The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-07-19 City Council - Full Agenda-17221. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JULY 19, 2016, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 12, 2016 2. Approval of claim and payroll checks 3. Claim for Damages 4. Wilhoit Property Donation 5. Amendment #3 ILA WDFW Fishing Pier 6. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with BergerABAM for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project 7. Presentation of Goods & Materials Agreement for Sole Source Justification for the procurement of stone cladding, paving and site furnishings for the Veteran's Plaza from Coldspring 8. Authorization for Mayor to Execute a Lease Agreement with Neopost for Postage Meter Equipment 9. Citizen Board Candidate Interviews - Edmonds Public Facilities District Candidate Appointments AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing to receive citizens' comments on Proposed Sign Code Amendments (60 min.) 7. ACTION ITEMS 1. Edmonds Waterfront Center and Beach Rehab Schematic Design Review (10 min.) 2. Authorizing Mayor to execute Interlocal Agreement with Western Washington University on Sustainable Cities Partnership (10 min.) 8. STUDY ITEMS 9. 10. 1. Long-range Financial Plan Introduction (30 min.) 2. Shoreline Master Program Update (45 min.) MAYOR'S COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Agenda July 19, 2016 Page 1 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda July 19, 2016 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 12, 2016 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: Cm071216 Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 12, 2016 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. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. C0 N 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 0 E COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. z 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS cvo a COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO MOVE ITEMS 3 AND 4 TO ACTION ITEMS 7.1 AND 7.2 AND RENUMBER THE REMAINING ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a 5. PROCLAMATION PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling read a proclamation designating July as Park and Recreation Month. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite said the proclamation cites the many benefits and values of the Parks & Recreation Department and parks and recreation in general. She thanked the Council and Mayor as well as the community for their support of parks and recreation. For example, 150 people attended the recent Civic Field open house, the biggest open house in her career. She thanked the Parks & Recreation staff team; a very strong group with an incredible work ethic and values who give their heart and soul to the department. She invited the community to participate in events and programs this summer, particularly during Parks & Recreation Month including outdoor movies, sand castle contest, and many other events. Further information is available online and calendars are available at the Frances Anderson Center. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 36-year resident and retired fishery biologist, thanked the Council for c allowing the Edmonds-Woodway High School students to provide a presentation on the water quality study. He referred to the Washington Department of Ecology's proposed changes to the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program and recommended the Council reject the suggested changes as they are not based on science. There seems to be a mixed agenda in document, going beyond the requirements of Shoreline Management Act and going into social economic issues rather than science and the needs of a v wetland and wetland protection. He was confused when reading the document that Ecology does not cite o their own publications such as Wetlands in Washington State, Volume II, Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetland, a science -based document. Ecology's determination that the marsh is a Category II is o equivocal; they do not provide documentation to justify it. Ecology's own documents state, "relatively n undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre are Category I wetlands because they are rare and Q provide unique natural resources that are considered to be valuable to society," which he said clearly defines the Edmonds Marsh. He questioned why the State would move the marsh into a lower category, diminishing its level of protection when the City's consultants determined in 2004 that the marsh was a Category I wetland. He recommended the Council advise Ecology they do not agree with the proposed N changes and proceed using the documentation the State provides to determine the appropriate buffer widths for the marsh. E c.� 7. ACTION ITEMS c d E 1. 2016 2ND QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT AND NEW HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR POSITION c° a COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, FOR APPROVAL. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how much has been saved by having a manager instead of a director. HR Reporting Director Carrie Hite said about $500,000 over the past 5 years. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding that the change from manager to director would essentially be revenue neutral because the additional salary Ms. Hite receives would be used to increase the manager's salary to a director level salary. Ms. Hite said it would be revenue neutral if Human Resources Manager Mary Anne Hardie was successful in her candidacy to be the director. If Ms. Hardie is not successful, she and Mayor Earling plan to reorganize HR in order to realize savings to pay the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a director level salary., Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the cost would be close to revenue neutral or significant if Ms. Hardie was not successful in attaining the position and a person was hired from outside. Ms. Hite answered it would not cost a significant amount; staff would likely need to ask for a bit more money, the exact amount would depend on the reorganization. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding any additional cost would come to Council for approval. Ms. Hite agreed. Council President Johnson explained she first heard about this via a call from Mayor Earling who said he had heard Ms. Hardie was a second level candidate for position in another city and he didn't want to lose such a valued employee who has done a good job over the years, acquiring more knowledge, skill and education, and that Ms. Hite was interested in returning to her position as a full-time Parks & Recreation Director. Although it may start out to be revenue neutral, the cost at the end of 6 years of going from the top of NR 15 salary to the bottom of NR 20 salary is approximately $150,000. She was concerned about equity issues, not just other directors who have large staffs and large areas of responsibility but also other managers who are at the top of their scale and who also have large responsibilities. She understands Mayor Earling wants to reward and promote but, 1) it is the Council's responsibility to review all job descriptions which was done 4-5 year ago, and 2) the Council is responsible for all final budgetary decisions. She concluded it was not in the best interest of the City to make this incremental decision at this time so she will vote no. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the $100,000/year savings was realized because the former HR Director was paid a lot of money. Ms. Hite answered the former HR Director was paid at a director's salary level and the City went five years without a director, approximately a $100,000/year savings. Councilmember Buckshnis said the revenue neutral proposal is to bring back the HR Director position which she found appropriate due to the number of HR issues facing the City and future challenges if the City acquires a Metropolitan Urban Growth Area (MUGA). She summarized it was time to reinstate the position. Mayor Earling requested an opportunity to address one of the issues raised by Council President Johnson. At Council President Johnson inquiry, the Council agreed to allow Mayor Earling to speak. Mayor Q Earling said if the Council approves the new HR Director position, the process will include a press release o� opening the position for 2-3 weeks for anyone who wishes to apply for the position. Ms. Hardie knows that is the process and he assumes she will be a candidate. This is not a slam-dunk deal and he and Ms. cfl Hite were very clear with Ms. Hardie about the process. 0 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the City has gone from under 200 employees to over 220 v employees as well as needs to adhere to federal and state laws including personnel policies that have already been updated and job specs that need to be updated. HR attempts to keep the City out of lawsuits by making sure the right thing is done and the right polices are followed to protect both the employer and z employee. She did not have a problem with the new HR Director position, it is time for it and a good use of money. a MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling acknowledge part of Council President Johnson's concern was the HR Director position and asked if she had other issues with the budget amendment. Council President Johnson answered no. Ms. Hite advised the Council needed to approve the ordinance approving the budget amendment and the addition of the new HR Director position. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4038, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4024 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, ADDING THE Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 4.1.a POSITION OF HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO THE SALARY RANGE TABLE. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO. 2. HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR Ms. Hite said the packet for this item addressed questions raised at the last meeting regarding the HR Director position. No further discussion was needed and the action related to this item was taken in the above agenda item. 8. STUDY ITEMS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the City has been in the process of updating the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for some time. She provided the history including the Planning Board's recommendations in 2012, City Council revisions, submittal to Ecology in 2014/2015, Ecology's review, preliminary concerns and discussion, and the Critical Areas Ordinance process. Ecology is here tonight to present their findings and conclusions regarding the SMP. She reminded Ecology has the authority to approve and even adopt SMPs. Ecology has issued a conditional approval, noting many things in the SMP are very good. David Pater, Regional Shoreline Planner, Washington State Department of Ecology, reviewed: • Final SMP review process (Ecology issued conditional approval on June 27, 2016) o Ecology prepares written findings and conclusions on the SMP update consistency with the SMA and SMP Guidelines. o Also responds to the issues identified during the review and comment period. o Ecology makes findings and conclusions available to Edmonds and the public. • Ecology Decision Options o Ecology may: (1) Approve the locally adopted SMP update as submitted (2) Approve the SMP amendment subject to the local government making required changes (3) Deny the SMP amendment. • Edmonds Decision Options o Ecology approves the SMP with required changes, Edmonds has 30 days after receiving Ecology's decision letter to either: ■ Agree to the proposed changes with acceptance letter to Ecology; ■ Submit an alternative proposal. Ecology determines if alternative is consistent with the intent of the changes. Ecology SMP approval o Ecology will notify all parties of record. o SMP effective date is 14 days from the date of the Ecology final approval letter. o Interested parties notified of 60 Day GMA appeal period. o Appeal period public notice. Mr. Pater highlighted draft SMP changes: Issue Ecology Proposal Urban Mixed Use IV, 100150 Setback / 65/50 foot proposed setback/buffer, more consistent Buffer with Edmonds Marsh category II wetland classification SMP sec. 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards. SMP 24.40.090: Establish a redevelopment Propose a 50% redevelopment threshold for buffer Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 0 N 0 E c.� c a� E z U 2 a 4.1.a threshold for buffer enhancement. enhancement on adjacent Edmonds Marsh properties Urban Mixed Use IV Interim Shoreline The 65/50 proposed setback/buffer is the appropriate Environment Designation setback/buffer. Therefore the interim designation is no SMP sec. 24.30.070 longer needed SMP reconciliation with new critical areas Remove updated critical area elements from the SMP regulations. sec. 24.40.020. Applicable sections are part of the new CAO. Paul Anderson, Wetland Specialist, Washington State Department of Ecology, explained his role as a wetland specialist is to review the technical standards in the SMP related to wetlands and fish and wildlife. Prior to this update, the marsh had been classified as an associated wetland as defined in the implementing rules for the SMA. In looking at aerial photos, it was apparent there were tidal channels and mud flats in the western portion of the marsh showing regular tidal exchange which meant the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) extended into the marsh. The OHWM is the defining boundary for shoreline jurisdiction. He visited the marsh in December 2010 to determine if there was contemporary tidal exchange which is the reason for the change in the jurisdictional designation. Shorelands extend 200 feet landward from the OHWM and also include associated wetlands. Prior to this update, due to the classification as only an associated wetland, shoreline jurisdiction did not extend inland which was the a reason for the interim designation and the reason the Unocal and Port properties are considered within jurisdiction. He provided the following citations: • SMA OHWM 0 on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and c banks and ascertaining where the PRESENCE AND ACTION OF WATERS are so common 'o and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to MARK UPON THE SOIL a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, IN RESPECT TO VEGETATION ° - Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act of 1971 c o ... as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may a change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the Q department:... T - Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act of 1971 M • Tidal waters OHWM Criteria o High energy environments ■ Where the action of waves or currents is sufficient to prevent vegetation establishment N below mean higher high tide, the ordinary high water mark is coincident with the line of vegetation; V o Low energy environments c ■ Where the action of waves and currents is not sufficient to prevent vegetation a) establishment below mean higher high tide, the ordinary high water mark is coincident z with the landward limit of salt tolerant vegetation. "Salt tolerant vegetation" means 2 vegetation which is tolerant of interstitial soil salinities greater than or equal to 0.5 parts a per thousand WAC 173-22-030, Definitions He displayed a photograph of the Edmond March taken in December 2010, explaining it was identified as a low energy marine environment and there is evidence of salt tolerant plants in the western portion. He explained one of the issues that arose during the SMP update was potential for grant funding for the water quality program. That program is designed primarily for agricultural land and water courses, not necessary wetlands. A question was raised by Council regarding the basis for the 35-foot buffer and whether it was consistent with Best Available Science (BAS). He explained it is not a science -based buffer, it is a conservation practice that the NRCS has developed on agricultural and forest lands. That program provides grand funding to Ecology. He referred to an Appendix L in the documents provided to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 4.1.a the Council which describes the water types that are