requirement to replace the replacement trees if they died. Mr. Lien referred to the removal of hazardous trees section, noting monitoring is not specifically addressed in that section. If replacement trees or mitigation was required as part of the development of a project, monitoring for five year was required. This section does not specifically address monitoring of replacement trees associated with the development. Councilmember Bloom stated she was satisfied. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the language staff proposed removing in 23.40.270.13 (page 24 of 90), "Critical areas tracts shall be recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots." Mr. Lien explained the new language in Paragraph B is an elaboration of the sentence proposed to be removed. Previously only critical area tracts had to be recorded; the new language expanded on that to require critical area tracts as well as other things be recorded on title. Councilmember Bloom confirmed critical area tracts will still be recorded. Mr. Lien answered yes, explaining generally a critical area tract would be created via a subdivision process and the subdivision is recorded. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 20 Packet Page 989 of 1075 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 23.90.040.C.1 (page 84 of 90) and the 30% retention requirement for native vegetation determined by the existing site area that supports native vegetation, 10 inches in diameter and 70% of the canopy cover. She relayed a citizen's question regarding how 10 inches DBH and/or 30% was determined. Mr. Booy answered the intent was to ensure protection for intact forest areas adjacent to existing critical areas such as wetlands, stream corridors and steep slopes. Ten -inch trees are typically associated with Pileated Woodpecker habitat. The 70% canopy was a threshold where key core habitats are included. Mr. Lien explained the existing provision requires retention of 30% native vegetation in all RS-12 and RS-20 zones. This provision is similar to the King County provision that was struck down for being too broad. The intent in the update was to continue to protect native but provide definition of native vegetation to be protected by tying it to wetlands, steam corridors and steep slope areas. There are parcels where native vegetation does not exist; for example, the subdivision on 9th & Casper that is in an RS-12 zone and they had to establish 30% native vegetation in the existing field. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ms. Stewart's comment regarding Section 23.40.320 and the definition of "adjacent" in the April 22, 2015 draft was 300 feet and this draft was 225 feet. Mr. Lien responded 225 feet is the largest buffer in this CAO. An earlier draft included 300 feet; the existing CAO has 200 feet. Councilmember Bloom recalled Ms. Stewart's concern was the earlier draft contained 300 feet and that was not discussed by the Planning Board. Mr. Lien responded the rationale for 225 feet was it was the widest buffer in the CAO. If an adjacent property was 300 feet away, the critical area buffer or critical area regulations would not apply that far away. Amendment #7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND BY DELETING 21.40.030.D.1 HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS (PAGE 529 OF 564) WHICH READS, "FOR ALL PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS AND COASTAL A FLOOD ZONES HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE ELEVATION THAT IS TWO FEET ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AS IDENTIFIED FROM THE APPLICABLE FEMA FOOD HAZARD MAP." Council President Pro Tern Johnson commented this is essentially a height exemption and would have the defacto result of raising heights in the waterfront area. Height is a politically charged issue and she urged careful consideration of a provision that could result in several additional feet of height. Mr. Lien answered a frequently flooded area is a critical area. In Edmonds, frequently flooded regulations are included in the building code. The first change in this document is in the building code where the following language is added, "For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map." The rationale of this provision includes, 1) updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) effective in 2016 that will greatly expand the flood hazard zones in the waterfront area, and 2) sea level rise projections. The most recent studies in the Puget Sound area project an average 2-foot sea level rise by 2100. If a structure has a 100-year life span, it would experience that 2-foot sea level rise. Mr. Lien described how the City determines height; height is measured from the average original grade. A rectangle is drawn around the development, elevations taken at the four corners, divided by four which produces an average grade from which height is measured. He displayed the updated FEMA FIRM; the base flood elevation for the waterfront area is 12 feet. He identified the area at 12 feet or below that is in that flood hazard area. All the zones on the waterfront (CG, BC, CW) have a 30 foot height limit. If the average grade is 11 feet, building height can be 30 feet for a total of 41 feet above base sea level. If the City requires buildings to be built two feet above base sea level, it essentially takes away one foot of allowable zoning height. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 21 Packet Page 990 of 1075 Councilmember Nelson observed this is projected to occur in approximately 85 years. Mr. Lien said the latest projections are a 2-foot level rise by 2100. The 100 year flood plain has a 1% chance of that type of flood occurring in any given year. Councilmember Mesaros observed it would be a gradual rise; 2 feet in 85 years or 1 foot in 42'/2 years. Mr. Lien answered it is based on climate change and current studies. Councilmember Buckshnis commented since a building's lifespan is 50-70 years, this language is accounting for nature. Mr. Lien agreed it was planning ahead. Action on Amendment #7 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND MESAROS VOTING NO; AND MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bloom referred to 23.90.040.C.1 (page 84 of 90), and language regarding achieving the minimum 30% retention requirement for native vegetation, 10-inches DBH and 70% canopy, commenting that seemed like a high bar to achieve. She asked whether there were any existing parcels that could achieve 70% cover with 10-inch DBH native trees. Mr. Lien explained the RS-12 and RS-20 zones were established in large part due to the presence of critical areas in north Edmonds, mainly landslide hazard area. Due to the slopes, there are still connected forest areas that would meet this criterion. Councilmember Bloom asked if a parcel that did not meet the criteria would not qualify for achieving the minimum 30% retention for native vegetation. Mr. Lien answered if a parcel did not meet the requirement, they may not be required to retain 30%. He referred to 23.90.040.C.4, "For undeveloped (or redeveloped) subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20 that currently do not support any native vegetation areas meeting minimum requirements in ECDC 23.90.040.C.1, the director may waive the requirement s of this provision." For example the development at 9 h & Caspers; they would not be required to retain 30% native vegetation because it does not exist. Councilmember Bloom observed there could be parcels in landslide hazard areas that do not meet that criteria that would not be required to retain 30%. Mr. Lien answered the director may waive the requirements. Amendment #8 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND BY REDUCING THE DBH IN 23.90.040.C.1 TO 6 INCHES. Councilmember Bloom was concerned with allowing development in an area where numerous trees do not meet the 10 inch DBH criteria and only 10 inch DBH trees are considered for the 70% canopy cover. She was concerned with allowing development and removal of trees that are needed to stabilize steep slopes and prevent landslide hazards. Councilmember Petso suggested the objective could be achieved by eliminating 23.90.040.C.I instead of revising it. Mr. Lien said that would result in a provision that was similar to a King County provision that struck down by the courts. The intent of this paragraph was to describe the type of habitat to be retained to make it more defensible. Council President Pro Tern Johnson asked about 6-inch versus 10-inch DBH. Mr. Booy reiterated 10-inch DBH is a threshold size for certain habitat such as the Pileated Woodpecker. There is definitely habitat value in small trees such as 6-inch DBH. Mr. Lien said 6 inch DBH is the current definition of trees. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 22 Packet Page 991 of 1075 Action on Amendment #8 MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Councilmember Bloom proposed reducing the percent canopy cover to 50% which was more reasonable, observing 70% canopy cover was pretty high. Mr. Booy said similar to the DBH criteria, this is open to the Council's interpretation; either would protect habitat. The 70% canopy was included to ensure protection was provided for the most important adjoining forested habitat areas. Councilmember Bloom asked what other cities do with regard to protecting areas and maintaining their canopy. Mr. Booy said this is a somewhat unique provision that he has not seen in other jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions do not typically have protections for adjoining habitats associated with a stream, wetland, or steep slope area that is already being protected. There is a percent threshold in the State's wetland rating system, 30% for an area that could be considered forest canopy. If more than 30% of the wetland and adjoining buffer is forested canopy, the wetland can be considered to have a forested habitat class. Mr. Lien clarified this paragraph does not say there has to be 70% forest cover on a site; it says trees 6 inches in diameter make up more than 70% of the canopy cover. Whatever canopy cover exists on the site, 70% has to be 6-inch trees or greater. He noted the Council budgeted for the creation of an urban forest management plan which could look at habitat, canopy coverage, corridors, etc. and be used to refine these provisions. Councilmember Bloom commented in the meantime the City continues to lose canopy cover. Amendment #9 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND 23.90.040.C.1 TO MAKE UP MORE THAN 40% OF THE CANOPY COVER. Action on Amendment #9 MOTION CARRIED (4-1-2) COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON AND MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Call for the Ouestion COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MAIN MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS SECONDED. UPON ROLL CALL, CALL FOR THE QUESTION FAILED (2-4-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING NO; AND MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Councilmember Bloom recommended Item 5a on page 87 be amended for consistency. Mr. Lien said it is consistent because it references the definition in ECDC 23.40.320. Mr. Lien referred to a correction in Item 2 on page 45 identified by Council President Pro Tern Johnson, "...Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be preferred over wetland buffer averagin width reduction with enhancement..." Action on Motion #3 as amended MOTION CARRIED (6-1), MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. 8. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 15, 2015 Page 23 Packet Page 992 of 1075 the City Council also allows right-of-way trees to be removed if they interfere with either public or private structures or infrastructure. Vice Chair Lovell asked if the tree policy would also allow a tree to be removed it an arborist determined it had a shallow root system and could fall on a nearby public or private structure. Mr. Lien said that, in this scenario, it would be considered a hazard tree, which could be taken down. However, a tree risk assessment by a professional arborist would be required as outlined in the draft Tree Code. The City would have the ability to deny an application for removal of a landmark tree if it is neither hazardous nor damaging to structures and infrastructure. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands that it is illegal for property owners to place structures and/or landscaping that restricts access within the rights -of -way. Therefore, she is unclear where the replacement trees would be located and whether or not they could be counted as part of the adjacent property's tree density. Mr. Lien answered that the right-of-way trees would not count towards the adjacent property's tree density requirement, and the draft Tree Code would require replacement of all trees that are cut within the right-of-way. The replacement requirement would depend on the number and size of the trees removed. However, he reminded the Board that the property owner may have the option to pay into a tree fund in lieu of replacing any or all of the trees. Mr. Chave clarified that most of these situations occur in unopened rights -of - way where there is a combination of landscaping, including trees. Oftentimes, adjacent property owners do not understands that the property is considered public right-of-way. Mr. Lien reminded the Board of his previous comment that the City does not currently have an Urban Forest Management Plan, which would also address right-of-way trees. While trees in parks are identified in the City's overall goal for canopy, there is no policy in place to back it up. Board Member Stewart said she has a number of reactions to the draft, and she hopes to have an opportunity to make some comments and suggestions before the plan is presented for a public hearing. Rather than answering questions on the fly, Mr. Lien suggested the Board Members forward their questions and comments to him. This would allow him to focus the next Staff Report on specific issues. He said he anticipates the Board would have at least one more work session prior to scheduling the draft Tree Code for a public hearing. Vice Chair Lovell noted that he already submitted written comments to staff regarding the draft Tree Code. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Tree Board discussed the opportunity to adjust the fee schedule based on income or age levels. Mr. Lien clarified that the fees identified in the draft Tree Code can only be adjusted by the City Council. He suggested the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council relative to the fee schedule. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Tree Board contemplated an effective start date for enforcement of the new Tree Code if and when it is adopted. Mr. Lien said the effective date would be determined by the City Council. He acknowledged that the draft Tree Code represents a significant change over the existing tree code, and significant public education will be needed. Generally, when an ordinance is passed by the City Council, it becomes effective five days after it is published. However, the effective date will be spelled out in the ordinance, and the City Council could choose a later date. Mr. Chave explained that implementation of the draft Tree Code would require the City to hire a professional arborist. The new plan would be much more difficult to administer and could not be implemented with existing staff. Board Member Cloutier suggested that staff seek more input from other cities who have implemented stringent tree codes. While it seems like a great idea to have at least 8 trees on every lot in the City, they must consider that property owners will want to have vegetable gardens, solar panels, etc., which require sunlight. He does not want the Tree Code to penalize people who are making good use of their land. The draft Tree Plan must account for and accommodate these other concepts. Board Member Robles suggested the code should also consider the health benefits of having adequate sunlight. Once again, Mr. Lien stressed the need for an Urban Forest Management Plan, which is one of the ultimate goals of the draft Tree Code. Mr. Lien summarized that he would attempt to incorporate the Board's comments into new draft code language for the Board's continued review on April 22°d INTRODUCTION OF CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Planning Board Minutes March 25, 2015 Page 7 Packet Page 993 of 1075 Mr. Lien reminded the Board that all cities and counties in Washington State are required to adopt critical area regulations by the Growth Management Act (GMA). In addition, all jurisdictions are required to review, evaluate, and if necessary, revise their critical area regulations according to an update schedule. The City's review and update is due in 2015. He explained that "critical areas" include wetlands, areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. Most of the City's critical areas are geologically hazardous areas. Mr. Lien reported that the City hired environmental consultants ESA to assist staff in updating the 2004 Best Available Science (BAS) Report (Attachment 1) and evaluating the critical area regulations given the changes in science. He referred the Board to Attachment 2, which contains the 2015 BAS Addendum and a Gap Analysis Matrix that was prepared by ESA to illustrate the changes in science that have occurred since the last BAS Report in 2004. He advised that the City's existing CAO is largely compliant with BSA. However, there are a few areas where ESA has suggested some changes might be needed: • Change the City's wetland regulations to be consistent with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Guidance for Small Cities and the City's recently adopted Shoreline Master Program (SMP). • Update the geologically hazardous provisions. Rather than a standard buffer of 50 feet or the height of the slope, ESA is recommending the City allow a professional to determine the appropriate setback from a geologically hazardous area. • Change how landslide hazard areas are defined to be clearer. • Rather than applying the native vegetation requirement based on zoning (RS-12 and RS-20), ESA is recommending the requirement be tied to the existing habitat. He noted that language similar to the City's current language was recently struck down in court because it was site specific and not tied to any specific ecological value. • Review the allowed activities, including development within physically separated and functionally isolated buffers and development within a previously developed footprint. Mr. Lien asked the Board Members to review the information in the Staff Report in preparation for a continued discussion on April 22°d that will include draft code language. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the 2015 BAS Report and matrix are well written and fact rich. She particularly appreciated the explanation provided relative to habitat areas and the importance of connectivity. She observed that, at one point, a certain size was required in order to classify an area as a wetland, but that appears to have changed so that smaller - sized wetlands are now being classified as long as interconnectivity can be demonstrated. Mr. Lien responded that in a previous iteration of the CAO, wetlands under 120 square feet were exempt. As per the new criteria, no wetlands are exempt based on size. However, a new category would be added with different standards for small, isolated wetlands, recognizing that it might be possible to replace their functions. He emphasized that all wetlands would be regulated consistent with the DOE's requirements. MARINA BEACH PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE Ms. Hite advised that Marina Beach Park is one of the City's highest used and well -loved parks. It is often crowded during the summer months, and the off -leash area for dogs is a favorite that is used year round. There is nothing wrong with the park, and the City would not likely be doing a master plan for the park at this time if it were not for a clearly expressed community desire to restore the Edmonds Marsh (see Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan) and bring back the capacity for salmon habitat. After careful review and completion of a feasibility study done by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., it was determined that the best way to accomplish this would be to daylight Willow Creek from the Marsh into Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park. Ms. Hite stressed how important it is that the Master Plan reflects how the park is currently being used and identifies ways to mitigate any impacts due to changes. She advised that the City hired the consulting firm Walker Macy, ltd. to help complete the master plan, and Chris Jones from Walker Macy, ltd. was present to review the various alternatives with the Board. In addition, a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was formed to work in an ad hoc role to help guide the master planning process (see a list of participants in the Staff Report) and allow citizens to be involved early on. She reported that the PAC has met twice with the staff and consultant, and the consultant and staff also spent two days holding interviews with key Planning Board Minutes March 25, 2015 Page 8 Packet Page 994 of 1075 would make it easier to find the tree regulations, it would not get the City where it ultimately wants to be relative to tree preservation and tree canopy. Vice Chair Lovell asked if it would hold up the code rewrite process if the Board were to recommend to the City Council that they clean up the tree code provisions in conjunction with the overall code update but hold off on implementation of the entire new tree code until a UFMP has been established. Mr. Chave answered no, but emphasized that what the City could do under the code rewrite process would be fairly limited. Board Member Robles commented that additional education is needed on the current tree cutting provisions before the Board can make a recommendation on the draft Tree Code. For example, he was unaware of the current penalties for unauthorized tree cutting. Mr. Chave agreed that the proposed changes would involve not only educating the public, but also the businesses that do tree cutting in the City. Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the draft Tree Code is scheduled for May 27`h. Vice Chair Lovell thanked the staff for their hard work on preparing and presenting the draft Tree Code. Board Member Stewart thanked the Tree Board, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding of the public hearing is that the public would be invited to come forward and express their issues and concerns about what they understand the tree code would be or could be, but it would not be the appropriate time for the Board to ask the public for feedback on specific issues. Mr. Lien said the public would be invited to share their thoughts on the draft Tree Code, which includes a number of issues. Chair Tibbott said staff would provide an overview of the draft Tree Code, and the public would have an opportunity to respond. The Planning Board would then have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and respond to public comments. Mr. Chave suggested that staff could highlight some of the specific issues discussed by the Board as part of their presentation. THE BOARD TOOK A SHORT BREAK AT 8:30 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:38 P.M. REVIEW OF DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board received an introduction of the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) update on March 25th and were provided copies of the 2015 Best Available Science Report (Attachment 2) and Gap Analysis Matrix (Attachment 2). He reminded the Board that counties and cities are required to include Best Available Science (BAS) in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Jurisdictions are required to evaluate and revise their CAOs accordingly on a regular basis, and the City's update is due in 2015. He reported that the City selected environmental consultants ESA to assist in updating the City's 2004 BAS Report (Attachment 1) and to evaluate the City's critical area regulations given the changes in science. Mr. Lien advised that the City's existing critical area regulations are largely compliant with BAS, but there are a few areas where ESA has suggested changes to the CAO. He referred to Attachment 3, which is the working draft of a red-line/strike- out version of the City's critical area regulations and reviewed the proposed changes as follows: • Critical Area Determination (ECDC 23.40.080.D) and Critical Area Reports (ECDC 23.40.090.F). The City has some critical area determinations and critical area reports dating back to the early 1990's. This is a concern because science and regulations relative to critical areas change frequently. These proposed amendments would make critical area determination and critical area reports valid for a period of five years. • Innovative Mitigation (ECDC 23.40.140). This section would be amended to incorporate in -lieu -fee programs, off -site mitigation, and payments towards an identified City project as alternative mitigation approaches. • Allowed Activities (ECDC 23.40.220.C.6.d). The code currently allows trails in critical area buffers, and the consultant has recommended that this provision be revised to allow trails only in the outer 25% of critical area buffers. Where existing, legally -established development has reduced the width of the critical areas buffer, trails can be placed in the Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 8 Packet Page 995 of 1075 outer 25% of the remaining critical area buffer. Allowance for trails within the inner 75% of a critical area buffer are provided for within applicable sections of ECDC 23.50 through ECDC 23.90. • Allowed Activities (ECDC 23.40.220.C.7). The current code allows for the removal of invasive and noxious plant species without a critical areas report. However, removal of vegetation would be restricted to hand removal and the area of work must be less than 1,500 square feet as calculated cumulatively over three years. All removed plant material must be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of, and plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board's list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate for the species. Unauthorized Critical Area Alterations and Enforcement (ECDC 23.40.240.E). The current code references the tree cutting section of the code for applicable penalties for unauthorized tree cutting in critical areas, but it does not address violations that do not involve tree cutting. This makes it difficult for the City to assess a fine. As per the proposed amendment, violations would be subject to penalties equal to the cost of the permit, plus any applicable penalties, plus a square footage cost of $3.00 per square foot of impacted critical area and critical area buffer. A per tree fine would still be imposed and would likely be triple the fine imposed in the Tree Code. • Wetlands (ECDC 23.50.010). The consultant has recommended a number of changes in this section to bring it up to standard with BAS. For example, the manuals used for delineating wetlands would be updated (ECDC 23.50.010.A) and the wetland categories (ECDC 23.50.010.13) would be revised to be consistent with the latest criteria. Wetland Buffers (ECDC 23.50.040.F). The buffer widths would be revised consistent with the Department of Ecology's (DOES) guidance for small jurisdictions. The current code establishes a standard buffer width for Category I, Il, III and IV Wetlands. The draft code uses a different approach that allow the buffer width to change depending on habitat score (See Table in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d). One of the functions of a wetland is to provide habitat, which is why the consultant is recommending that the buffer be tied to the habitat score. The habitat score would be determined by a wetland scientist as part of wetland delineation. Most wetlands in Edmonds are Category III and Category IV, and the current code identifies a buffer of between 35 and 50 feet. The proposed amendment identifies a buffer of between 60 and 225 feet for a Category III Wetland, depending on its habitat score. The buffer requirement for Category IV Wetlands would be a standard 40 feet and would not be based on habitat score. Category I Wetlands, which includes the Edmonds Marsh, would require a buffer of between 75 to 225 feet, depending on the habitat score. The table in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d.2 outlines required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands, and the standard wetland buffer widths identified in the Table in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d assumes implementation of the measures where applicable to a specific project. The listed measures include directing light away from wetland, locating activities that generate noise away from wetlands, routing all new, untreated runoff away from wetlands, and retrofitting stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development. It was noted that mitigation ratios would be updated per guidance from the DOE. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses (ECDC 23.50.040.G). The current code allows for both buffer averaging and buffer reduction, but the amendment would not allow both of them at the same time. An applicant could do either buffer averaging or buffer reduction. The existing code allows buffer width reduction and/or buffer averaging up to 50% of the buffer, and the proposed amendment would not allow reduction or averaging to reduce the buffer to less than 75% of the standard buffer. The City is primarily developed and most of the buffers are not present. The City's goal is to enhance these critical area buffers over time. The current code requires that a property owner meet the functions and values of a standard buffer if a modification is allowed. Because there is no buffer in many situations, requiring buffer averaging or reduction to meet the standard buffer would be impossible. Consistent with the BAS Report, staff is proposing that language be added that would require all buffer modifications to provide a buffer that is equal to a standard buffer or improve upon the buffer that is present. This would result in an increased buffer in situations where no buffer is currently present, and it would meet the City's goal of increasing the function and value over existing conditions. In other words, buffer averaging or width reduction would require enhancement of the buffer area to improve the overall quality of the wetland. The City would be achieving more than no net loss by requiring enhancement in these situations. Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 9 Packet Page 996 of 1075 Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands (ECDC 23.50.040..1). The intent of the current code is that these wetlands would be exempt, but that is not really clear in the existing language. The existing code required that it be a low -quality Category III or VI Wetland that is less than 500 square feet. Wetlands were only exempt if they did not provide significant habitat value for wildlife, and filling of the wetland must maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing site conditions. The last requirement is nearly impossible to meet. Rather than identifying these wetlands as exempt, the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions calls them small, hydrologically isolated wetlands. These are small wetlands (less than 1,000 square feet) with a low habitat value that are not connected to riparian or hydrological corridors. They would not be exempt in the sense that they could be filled without mitigation, but they would be exempt from a few of the criteria in the CAO. For example, they could be filled and still be exempt from the buffer requirement. However, mitigation would be required as per the sequencing outlined in ECDC 23.50.050 in order to replace the lost function and values. Board Member Stewart asked what the buffer requirement would be for these small wetlands. Mr. Lien answered that, as currently proposed, no buffer would be required for a wetland that is less than 1,000 square feet and has a low habitat score. He noted that this language came directly from the DOE's Guidance for Small Jurisdictions, which was last updated in 2012. Board Member Stewart expressed her opinion that a rain garden and most other mitigation would not sufficiently duplicate the ecosystem that was present in the small wetland. Even though it is small, it still supports a web of life that cannot be easily replaced. She would rather it not be filled at all. She noted that there are a number of small wetlands throughout the City and they have value in terms of the wildlife they support. Mr. Lien emphasized that the exemption provision would only apply to small wetlands that have very low habitat scores. Board Member Stewart said there are wetlands in forested areas that used to be larger but have now been partially filled. Because they have become smaller, they no longer have the higher value. She asked who would be responsible for making this assessment. Mr. Lien said the assessment would be done by a qualified professional. Board Member Stewart asked if the assessment would consider whether there had been any tampering with the land previously. Mr. Lien answered that the qualified professional would consider previous conditions and altered wetlands to some degree, but they primarily look at what is there now and whether it meets the criteria to be identified as a wetland. The habitat score will be based on the quality of the wetland and the existing vegetation. Board Member Stewart said she is glad that the draft language recognizes that even small wetlands have some value. Chair Tibbott asked how the Edmonds Marsh would be classified. Mr. Lien answered that no delineation has been done for the Edmonds Marsh, but the 2004 BAS Report identified it as a Category I Wetland. The required buffer would be between 75 and 225 feet, depending on the habitat score it receives based on delineation. Board Member Stewart said she hopes that the qualified professional will consider what has been done in the past to bring the score down. She expressed her belief that the City's goal should be to make up for some of the damage that has been previously done. Mr. Lien explained that habitat scores and delineation are largely driven by the Corps of Engineers' recommendations. Wetland scientists take certification classes in order to qualify to conduct the delineation and identify a habitat score. He does not believe that the habitat score for the Edmonds Marsh can be based on what the wetland used to be. Board Member Stewart asked if jurisdictions have the authority to have stronger delineation and habitat score criteria than what the Corps of Engineers recommends. Mr. Lien cautioned against having greater requirements than the Corps of Engineers recommends relative to habitat values and scores. However, the City has the flexibility to establish greater buffers based on the habitat scores. Chair Tibbott asked where a human footpath could be located at the Edmonds Marsh if a 165-foot buffer is required. Mr. Lien said he has had discussions with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff regarding this issue in light of the plan to connect the existing trail all the way around the marsh. He reminded the Board that walkways and trails are allowed activities in the outer 25% of a buffer area and no critical areas report would be required. A trail located within the inner 75% of the buffer area would be permitted, but a critical areas report would be required and the standard would be higher. He noted that the Director may allow a trail to be located in the inner 25% of a buffer area when required to access viewing structures, fish access or connections to other trail facilities. • Designation of Specific Hazard Areas (ECDC 23.80.020.B.4). The proposed language changes how landslide hazard areas are defined. Under the existing code, you have to look at the entire slope and it can be difficult to identify the top Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 10 Packet Page 997 of 1075 and tow of the slope and where it breaks. The proposed amendment would make the process more straightforward. As proposed, any slope of 40% or greater that exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25-foot horizontal run would be considered a landslide hazard area. Seismic hazard areas will be designated as having a "high" and "moderate to high" risk of liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County or areas located within landslide hazard areas. • Special Study and Report Requirements (ECDC 23.80.050.A). Some changes were made to the special study and report requirements. Minimum Building Setbacks (ECDC 23.80.070A.1). Currently, the standard setback for geologically hazardous areas is 50 feet or the height of the slope from the top of the slope. As proposed, a geotech report would determine the setback and buffer. In practice, that is basically what the City does now. There is a standard 50-foot buffer with a 15-foot building setback. A geotech report would be required to do anything within the setback and buffer. With a geotech report, the buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet. Staff is still struggling with when a geotechnical report should be required. If there is no standard buffer, what distance would be used to establish when a report would be required? The consultant has suggested that the City update its Landslide Hazard Areas Map. Currently, the City has a good Landslide Hazard Areas Map, and any development within 50 or 100 feet of a designated landslide hazard area would require a geotechnical report. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors (ECDC 23.90.040.C). The proposed amendment would replace language that currently exists in the CAO that requires 30% vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 zoned properties. The current language is similar to King County's provision, which the Courts struck down because it requires something that is not based on habitat but is applied across the board. This provision is currently being applied on a 7-lot plat at the corner of 91' Avenue and Caspers. The applicant is being required to establish 30% native vegetation as part of the project even though there is no habitat present. Staff believes this part of the code needs to be revised, and they are proposing that the requirement be tied to habitat. He referred to a map that identifies the biodiversity areas and corridors in the City where the provision could apply, and briefly described each of the areas. The goal of the provision outlined in ECDC 23.90.040.0 is to maintain continuity of the existing biodiversity areas and corridors throughout the City. Specifically, ECDC 23.90.040.C.2.b would require an applicant to maintain the continuity of the existing biodiversity area/corridor by not narrowing the width of the existing corridor by more than 10% or 20 feet, whichever is less, and not impacting more than 10% or 2,000 square feet, whichever is less, of the existing biodiversity area/corridor occurring on the site. For existing residential lots that are highly encumbered by existing biodiversity areas, a 3,000 square foot development footprint may be allowed. Further work is needed on this provision to make sure it is workable and feasible. Chair Tibbott asked if the City has identified any liquefaction areas. If so, do these areas correlate with the biodiversity areas and corridors? Mr. Lien answered that he could provide an updated map of the liquefaction areas, which are typically located by the waterfront and in the portions of the Edmonds Marsh that were filled in. He does not believe there are any liquefaction areas uphill from the sound. Board Member Stewart asked if all of the biodiversity areas/corridors are on public property. Mr. Lien answered that they are located on both private and public properties. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that it is possible to engineer to build on soils where there is potential for liquefaction. Mr. Lien concurred and noted that these standards are addressed in the Building Code. Mr. Chave added that there are very substantial Building Code provisions that would come into play. Board Member Stewart asked if there are restrictions for single-family residential development within liquefaction areas. Mr. Lien explained that, as per ECDC 23.80.040.13, the following would be allowed to occur without a geotech report: construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential uses or places of employment; additions to existing single -story residents that are 250 square feet or less; and installation of fences. All other activity in a liquefaction hazard area would require a geotech report. It would also be required to meet all of the Building Code requirements. Mr. Chave added that, generally, liquefaction hazard areas are also flood prone areas, for which another set of standards would apply. • Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 19). Mr. Lien advised that there is some flood plain around Lake Ballinger and near the mouth of Shell Creek, but the majority of the City's flood areas are waterfront. Currently, the only proposed change Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 11 Packet Page 998 of 1075 is to include new flood zones (Zones V and VE) for flood areas along the shoreline. However, the consultants have also suggested the City consider requiring development within flood plains to be 1 to 2 feet above the base flood elevation. Although the City currently only requires development to be at flood elevation, the consultant's recommendation is common practice in many jurisdictions. It is important to keep in mind that implementing the additional requirement could have a significant impact on development along the waterfront because it would take one or two feet off of the allowed building height. While he does not disagree with the recommendation, the City might also want to consider allowing some flexibility in the height standards if buildings are required to be elevated above the base flood elevation. Mr. Chave suggested that it is more a matter of where building height is measured from. Board Member Stewart referred to Page 9 of the addendum to the BAS, which states that FEMA recommends, and many communities have adopted, higher standards of either 1 or 2 feet above base flood elevation. If the City's goal is to have a longer life of buildings, they should consider taking a conservative approach and implement a requirement of 2 feet rather than 1. Mr. Lien pointed out that while sea level rise is an issue relative to the waterfront, it is not applicable to Lake Ballinger. Some jurisdictions have different requirements for building above the base flood elevation depending on location and whether the buildings are commercial or residential. However, he suggested the change would be more appropriate in ECDC 19 (Building Code) rather than in the CAO. The Board could discuss this issue further at a future meeting, and it would be appropriate to invite the Building Official to participate in the discussion. Mr. Lien said the consultant is also proposing that the City consider requiring compensatory storage mitigation for development around Lake Ballinger. He explained that when compensatory storage mitigation is done, the floodway is expanded out a little bit. The existing soil and topography around Lake Ballinger would make this approach difficult. In addition, the level of the lake is controlled by the outlet of the stream. Again, he said this approach might not be a good fit for Edmonds. • Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated. Mr. Lien provided photographs to illustrate a stream in the City of Edmonds that runs between two houses. He explained that because the area on either side of the stream is developed, it may not be appropriate to apply a standard buffer requirement where there is no opportunity to create a buffer. In this situation, a property owner indicated a desire to do a small addition to extend the house out. However, because the lots in the bowl area are typically 60-feet wide and the buffer for a stream is 75 feet, the house is technically located within the stream buffer. Mr. Lien recalled that a year and a half ago, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that dealt with physically separated and functional isolated buffers and development within a previously developed footprint. It was decided to shelf the discussion until the CAO update. He explained that, by definition, a buffer is identified as physically separated and functionally isolated if it does not provide any value to the critical area (streams and wetlands). To make this clear, the proposed update would change the definition of buffer (ECDC 23.40.320) by adding the following language: "Areas that are functionally separated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails eight (8) feet or more in width, or other legally established structures or paved areas eighth (8) feet or more in width that occur between the area in question and the adjacent critical area shall be considered as functionally separated buffer. " Again, he referred to the picture and explained how the proposed addition would be physically separated from the stream. Activities within a physically separated and functionally isolated buffer would not require enhancement and/or mitigation. Footprint of Existing Development (ECDC 23.90.040.D.5 and ECDC 23.40.320). Mr. Lien advised that a new definition has been proposed for "footprint of existing development" or "footprint of development." As proposed in ECDC 23.40.320, footprint of existing development "means the area of a site that contains legally established buildings; concrete, asphalt or gravel paved roads; parking lots; storage areas or other paved areas; driveways; walkways; outdoor swimming pools; and patios. " While activity within a previously developed footprint would be permitted, a critical area report and enhancement would be required. He noted that the provisions would only apply to streams and wetlands. Mr. Lien referred to new language in ECDC 23.90.040.D.5, which states that: Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 12 Packet Page 999 of 1075 "New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a stream buffer, provided that the following conditions are met: a. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.320; b. The proposed development within the footprint of the existing development is sited as far away from the stream edge as is feasible; c. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the stream and not represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development. d. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent remaining stream buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development; e. Enhancement is provided as buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within the footprint of existing development occurring in stream buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer; and f Impacts from temporary disturbances within the stream buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. " Mr. Lien summarized that the intent of the proposed language is to improve and enhance existing situations. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the provision would only apply to new development and would not be retroactive. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that critical areas become an issue when a property owner wants to develop a new structure or remodel an existing structure. She said she was surprised to learn that the City does not record critical area tracts or easements on the title when new lots are created. This would make it easier for a property owner to understand the limitations of his/her property. Mr. Lien explained that the City does record critical area tracts or easements related to subdivisions, and they are considering expanding this requirement to other activities as part of the update. Mr. Lien summarized that development within a previously developed footprint would be allowed, but enhancement would be required at a ratio of 1:1. While the enhancement requirement is heading in the right direction, Board Member Stewart suggested a greater enhancement ratio such as 1:1.5. Mr. Lien agreed the Board could discuss the appropriate ratio, recognizing that the goal is to improve the existing conditions. Mr. Chave referred to the pictures provided by Mr. Lien of a stream that runs between residential properties. He explained that, as written, a 500 square foot addition to one of the homes would require a 500 square foot buffer enhancement where none currently exists. Rather than compensating for lost buffer area, the property owner would actually be adding something that is not there now. Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that, in the pictures provided, there would not be sufficient area to provide the required buffer enhancement. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, as proposed, the applicant would have the option to contribute to a fund that could be used to enhance a buffer elsewhere in the City if it is not possible to do the buffer enhancement on the subject property. Board Member Stewart suggested that a greater enhancement ratio should be required when an additional structure would encroach into the required buffer area. Mr. Lien advised that the existing language in ECDC 23.90.040.D.4 allows additions to legally construct structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of development. The proposed amendment would also allow a structure to expand the footprint of development within a buffer area, but enhancement and mitigation would be required. The proposed language will actually result in an improved situation. As proposed "Provisions for standard stream buffers, stream buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions through enhancements require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: a. Outside of the standard stream buffer; b. Outside of a stream buffer averaged (with enhancement); Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 13 Packet Page 1000 of 1075 c. Outside of stream buffer reduced (with enhancement); d. Outside of the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer with no more than 300 square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner 50% of the standard wetland buffer width provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum 3:1 ratio; e. Outside of the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer width with no more than 50% of the standard wetland buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum 5:1 ratio and that stormwater low -impact development techniques or other measures that enhance existing buffer conditions are included as part of the stream buffer enhancement plan. " DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Tibbott referred the Board to the written report prepared by the Development Services Director. Board Member Cloutier said he particularly appreciated that the number of public meetings and work sessions that took place as part of the Westgate planning process were noted. Chair Tibbott said he also appreciated the summary of the various public meetings that have occurred and will occur throughout the City. Vice Chair Lovell referred to an email the Board received from staff indicating that, in addition to the changes outlined in the Development Services Director's Report, the City Council's adoption of the Westgate Plan also included an amendment to the height limit in the QFC quadrant , which limits development to three stories. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Tibbott advised that the public hearing on the draft Tree Code was moved to May 27th. This change will allow the Board an opportunity to get the word out and invite members of the public to participate in the hearing. 19W.11I►II�Lei ,i17:1;91ZyIMItX4113u1u1DoCIK Chair Tibbott announced that he would attend the Puget Sound Regional Council meeting on April 30th. He noted that he is very interested in the transportation plan and other regional planning activities. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig said that, given the comments she provided concerning the Critical Area Ordinance, one of her particular interests is related to the expert testimony. She requested that the Board Members read the part that refers to hearsay and how it connects to scientific evidence when it comes to looking at these areas. She said she reacted to this language and she wanted to see if other Board Members had similar concerns. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 14 Packet Page 1001 of 1075 property. As per the interim ordinance, if a second application is made on the same property as a previous application and the two projects have locations or features that could be irreconcilable, the first application would be deemed withdrawn and will not be processed further. To clarify the interim ordinance as it relates to irreconcilable applications that result in withdrawal, he provided the following examples: 1. An applicant submits an application for a four -lot short plat on a particularly property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three -lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications would be considered irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence the four -lot short plat application would be deemed withdrawn. 2. An applicant submits an application for design review of a 20-unit, multi -family development and subsequently, another design review is submitted for a 30-unit development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy the same space, they would be considered irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. To clarify the ordinance as it relates to applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable resulting in withdrawal, Mr. Lien provided the following examples. 1. An applicant submits a four -lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home, the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. 2. An applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site -improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a correct version of at least one of the two plans, City staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. Mr. Lien said a second part of the interim ordinance relocated a section that had to do with the resubmission of an application after denial from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.07 (Closed Record Appeals) to ECDC 20.02 (Development Project Permit Applications). As per the language in this provision, an applicant could not be able to resubmit an application within a 12-month period of denial unless there has been a significant change. Vice Chair Lovell requested clarification of the provision that would be in ECDC 20.02.006. Mr. Lien said this provision is already in the code, and the proposed change would simply relocate it from its current location in 20.07.007. The title to the section would be changed, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig asked who would be responsible for determining whether or not there has been significant change. Mr. Lien answered that the decision would be made by the Planning Director. Board Member Rubenkonig also asked why the first application, rather than the second application would be deemed withdrawn. Mr. Lien pointed out that applications can only be submitted by property owners, and it is assumed that the most recent application would be the one the property owner wants to put forward. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the draft ordinance would be scheduled for a public hearing on July 8tn The Board took a break from 9:15 to 9:25. CONTINUED REVIEW OF DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Chair Tibbott explained that Mr. Lien would present the Staff Report relative to the CAO Update. However, due to the lateness of the hour, the Board Members would not be invited to comment and discuss the proposed changes following the presentation. Instead, the Board Members can email their comments and recommendations directly to staff so they can be incorporated into the final version that is scheduled for a public hearing in July. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 12 Packet Page 1002 of 1075 Mr. Lien reviewed that he introduced the CAO update to the Board on March 25th and presented modifications to the CAO on April 22nd. At this meeting, staff will discuss proposed changes related to Frequently Flooded Areas (FFA), which are, by defmition, considered critical areas. They will also discuss the existing native vegetation requirement contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.040.C, as well as a proposed new section in ECDC 23.40.215, which pertains to Critical Area Restoration Projects. Freauentiv Flooded Areas Mr. Lien reported that the consultant is recommending the City require compensatory storage for development around Lake Ballinger. He explained that because of existing geology, particularly the 25 feet of peat on the south side, it is not feasible to do compensatory storage mitigation around Lake Ballinger. As such, staff is not proposing a compensatory storage requirement at this time. Mr. Lien said the consultant is also recommending that the City require that new residential structures within the floodplains be elevated to provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), which is the elevation of the 100-year flood event). He pointed out that the City's floodplains are largely contained in two areas: the downtown waterfront area and around the shores of Lake Ballinger. He provided maps to illustrate the floodplains around the shores of Lake Ballinger, as well as along the waterfront. He advised that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed a Coastal Flood Risk Review for Snohomish County in 2014. Although the map provided in the review is not currently effective, it does illustrate the likely location of the floodplains along the waterfront. He noted that the floodplain area was significantly expanded in the draft map, which also establishes the BSA at about 12 feet above sea level. There are a few other floodplains identified in the City, including Shell Creek downstream of Caspers and a few more along the shoreline to the north. Mr. Lien noted that Lake Ballinger is a highly -controlled environment with the level of the lake controlled by a structure at the McAleer Creek outlet of the lake, and it is not likely that the flood events that happened in 1997 and 2007 will occur in the future around the lake. At this time, staff is not proposing any changes regarding construction being elevated above BFE around Lake Ballinger. Mr. Lien said sea level rise should be considered when allowing development within the FFA near waterfront area. He provided a graph to illustrate the results of recent studies from the Mote Marine Laboratory and the National Research Council (NRC) relative to sea level rise. As per the NRC study, the mean projection for sea level rise by 2050 is 6.5 inches, and the mean project by 2100 is 24.3 inches. By the end of the century, there is likely to be a sea level change of two feet. When considering development along the waterfront, the City should consider the life of the buildings and whether or not the City should plan for potential sea level rise. Mr. Lien explained that flood plain areas are largely regulated by the Building Code (ECDC 19.00.025), the International Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the International Building Code (IBC) for commercial development. He noted that the IRC does not require single-family residences to be elevated above BSE, but the IBC does require structures to be constructed at or up to two feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. Staff is recommending that the building code be amended (ECDC 19.00.025) to include a Design Flood Elevation (DFE) of 2 feet above the BFE for all new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Ares and Coastal A Flood Zones. However, he acknowledged that requiring structures to be constructed above the BFE would impact the overall height allowed. The maximum allowable height is currently measured from an average level of the undisturbed soil as defined by ECDC 24.40.030. Where existing grade along the waterfront is at or below the BFE, requiring structures to be built 2 feet above BFE would effectively eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain existing height allowances, the Planning Board should consider whether to modify the development code to establish a new base elevation from which the maximum height of the structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones are measured. This could be accomplished through a modification to the definition of height in ECDC 2r.40.030 or through specific allowances within the zoning code (ECDC 16). Native Vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 Zones Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 13 Packet Page 1003 of 1075 Mr. Lien said staff is proposing to change ECDC 23.90.040, which requires retention or establishment of a minimum of 30% native vegetation on undeveloped or redeveloped property within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones. He explained that the provision has characteristics of a provision in King County's CAO that was struck down by Washington Court of Appeals. Currently, the requirement is tied to the zone rather than to habitat. For example, he is working on an application for a 7-lot subdivision at the corner of 9`h Avenue and Caspers Street. It is currently a grass field that has no habitat, and the current provision requires the applicant to provide a native landscaping plan to show how they will provide a 30% native vegetation area. He reviewed that, initially, staff and the consultants drafted provisions that would replace this section with new requirements for biodiversity areas and corridors. However, it is clear that more study is needed to fully develop standards for retention and connection of biodiversity areas and corridors. Based on the current budget and time constraints, it is not possible to fully flesh out new biodiversity areas and corridors code provisions. However, it could be addressed at a later time with information developed in association with an Urban Forest Management Plan. Mr. Lien said staff is now proposing changes to provide more definition to specific habitat features to be retained by the provision such as indigenous species, native significant trees and snags. Additionally, a section would be added to allow the Director to waive the provisions of ECDC 23.90.040.0 where the habitat is nonexistent on a particular property. He explained that the proposed revisions will provide continued protection for naturally vegetated areas of the City that are important for wildlife habitat while also providing a more defensible code in line with the findings of the court case mentioned previously. Restoration Proiects Mr. Lien explained that the City does not wish to discourage restoration projects that would provide a net benefit to the City's critical areas. Therefore, staff is proposing a new section (ECDC 23.40.215) that would grant relief for restoration projects not required as mitigation for a development proposal. The proposed relief would be a reduction to the standard buffer otherwise required by the critical area regulations. He further explained that two types of projects would be eligible for relief under ECDC 23.40.215: • Daylighting of a stream, or • Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or its buffer. Mr. Lien advised that a restoration project may apply a buffer equal to 75% of the standard buffer. A restoration project proponent may request a buffer be reduced to a minimum of 50% of the standard buffer if: • A 75% buffer would significantly limit use of the property. • It is the minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project. • There would be a net environmental benefit. • Granting relief is consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that a public hearing on the draft CAO has been scheduled for July 8th. He recalled that the Board was scheduled to discuss the CAO at their May 27th meeting, but the discussion was postponed due to time constraints. He invited Board Members to forward their comments and suggestions to him for consideration as he prepares a draft code for the public hearing. He anticipates the Board will have an additional meeting after the public hearing to discuss the more complicated provisions contained in the draft CAO further. Vice Chair Lovell expressed his belief that it will be important for the draft CAO to provide specific language and methodology for implementing the various provisions in the CAO prior to the hearing. He said this is particularly important for the issue related to height of structures in Coastal Flood Hazard Zones given the currently proposed provision that would require new residential structures to be elevated. Mr. Lien invited the Board Members to email him their thoughts on the issue and said the draft CAO that is presented for public hearing will provide specific language to address this issue. He reminded them that he previously presented two options for addressing height: through a modification to the defmition of height in ECDC 24.40.030 or through specific allowances within the zoning code (ECDC 16). Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 14 Packet Page 1004 of 1075 Board Member Robles questioned if the City really wants to legislate the elevation of buildings in the Coastal Flood Hazard Zones. Another option would be a "build at your own risk" approach. Developers know that sea level is rising. Mr. Lien pointed out that the IBD already requires some structure to be built above the BFE. Chair Tibbott reminded the Board Members to submit their comments and recommendations to Mr. Lien as soon as possible. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Tibbott announced that the Planning Board's retreat is scheduled for June 24th in the Edmonds Swedish Hospital Board Room, starting at 6:00 p.m. At least a portion of the meeting would involve a conversation with representatives from Verdant Health regarding their future plans for the hospital property. He agreed to provide more detailed information about the location soon. It was noted that the retreat would be open to the public, and staff would notice the meeting details as appropriate. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Tibbott did not have any additional items to report. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Cloutier observed that a public comment earlier in the meeting appeared to suggest that the Planning Board prepared and endorsed the draft Tree Code, which was the subject of a public hearing before the Board on May 27th. He clarified that the Board reviewed the Tree Code in a public meeting, but it was not something the Board wrote. The fact that people came to the hearing does not mean the Board is not doing its job correctly. The Planning Board fulfilled its responsibilities by publicizing a public hearing and encouraging the public to participate. Board Member Stewart thanked staff for their hard work on the heavy documents the Board has received in past months. She also thanked the Board Members for taking time to review the documents and participate in the discussions. She asked that staff date each draft that is prepared so the Board Members can easily identify the most recent version. She also suggested it would be helpful for the Board to reach a consensus on whether they will work from the clean or marked up copies. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is a Waste Warrior for the Snohomish County Extension's Sustainable Community Stewards Program. Her group recently worked at the Rotary Club's Edmonds Waterfront Festival, diverting over 900 pounds of organic waste from the landfill, and the are waiting for numbers for the amount of recyclable materials that was diverted, as well. She concluded that they were able to improve over last year's, and they plan to work at the Taste of Edmond, as well. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 15 Packet Page 1005 of 1075 applicant to choose between the first or second application. He noted that this applicant was notified of the interim ordinance right after it was adopted. Chair Tibbott asked staff to provide examples of "substantial changes" in conditions. Mr. Lien said that, in the case of a rezone application, substantial changes could include changes in the rezone criteria, encroachment of additional development, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that it would be difficult to cite specific examples of substantial change in the code language because the provision applies to many different application types. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that rather than coming up with specific examples of what would be considered substantial change, it is more important to identify who would be responsible for making the determination. As currently written, the Development Services Director would make the determination, and he/she would be required to act within certain constraints as a representative of the City. The proposed amendment is intended to tidy up the code by placing the provision in a more appropriate location. If the City experiences a rash of situations, precedence could be established over time on how to handle the issue. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the draft language is consistent with the language that was adopted as part of the interim ordinance. Mr. Lien advised that the interim ordinance is outlined in Attachment 1, and the proposed language for the permanent ordinance is contained in Attachment 2. Although the language in both attachments is consistent, the Board is only being asked to review the draft language in Attachment 2 and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Monroe asked how other cities address irreconcilable applications. Mr. Lien said he does not know how other cities address the issue. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE CODE AMENDMENTS FOR IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATIONS AND RESUBMISSION OF APPLICATION AFTER DENIAL AS CONTAINED IN ATTACHMENT 2. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board received an introduction to the CAO update on March 25`h and was provided copies of the 2015 Best Available Science (BAS) Report and 2015 Addendum, as well as a Gap Analysis Matrix (Attachments 1 and 2). Staff reviewed potential updates to the CAO (Attachment 3) on April 22°d and June loth. He reminded the Board that all cities and counties in the State are required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to adopt critical areas regulations. State law also requires that the regulations be updated periodically. Critical areas include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, critical aquifer recharge areas (none in Edmonds), frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (erosion, landslide and seismic hazard areas). Mr. Lien advised that the City's current CAO was last updated in 2005, and the BAS Report was last updated in 2004. The City hired consultant, ESA, to assist in updating the 2004 BAS Report and identify changes that are needed in the CAO for consistency with BAS. The consultant and staff reviewed the administrative procedures, as well. He highlighted the proposed changes as follows: • Geologically Hazardous Areas. Changes to this section include revising how landslide hazard areas are defined and updating the geotechnical report requirements. In addition, rather than establishing standard buffers and setbacks from landslide hazard areas, appropriate buffers and setbacks will be determined by a geotechnical report. Wetlands. Changes in this section include updating the delineation standards and wetland categories to be consistent with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Guidance for Small Cities. Specifically, buffer widths would be determined by a combination of the category of wetland and habitat score. Required mitigation ratios were also changed to be consistent with the DOE's Guidance for Small Cities. In addition, the exemption section (ECDC 23.50.040(K) was updated to address small hydrologically isolated wetlands (Category III and IV wetlands that are less than 1,000 square feet). As proposed, certain wetland provisions would not apply to small isolated wetlands, but they would not be exempt Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 4 Packet Page 1006 of 1075 from all wetland development standards as per the existing code. As proposed, small isolated wetlands could be altered if lost functions are replaced. Native Vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 Lots. Staff is proposing changes to ECDC 23.90.040(C), which requires retention or establishment of a minimum of 30% native vegetation on undeveloped or redeveloped property within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones. He noted that this provision has characteristics of a provision in King County's CAO that was struck down by the Washington Court of Appeals. To address the concerns raised in the court findings, the proposed amendments provide more definition relative to the specific habitat features to be retained. In addition, a section was added that would allow the Director to waive the provision where habitat is nonexistent on a particular property. Mr. Lien recalled that staff and the consultants initially drafted provisions that would replace this section with new requirements for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors. However, it later became clear that more study would be needed to fully develop standards for retention and connection. Under the current budget and time constraints, it is not possible to fully flesh out new code provisions at this time. However, the concept could be explored further when the City pursues the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as currently being discussed in the draft Tree Code review. He expressed his belief that the proposed revisions would provide continued protection for naturally -vegetated areas of the City that are important to wildlife habitat, and also provide a more defensible code in line with recent court findings. Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers. BAS for critical areas is largely determined by rural areas where streams and habitat exist. Applying BAS buffers in Edmonds, which is largely built out, does not always make sense. The proposed provision in ECDC 23.40.320(C)(4) would allow development in areas that are functionally isolated and physically separated from a wetland by impervious surface of at least 8 feet. For example, a property located on the opposite side of a road from a stream could be within the proscribed buffer distance, but the road provides a barrier to any benefit the site could provide to the stream. New language was added to the definition of buffer to define a "functionally separated buffer" and a new paragraph was added in the allowed activities section (ECDC 23.40.220) to allow for development within physically separated and functionally isolated portions of a stream or wetland buffer. Development within the Footprint of Existing Development. Because Edmonds was developed prior to the establishment of critical area regulations, many wetland and stream buffers extend into residential yards that have been previously developed and provide limited function in terms of stream and/or wetland protection. Many buffers are substantially developed and contain impervious surfaces and commercial or residential buildings. Simply applying the standard buffers in situations like this will not provide the necessary characteristics to protect a stream and/or wetlands function. In these situations, it can be better to restore the buffer through enhancement activities. To address these situations, a new definition for "Footprint of Existing Development" (ECDC 23.40.320) was added and new sections were added to the Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas that would allow development within the footprint of existing development and require enhancement of the remaining buffer in order to improve functions of the buffer. As proposed new development must be sited as far away from the critical area as possible, and an enhancement ratio of 1:1 would be required. Mr. Lien explained that language in the existing code also allows additions to structures in the critical area buffer that expand the footprint based on a hierarchy of criteria. The proposed amendment would also allow for expansion of the footprint, based on these same criteria. However, additional mitigation would be required as outlined in ECDC 23.50.040(I)(1). As proposed, expansion of the footprint outside the inner 25% of the standard wetland buffer by 300 square feet or less would require a 3:1 mitigation ratio. An addition of 500 square feet or less would require a 5:1 mitigation ratio. Again, he explained that the goal of the proposed change is to improve the critical areas and buffers over what currently exists. Applying standard buffers to all properties would not result in an improvement. Allowing some development within the developed footprint would result in some improvement to the critical areas and their buffers over time rather than keeping the status quo. • Frequently Flooded Areas. While frequently flooded areas are, by definition, critical areas, development within the flood zones in Edmonds (Lake Ballinger and the Puget Sound Shoreline) is guided by building code requirements: ECDC 19.00.025, International Building Code (IBC), and International Residential Code (IRC). While the IRC does not require single-family residences to be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), the floors must be constructed to Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 5 Packet Page 1007 of 1075 at least the BFE. The IBC requires structures to be constructed at or up to two feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. He referred to Attachment 8, which contains the draft Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the downtown area, which were recently updated in 2014 and will become effective in 2016. Another issue to consider in the Coastal Flood Risk Zones is the effect of sea level rise. The most recent projection for sea level rise in the mid -Puget Sound Region is 24 inches by the year 2100 (National Research Council 2012). Given the pending FIRM map update and projections for sea level rise in Puget Sound, staff is recommending that the building code be amended to require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of 2 feet above the BFE for all new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. He referred to Attachment 4, which provides draft language for incorporating the recommendation into ECDC 19.00.025. Mr. Lien explained that requiring structures to be constructed above the BFE will have impacts on the overall height for structures as allowed by the zoning code. The height of structures is currently measured from an average level of the undisturbed soil. The existing grade along the waterfront is at or below the BFE, so requiring structures to be built 2 feet above the BFE would effectively eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain the existing height allowances, the Board should consider whether to modify the development code to establish a new base elevation from which the maximum height of structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones are measured. This could be accomplished through a modification to the definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030 or through specific allowances within the zoning code. Attachment 4 provides examples of how this could be accomplished. Restoration Projects. The City does not want to discourage restoration projects that would provide a net benefit to the City's critical areas. Therefore, a new section has been proposed (ECDC 23.40.215) to grant relief for restoration projects that are not required as mitigation for a development proposal. The proposed relief is a reduction to the standard buffer otherwise required by the CAO. Two types of projects would be eligible for the relief. Daylighting of a stream or the creation/expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of a wetland and/or wetland buffer. As proposed, a property owner may apply for a buffer that is less than 75% of the standard buffer to the restoration project boundary. The buffer could be reduced to as little as 50% if a 75% buffer would significantly limit the owner's use of the property. The buffer reduction would have to meet the following criteria: minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project, provide a net environmental benefit, and be consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations. Rebecca Wolf, Edmonds, said her home is located within a critical area on 2nd Avenue South (Willow Creek). She said she has attended the Marina Beach Master Plan workshops, at which daylighting of Willow Creek has been a significant topic of discussion. She said she purchased her property because of the creek, and she would like the City to maintain the current buffers and not allow the footprint of development to increase. She shared examples in her neighborhood of how the creek and its buffer have been impacted by activities that the City has allowed to occur. She said she is presently taking a college course relative to the issue of sea level rise. Apparently, there are updated projections that sea level rise of up to one meter is anticipated by 2050 in some areas. She asked that the Board consider these newer projections. Scott Blumenkamp, Edmonds, stressed that many of the City's codes are vague and not enforced. He particularly referred to a code provisions that prohibits developers from filling, excavating or storing equipment within the drip line of any tree to be retained. However, the example he referenced earlier on 232°d Street illustrates that this requirement is not being enforced by the City staff. He invited the Board Members to visit the property where the clearing occurred. Regardless of the code provisions that are put in place, it is up to the City staff to enforce them fairly and consistently. Ms. Wolf agreed that enforcement of the code provisions is important. She questioned if the City's code prohibits property owners from using chemical fertilizers, etc. within wetlands and their buffers. If so, she asked that the City do more to enforce the requirement. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Stewart asked if the City has current maps of the critical areas inventory that are available to the public. Mr. Lien said the City does have critical area maps that are available to the public, but they do not have them set up as a web - based program yet. He emphasized that the maps are not intended to be regulations; they are more used to inform the staff. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 6 Packet Page 1008 of 1075 If the maps indicate that a critical area may exist on a subject property, staff visits the site before making a final determination on whether a Critical Area Report would be required. This report would specifically map the critical areas on the property and would be submitted as part of a development application. Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 23.40.270(D), which states that the Director may require that critical areas tracts be dedicated to the City as a condition of approval of a subdivision application. This provision would require that the tract be recorded on title. Vice Chair Lovell asked if all critical areas must be recorded on title. Mr. Lien answered that the requirement would only apply to new development proposals. Vice Chair Lovell asked if someone who wants to build a deck in a critical area or its buffer would be required to obtain a permit. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and said a critical area report would be required if it is determined there is a wetland or its buffer on the site. He pointed out that critical area determinations and reports are only valid for five years. Because BAS for critical areas changes over time, this time limit is important. Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 23.40.110(A) and ECDC 23.40.120(A)(3) and said she would like the City's regulations to require more than just "no net loss." The goal should be to improve the existing situation over time. Mr. Lien explained that allowing some development within the buffers, with an enhancement requirement, can result in an improved situation over time as opposed to applying a standard buffer. He noted that the mitigation sequencing (avoid the impact, minimize the impact, rectify the impact) contained in the current and draft CAO are standard across the board and consistent with BAS and the DOE's requirements. A qualified professional would have to show how the mitigation sequencing provision has been met. Mr. Lien specifically referred to 23.90.040(D)(3), which provides different scenarios based on how much a development will encroach into the buffer. He explained that if the code provisions remain the same, there will be no improvements along streams. Allowing development to occur within the buffer areas, with enhancement, will result in improvements that will not likely occur otherwise. The goal is to improve the current situation, not just maintain the status quo; and language regarding this goal was added in various places throughout the draft CAO. Board Member Stewart suggested that the enhancement ratio should be increased from 1:1 to 1.5:1 so there is always an improvement expected of someone who wants to encroach into the buffer area. This would require them to do better than just simply improving the buffer equal to the encroachment. Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 23.90.040(D)(3)(e), which applies to buffers that have already been disturbed by existing development. A 1:1 replacement ratio would result in greater than the status quo because it would be enhancing an area that has been previously disturbed. Again, Board Member Stewart voiced concern that requiring a 1:1 ratio would simply result in enhancing a buffer that is equal to the encroachment of new development and would not result in a net gain. Mr. Lien said the City frequently receives requests from property owners who want to add garages where paved areas exist. The garage would not expand the footprint or increase the impact to the stream, but the City would require a 1:1 enhancement somewhere else along the stream. This will improve the condition over what already exists. Board Member Stewart agreed that the provision, as explained by Mr. Lien and Mr. Chave, makes sense. Board Member Stewart asked staff to explain how the proposed definition for "footprint of existing development" came about. Mr. Lien said staff s first attempt was "legally established impervious surface area," but that did not include packed earthen materials. The current definition is the result of several iterations and includes not only structures and areas of pavement, but also packed earthen materials, etc. As currently proposed "footprint of existing development" means " It does not include yards which are not necessarily in their natural condition. Board Member Stewart suggested that a buffer that is separated from a wetland by an 8-foot sidewalk should not be considered physically separated and functionally isolated. She noted that there are numerous options for converting impervious sidewalks to pervious pathways. Vice Chair Lovell felt that requiring a developer to replace an existing sidewalk with pervious materials would be an unreasonable demand. Board Member Stewart said she is not comfortable with designating a buffer area as physically separated and functionally isolated if it is separated from the critical area by an 8-foot sidewalk. The separation should be 15 feet. Mr. Lien said it is important to provide a definition of what the width should be, and the consultant has recommended that 8 feet of paved area provides sufficient separation where the area on the other side Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 7 Packet Page 1009 of 1075 is not providing function to the critical area. He emphasized that the provision only applies to wetlands and not landslide hazard areas. He suggested that perhaps the sidewalk width could be increased to 12 feet, which is the standard driveway width in the single-family zones. Board Member Stewart requested examples from other jurisdictions relative to the physically separated and functionally isolated provision. She wants to ensure that the proposed language is consistent with the City's values. Mr. Lien agreed to talk with the consultant about whether or not the current driveway standard could be applied to sidewalks in this situation, as well. However, he said it might be difficult to find examples from other jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions end the buffer where the pavement starts and do not require enhancement, which is different than what the City envisions. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Army Corps of Engineers has changed how they look at buffers. Roadways used to be considered legal barriers. Chair Tibbott asked if roadways that bisect critical areas and their buffers would be allowed to drain into the critical areas and /or buffers. Mr. Lien answered that the City's stormwater regulations require that stormwater runoff associated with new development be contained on site, and it would not allow the water to drain into a stream. The City would not approve a development that allows runoff to go across the street and into the critical area. Board Member Stewart asked if eagles have been delisted as endangered species, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Lovell asked if redevelopment of an entire block would be required to meet the standard buffer provisions if there is a stream or wetland present or would a developer be allowed to develop consistent with the footprint of existing development. Mr. Lien answered that the standard buffers would apply. However, there are specific non -conforming provisions that would allow a house that is destroyed by fire to be rebuilt using the same footprint. Board Member Robles voiced concern that requiring redevelopment to meet the standard buffer would reduce property values significantly. Board Member Stewart said her interpretation was that a property could be redeveloped using the existing footprint. Again, Mr. Lien said that would only be allowed if the structure burns down. If a developer purchases an entire block for redevelopment, development would be allowed within the critical area buffers but enhancement would be required. Board Member Monroe observed that, as currently proposed, developing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that encroaches into the buffer area would require enhancement. Mr. Lien agreed and referred to 23.40.040(D)(4), which outlines the sequencing criteria for locating additions. He reminded the Board that the first choice is to locate the structure outside of the standard stream buffer, followed by outside the stream buffer averaged with enhancement and then outside of a stream buffer reduced with enhancement. The last choice would be outside the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer. He noted that a 500 square foot ADU that is outside the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer would require a 5:1 enhancement ratio or 2,500 square feet of enhancement. Board Member Monroe asked what happens if there is not sufficient area to provide the required 2,500 square feet of enhancement. Mr. Lien said there are other enhancement options (ECDC 23.40.140) such as removing some of the stream armament or paying into an in -lieu -of fund for an enhancement project elsewhere in the City. Board Member Cheung asked how many properties in Edmonds are impacted by the CAO. Mr. Chave said that would be difficult to identify. Board Member Robles asked if a buffer would be required for the stream in his backyard, which is in a culvert. Mr. Lien answered that if the stream is converted, no buffer would be applied to it. However, it would be great if the code language included provisions that encourage people to open the culverts via restoration projects without being penalized by larger buffers. He noted that some streams are both open and in culverts. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the critical area report that is done by a qualified professional would simply identify the wetland and/or buffer that is on the subject property or if it would also identify how the wetland is part of a larger contiguous area. Mr. Lien said the goal of the wetland determination is to determine whether or not a wetland delineation will be required. If a critical area report is required, the qualified professional will identify whether or not all three conditions for a wetland can be met. The analysis will also address the size of the wetland, which is part of the overall rating system. The analysis may extend off site. While the consultant may not have the authority to go on neighboring properties, they can use aerial photographs, etc. to make this determination. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 8 Packet Page 1010 of 1075 Board Member Rubenkonig asked if a developer would only be required to address buffer requirements for the subject property. Mr. Lien answered that the CAO requirements would only apply to the property that is proposed for development. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it is possible for portions of a wetland to be classified to a higher category. Mr. Lien answered that a wetland would not likely have different categories. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 23.50.010(B), which outlines the proposed rating system for wetlands. She suggested that the introductory paragraph be modified to identify the number of points that qualify wetlands for the various categories. For example, the higher classifications wetland classifications require 23 points, and the lower require just 16 points. Mr. Lien agreed to seek input from the consultant regarding this request. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that there is no size connected with bogs. Mr. Lien explained that, as per DOE's requirement, bogs are categorized as Type I Wetlands regardless of size, but there are no bogs in Edmonds currently. Board Member Rubenkonig referenced ECDC 23.50.030(F)(1)(b) and suggested that the language could be worded to be a more positive statement. Mr. Lien pointed out that ECDC 23.50.030(F)(1)(a) states what is required if the standard buffer is applied, and the following item outlines what is required if an applicant chooses not to comply with the mitigation measures. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that she finds the approach used for the proposed CAO update to be appropriate and effective, as it merges all of the different authorities into one place. This will be less confusing for the residents of Edmonds. Chair Tibbott asked staff to elaborate on the other innovative options for buffer enhancement when there is no reasonable opportunity on site. Mr. Lien said the options include removing armament, paying into an in -lieu -of fund for another enhancement project in the City, or participating in a state -certified wetland mitigation bank. He explained that both Jacobsen's Marine and American Brewing Company utilized the in -lieu -of option. In each case, the property owners paid into the fund an amount commiserate with the size of the project. Chair Tibbott asked if it was easy to identify the mitigation that was required. Mr. Lien answered that a 1:1 ratio is easy to apply. Chair Tibbott asked what would happen if there is no City project to contribute to. Mr. Lien said applicants could contribute a fee -in -lieu of fund for future City projects, or they could choose to participate in a mitigation bank. He explained that mitigation banks have been established throughout the State, but it is difficult for the City to participate in the programs because they are not really connected to the larger water sheds and all of the City's drainage goes into Puget Sound. The City would prefer that the mitigation funds be used for projects within the same watershed. While banks are an option, there are no established banks that include Edmonds in their service area. The code, as written, would allow the City to participate if and when a bank is available. Chair Tibbott asked if the code promotes the establishment of mitigation banks, and Mr. Lien said it does not necessarily promote banks, but it does allow them. Mr. Chave commented that he does not believe the City will run out of enhancement projects with all of the culverts and impacted streams throughout the City. The in -lieu -of option would be superior to contributing to a vague mitigation bank Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2), which requires the City to establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands. Rather than a covenant, Mr. Lien said limiting the use of pesticides could be a condition of project approval. Chair Tibbott asked if herbicides and other chemicals can be applied within critical areas and/or their buffers. Mr. Lien said the consultant recommended that language be added to the CAO to address this issue. He referred to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7), which allows for the removal of vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment. It provides a list of vegetation that can be removed to include: invasive and noxious weeds, English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, Evergreen blackberry, Scot's Broom and Hedge and Field Bindweed. ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7)(d) allows the application of herbicides, pesticides, organic and mineral -derived fertilizer or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the City, provided that their use shall be restricted in accordance with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Management. The consultant recommended the provision because, in some cases, the use of herbicides is the best approach for controlling invasive species and noxious weeds. Mr. Chave clarified that the City would not independently allow the use of herbicides. They will refer to the regulatory authority to determine what types of herbicide are allowed for particular applications. Homeowners would not be allowed to use herbicides that have not been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 9 Packet Page 1011 of 1075 Board Member Rubenkonig asked what a citizen should do if they see someone using chemicals in wetland areas. Mr. Lien suggested they submit a code enforcement request. Chair Tibbott asked if the property owner or the company applying the chemical would be held responsible. Mr. Lien said that, ultimately, both the property owner and the company would be held responsible. Board Member Robles asked if a citizen complaint would become part of the public record. If so, this would create a disincentive for someone to report a problem? Mr. Chave said the complainant can ask to remain anonymous, recognizing that there is no guarantee that his/her name won't be revealed through some type of subsequent action. Mr. Lien referred to the list of plant species that can be removed via hand tools and/or herbicides as per ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7). He noted that the list does not currently include alder, which come up by the thousands as seedlings. He suggested the Board consider adding alders to the list of species that can be removed. Board Member Stewart pointed out that alders propagate well, but they also put nitrogen into the soil and provide shade for streams. Mr. Lien said he is not talking about removing all alder trees in Edmonds, but just the seedlings. Board Member Stewart pointed out that if all the seedlings are removed, no new alders will grow. Vice Chair Lovell said he printed the DOE's list of invasive and noxious weeds. He asked if Mr. Lien is suggesting that alders be added to the list. Mr. Lien clarified that he is not proposing that alders be added to the list of noxious weeds. Instead, they could be listed as a separate item in ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7). He pointed out that, as currently proposed, the removal of vegetation would be limited to 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over a three-year period. Board Member Stewart asked if the City's stream inventory is really as old as 2002. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and advised that the inventory is being updated by the consultant as part of the current update. Board Member Stewart requested further explanation relative to provisions for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, which were struck from the most recent draft. Mr. Lien said the staff and consultant originally proposed Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, but they struggled with the applicable criteria. During the Tree Code discussions, the Board discussed the concept of creating an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), which could include an inventory of the City's forested areas and corridors. Creating provisions for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors will be a large project, and the City does not have the time and/or money to complete the task as part of the CAO Update. Instead, the language was modified to protect the areas in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones that are associated with streams and steep slopes. The new provisions are tied to the type of habitat to protect throughout the City. He noted that future changes can piggyback with the UFMP. Board Member Stewart asked if the City has maps that identify the corridors. If so, will these corridors be protected as they wait for the UFMP to be adopted? Mr. Lien said the provisions for protecting corridors will remain in the CAO via the requirement that 30% of the native vegetation be retained. However, the new language that was proposed relative to Biodiversity Areas and Corridors is no longer part of the draft proposal. He reminded the Board that the proposed language is intended to tie the requirement to the specific habitats that are being protected. Board Member Stewart indicated support for the proposed new language. Mr. Lien requested Board feedback related to Attachment 4, which outlines options for amendments to the Frequently Flooded Areas Code (ECDC 23.70). He reminded the Board that staff is recommending that the building code be amended to require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of two feet above the BFE for all new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. However, staff also recognizes that this requirement will create issues relative to the height limit. Board Member Robles asked if the City is bound to the requirements of the IBC. And Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. He explained that, depending on the category of structure, the current buildings are either at BFE or two feet above BFE. The proposed amendment would not only be consistent with FEMA's updated FIRM map that will be effective in 2016, it will also address the anticipated sea level rise of 2 feet by 2100 as identified in the NRC's 2012 study. Mr. Lien explained that the BFE elevation within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones is 12 feet, and a survey of the Senior Center indicates it is at 11 feet. If the City requires structures to be built 2 feet above the BFE, they will essential take away three feet of available height. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 10 Packet Page 1012 of 1075 Board Member Robles commented that the construction industry finds ways to mitigate for the calamities that are anticipated. He suggested that perhaps sea level rise should be handled the same way. Rather than putting a law in place to regulate it, they could leave it to the market. Mr. Lien responded that the best way to mitigate for sea level rise is to build up so buildings do not get damaged in the future. He said he had a discussion with the Building Official about how to mitigate for sea level rise. Options include building a wall around the building, but the height of the wall would have to be sufficient to keep flood waters out. The building code requires that certain structures be built two feet above the BFE now and the recommendation is that this requirement should apply to all structures. Mr. Chave added that staff s thought is that inserting provisions relative to sea level rise is a first step. The Board can revisit the issue as additional science becomes available. He summarized that a series of steps need to be taken to fully address the issue, and staff feels it is time to introduce the idea that some sort of mitigation needs to be in the code. Vice Chair Lovell commented that he not only supports the proposed provision, he believes it makes good sense for a city that is very environmental conscious and observant. The City should not ignore this federal guideline and the recommendation is based on BAS. He knows for a fact that not only the Senior Center, but the adjacent condominium development, are flooded regularly. Other approaches are not viable given what science says. While the details of science may change, sea level will continue to rise, and BAS says the City better do something to accommodate it. The only issue left to decide for him is how to best address the height issue. He did not believe it would be viable to reduce the overall height allowed for structures. While allowing additional height may rile some people in the City, he supports a proposal that would measure the 30-foot height from the BFE. Mr. Chave agreed that if the base height of structures is increased by two feet, then the height allowance should be increased accordingly. He emphasized that this would not allow a developer more building. Chair Tibbott asked how often FEMA updates its flood elevations. Mr. Lien said they are not updated often. Mr. Chave explained that while there is a lot of information about sea level rise along the coast, it varies substantially. The most generally accepted study for Edmonds is the 2012 study that was done by the NRC, which indicates the average rise will be two feet. The City will monitor this going forward. If the science changes at some point, the City has an obligation to revise codes to reflect the changes. The proposed amendment will introduce the subject into the code and get people used to the idea. Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that the proposed language does not address sidewalks, railroad tracks, roadways, etc., all of which could be impacted by sea level rise. Perhaps sea level rise should be considered as the City studies options for addressing access over or under the railroad tracks. Board Member Robles agreed and questioned how many other projects need to address this same issue, such as the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. He questioned if there is a technological way to mitigate things in a way that complies with future science but is not bound by the two foot above BFE requirement. Again, Mr. Lien said the only other option offered by the Building Official was building a wall. Mr. Lien noted that, as proposed, the BFE will be measured at the finished grade of the first floor of the structure. There are certain building code standards for how the materials below the first finished grade must be treated. Board Member Robles noted that, as proposed, a developer could construct a parking garage below the BFE. Mr. Lien referred to the examples in Attachment 4 for addressing the height issue. One option would be to add a footnote to the maximum height within the site development standards table for each zone impacted by the Coastal Flood Hazard Zones (CW, P, MP2, BC, B132, OR, RM-2.4, RS-12, RSW-12, RS-20, OS and CG). Again, he noted that this same footnote would need to be added to each zone. A second option would be to add the same language to the definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030. In either case, the language would read, "For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. " Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that any new language, either in the footnote or the height exception, should include a reference to the applicable FEMA Flood Plan Map. It should be clear to the reader that the requirement is coming from outside of the City. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 11 Packet Page 1013 of 1075 Mr. Chave suggested that it would make more sense to add language in the height definition, and the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said it is quite likely that the height definition will be relocated as part of the overall Development Code Update. Typically, the City avoids having regulations buried in the definitions. However, the way the code is currently set up, it makes more sense to add the new language to the height definition. Mr. Lien advised that the Board will have one more meeting regarding to the CAO on July 22nd. At that time, staff anticipates the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. He summarized that the Board would like him to work further on the language for "physically separated and functionally isolated" language, particularly relative to 8-foot sidewalks. Board Member Monroe said he would like more information about regulations pertaining to structures that are torn down and redeveloped. He would like the Board to consider language that would allow these structures to be rebuilt if they are within the same footprint. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the non-conformance standards address when structures are destroyed by fire, but Board Member Monroe is interested in addressing replacement of structures in general. He agreed to provide additional information regarding this issue. Board Member Monroe said he is concerned that the proposed language would result in housing of the 1970s, with nonconforming structures being maintained instead of taking advantage of new building techniques. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE PROCESS Mr. Chave referred the Board to the written report prepared by the Development Services Director. He noted that the consultant is working on code language and options, which will be presented to the Board for review in the near future. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Tibbott reminded the Board that they would continue their discussion relative to the CAO Update at their July 22nd meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Tibbott thanked the Board Members for their participation at the recent retreat. He felt it was worthwhile to hold the retreat off site to give the Board Members a flavor for another location in the City where a lot of development activity is occurring. He encouraged the Board Members to visit the Verdant site and take note of the projects that are in progress. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the June Economic Development Commission (EDC) Meeting. There wasn't a quorum present, so they were unable to conduct official business. The Director of the Chamber of Commerce provided an update on the group's activities, and there was some discussion about activities the Chamber sponsors. He said he plans to attend the next EDC meeting on July 156. Board Member Robles said he accepted Verdant's invitation to visit their facilities. The office and classroom space is a fantastic resource for health care professionals who serve citizens in Snohomish County. Board Member Stewart reported that she attended the open house for the Marina Beach Park Master Plan, which was held just prior to the Board's meeting. There is currently one option presented for public review, and the electronic open house will start on July 9d' via the City's website. She encouraged the public and Board Members to participate. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 12 Packet Page 1014 of 1075 condition in this location. Mr. Hauss said the designs included in the study are preliminary and a lot more discussion is needed before the projects move forward. Vice Chair Lovell complimented the staff and consultant's work. The study is very thorough and complete and should be the basis for a lot of planning and implementation in the future. Chair Tibbott said he also appreciates the fact that the analysis sets up Westgate as a gateway with signage. It will become a place of interest for people coming through. The study does an excellent job of not only highlighting the intersection, but the neighborhood, itself. Mr. Hauss invited Board Members to email him their follow up questions. He reminded them that the City Council would continue their discussion relative to the analysis in August. Still under debate is whether the City Council will formally adopt the analysis. Because the projects identified in the plan will be transferred to the Transportation Plan, it is likely the plan will need to be adopted. Chair Tibbott noted that some of the projects have already been identified in the Transportation Plan, and the analysis can be used to inform future updates. The study provides a greater understanding of SR-104, and he appreciates the work done by the staff and consultant. THE BOARD TOOK A SHORT BREAK FROM 9:10 P.M. TO 9:17 P.M. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Mr. Lien reminded the Board that this is their sixth opportunity to review the CAO Update, and the Board held a public hearing on July 81h. After the hearing, the Board had some discussion about whether or not an 8-foot paved area was sufficient width for a critical area buffer to be considered physically separated and functionally isolated. The Board discussed that perhaps the separation width should be established at 12 feet, which is the standard width the City currently requires for driveways. He said he discussed this option with the consultant, who agreed that a 12-foot separation would be appropriate. He noted that other jurisdictions that have similar provisions do not specify width criteria. Some require studies and others do not. Since the public hearing, the language that talked about an 8-foot paved area being automatically classified as physically separated and functionally isolated was removed from the definition of buffer. Changes were also made to the language in 23.40.220.C.4, to read: `Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Stream or Wetland Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally established structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more I width that occur between the area in question and the stream or wetland may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the director to be a physically and functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in these areas. The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated. " Mr. Lien pointed out that the previous language automatically classified buffers that were separated by 8 feet or more as physically separated and functionally isolated. The new language states that buffers that are separated by 12 feet may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated. Once determined by the Director to be physically separated and functionally isolated, development proposals can be allowed. The Director can require a site assessment to make the determination. Mr. Lien recalled that he provided some examples at the last meeting to illustrate the proposed new requirements for development in frequently flooded areas. He reminded the Board that development in the flood zones is guided by building code requirements: ECDC 19.00.025, the International Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the International Building Code (IBC) for commercial development. While the IRC does not require single-family residences to be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), the first floor must be constructed to at least the BFE. The IBC requires structures to be constructed at or up to two -feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. He reminded the Board of staff s recommendation that the City require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of 2 feet above the BFE for all new construction within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. He referred to Attachment 4, which outlines the proposed changes. As discussed by the Planning Board previously, the Building Code Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 11 Packet Page 1015 of 1075 would be amended to read, `For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map." The Board also recommended that, rather than adding a footnote to each zone impacted by the new provision for frequently flooded areas, the best approach would be to amend the definition for height in ECDC 21.40.030 to read, "For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map. " Chair Tibbott asked if the BFE would be identified by the then applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map. Mr. Lien said that rather than identifying a specific map, staff is recommending that the language be changed to say, "The City will use the most currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a property is located in a frequently flooded area. " This change will allow the City to use the most current map. Vice Chair Lovell noted that the IRC does not require that residential development be elevated two feet above the BFE. Mr. Lien said that, with the proposed amendment, even single-family residential structures would be required to build at least two feet above the BFE within the Coastal Flood Hazard Area. To clarify a question from the Board, Mr. Lien advised that, when applicable, structures would still have to meet the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Mr. Lien recalled that, at the Board's last meeting, Board Member Monroe asked for more information about non -conforming buildings and if they could be reconstructed within a critical area or not. He explained that there is existing language in the code with regard to permanent alterations to structure within the critical areas. ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 reads, "This provision shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the ECDC relating to non -conforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of legal, non -conforming buildings within its footprint. " He further pointed out that ECDC 17.40.020 establishes a 75% replacement cost threshold. If a structure is destroyed more than 75%, then redevelopment would be required to conform to the current code. To illustrate how these two provisions would be applied, Mr. Lien explained that if a house located within a stream buffer were to burn down, ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 would allow the house to be reconstructed within its previous footprint. However, if someone wants to remodel or rebuild a home but retain the non -conforming aspect, ECDC 17.40.020 would limit the remodel or redevelopment to the 75% replacement cost threshold. A property owner within a stream buffer could tear down and replace up to 75% of an existing home and still redevelop within the existing footprint. Mr. Lien recommended that the Board discuss any remaining concerns and then forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the CAO Update as contained in Attachments 3 and 4. Chair Tibbott said it appears that the definition for "Footprint of Development" has been changed from the "border of a foundation" to include some of the landscaping around the facility. Mr. Lien reviewed that "Footprint of Existing Development" is defined as "the area of a site that contains legally established buildings; concrete, asphalt or gravel paved roads, parking lots, storage areas or other paved areas; driveways; walkways; outdoor swimming pools; and patios. " He explained that developed lawns are not considered part of the footprint of existing development. However, crushed gravel around a structure would be considered part of the footprint of development. Although gravel is considered impervious material, theoretically, a property owner could pave over that section of crushed gravel and not expand the footprint of existing development. The Board Members had questions about whether or not all gravel areas, even those that are established in place of lawns, would be considered part of the footprint of existing development. Mr. Lien emphasized that the definition would require that the footprint of development only includes areas that have been legally established. Board Member Stewart commented that the CAO Update has evolved into a good document, and she thanked Mr. Lien for his hard work. However, she voiced concern about ECDC 23.90.040.D.8.c, which allows stormwater dispersion outfalls, bioswales and bioretention facilities anywhere within stream buffers. She recalled that when the Board first started discussing the CAO update almost two years ago (September 24, 2013), a civil engineer representing the SnoKing Watershed Council attended the Board's meeting to talk about this particular point. He said, `No drainage structures or other improvements should be allowed in any critical area or the buffer of any critical area. Critical areas should not be used for stormwater treatment. Rather stormwater should be treated for proper flow control before it enters any critical area." A follow up comment, this same engineer said, "The City has the option to adopt more requirements more stringent than the stormwater manual, if it so chooses, to protect local streams and wetlands. " Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that buffers are supposed to be vegetated. They perform habitat functions for streams and wetlands, and they should not be used Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 12 Packet Page 1016 of 1075 for stormwater dispersion, outfalls, etc. Mr. Lien clarified that this section deals only with streams, which are allowed based on the hierarchy of conditions outlined in ECDC 23.90.040.D.8. He reviewed the conditions and emphasized that stormwater facilities are only allowed in streams if no other location is feasible. He reminded the Board that the City's current stormwater system is tied to streams. Mr. Lien advised that the City's Stormwater Engineer reviewed the CAO Update and proposed changes to make the language consistent with the stormwater requirements. For example, ECDC 23.90.040.D.8.c, which applies to streams, and ECDC 23.50.040.F.8, which applies to wetlands, were added to address the requirements of the Phase II Stormwater Permit the City is currently working on. Board Member Stewart recalled the Stormwater Engineer's earlier comment that the City is working to make the requirements stronger and even better than what is required. VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREA AMENDMENTS (ECDC CHAPTERS 23.40 THOUGH 23.90) AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENTS 3 AND 4 OF THE PLANNING BOARD PACKET DATED JULY 22, 2015. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vice Chair Lovell commended the staff and consultant for their invaluable work. The documents presented to the Board were first rate. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Tibbott reviewed that the August 12"' meeting agenda will include a discussion on the Highway 99 Subarea Planning Process and an update on the Development Code Update Process. It will also include a public hearing on the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Tibbott reminded the Board Members of the City -sponsored volunteer picnic on August 9th. He also announced that he and Vice Chair Lovell would provide an update to the City Council on Planning Board activities. He encouraged the Board Members to review their contact information that that was provided in a recent email to make sure it is accurate. Chair Tibbott reported on his attendance at the July 21" City Council meeting, where the City Council conducted a public hearing relative to the turf fields at the Old Woodway High School site. He recalled that the project has been in the planning phase for approximately four years and is now being disrupted just as it is being put into motion. He encouraged the Planning Board Members to carefully review park projects that come before them in the future and attempt to avoid these types of conflicts by providing the public early notification of issues that need to be addressed. 19 Xlelel lecti 0187:1 717u 1 old 11.104 :ZK1Iu lu 1 oleo R Vice Chair Lovell reported on his attendance at the July 15th Economic Development Commission Meeting, at which the discussion focused on tourism, downtown business enhancement, and implementation of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). It was reported that the Tourism Committee is proposing to take a hiatus for a time. They have made a number of studies and believe they have gone as far as they can for the time being. They made some recommendations, some of which are moving forward and others that are more long term. There was significant discussion about the SAP, particularly how to keep the public informed as to the status of the action items contained in the plan. Commissioner Haug has been working with the City's Economic Development Director to develop software to track the status of each of the action items for the public's information. The SAP Committee is working on ideas for increasing media attention and communication with the public. Board Member Stewart said she listened to the video recording of the City Council's July 2l't meeting, particularly the public hearing relative to the interlocal agreement with the Edmonds School District. Without offering her opinion on the matter, she expressed her belief that synthetic fields are needed and have been part of the plan for a long time. Unfortunately, none of the City Council Members or Planning Board Members were involved in the decision making process. The decision was Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 13 Packet Page 1017 of 1075 9v Packet Page 1018 of 1075 Packet Page 1019 of 1075 Packet Page 1020 of 1075 Packet Page 1021 of 1075 Packet Page 1022 of 1075 Packet Page 1023 of 1075 Packet Page 1024 of 1075 Packet Page 1025 of 1075 Packet Page 1026 of 1075 Packet Page 1027 of 1075 Packet Page 1028 of 1075 Fol Fol Fol Packet Page 1029 of 1075 I JA ■ 4 . j. Af . 4 L r �I Packet Page 1030 of 1075 Packet Page 1031 of 1075 Packet Page 1032 of 1075 _ �f. : fig: WO n. Q. 015 11 43 1. Packet Page 1035 of 1075 C :�. A - « \ ,/� , Packet Page 1037 of 1075 Packet Page 1038 of 1075 Packet Page 1039 of 1075 r30• f. Gufkr Wetland Boundary Packet Page 1040 of 1075 7596 � Relief Buffer i Expanded Buffer I it f Restoration Area Packet Page 1041 of 1075 Overlock ------------ Beach &Drftmod Arco BBQ Paved Path PicnicTable&BBQ, Bench w—.Fl Play Arm SD' Buffer r Possible Pedestrian Bridge --------------- L 7-, 'Ing r 4x.*' � Potential Concession Restroom With Outdoor Shower rj V28stalls 0ver-Mc Parking so hdh +auw Re5troom Bicycle Racks Pedestrian Bridge Fence AL Off Leash Area AgjI4 Course r. Packet Page 1042 of 1075 Packet Page 1043 of 1075 Packet Page 1044 of 1075 IExample M N�r�c�fey r��k Not to scale /not reflective of on -the -ground conditions; provided for planning and illustrative purposed only ■ Required buffer �- enhancement iw 'Reduced footprint Proposec Addition Page Packet Page 1046 of 1075 Packet Page 1047 of 1075 Packet Page 1048 of 1075 !IeTH STREET SW 2:61-1 Si 5'b HRIi C—k TREET Sa...NEST CITY OF 14OUNTLJ i 720Tr+ STREET 530170 I! -2 STREET 29 Irh STREET Sw 226TH ST 5VJ l SNOHOMISH COUNTY UNINCORPORATM AREA 535534 S F H 50 � I n� STREET STREET ZONE A I 2mrH fY OF ED 530163 s zom I 4:: r� ki •;;��_ SNOHOA KING 32 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET loco 1 lope 11111111111111111 NATIOMpL 000 INSURANCE PROrM I FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED ARFAS PANEL 1315 OF 105 SEE — 1-T t— RM 0 HOT PN-1`9-I CIXrtWN5: CCMMuNTY NulAE3 RANK SUFFN �i�n-uE� �ott of 59exv� �e MAP NUMBER 53061C1315 E EFFECTIVE DATE; NOVEMBER 8,1999 IONE 1 qmI Federal Emergency Management Agency menbneMe wfikh mev hme been made eebeewn roT dnemme ah Fa TM1ef Roduft iAr,•ewe abwi HeTiorw�FloealrR Packet Page 1049 of 1075 aU 5t. m w. io •20 NRC 2012 vs. Mate et al. 2008 Proj ected Sea Level Rifle, Mean (,or Wdlum-I) and Range for Puget Sound (M-p;' e et al 2006) and Seattle ( RC 0 ; ) ;; More et aJ_ 200e NRc 2012 thacacts�:�c� �f I�w, �ilodiUm, and high eminnate. ConIpSf15Gn will Var hied oil to�joogl- !pmrp-rlftnta ImWLs Gmup Packet Page 1050 of 1075 f IJW'NPM -&_ ask. Jill -SAL Packet Page 1053 of 1075 Packet Page 1054 of 1075 /,,—BFE + 2 feet Base Flood Elevation Packet Page 1055 of 1075 property Owner Name Property Address SAMPLE PLOT PLAN Tax Account Parcel # gA fp tCarl5 Si1RFACE {� (SULID SURFACES) L%IsL Ruild6E Roof Utrllkn[- 2266si. (consrr. in 1962) Es islinr, Covered Farch: 75 si (ODoigru"td iN 1962) Ex al ing brkvcway- s10 a. (mnsimcMd in 1987) E:al�.g Fniio:2UG A (cousrrNcled id IM5) I'roposed A ddj[I671: -041)sL r'roposed Go -Le: SW d. Fropvsed peck:96si +99 KEIG11T LS CAL A =+9T sj+107' +tl C +100, C AVE GRAM; - 102.7S ACTUAL —i13'XIs eL� MAMUM=1T7,7 P�1nlnN Rocl[ry LOT COVERAG E= � 2S-0` S5i5 SQ.FT, (26 %) LOT &RE -A: 13�27 So. FT. f t.Q'F 51.OP_E: i 1 % I { 0.4 I +r F Property Vow +U r . +104 ' +100 +1t12 t . +Bulk I ; 1 1 I 1 ' I 1 • 1 f . I E%1Sdu g ems+ Residence+ I Lam--11k.wa a _-=:,i:+-4,r4rtik.•. P r,' G • � � 1 Ly �� _'� 'I a Asphalt Driveway 1 I k op SI0N[6% 100' tix Sidewalk i •� W....w.l.r I MAIN STREET Telerd o-np pole ..,'#pqurr,+tW cpnu=nrtzlyhl.al-way — ss 'J'pr {g$ htariLate CaYxr ATTACHMENT A Packet Page 1056 of 1075 Lam--11k.wa a _-=:,i:+-4,r4rtik.•. P r,' G • � � 1 Ly �� _'� 'I a Asphalt Driveway 1 I k op SI0N[6% 100' tix Sidewalk i •� W....w.l.r I MAIN STREET Telerd o-np pole ..,'#pqurr,+tW cpnu=nrtzlyhl.al-way — ss 'J'pr {g$ htariLate CaYxr ATTACHMENT A Packet Page 1056 of 1075 feet ,Eftb!6 BNRR 17 Page Packet Page 1058 of 1075 Packet Page 1059 of 1075 '7 Y' ar•' _ f f ' ti �'s-, : dr. ~ �!�'� • :�' '• "-v.' '' - -- ' � ,# dry- '' �fy,�} �5..•_*�.' # '� �- is :'` x'"l:+ � .lt _ '.�+'-?'� F. �n'� f i hL S r 5 a fee or Required buffer enhancement Packet Page 1062 of 1075 Packet Page 1063 of 1075 Packet Page 1064 of 1075 Packet Page 1065 of 1075 Packet Page 1066 of 1075 Packet Page 1067 of 1075 Packet Page 1068 of 1075 Example - Required buffer enhancement .Propo5jt. Additio Not to scale /not reflective of on -the -ground conditions; provided for planning and illustrative purposed only ■ jag .-0. ------------ 75% -------------------------. MPage Packet Page 1070 of 1075 _- s rye: �. � � e�: � ♦" .�' -. � � ��' • --. .me Jai '� � -� /�, "�� 'ri�. r.�� ,�.��:! -�\ � `\ • - I - _ .1 sr - ►art - . i.. , - ra ;" t - Goo Ie earth Packet Page 1072 of 1075 Packet Page 1073 of 1075 Native tree >10" DBH Native tree >6" DBH As originally proposed, does not meet native vegetation criteria: • Native plant species Native trees >10"DBH make up >70% of canopy cover D 9 O 0 a � a a ® o Q a a� p o cy 0 0 O p Packet Page 1074 of 1075 Native tree >10" DBH Native tree >6" DBH ��♦ Area that supports native vegetation (per Council Amendment): Native plant species Native trees >6"DBH make up >40% of canopy cover 4e M� � a 9 0 0 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 a� 1 ° Z c 1 %ft moo v j l Packet Page 1075 of 1075