eligible for funding as well as standards where and how buffers apply. He displayed an aerial photograph of the Edmonds Marsh: • Regular tidal exchange to western portion of Marsh via Shellabarger/Willow Creek o Tidal channels, mudflats and dominance of salt tolerant vegetation in this portion of the marsh: Estuarine wetland Mr. Anderson explained the tidal channels themselves and Willow Creek are where the buffers under the water quality guidelines apply and they would be within the buffers on the marsh itself. In addition to the buffers required by the CAO, Appendix L contains additional guidance (page 101); the second to last bullet states, "Buffers established as part of a water quality program grant may not violate county critical area ordinances, county critical area ordinances, county shoreline rules or other state or local regulations." He explained if the City has buffers in the critical area regulations, those buffers apply, not the buffers for the grant funding. Ecology may allow a conditional exemption from the minimum buffer width requirements where the presence of a structure impedes the ability to meet the conditions. Buffers as far as the state is concerned and what the science reports, are areas that are vegetated with native vegetation and they should be well vegetated. In this region it is typically forest land. To the question of why the marsh is now considered a Category II wetland, he said Ecology is not deliberately downgrading the wetland. The 2014 rating system, which was updated in 2004 by Dr. Hruby, was not designed to evaluate tidal wetlands; it is a freshwater rating system but includes criteria for distinguishing between Category I and II. He reviewed the categorization based on special characteristics, explaining the principal criteria is whether the tidal regime is within a National Wildlife Refuge which the Edmonds Marsh is not. He reviewed the criteria in SC 1.2: • Is the wetland relatively undisturbed (no diking, ditching, hilling, cultivation, grazing and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species) • At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100-foot buffer of shrub, forest or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland • The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Appendix L includes a definition of riparian buffers which also includes an intact plant community suitable to the region. The criteria listed are from the 1993 Western Washington Rating System. Mr. Anderson explained he believed the Edmonds Marsh was previously categorized as a Category I wetland V because the 1993 rating system included a standard that an estuarine wetland 5 acres or larger is Category c I; that criterion was not carried forward because size is not a good predictor of wetland function or value. E The rest of the criteria were brought forward. The wetland needs to be at least an acre; Edmonds Marsh z west of SR 104 is larger than 5 acres but is classified as a Category II wetland because it is relatively 2. disturbed, most of the marsh has been filled, its only tidal inlet is piped for 1100 feet, and there is high a intensity urban development surrounding most of the marsh. He displayed an aerial photo of the Edmonds Marsh, a Category II Estuarine wetland, identifying 50-foot, 100-foot and 150-foot buffers. He relayed they met with Representative Peterson in June at the north end of the marsh and measured the intact buffer along that edge. There is a berm for flood control that contains the marsh; the intact buffer to the north is 13 feet wide and then pavement which is not considered an intact buffer. He displayed another aerial photo of the marsh identifying where the buffer is impaired and the 150-foot buffer. The standard for a Category I buffer requires 3/4 of the perimeter have a 100-foot intact buffer which does not exist in the Edmonds Marsh. There is intact buffer in the southeast, approximately 100-150 feet of intact forest vegetation, but the rest of the buffer is impaired and has been Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 4.1.a previously developed. Only the areas with intact vegetation need to be protected; restoration is a different issue, property owners should be encouraged to restore a site wherever possible. Mr. Anderson provided additional information with regard to buffers: • Intact buffers need to be well vegetated o Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion - Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version, 2nd Revision October 2012 • State Supreme Court ruled that under GMA, no requirement to restore degraded buffers o "...we cannot require farmers within Skagit County to replant what was long ago plucked UP. - Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Case No. 76339-9) ■ Same principal applies to Edmonds Marsh and Harbor Square: no requirement to restore degraded buffers He provided the following regarding shoreline restoration • WAC 173-26-186(8)(C) requires SMPs to include restoration goals and policies and requires established or funded non -regulatory programs that contribute to the restoration of ecological functions. • The WAC doesn't require restoration of an existing developed area within a defined SMP buffer. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Pater and Senior Planner Kernen Lien, noting the Council has c had at least nine meetings over the past three years, some very heated. She referred to the testing Mr. Anderson did in 2010, and asked if he was aware the tide gate was closed October to March so it did not c reflect the true condition of the marsh. Mr. Anderson answered he was aware there was tide gate but not a when it was closed. He measured approximately a % foot of tidal exchange; it is not the tidal exchange Q that is the standard, it is the presence of salt tolerant vegetation. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her T understanding of Mr. Anderson's explanation it didn't matter if there was more saltwater in the summer when the gate is open and water freely flowing. Mr. Anderson answered it does not matter but the highest tides also occur in the winter which is the reason the gate is closed. N Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the interim designation, commenting Ecology seemed to think the only reason was the 100-foot buffer. She recalled in December 2013 Mr. Pater commented on the V involvement of stakeholders and potential litigation. In considering the interim designation, she c recognized there were four stakeholders involved, including Chevron/Unocal "who just wants to get out E of Dodge." She referred to their January 2014 letter to Mayor Earling stating they will sue the City if the z designation is changed. The marsh was reclassified so the buffers were changed and Chevron/Unocal wants to ensure the zoning stayed the same, which has been addressed. The reason for the interim a designation was allowing time for WSDOT to take over the property; the sale is in escrow now pending Ecology approval. Councilmember Buckshnis continued, the City also received a letter at that time from WSDOT stating they did not like the 150-foot buffer but did not mind a 100-foot buffer. The third stakeholder, the Port, is surveying the land. She commented there are still a lot reasons to request the interim designation, primarily due to the stakeholders involved, getting WSDOT in control of the property and working with the Port. Mr. Pater responded Councilmember Buckshnis made a valid point but these issues have been going on for a long time. One reason Ecology proposed letting go of the interim was to save the City the trouble of the amendment process in the future. The interim was initially intended for only for two years; it realistically could take longer than that to sort through all the issues. Councilmember Buckshnis Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 4.1.a commented there at least is a better understanding. The City recently received approval from WRIA 8 for the final design. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the description and definition buffers and setbacks. He read from a document by Mr. Pater dated June 11, 2015, public comment responses, that defines buffers and setbacks, "A buffer means an area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for continued maintenance function and/or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, shore setbacks are intended to be left undisturbed or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values. "Shore setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline ordinary high water mark. By definition, the buffer is adjacent to the critical area or shoreline and the setback is measured from ordinary high water mark, so if there is both a buffer and setback, they will necessarily overlap." He asked if Mr. Pater still agreed with that description. Mr. Pater responded they overlap but they really support each other. For example, Ecology is proposing a 50-foot buffer and 50-foot setback from the buffer. It is common in newer SMPs to combine the proposed buffer and the setback from the buffer to protect the integrity of the buffer. For example, Island County has that in most designations. He did not see it as an overlap but rather one supporting the other. There may be occasions like the marina which is all industrial pavement so there would not be a buffer but a marginal setback. It depends on the situation how the buffers and setbacks are applied. For example, at Harbor Square, the buffers when applied, do not match up to what exists but could if the site goes through a major redevelopment. Councilmember Teitzel observed the description refers to the setback measured from OHWM. He cited from Attachment A of Ecology's findings and conclusions, "SMP-required change number three requires a 50-foot buffer with a minimum 15-foot structural buffer setback." He asked if the setback is measured from the OHWM, does that mean the setback is included within the 50-foot buffer and not added to it. Mr. Anderson answered it is more often offset from the buffer to protect buffer, otherwise there is encroachment. He would have would have worded that differently such as the buffer is adjacent to the critical area and the setback extends from the edge of the buffer outward. Councilmember Teitzel suggested it would be more clear to state the setback is the entire distance from the OHWM from the landward measurement and the buffer is within that setback. Mr. Lien said there are some places in the City where there is just a setback and not a buffer. The response to public comments that Councilmember Teitzel cited earlier are definitions in the SMP. Shore c setback is defined as measured from OHWM and buffers are also adjacent. There may be instances where v there is only a setback and some where there is a setback and buffer. The changes required by Ecology on page 544-545 of the packet that refer to setback and buffers at 65, 50 means 65-feet from the edge of the marsh and 50 feet of that is the buffer; previously it was a 100-foot setback with a 50-foot buffer. In z function it is really a 15-foot setback on top of the buffer. M a Councilmember Teitzel referred to the City of Issaquah SMP regarding setbacks and buffers on Lake Sammamish, which also supports anadromous fish, that states, a "35-foot wide vegetated shoreline buffer and a 15-foot building setback shall be required to protect the lake from adverse effects of development." He asked why there was a net total of 50 feet for Lake Sammamish and 65 feet for the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Pater answered he worked with Issaquah on their SMP; the Lake Sammamish shoreline is pretty built out with very little buffer. Issaquah was focusing on incentives to bring back the buffer when redevelopment occurs. It is difficult in highly developed shoreline areas; applying a larger setback to a built out environment where the houses average 15-20 feet from the water would create a nightmare of nonconforming uses and potential for variances. That needs to be balanced with the reality of what exists and try to get incentives to slowly get some of the buffer back. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a Councilmember Tibbott asked if a 50-foot buffer is a standard width for a Category II wetland. Mr. Anderson answered no, it is smaller. For Edmonds Marsh, the 50-foot buffer is proposed only with redevelopment. Whatever buffer is required in the CAO and brought into the SMP would apply to the southeast corner of the marsh where there is an intact buffer; the 50-foot buffer with a 15-foot setback is for areas subject to redevelopment. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the buffer was customized for the City of Edmonds. Mr. Anderson answered it was customized because it was already developed and to encourage restoration. Councilmember Nelson referred to an article in yesterday's Everett Herald, titled "Report: Loss of Salmon Habitat Continues to Grow" which states, "The State's no net loss goal does not result in habitat conditions that lead to recovery because the benchmark is being established in a watershed that is already in a degraded state, not capable of producing properly functioning conditions from an ecological standpoint." He asked Ecology to comment on that. Mr. Anderson said it's catch up because so many sites have already been built out, so many streams have already been culverted. There are restoration opportunities and chances to turn that around and slow it down. The City is already pretty built out which is the reason the City is facing these issues. Mr. Pater said when the City started the process, it first put together an inventory and characterization that defined the baseline conditions of Edmonds' shoreline. The baseline condition is it's very built out and that is the threshold that the SMP looks at in terms of meeting the no net loss of ecological function goals. They do not want to see degradation on a citywide basis of the shoreline beyond what exists now. And in the existing conditions, the marsh is not functioning properly due to development around it. He agreed it was a difficult situation for built out communities but this was one of the compromises made when the SMP guidelines were developed 12-13 years ago. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the buffer for a Category II wetland. Mr. Anderson answered it depends in part on why the wetland is a Category II. Under the current guidance, they recommend a 100-foot buffer for an estuarine if impacts of land use around the wetland are minimized and if there is an intact 100-foot wide corridor. Otherwise for an estuarine wetland, it is 150 feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the buffer for a Category I wetland. Mr. Anderson answered 200 feet for an estuarine wetland. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has heard from a number environmentalist in the City, cfl including Joe Scordino who has the qualifications to question the classification of the Edmonds Marsh. She asked why environmentalist are insistent the marsh is a Category I and why they disagree with c Ecology. Mr. Anderson answered it is a valuable resource, it is a large wetland, it has a lot of diverse v habitat and it was previously categorized as a Category I wetland. A report done by Pentech in 1998 summarized the characteristics which would have been based on the wetland rating system. He did not know for certain that was the basis for that determination, but under the 1993 rating system, because the z marsh was larger than 5 acres, it was an estuarine wetland, it qualified as a Category I wetland. However, when Ecology updated the rating system in 2004, that 5-acre criteria was not carried forward and instead a the condition of the wetland was considered such as whether it has an intact buffer, whether it is disturbed, whether it has tidal channels and it had to meet two of those three criteria to be a Category I and Edmonds Marsh only meets 1 of the 3 in its current condition. The estuarine wetland standards were changed between 1993 and 2004; they were not changed in the 2014 update. Council President Johnson asked what Ecology expected to receive from the City within the 30-day deadline. Mr. Pater responded it obviously will take longer than 30 days. There are two options for the Council to consider, 1) agree with required changes, or 2) propose alternatives to the required changes. Ms. Hope said it would be helpful to have an indication from Council that they need more than 30 days. Mr. Pater agreed, a letter or email prior to the July 26 deadline requesting more time. He noted the reason for the 50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback was based on the science Mr. Anderson presented and the land Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 4.1.a use situation of the marsh and issues that have occur over the years. Ecology must base its decisions on firm legal ground because anyone can appeal the SMP if approved with the required changes. Ecology feels comfortable they have built a strong record for that case in the findings and conclusions. Ecology is open to alternatives, but the City needs provide its own justification for alternativeness via communication to the Ecology Director. Council President Johnson asked how long an extension Ecology would consider granting the City. Mr. Pater answered a month or two but he did not want it to drag on a year. Ecology needs to defend any potential appeal. Ms. Hope said further discussion/direction on the SMP is scheduled on July 19 and August 3 agendas. Councilmember Buckshnis said she requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday look up the interim designation, believing the Council had significant grounds in view of Mr. Pater's statement regarding an interim designation when there is the potential of lawsuits. Mr. Taraday relayed Councilmember Buckshnis' email asked the definition of an interim official control. His office researched and that exact phrase is not defined. He offered to email the Council the definition his office found related to that phrase and discuss it further if necessary. The definition of interim official control would not turn the decision whether the environment is determined to be an interim shoreline environment. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated there are four stakeholders and the City has letters from two, one saying they will sue the City. Her issue continues to be that an interim designation can be supported, it is more than the 100-foot buffer issue, it was the 4 stakeholders. She believed Chevron/Unocal was almost done with the cleanup. Mr. Pater agreed they are, in conversations with Chevron's lawyer a few months ago, there were concern with 100-foot buffer proposed by Council. Mr. Pater said his understanding is that Chevron/Unocal would have to do a more intensive clean up within that buffer on their property which is why they are concerned with a 100-foot buffer. Councilmember Buckshnis said if the cleanup is almost complete, WSDOT has no problem with the 100-foot buffer. The WRIA-8 funding indicates a lining will be provided in the stream if necessary. She expressed interest in the escrow moving to WSDOT and if the cleanup is nearly done, that justifies the interim designation. Councilmember Teitzel said he it's easy to drawn down into minutiae, talking about buffers and setbacks, shoreline jurisdiction, etc. and lose the big picture. The big picture is trying to restore the water quality in cfl the marsh to support the return of salmon. Everyone supports that goal; the question is how to get there. He read from attachment A of the findings and conclusions, page 537 of the packet, regarding the SMP, c "While restoring the buffer at Harbor Square could contribute to improving water quality, retrofitting the v storm water treatment system would provide a much greater ecological lift and require a smaller footprint. Unfortunately, the habitat benefits of a wider buffer are limited by the marsh's relative isolation within a highly developed urban landscape." He asked whether Ecology still agreed with that statement. Mr. z Anderson answered definitely, the biggest threat to the marsh and the fish is water quality. With the differences in buffer width within this urban landscape, an intact corridor is not going to happen; cleaning a up the water provides the greatest benefit. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his concern is if a buffer and setback that extends too far toward Harbor Square is required, it can be a disincentive for any redevelopment possibly in perpetuity which will preclude any stormwater improvements. He cautioned the Council not to establish a limit that could preclude improvements; it is an opportunity cost to the environment. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there were opportunities for buffer averaging around the marsh; possibly some parts would require or benefit from a 100-foot buffer and a 25-foot buffer would be adequate in other areas. Mr. Anderson answered because the remaining intact buffer on the marsh is very limited, buffer averaging opportunities are also very limited. Buffer averaging requires shrinking the buffer in some areas and enlarging it in other areas when in reality only the southeast corner and possibly the old Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a detention pond on the Unocal site are the only areas where much intact buffers remains; the rest has already been degraded. Councilmember Nelson commented Ecology has muddied the water. Prior to 2010 the marsh was called one thing, and now Ecology, whose mission is to protect, preserve and enhance Washington's land, air and water for current and future generations, has shrunk the marsh's protective buffers and found an exception to make the protective buffers even smaller. He agreed the City needed to work with its neighbors because at the end of the day, the marsh will not get better without their help. Council President Johnson asked whether it is the City's or the State's responsibility to determine the marsh's classification. Mr. Anderson answered it depends on why she is asking. If she was only looking at implementation of the City's CAO, she would look to staff. The State is the resource and provides technical assistance, developed the rating system and are frequently asked whether it is being interpreted correctly. If it is only a City matter and the City is not seeking the State's opinion or assistance, it would be up to the City but the State also has a role in determining the classification in the cases of permitting and impact to the wetland. In the event of in -water wetland permitting, the City and State processes are separate. At this time the City is using the State's wetland rating system. In previous CAOs, some jurisdictions chose to develop their own rating scheme which created a great deal of confusion which is one of the reasons for a State system which they recommend cities use. When a question arises about the rating, Ecology makes that decision. Mayor Earling asked if Ecology staff was available to respond to questions at future Council meetings. Mr. Pater and Mr. Anderson both answered yes. Councilmember Mesaros said Councilmember Nelson's statement raised the idea of developing incentives for improvement. He asked how to structure the SMP so that an adjoining property owner is interested in making improvements to preserve the marsh when they redevelop. If the SMP is so restrictive that the adjoining property owners says "why bother," that does not result in improvements to the marsh. He referred to the paragraph Councilmember Teitzel read about stormwater runoff, commenting that is an incentive to improve the area around the marsh. Whether there is a 75 foot or a 200-foot buffer, if the runoff is not improved, the water quality will deteriorate. He was interested in creating incentives for adjoining property owners so that in 10-15 years, people recognized that the decisions made in 2016 improved the water quality. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she is one of only Councilmembers who has lived in Edmonds their entire life and remembered 40 years ago when the marsh extended to SR-104. She reminded that the marsh has been chipped away at; what used to be a beautiful preserve has been degraded to a much smaller marsh. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess 2. EDMONDS WATERFRONT CENTER AND BEACH REHAB SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW Parks & Recreation Carrie Hite reviewed the history: • In 2014 Council passed a resolution supporting the redevelopment of the senior center • In 2015 Council unanimously approved the Option to Lease and the Ground Lease, giving the senior center to begin their capital campaign and begin schematic design of the new center, now proposed as the Waterfront Center. • At the February 2016 Council retreat, the initial schematic design was presented Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 N O E c.� c a� E z c� a 4.1.a Ms. Hite explained the lease agreement requests the senior center obtain Council approval of the schematic design. She is also seeking Council approval for the park redevelopment schematic design. The waterfront center and the park redevelopment are treated as one project and there is a shared parking lot. Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, said this presentation was similar to what was provided the City Council at the retreat. This design was shared with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) last week and 200 people attended the June 22, 2016 open house. He introduced the Edmonds Waterfront Center - connecting and enriching our community and reviewed: • Vision: To build a world class regional facility with a holistic model program that maximizes the full potential of participants of every age - connecting and strengthening our community • Goals: 1. Construct a new state of the art, sustainable, model community facility that serves citizens of all ages. 2. Offer a range of dynamic & engaging programs emphasizing health and wellness. 3. Protect, preserve and enhance rare waterfront property for community use. Phil Lovell relayed the senior center is very interested in keeping the community updated. There are regular briefings with the Senior Center Board, the membership, opportunities for the public to weigh in including public meetings and a presentation to the ADB last week: He shared the ADB's comments: • Very interested and supportive of the project including the concept, location, programs and benefits to citizens and seniors • Minor observations about locations of interior doors and adjacency of rooms • Most observations were related to siting of the building and the site • Very interested and excited about the beach restoration • Concerned about parking capacity, specifically ADA parking • Very interested in utilization of native/natural materials for building exterior so there is a northwest appearance/style but also concerns about durability and maintenance • Concerned about drainage characteristics, drainage direction, how swales operate and drain into rain garden r • Concern/awareness about the immediate adjacency of the blank north wall of Ebbtide, concern M about the alley look of 8-foot walkway, width and availability of through passage from Railroad Avenue to waterfront N • Provide adequate space for service deliveries • With regard to the building: E o Height of the building versus sea level rise, suggestions to lower ceiling heights to v accommodate rooftop activity o Comments/concern with amount of glass due to energy and maintenance issues E o Highly interested in sustainability rating and would like to see LEED gold if possible. c� • Expressed desire to continue with the project a Sally Knodell, Senior Architect, Environmental Works Community Design Center, described Environmental Works and reviewed the project phases: schematic design, design development, construction documents. They have done extensive programming investigation with the senior center team. She displayed the site plan concept and identified: • New parking lot configuration that will organize and clarify navigation over the current parking lot • Removal of the existing bulkhead • Building oriented to maximize views from public spaces Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 4.1.a • The 30-foot wall of the new building will back up to the 5-foot Ebbtide blank wall and help minimize its presence in the shoreline context and people in the building and public spaces will not look at blank wall • Railroad Avenue walkway to the beach past building on north edge • Treat stormwater in parking lot via use of bioswale, stormwater currently not treated. • Water travels though bioswale into rain garden which provides further water quality treatment, distention with discharge to Puget Sound under the marine walkway • Marine walkway in front of building with large patio • 8' walkway between building and Ebbtide and load/unload on that corner near walkway • Directive from senior center team was to give back to the community and have the building be a beacon along the waterfront and draw people in from the marine walkway so the programming spaces and activities can be shared with the community She displayed the first floor plan and identified spaces: • Thrift store remain on site, located on Railroad Avenue side • Restrooms • Elevator • Support spaces • Main entry from Railroad Avenue • Conference room located adjacent to entry • Open stairs • Coffee kiosk with access from inside and the building and via an outside window • 2-story community living room space • Banquet room that seats 240 with a movable partition to separate into 2 spaces • Commercial kitchen • Stage at south end • Support spaces, mechanical spaces, green space, table/chair storage • Marine walkway • 14 feet between building and edge marine walkway and 8-10 feet before concave bulkhead She displayed the second floor plan and identified spaces: N • Seating area • Two-story space open to community living room below • Four multiple rooms oriented to view with two movable partitions 0 • Senior Center admin space d • Light medical clinic spaces for healthcare providers E z • Restrooms � • Conference/flexible meeting room space a • Land Use code requires 30% of dimension of the site to be view corridor. This proposal has 50% She displayed a 3D view from the northeast (Railroad Avenue), identifying the exterior of the thrift store that provides space for public art and/or banners, senior center office spaces on 2nd floor, stone wall with rainwater cisterns to collect water from roof to flush toilets, entry, and stone wall around side of building. She displayed a 3D view from northwest, identifying the curved wall of community living room and multipurpose rooms above the banquet room. They will be investigating glazing for the curved wall; the next level of design will include energy modeling. Mr. Knodell displayed 3D views from the banquet room and community living room, advising there is some discussion about a fireplace element. She displayed 3D views of the shoreline restoration concept, advising the flood plain elevation is 14, the existing senior center first floor elevation is 12 and sometimes Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 4.1.a floods. The shoreline's consultant, Herrera, recommends the first floor elevation be located at 15 to accommodate for sea level rise and minimize hazards from high tides. The team's position is to have a protected strip between the marine walkway and the banquet room with a 2-foot sill, operable windows and no doors to the patio due to the difficulty with flashing the opening. For the occasional days of active weather, consideration is being given to protective devices for the western glazing such as shutters or structural fabric. Ms. Hite explained as part of the design of the new center, the City engaged John Barker to assist with the redevelopment. The original drawings included stairs and impervious surface to the beach. They have been working with Mr. Barker to provide more habitat area while maintaining access to the beach. She displayed a 3D view of the shoreline restoration concept — beach cove, advising it is consistent with the SMP which specifically calls out removal of the creosote pier. She explained the intent is similar to Brackett's Landing South, some of sidewalk will be at grade with the sand, a seawall, stairs, and hand boat launch. This design was developed via a meeting with the Tribes, Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA), and Water Access. She recalled the Council adopted a resolution in April allowing staff to apply for $1 million in grants, $500,000 from Water Access and $500,000 from ALEA. Observing this a shoreline of the State and under Ecology jurisdiction, Councilmember Teitzel asked how 24 feet between the western edge of the building and bulkhead comply with the setback and buffer requirements in the SMP. Senior Planer Kemen Lien answered the setback for the building in the updated SMP for this area is 15 feet from the bulkhead and a 40-foot setback from the bulkhead for parking. The requirement for a 30% view corridor that Ms. Knodell mentioned is also part of SMP. Councilmember Mesaros observed the southern property line is unusual. He asked about extending the walkway to the fishing pier. Ms. Hite recalled extending the walkway also came up at the open house. She has been in contact with the Ebbtide Homeowners Association and they are not interested in working with the City to extend the walkway but she is still trying to find a win -win. The City owns an easement in front of the Ebbtide which is being considered as a possibility to extend the walkway. Councilmember Mesaros asked about the jog in the southern property line. Ms. Hite said that is the existing condition and she was not sure why. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the number of parking spaces and whether there would cfl be more than currently exist. Ms. Knodell advised it is the same. Ms. Hite said removing the creosote pier eliminated a great deal of parking but reconfiguration results in the same amount of parking. c Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the design of the parking will make it easier to get through the v parking lot. c a� Councilmember Tibbott referred to the ADB's concern about a service entrance and asked how that was z addressed and whether there was parking for a larger truck or people dropping off donations. Ms. Knodell U identified the load/unload parking space for the thrift store, back of house, commercial kitchen, stage, a etc., explaining it may be reconfigured to be parallel to the edge and to ensure it does not impact drivers exiting the parking lot. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the walkway. Ms. Knodell answered it is a service walkway and not intended to be accessible to the public. The team will explore that concept; it may warrant a gate to diminish the possibility of unsavory activities. Ms. Hite said they are seeking the go ahead from Council. As stated in the lease with the Senior Center, the City Council must approve the schematic before they can proceed with design development. She requested the Council provide guidance regarding any changes or a go ahead for the City to provide in writing to the Senior Center the Council's authority to proceed with deign development. The lease also Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 4.1.a requires the Senior Center return to Council after design development for the Council to weigh in. The Council will also have an opportunity to weigh in at the construction document phase. Councilmember Nelson asked about alternative forms of energy such as solar panels. Ms. Knodell agreed onsite renewables are a great way to increase the green presence. The primary source that is the most viable for this site is ground source heat pump, a very durable system with a great payback. The electrical engineers are very concerned about solar panels on this site due to exposure to saltwater. All the panels being manufactured at this time have metal components; there is a concern with the metal due to corrosion. The other complicating factor is solar panels perform best when they are clean; salt layers would quickly build up on these but because they delicate, it is not advisable to have people wiping them off to maximize performance. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE SCHEMATIC. Council President Johnson said this is scheduled on the Consent Agenda next week. She recommended scheduling it as an action item for a vote next week as this is a study session and this is the first time the Council has seen it. Ms. Hite agreed approval on next week's Consent Agenda was fine. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Mayor Earling requested staff have the letter drafted and signed and provided as part of next week's packet. 3. PRESENTATION ON FIVE CORNERS PLANNING AREA Development Services Director Shane Hope explained some Councilmembers were not on the Council when this work was drafted. Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the origin of this effort: • Partnership opportunity and EDC recommendation to City Council • Planning initiated with contract and partnership between o City of Edmonds o UW/Green Futures Lab o Cascade Land Conservancy (Forterra) He provided highlights of the history: • UW studies in 2010-2011 • City focused on Westgate plan and code first • Five Corners roundabout completed 2014 • Westgate approved in 2015 He reviewed a process overview diagram that included public outreach meetings in 2010-2011 and described project phases: • Phase 1: Site analysis and online survey Phase 2: Listening session and audience response survey • Phase 3: Design workshop and draft plans Mr. Chave described considerations used in planning: • Pedestrian connections • Cycling connections • Green connections Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 a 4.1.a • Green features o Street trees, green street edges, green roofs o Stormwater treatment, bioswales, rainwater harvesting o Rain gardens, permeable paving, pocket parks, courtyards The UW team developed a design alternative that was presented with the Westgate recommendation in 2011. The Westgate plan moved forward; the Five Corners plan has been idle since. He highlighted features of the Five Corners plan: • Building emphasis at the street edge and plazas • Considered more walkable than Westgate • Buildings oriented around roundabout, take advantage of semi-public space with additional crossings and pedestrian atmosphere • Use backs of buildings and parking lots to buffer surrounding neighborhood to fit into Five Corners context He identified next steps: • Prioritization and placement in City work plan • UW recommendations needs to be verified and translated into City code • Plan direction is already in place • Planning Board review, including public hearing(s) and recommendation • City Council consideration and final action Council President Johnson said she was involved in this effort and would be more than pleased to have this completed this year. She asked how likely that was given the Planning Board's schedule. Ms. Hope said it cannot be completed this year. A lot of work still needs to be done to refine it and the Council's priorities are the code update and the Highway 99 subarea plan. Producing a good product that has been updated will take a little longer; it would be worthwhile to consider in 2017. Mr. Chave said one of suggestions in the agenda memo was to have this as an item for the Council retreat early next year, an opportunity to consider where this fits with other priorities. Ms. Hope said it could be presented to the Planning Board late in 2016 to get them thinking. Council President Johnson recommended the City Council forward it to the Planning Board. Mr. Chave `0 N said there are a number of Planning Board Members who have not seen the Five Corners information. 0 E 4. WILHOIT PROPERTY DONATION C) c Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite requested Council's consent for the Mayor to sign a deed of property for property off Main and 9th. The property owner, Doyle Wilhoit, approached the City, interested in donating the property to the City. The City commissioned a Phase 1 environmental c° assessment on the property and there are no concerns after vetting by the city attorney, engineering and a planning departments. The City has an easement on the property for utilities and the property is located within the Shell Creek corridor. She displayed an aerial view of the property, advising preservation of the wetland and water from the creeks on the property is consistent with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan PROS and Stormwater Plan. There is no access to the property and it is essentially a steep ravine but its preservation benefits the City. She requested approval on the Consent Agenda. It was the consensus of the Council to forward to the Consent Agenda for approval. 5. AMENDMENT #3 ILA WDFW FISHING PIER Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised this is an amendment to the agreement with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for construction of the pier. The original agreement was for the assessment and design, the first amendment was for construction, the second amendment was to extend the time period, this amendment allocates the additional $500,000 to the City ($450,000 from RCO and $50,000 from WDFW) to recoup the costs of additional construction. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether construction was on track for reopening the pier in late August. Ms. Hite answered testing is being done of the center joint of the pier, the results will be available next Monday/Tuesday. If all is good, the pier could open in August; if all is not good, the opening date may need to be extended. There are funds in the budget to address additional concerns. It was the consensus of the Council to forward to the Consent Agenda for approval. 6. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH BERGERABAM FOR THE FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT City Engineer Rob English advised BergerABAM is the design engineer of record on the pier. In last month's discussion about the change order and extra work for the edge repair on the pier, the budget included an amount for extending BergerABAM's contract. The services they provide include site meetings to review submittals. The total supplemental amount is $40,500 which will be reimbursed by the grants that Ms. Hite mentioned. He recommended approval on the Consent Agenda. It was the consensus of the Council to forward to the Consent Agenda for approval. PRESENTATION OF GOODS & MATERIALS AGREEMENT FOR SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF STONE CLADDING, PAVING AND SITE FURNISHINGS FOR THE VETERAN'S PLAZA FROM COLDSPRING Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised this is a request for authorization of a sole source Q contract for stone and granite for the Veteran's Plaza. SiteWorkshop has been working with the r community group and the City to develop construction document for the Veteran's Plaza, the permit will c°n' be issued as soon as a contractor is selected. The bid documents will be completed by the end of the week and the project will go out to bid. The stonework at Veteran's Plaza is quite significant and requires an 8- N 12 week order time. SiteWorkshop has done their due diligence to find alternative vendors for this product; their documentation indicates they were only able to find one vendor. The Veteran's Plaza Committee has asked to use an American quarry and American -made stone for the Veteran's Plaza. This t� the only vendor in the United States that SiteWorkshop was able to find; they worked with them to develop the sole source paperwork. E z Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the committee looked at quarries and selected a product. c° The company that reps that product from that quarry has an exclusive relationship. They will also cut, a polish and deliver the final product ready for installation. They are the only ones that can do that which is the reason for the sole source justification; a competitive bid would not be a useful exercise in this circumstance. This stone is a design issue and was selected by the private donors who are largely paying for the project. The only way to accomplish this is to execute a sole source agreement. The justification is provided and it complies with the City's purchasing policy. Councilmember Mesaros relayed the Veteran's Plaza has raised $486,747; there are resources to have the best. He did not know stone was made in a country. Ms. Hite relayed it was important to those working on the Veteran's Plaza to source it from the United States. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a Councilmember Teitzel appreciated and supported the concept of buying American. He asked if there were other non -American vendors that could provide a similar product and what the cost differential would be. Mr. Williams responded this is an architectural design issue. The committee looked at what stone is available and and selected this; it is not available from another quarry in this country. He was not sure if an identical stone would be available from another country or whether the committee looked internationally. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented they raised the money, they should be able to get the stone wherever they wanted and she supported buying American. Ms. Hite said the City is managing the contract and finances and must abide by the purchasing policies and rules and regulations. She agreed it is primarily privately raised funds with the exception of $30,000 in City money. It was the consensus of the Council to forward to the Consent Agenda for approval. 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEOPOST FOR POSTAGE METER EQUIPMENT City Clerk Scott Passey explained the 5-year lease agreement with Pitney Bowes for postage equipment expired July 1, 2016. Neopost provided a very attractive proposal; staff visited their facility in Tukwila, received a demonstration of the equipment, visited their service department and were impressed with their product and service. Their proposal is less than the City is paying Pitney Bowes now and NeoPost will provide equipment equivalent to the current equipment and possibly better. Software enhancements will streamline the process for registered and certified mail. The proposal is a 5-year lease agreement with NeoPost and a monthly lease amount of $600/month, which is $150 less than the current lease. He recommended approval on the Consent Agenda next week. It was the consensus of the Council to forward to the Consent Agenda for approval. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling emphasized to the Council this is an extremely busy time of year for staff with contracts, projects, the audit, the CAFR, beginning the budget process, and the second floor is very busy. He highlighted the hard work staff doing, commenting it was phenomenal with all the projects underway. He N acknowledged a few staff were added this year and he anticipated adding a few more. He encouraged Councilmembers to hang around City Hall and see the amazing amount of work that is being done. He E thanked the Council for approving the HR Director position. v c Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers to attend the Council Snohomish County Cities and Towns E meeting on July 21 that will include a presentation by the Economic Alliance. c� 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Q Councilmember Nelson commented it was a tough weekend; when he heard about what happened in Dallas, he reached out to the Edmonds Police Chief, asking to go on a ridealong, to sit side by side with police officers. On Saturday night he spent eight hours on a ridealong, watching the professionalism, respect and fairness that officers exhibit to citizens. The City is fortunate and lucky to have these officers. He also attended the community vigil by Snohomish County NWACP on Sunday to listen and learn from members of the community who are hurting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on training she attended at the Snohomish Health District on heroin and opioid use in Snohomish County. She referred to an article in the Los Angeles Times Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a regarding the high heroin and opioid use in the Everett area; drugs are being trafficked from southern California to Everett. In some cases, there is a connection between homelessness and drug abuse. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed it has been a difficult week. She advised Rhondi Nordal, Students Saving Salmon, will make a presentation to WRIA 8 next Thursday. Council President Johnson reported the Edmonds in Bloom tour is July 17 and the Edmonds Cemetery Walk Back in Time is July 21. Councilmember Teitzel encouraged the public to attend the Wenatchee Youth Circus who will be performing Friday and Saturday. The tightrope, trapeze, etc. acts are performed by youth 18 years. Councilmember Mesaros thanked Councilmember Nelson for his comments, noting Councilmember Nelson is a former deputy sheriff and understands the risk law enforcement face as they defend and keep citizens safe as well as the tensions involved in their job. Many of the risks are unknown at the moment of confrontation. Councilmember Tibbott commented on how exciting it was to be in Edmonds at this time in history. It was amazing to see the Edmonds Waterfront Activity Center moving forward and he found the involvement in the Civic Field planning process remarkable. Edmonds is on the map and the word is getting out that exciting things are happening. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 12, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 N O E c.� c d E z U 2 a 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Approval of claim and payroll checks Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #220770 through #220892 dated July 14, 2016 for $2,688,090.33. Approval of clothing allowance checks #62234 through #62248 dated July 14, 2016 for Law Enforcement Commissioned Employees in the amount of $4,973.37 per union contract. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll checks. Fiscal Impact Claims $2,688,090.33 Payroll Clothing Allowance $4,973.37 Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claim cks 07-14-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-14-16 PD clothing allowance Packet Pg. 23 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220770 7/14/2016 073417 3M COMPANY 220771 7/14/2016 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC 220772 7/14/2016 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account XS7983A INV#XS7983A - EDMONDS PD SALES TAX DUE ON MAINT AGREE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 Total C116120545 PM: TOOLS PM: TOOLS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 716147 P&R: PICKLE -BALL SHIRTS SECON P&R: PICKLE -BALL SHIRTS SECON 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 716199 P&R: JR TENNIS TEAM SHIRTS P&R: JR TENNIS TEAM SHIRTS 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 220773 7/14/2016 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 1512204 220774 7/14/2016 075693 ADVANTIDGE INC 1512299 247452 Total STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 7/01/1E STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 07/01/� 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 COURT SHREDDING COURT SHREDDING 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 Total BADGE MACHINE SUPPLIES FARGO RIBBON CARTIGE W/CLEAI 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 CLEAR VINYL STRAP CLIPS (100) 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 4.2.a Page: 1 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 24 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 2 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220774 7/14/2016 075693 ADVANTIDGE INC (Continued) SHIPPING COST 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 12.8, 220775 7/14/2016 065568 ALLWATER INC 220776 7/14/2016 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING 070816022 W4101046QG 220777 7/14/2016 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 11301 11302 11308 11309 11347 Total WWTP: 7/8/16 DRINKING WATER S 7/8/16 Water services (plus 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total WATER WATCH PAGER FEES Water Watch Pager Fees 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 Total CHEMICALS YOST POOL CHEMICALS YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 BASKET YOST HOT TUB BASKET YOST HOT TUB 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 CHEMICALS YOST POOL CHEMICALS YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 CHEMICALS SPRAY PARK CHEMICALS SPRAY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 FEED PUMP YOST POOL Page: 2 Packet Pg. 25 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 3 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220777 7/14/2016 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC (Continued) Y FEED PUMP YOST POOL W 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 608.9< 9.8% Sales Tax c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 59.6 , >, Total: 1,133.6E Q. 220778 7/14/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988657309 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS r- M FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS E 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 24.9( .2 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2 4z 1988667989 WWTP: 6/29/16 UNIFORMS, TOWEL 15 wwtp uniforms o 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.1( a wwtp mats & towels Q 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 110.9E rn 9.8% Sales Tax r� 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.8E v 1988667991 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS T FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 24.9( 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1988671943 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE t 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' cvo PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE r Q 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' Page: 3 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220778 7/14/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' U PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: c 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ >, 9.8% Sales Tax Q. 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1( 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6( ,E 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6( o 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 C5 0.6( o 9.8% Sales Tax a 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.5� Q 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6( rn 1988671944 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT M FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS .. 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 co 6.4( FLEET DIVISION MATS 4 T 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 16.5: 9.8% Sales Tax CD N 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.6, 9.8% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.6' ca 1988678579 WWTP: 7/6/16 UNIFORMS, TOWEL; wwtp uniforms c 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.1( E wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 110.9£ 2 r 9.8% Sales Tax Q 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.8£ Page: 4 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220778 7/14/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 5 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 1988678580 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE w PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE U 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.7: c 1988682593 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: Q. 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' -0 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 1° 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 U 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 CU 6.1' > 9.8% Sales Tax a 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6( rn 9.8% Sales Tax .. 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.5� r PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0 6.1' N PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE U 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0( E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1 f U 9.8% Sales Tax c 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6( E 1988682594 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT U FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS a r r 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 6.4( Q FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 16.5: 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 5 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 6 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220778 7/14/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.6z 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.6' Tota I : 487.4' 220779 7/14/2016 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0937121-IN WWTP: 7/5/16 DIESEL FUEL 7/5/16 ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,091.7: 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 302.9� Total: 3,394.71 220780 7/14/2016 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC 194118 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 38.5: 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.7( 220781 7/14/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Total 88657 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax Page: 6 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220781 7/14/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) Y 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.9� w 88773 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing c 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 124.0� UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing Q. 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 124.0£ UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing M 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 127.8( E UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 1° 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 446.7: UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage o 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 CU 446.7z > 9.6% Sales Tax a 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 11.9' Q 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 11.9' rn 9.6% Sales Tax M 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 12.2£ .. 88803 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing r 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 89.4, rZ. UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 0 N 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 89.4, UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing E 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.1: .m UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 320.6� c UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage m E 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 320.6� u 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 r 8.5£ Q 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.5£ 9.6% Sales Tax Page: 7 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220781 7/14/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 88896 220782 7/14/2016 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 24634 220783 7/14/2016 072455 BEAR COMMUNICATIONS INC 220784 7/14/2016 002258 BENS EVER READY PO # Description/Account 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #700 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 Total DIRECTORY LISTING/GUIDE TO ED DIRECTORY LISTING/GUIDE TO ED 001.000.64.571.22.41.40 Total 4489115 FLEET - RADIOS Fleet - Radios 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 12325 Total FLEET ANNUAL FIRE EXTINQUISH 4.2.a Page: 8 Amoun U) 8.8: aUi t U 0 22.9� "% M Q. 22.9� M 23.7( E 102.5z o M 102.5< o a 2.2' Q 2.2' rn M 2.21 3,481.5: 4 T 0 125.0( 125.0( E 0 151.30 Q 1,695.91 Page: 8 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220784 7/14/2016 002258 BENS EVER READY 220785 7/14/2016 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 220786 7/14/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 220787 7/14/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Fleet Annual Fire Extinquisher 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 616668 UNIT 23 - PARTS Unit 23 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6185 6223 6251 19146 Total Total : FLEETAUTO PROPANE 641.1 GAL FLEETAUTO PROPANE 641.1 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 559.8 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 559.8 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 556.7 GAL FLEET AUTO PROPANE 556.7 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Total INV#19146 - EDMONDS PD - VARIO L/S SHIRT - BARD 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 UNIFORM PANTS - BARD 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRTS -BARD 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 EMBROIDER NAMETAG - BARD 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 L/S SHIRT - COMPAAN 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 4.2.a Page: 9 Amoun U) U a� 175.0( U 0 17.1E >, 192.1E Q. c E 155.9, .2 14.9m o 170.85 > 0 L Q a Q 633.5 1 N am M 562.7( m 4 564.6z o 1,760.9' Y E 64.0( c m 89.0( E U 118.0( r Q 16.0( 64.0( Page: 9 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 10 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220787 7/14/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR (Continued) Y UNIFORM PANTS - COMPAAN aUi 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 89.0( L/S SHIRT - PLOEGER o 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.0( >, L/S SHIRTS - D SMITH Q. 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 128.0( EMBROIDER NAMETAG - D SMITH 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.0( , S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRTS-D SMITH 1° 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 118.0( o EMBROIDER NAMETAG-D SMITH 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.0( o UNIFORM PANTS - D SMITH a 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.0( Q DUTY JACKET & LINER- D SMITH 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 375.0( rn 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 115.0E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 14.9� r Total: 1,457.0E c 220788 7/14/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 16185888 CONTRACT CHARGE FOR COUNCI Monthly contract charge for Council E 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 27.9, 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 2.7E c Total: 30.71 t 220789 7/14/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN06161016 HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMN/ c HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMN/ Q 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 12.7E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 1.2E RN06161017 WWTP: JUNE 2016 CYLINDER REN Page: 10 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 11 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220789 7/14/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) Y June 2016 nitrogen, oxygen, carbon 4) 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 64.0( 9.8% Sales Tax c 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.21, >, XC22952 CYLINDRS/HAZMT CHG: WRONG S Q. Credit Inv XC23034 issued to cancel 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 c 749.8E Freight E 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 21.5( 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0 74.0: — XC23031 WWTP: GASES - WRONG SALES l > GASES+Hazmat Chg+shipping+sale; a 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 846.9, Q XC23034 WWTP: CREDIT MEMO FOR INV. X( cylingers + hazmat charge- N rn 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 -749.8E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 -21.5( 9.6% Sales Tax r 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 -74.0E XC23146 WWTP: CREDIT INV. FOR INV #XC� CD N CREDIT INV. FOR INV #XC23031 W Y 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 -846.9, E XC23147 WWTP: GASES FOR 2 ADDL CYLIN GASES FOR 2 ADDL CYLINDERS: c 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 749.8E c Freight E 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 21.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 r 75.5� Q Total: 931.21 220790 7/14/2016 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP: 7/2/16 TELEMETRY CIRCUI' 7/2/16 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES Page: 11 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220790 7/14/2016 064291 CENTURY LINK (Continued) Y 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 147.5z aUi Total: 147.51 220791 7/14/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 12340 WWTP: JUNE 2016 M/O & SEWER JUNE 2016 M/O & SEWER a 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.0( 12341 WWTP: 2015 CAPITAL IMPRVEMNT 2015 BALANCE OF WWTP O&M E 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 100,217.0( 'ca 2015 WWTP Capital Improvements 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 303,850.0( Total: 431,669.0( 0 220792 7/14/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS NW2884752-5 PM: WASP & HORNET KILLER L a PM: WASP & HORNET KILLER Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 73.3E N 9.8% Sales Tax M 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.1 � Total: 80.5, w T" 220793 7/14/2016 074334 COLOR TECH 218641 TRAFFIC - POWDER COATING/ RE: r Traffic - Powder Coating/ Resurfacing c 111.000.68.542.31.41.00 655.2E cn Total: 655.2! E 220794 7/14/2016 075417 CONSULTING BY DESIGN 1/1-4/8 MAINT MGMT 1/1-4/8/16 MAINT MGMT PLANS ca 1/1-4/8/16 MAINT MGMT PLANS 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 11,920.0( Total: 11,920.0( E t 220795 7/14/2016 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 33249 SEWER - 2 REPLACEMENT PUMPS U Sewer - 2 Replacement pumps for He r Q 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 3,540.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 346.9, Page: 12 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 13 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220795 7/14/2016 068815 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT (Continued) Total: 3,886.9, 220796 7/14/2016 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100165326 WWTP: 6/1-6/30/16 JANITORIAL SE 6/1 - 6/30/16 Janitorial Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 514.0( Total: 514.0( 220797 7/14/2016 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 0281709-IN FLEET- INVENTORY Fleet - Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 15.1 E 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1.4� 0282774-IN FLEET SUPPLIES Fleet Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.4( Total: 43.5'. 220798 7/14/2016 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3315176 ECONOMIC DEV BUSINESS RECRI Business recruitment ads for June 20 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 1,000.0( Total: 1,000.0( 220799 7/14/2016 075689 DANYLAK, MINDY 7/6 REFUND CLASS CAN 7/6/16 REFUND CLASS CANCELLE( 7/6/16 REFUND CLASS CANCELLE[ 001.000.239.200 47.0( Total: 47.0( 220800 7/14/2016 075686 DAVID & JOANNE WILSON 3-14650 #681686 UTILITY REFUND #681686 Utility refund due to estimatf 411.000.233.000 305.0( Total: 305.0( 220801 7/14/2016 073251 DEARN-TARPLEY, SUSAN 6/30 REIMBURSEMENT 6/30/16 REIMBURSEMENT REQUEr 6/30/16 REIMBURSEMENT REQUEE 001.000.64.571.23.43.00 127.9E Page: 13 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 14 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220801 7/14/2016 073251 073251 DEARN-TARPLEY, SUSAN (Continued) Total: 127.9i 220802 7/14/2016 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY NR17027001 WWTP: 7/16/16 - 7/15/17 LAB ACCR 7/16/16 - 7/15/17 Lab Accreditation 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 600.0( Total: 600.0( 220803 7/14/2016 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2016060050 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for June 2016 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,231.4( Total: 1,231.4( 220804 7/14/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3673 INV#16-3673 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-9728 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 181.5( TRANSCRIPTION CASE #SM16-3 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 46.2( 16-3676 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7/05/2016 07/05/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE: 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 303.6( Total: 531.3( 220805 7/14/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 62838 PM: BITS, 3/8 DR 15/16 PM: BITS, 3/8 DR 15/16 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.9£ 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.1 1 Total: 13.1E 220806 7/14/2016 073910 EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOP 2nd Qtr 2016 FAC SOLAR ELECT SYS PRODUCT FAC Solar Elect Sys Production 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 554.3' Total: 554.3' 220807 7/14/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001663 PM: BATTERIES PM: BATTERIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Page: 14 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220807 7/14/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC (Continued) 220808 7/14/2016 069523 EDMONDS P&RYOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 21076 WUBNEH 220809 7/14/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-00080 5-10351 220810 7/14/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR43380 AR44494 AR44574 220811 7/14/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH708023 Z91=1101no] PO # Description/Account 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 21076 NAOMI WUBNEH YOUTH SCI 21076 NAOMI WUBNEH YOUTH SCI 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 Total IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 INTERURBAN TRAIL INTERURBAN TRAIL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078 PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 Maintenance for printers 04/21/16 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total LEGAL AD- PLN2016-0030/31 LEGAL AD- PLN2016-0030/31 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 LEGAL AD- PLN2016-0025 LEGAL AD- PLN2016-0025 4.2.a Page: 15 Page: 15 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 16 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220811 7/14/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD (Continued) Y 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 65.3( w EDH708799 CITY NOTICES PUBLIC HEARING CITY NOTICES- 0 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 51.6( EDH708810 CITY ORDINANCE 4036 M Q. CITY ORDINANCE NO. 4036 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 25.8( M Total: 230.4E E 220812 7/14/2016 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 31110 PW - RENTAL PW - Rental O 001.000.66.518.30.45.00 107.0( 9.8% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.45.00 10.4E a Total: 117.4$ Q 220813 7/14/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU39537 WWTP: GFT/SS/10/1/ GRS FIT N M GFT/SS/10/1/ GRS FIT Part #413266 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 20.1( w 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1.9 i r WAMOU39616 WWTP: LIQ. 0/160LM & 0/15M+0/30` o 2-1/2 LIQ. 0/1601-M, 2-1/2 LIQ 0/15M- N 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 42.0E 9.8% Sales Tax E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 4.1, WAMOU39732 WWTP: 2-1/2 LIQ 0/60LM 2-1/2 LIQ 0/60LM W m 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 17.2E E 9.8% Sales Tax U 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1.6� Q WAMOU40185 WWTP: 9012-2040 BELT 9012-2040 BELT 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 39.6( 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 16 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 17 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220813 7/14/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) Y 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 3.8£ w WAMOU40416 WWTP: SLINGS (EQEE-3200X6, EQ SLINGS (EQEE-3200X6, EQEE1-16C o 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 223.2' 9.8% Sales Tax Q. 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 21.81 Total: 375.8( m E 220814 7/14/2016 075536 FREGONESE ASSOCIATES 437-006 HWY 99 SUBAREA PLAN ca HWY 99 SUBAREA PLAN a 4" 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 21,555.0( Total: 21,555.0( 0 220815 7/14/2016 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY Ai L a TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, Q 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 260.9z N TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, M 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 260.9< 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI m LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI 4 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.9. r 253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE o PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' (n 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 6.3� PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' E 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.2� PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' ; 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.2� m PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' E t 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.2� u PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' Q 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.2� PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.3( 253-012-9189 WWTP: 6/25-7/24/16 AUTO DIALER Page: 17 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220815 7/14/2016 011900 FRONTIER Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 18 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y WWTP: 6/25 - 7/24/16 AUTO DIALEF w 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.3z U 253-017-7256 WWTP: 6/25-7/24/16 TELEMETRY - o WWTP: 6/25 - 7/24/16 TELEMETRY 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 224.0E Q. 425-712-0423 WWTP: 7/7-8/6/16 AFTER HOUR BU WWTP: AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LI c�v 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 72.1 E E 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M 1° CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSIOI` 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.5( o 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHOI` CU > MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHOI` a 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 91.6' C PARKS MAINT IP LINE (10 + TAX) 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.9E N 425-771-5553 WWTP: 6/25-7/24/16 AUTO DIALER WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 BUSINESS 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 114.5E 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI v LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI T 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.2E N 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE Y UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI' E 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 66.5: 'M 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( V SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.9( 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI t LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC M r 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.2� Q 425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 98.3 1 425-776-6829 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P Page: 18 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 19 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220815 7/14/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION Al 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.3( Total: 1,801.6, 220816 7/14/2016 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 34267 ESJA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2016 ESJA.Services thru June 2016 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 2,511.4, Total: 2,511.4: 220817 7/14/2016 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 131747 UNIT 7 - TIRES Unit 7 - Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 537.3. State Tire Fee 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 52.6( Total: 593.9i 220818 7/14/2016 012199 GRAINGER 9147468616 CITY HALL - CORNER GUARDS City Hall - Corner Guards 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 131.6( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.8� Total: 144.4$ 220819 7/14/2016 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 666973 OLD PW SECURITY Old PW Security 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.0( Total: 55.0( 220820 7/14/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY 9986630 WWTP: DPD TOTAL REFILL VIAL DPD TOTAL REFILL VIAL 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 186.6( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 18.2� Page: 19 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220820 7/14/2016 012560 012560 HACH COMPANY 220821 7/14/2016 013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 220822 7/14/2016 075690 HODGES, BONNIE 220823 7/14/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 20 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Total : 204.8$ � U a� 2016-0046 LEOFF 1 REIMBURSEMENT DEDUCTIBLE REIMBURSEMENT — 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 9.01 MEDICARE PREMIUM REIMBURSEI Q. 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,258.8( Total : 1,267.8, E 7/7 REFUND 7/7/16 REFUND 7/7/16 REFUND 001.000.239.200 78.0( 0 Total: 78.0( > 0 3632038 WWTP: SOFFIT VENT+HOSE (VINY a SOFFIT VENT & VINYL HOSE Q• Q 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 18.0E Freight M 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 5.9� 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 2.3E 4 4880250 WWTP: AIR CONDITIONER-DAN KC r Portable Air Conditioner for Dan � 0 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 579.0( Y Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 25.7, E 9.8% Sales Tax f° 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 59.2E ; 6070001 WWTP: PLUNGER (FORCE CUP)-S' y PLUNGER (FORCE CUP) - heavy du E 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.2£ U 9.5% Sales Tax r 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0.6( Q 8560024 WWTP: 9-VOLT BATTERIES+ENRA, 9-VOLT BATTERIES+ENR AA16- 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 71.8E Page: 20 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220823 7/14/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total 220824 7/14/2016 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 26792 E4MB.SERVICES THRU 6/27/16 E4MB.Services thru 6/27/16 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total 220825 7/14/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2769202 SUPPLIES - BINDERS & DIVIDERS 2" Binders 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 Customizable Print -On Dividers 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 2816098 UTILITY BILLING - PINK PAPER Utility Billing - Pink Paper 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Utility Billing - Pink Paper 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Utility Billing - Pink Paper 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 2819046 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES CLEAR LAMINATING SHEETS, SPO 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 2819258 CITY CLERKS PENS AND REPORT 4.2.a Page: 21 Page: 21 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220825 7/14/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) Y REPORT COVERS AND PENS FOR w 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 42.8: U 9.8% Sales Tax c 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 4.2( >, 2819705 AA BATTERIES Q. AA Batteries 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 c 29.6' 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.9( 2821022 OFFICE SUPPLIES- DEV SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES- DEV SERVICE o 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 CU 180.8' > 2821232 OFFICE SUPPLIES- DEV SERVICE a OFFICE SUPPLIES- DEV SERVICE Q. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 151.5E Q 2821535 SUPPLIES N SUPPLIES rn M 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 44.0< " 2823224 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES D INCLINE SORTE WITH TWO TRAYS 4 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 T 42.7, rz. 9.8% Sales Tax c 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 4.1 E Total: 988.5( E I 220826 7/14/2016 066265 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 1900745 WWTP: CYLINDER, CALIBRATION, CYLINDER, CALIBRATION, GAS 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 236.5E E Freight t 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 43.6E M Total: r 280.2( Q 220827 7/14/2016 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 09060611276 FLEET TRUCK OIL FILTER WRENCI Fleet Truck Oil Filter Wrench 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 49.9E Page: 22 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 23 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220827 7/14/2016 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS (Continued) Y 9.8% Sales Tax w 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 4.9( 09060611715 UNITS E117ST, E114EN - FRONT FL o Units E117ST, E114EN - Front Floorli 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 217.5, Q. 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 c 21.3. m 09060611718 FLEET - OIL FILTER PLIERS E Fleet - Oil Filter Pliers f° 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 28.4( 9.8% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 2.7� > 09060612357 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES o a Fleet Shop Supplies Q- 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 31.8( Q 9.8% Sales Tax rn 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.1, m Total: 359.8t .. w 220828 7/14/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10009389 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES v Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 50.6. c 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.9f E 300-10009599 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES cc 9.8% Sales Tax 6 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.6: Fleet Shop Supplies m 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 47.4( t Total: 107.6: M r r Q 220829 7/14/2016 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 201001650 06-16 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SE Jun-2016 Off site data storage servic( 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 204.6: Page: 23 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220829 7/14/2016 070250 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN (Continued) Total: 204.6: � U w 220830 7/14/2016 064934 JOHN BARKER LANDSCAPE 7/8 BANDSHELL REPLAC 7/8/16 BANDSHELL REPLACEMENT 7/8/16 BANDSHELL REPLACEMENT — 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 5,972.0( 7/8 PARK DESIGN PLAN 7/8/16 PARK DESIGN PLANS LAND; Q. 7/8/16 PARK DESIGN PLANS LAND: 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 4,897.0( 7/8 RESTROOM DESIGN 7/8/16 RESTROOM DESIGN DEVED E 7/8/16 RESTROOM DESIGN DEVEL, cU 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 6,178.0( 0 7/8 WATERFRONT RESTO 7/8/16 WATERFRONT RESTORATIO o 7/8/16 WATERFRONT RESTORATIO 125.000.64.594.75.41.00 5,840.0( o Total: 22,887.0( a Q 220831 7/14/2016 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07052016-01 INV#07052016-01 - EDMONDS PD - 21 CAR WASHES @#5.04(INC TX) 6 N M 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 105.8z Total: 105.81 w 220832 7/14/2016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4484213 INV#4484213 ACCT#2185-952778-8 r SHRED 3 TOTES @ $4.56 6/22/16 rz. 0 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 13.6E N Total: 13.61 U E 220833 7/14/2016 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 960893 PM: PLATE, GRIP, COLLAR, WASHE c� PM: PLATE, GRIP, COLLAR, WASHE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 55.3� c 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.4< Total: 60.8, r Q 220834 7/14/2016 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 2016-0047 LEOFF 1 REIMBURSEMENT VISITING ANGELS LTC 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,370.0( Page: 24 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 25 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220834 7/14/2016 019920 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN (Continued) Total: 8,370.0( � U 220835 7/14/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 68680716 WWTP: GREASE GUN+TUBING+CP a) SHELF CABINET FOR SAFETY SUP — 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 139.1: GREASE GUN, STEEL TUBING, LUE Q. 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 333.3( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.1( E Freight ca 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 21.Z 68897936 WWTP: CAMERA& V-BELTS High speed digital camera 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 297.9E o Cogged Narow-Wedge V-Belts a 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 68.9. Q Freight N 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 9.01 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2.0E Total: 880.7t 4 T 220836 7/14/2016 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 16710 SCANNING- STREET FILES o SCANNING- STREET FILES N 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,779.8( Total: 1,779.8t •� 220837 7/14/2016 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC 66328 CITY HALL DEV SVC PERMIT COUN City Hall Dev Svc Permit Counter - y 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 885.0E E 9.8% Sales Tax U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 86.7: r 66331 CITY HALL DEV SVC PERMIT COUN Q City Hall Dev Svc Permit Counter - 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 117.3E 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 25 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 26 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220837 7/14/2016 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC (Continued) Y 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.5( aUi 66522 CITY HALL DEV SVC PERMIT COUN City Hall Dev Svc Permit Counter c 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 47.8( 9.8% Sales Tax M 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.6E -0 Total: 1,153.11 m E 220838 7/14/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 235143 PM: FLOWER BASKETS ca PM: FLOWER BASKETS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 706.9z 9.8% Sales Tax > 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 69.2E o 237871 PM: GASKET, FUEL LINE, FUEL FIL- Q' Q. PM: GASKET, FUEL LINE, FUEL FIL- Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.4( c4 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.1( 239578 PM: STIHL SCREW, BLADES m PM: STIHL SCREW, BLADES v 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.41' r 9.8% Sales Tax c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.7E Total: 830.91 E 220839 7/14/2016 067005 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES 98506514 WWTP: PUMP DRIVE, ULTIMA, SAN f° PUMP DRIVE, ULTIMA, SAMPLING P ; 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 600.0( m Freight E t 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 75.2z u 9.8% Sales Tax r Q 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 66.1 E 98508829 WWTP: PCBA: ULTIMA/ULTIMAX S) PCBA: ULTIMA/ULTIMAX SAMPLIN( 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 525.0( Page: 26 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 27 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220839 7/14/2016 067005 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES (Continued) Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 70.2z 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 58.3: 220840 7/14/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 220841 7/14/2016 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 11 0585634-IN 0585636-IN 220842 7/14/2016 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1032771 220843 7/14/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0550052532 Total WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR, WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR, 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING SO' 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Total UNIT 448 - C2 ANALYSIS KITS Unit 448 - C2 Analysis Kits 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET FILTER INVENTORY Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 Total UNIT 37 - PADDLE LATCH Unit 37 - Paddle Latch 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET Page: 27 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220843 7/14/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052533 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052534 HAINES WHARF HONEY BUCKET HAINES WHARF HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052535 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & PINE HONEY Bl CIVIC FIELD 6TH & PINE HONEY Bl 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052536 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052537 EDMONDS MARSH HONEY BUCKE' EDMONDS MARSH HONEY BUCKE' 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052538 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY Bl CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY Bl 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052539 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY B EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY B 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052540 MADRONA HONEY BUCKET MADRONA HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052541 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052542 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550052543 CIVIC CENTER 6TH & EDMONDS P/ CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 4.2.a Page: 28 Amoun U) U a� 587.6, U 0 L 309.2' Q. c 218.7E E U 113.8E c� 0 a 113.8E Q N rn 113.8E co 113.8E 'IT T 0 N 111.6E � E 111.6E c m 2,938.8E t U 0 r 113.8f Page: 28 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220843 7/14/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 220844 7/14/2016 025690 NOYES, KARIN 220845 7/14/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 29 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 0550052544 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY w MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY U 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.6z c Total: 5,076.5( >", M Q. 000 00 666 HISTORIC PRIES COMM MINUTES, f HISTORIC PRIES COMM MINUTES, f 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 105.0( E 000 00 667 ADB MINUTES, 7/6/16 .@ ADB MINUTES, 7/6/16 U 4" 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 280.0( Total: 385.0( 0 L 364893 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES a PW Office Supplies Q 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 26.6( N Water - Cork Board a' M 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 60.6( 9.8% Sales Tax m 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 8.5E v 411032 WATER QUALITY - SCISSORS r Water Quality - Scissors o 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.9( Y Storm - Magnifier 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 33.0< .E 9.8% Sales Tax ca 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.0 1 9.8% Sales Tax m 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 3.2E E 416809 PW SUPPLIES U PW Supplies r Q 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 38.7, 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 3.8( 420024 PW SUPPLIES Page: 29 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220845 7/14/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 420075 427604 483086 510263 220846 7/14/2016 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER June, 2016 4.2.a Page: 30 PO # Description/Account Amoun U) PW Supplies w 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 44.9( U Water - Supplies c 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 37.7, >, 9.8% Sales Tax Q. 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.4' c 9.8% Sales Tax M 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.7( .E PW SUPPLIES f° PW Supplies o 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 49.7z — 9.8% Sales Tax o 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.8 , a PW SUPPLIES Q- PW Supplies Q 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 89.1 z rn 9.8% Sales Tax M 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 8.7:.. P&R: STAPLER T- P&R: STAPLER 4 T 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 20.4: rz. 9.8% Sales Tax (n N 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.0( P&RADMIN: TAPE DISP, CORR FLL E P&RADMIN: TAPE DISP, CORR FLL ca 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 9.2E CEMETERY: COLORED PAPER FOF c 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 4.8z E 9.8% Sales Tax U 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.91 r 9.8% Sales Tax Q 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 0.4 1 Total : 467.8E COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSIN Page: 30 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 31 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220846 7/14/2016 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER (Continued) Y Emergency Medical Services & Traun 4) 001.000.237.120 1,274.4( U PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account c 001.000.237.130 25,613.0E >, Building Code Fee Account Q. 001.000.237.150 324.5( State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 79.6E .E Judicial Information Systems Accounl 001.000.237.180 6,001.6, o School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 CU 262.9� o Washington Auto Theft Prevention a 001.000.237.250 2,548.3E Q Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 503.6E Accessible Communities Acct M 001.000.237.290 116.6E m Multi -Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 116.6( r Hwy Safety Acct c 001.000.237.320 126.4 1 y Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 180.1, E WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 452.1E Total: 37,600.3: m t 220847 7/14/2016 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\ PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\ r 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.7 1 Q 0001520 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 41.5� Page: 31 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220847 7/14/2016 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 220848 7/14/2016 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 220849 7/14/2016 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICALS CO 220850 7/14/2016 075257 PCE PACIFIC INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 32 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 0001530 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH : w CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH : U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 89.7, c 0002930 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 Q. 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.2z -0 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI c�v FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 190.1( f° 0026390 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF .- PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.4E > Total: 388.9E Q. a 22301 CHEMICALS YOST POOL Q CHEMICALS YOST POOL N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 671.6E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 65.8, Total: 737.4, 4 T 163668 WWTP: WILSON CLAY c Wilson clay (n 423.000.76.535.80.31.55 2,940.0( Freight E 423.000.76.535.80.31.55 565.0( 9.8% Sales Tax ; 423.000.76.535.80.31.55 343.4� m Total: 3,848.45 E U 51698-00 WWTP: GE LIQUID SLOWMETER F, r GE Sensing AT600 Aquatrans fixed Q 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 3,430.0( 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 32 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 33 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220850 7/14/2016 075257 075257 PCE PACIFIC INC (Continued) Total: 3,766.1� 220851 7/14/2016 074793 PETDATA INC 5148 INV#5148 - EDMONDS PD - JUNE 21 17 1-YR PET LICENSES @ $3.90 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 66.3( 1 REPLACEMENT TAG @ $3.90 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3.9( 7 LATE FEES @ $2.50 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 17.5( Total: 87.7( 220852 7/14/2016 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3300704844 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE 05/30/2 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.6( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 70.4, Total: 789.0, 220853 7/14/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC J730471 WWTP: 1 LARGE BREAKER LOCKC large breaker lockout 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 19.9( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1.91, J752521 GRANDSTAND - SUPPLIES Grandstand - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.7, 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.8: Total: 42.4( 220854 7/14/2016 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR i PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR, 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,770.7� Total: 2,770.7$ 220855 7/14/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2445047 ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN Page: 33 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 34 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220855 7/14/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE (Continued) Y ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN w 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 132.3( U 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL o ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 51.1' Q. Total: 183.4' c 220856 7/14/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( E FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( ca 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 820.4E ," Total: 820.4E O 220857 7/14/2016 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000165804 SHUTTER/NICH INSCRIPTION-RED o L SHUTTER/NICH INSCRIPTION -RED Q- Q. 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 125.0( Q 00000165805 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-JOI N SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-JOI am M 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 125.0( 00000165806 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-PEI w SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-PEI 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 125.0( r Total : 375.0( o 220858 7/14/2016 075638 RAUTU, ROXANA 6/29 REIMBURSEMENT 6/29/16 REIMBURSEMENT REQUEE N cYi 6/29/16 REIMBURSEMENT REQUEr E 001.000.64.571.23.43.00 8.1( f° Total: 8.1( . . c 220859 7/14/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE E FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE U 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 151.3( 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; r Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 30.0� PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Page: 34 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220859 7/14/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 (Continued) 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 Total: 220860 7/14/2016 074927 RICHARDSON, APRIL 21189 KIDS PRINTMAKI 21189 KIDS PRINTMAKING INSTRU, 21189 KIDS PRINTMAKING INSTRU, 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 21204 ART CAMP: DYES 21204 ART CAMP: DYES INSTRUCT 21204 ART CAMP: DYES INSTRUCT 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total: 220861 7/14/2016 075211 ROCKLER WOODWORKING & HARDWAI 3752566 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total: 220862 7/14/2016 075687 RONALD & KATHRYN WALKER 8-12950 #40168987-JS9 UTILITY REFUND #40168987-JS9 Utility refund 411.000.233.000 4.2.a Page: 35 Amoun U) 114.3z aUi t U 114.3z c L 114.3z Q. c 114.3z E 114.3< 12 4- 0 160.8 1 o a 69.5, Q 983.41 N M co 672.0( v T 0 511.7E 1,183.7E U 297.9< m E t 28.5E UM 326.5, Q 112.4E Page: 35 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 36 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220862 7/14/2016 075687 075687 RONALD & KATHRYN WALKER (Continued) Total: 112.4E 220863 7/14/2016 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY JUNE 2016 INVOICE DATED 6/30/16 ACCT#700 #194709 - 2 NPC - 6/16/16 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 23.8( Total: 23.8( 220864 7/14/2016 074335 SAVAGE, LINDA 21066 SOCIAL SKILLS 21066 SOCIAL SKILLS INSTRUCTIC 21066 SOCIAL SKILLS INSTRUCTIC 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 300.0( Total: 300.0( 220865 7/14/2016 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 37345 REMOTE COMPUTER SUPPORT Remote Computer Support 06/21/16 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 620.0( Total: 620.0( 220866 7/14/2016 067474 SHAW, BENSON DAYTON RESTORATION DAYTON RESTORATION WORK ON DAYTON RESTORATION WORK ON 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 580.3E Total: 580.3. 220867 7/14/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0202023-IN UNIT Ell PO - SIREN Unit E11 PO - Siren 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 422.8( Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 20.3: 0202133-IN UNITS E115EN, E116BO,E122EN Units E115EN, E116BO,E122EN 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,028.1 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 87.6E 220868 7/14/2016 074906 SITE WORKSHOP LLC Total 4185 VETERANS PLAZA LANDSCAPE AR VETERANS PLAZA LANDSCAPE AR 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 Page: 36 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 220868 7/14/2016 074906 074906 SITE WORKSHOP LLC (Continued) 220869 7/14/2016 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-322488 220870 7/14/2016 036955 SKY NURSERY 220871 7/14/2016 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 220873 7/14/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Description/Account Total FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 Total T-0768201 PM: MIR GRO PM: MIR GRO 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 Total Q3-2016 Q3-2016 FIRE SERVICES CONTRA( Q3-2016 Fire Services Contract Payn 001.000.39.522.20.51.00 Retro Payment #7 for 2013-2014 Lab 001.000.39.522.20.51.00 Total 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2002-0255-4 WWTP: 6/7-7/6/16 FLOW METER 24 6/7-7/6/16 FLOW METER 2400 HIGF 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 2002-0291-9 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2002-7495-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2003-2646-0 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON 4.2.a Page: 37 Amoun 6,249.0( he U a� t 102.2z Q. 9.4' 111.6' E 37.9f o M 3.7. L 41.7( a Q N am 1,776,042.5( .M�. m 200,507.6( 1,976,550.1( r 0 N 32.8E E 16.8E c m E t U 35.9( r Q 19.1( Page: 37 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220873 7/14/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 38 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON w 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.7< 2004-9315-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W o TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 30.0E Q. 2005-9488-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 15.9( E 2006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M 1° ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 98.2' 2009-1385-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X cu > DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X a 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 23.3� C 2009-4334-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V N 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 41.2 1 M 2010-5432-7 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 40.6' � 2011-0356-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI T TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI c 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 N 30.3: 2011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W E TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W M i1191I1111'e1-WEPAZIE, �0XIOM 2011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W m 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.4� t 2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F M r LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F Q 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 18.1 E 2015-3292-6 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 190.1( Page: 38 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220873 7/14/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 39 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA w TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA U 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 24.7E o 2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( Q. 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 25.3( -0 2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ M STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 744.2 f° 2017-9000-3 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH .- ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 18.1E > 2019-2988-2 WWTP: 6/7-7/6/16 FLOW METER 84 Q. 6/7-7/6/16 FLOW METER 8421 244T a 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 16.8E Q 2019-2991-6 WWTP: 5/24-6/24/16 FLOW METER N 5/24-6/24/16 FLOW METER 23219 7. M 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 17.9E " 2020-7719-4 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 4 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 T 649.E 1 rz. 2020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST/ MEl .� 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 U 231.5E E 2021-3965-5 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.5E 2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212' t 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 16.8E 2022-5063-5 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M r Q 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.7: 2022-8909-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME Page: 39 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220873 7/14/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 40 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 65.8z aUi 2023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W U TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W c 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.8' 2024-9953-9 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST 0 Q. LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 505.0< 2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ E STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3,029.5E 2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 0 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 > 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 120.4, 2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C Q STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15,114.3< N 2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 M STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 371.9< 2025-7952-0 WWTP: 6/1-6/30/16 ENERGY MGMT 4 WWTP 6/1-6/30/16 ENERGY MANAC 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.1 z 2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 4.8z 2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 107.6' 0 2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 t STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 r 56.7' Q 2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 14.4, 2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 Page: 40 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220873 7/14/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 220874 220875 220876 7/14/2016 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2051-8438-5 2053-0758-0 2205-4758-2 2207-9275-8 SOW 5005 7/14/2016 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER June 2016 7/14/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 103584 103585 4.2.a Page: 41 PO # Description/Account Amoun U) STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 aUi 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 195.6E U LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV o LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / IV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 24.3' Q. DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 121.3( E TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE 1° TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE ,- 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 44.8' TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME CU > TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME a 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 182.8: Q- Total : 22,438.0: Q N PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES °D M PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,010.0( FACILITIES MAINT DUMP FEES PIA v 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 66.0( Total : 1,076.0( N Crime Victims Court Remittance U Crime Victims Court Remittance E 001.000.237.140 628.0z Total : 628.01 c CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N m E CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N t 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.6E r WWTP: 7/1/16 200 2ND AVE S ASH Q Ash Disposal/Recycling for WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 29.9: FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( Page: 41 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 42 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220876 7/14/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO (Continued) FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.4 1 103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.2: 103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,233.8, 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.8� 105459 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE FIRE REF PARKS MAINT GARBAGE FIRE REF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 986.4( Total: 4,490.41 220877 7/14/2016 075680 SPECIAL SERVICES GROUP LLC 9703 INV#9703 - EDMONDS PD CRAB-NR RECEIVERS FOR SSCNT 104.000.41.521.21.35.00 4,475.0( Freight 104.000.41.521.21.35.00 50.0( Total: 49525.0( 220878 7/14/2016 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT 20916 BEACH CAMP 20916 BEACH CAMP 20916 BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 13,588.0( 20924 BEACH CAMP 20924 BEACH CAMP - SLEEPOVER 20924 BEACH CAMP - SLEEPOVER 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,862.0( Total: 16,450.0( 220879 7/14/2016 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18121036 TRAFFIC - TIE WRAPS Traffic - Tie Wraps 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 11.9E 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 42 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 43 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220879 7/14/2016 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.1 1 Total: 13.1E 220880 7/14/2016 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53323 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HP ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HP 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,263.8z 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 123.8( US54073 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 274.7 , 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 26.9: Total: 1,689.4( 220881 7/14/2016 075691 TIBBOTT, NEIL 24-599 CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - HOUSING Claim for travel expenses - 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 24.5< 24-599-03718D CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - AWC CON Claim for Expenses: 1) 66 miles @ $( 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 54.6z Total: 79.1 , 220882 7/14/2016 064905 TYDI CONCRETE CUTTING & CORING 791456 WWTP: CORE DRILL 2" HOLES IN C CORE DRILL 2" HOLES IN CLARIFIE 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 452.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 44.3( Total: 496.3( 220883 7/14/2016 073310 UNISAFE INC 697097 WWTP: NITRILE EXAM GLOVES X-1 NITRILE EXAM GLOVES X-LRG 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 899.0( Total: 899.0( 220884 7/14/2016 062693 US BANK 7081 WFOA TRAINING FOR S MAGER Page: 43 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 44 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220884 7/14/2016 062693 US BANK (Continued) W FOA - CAFR Training Advanced Gc 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 300.0( 8842 WFOA TRAINING FOR D SHARP W FOA - Ethics for CPAs Meets State 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 110.0( WFOA- Collecting Utility Service 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 60.0( Total: 470.0( 220885 7/14/2016 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WF 0673576-WA WATER - HEP B Water - HEP B 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 50.0( Total: 50.0( 220886 7/14/2016 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.01-2 EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD MASTER PI EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD MASTER PI 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 20,363.8( Total: 20,363.8( 220887 7/14/2016 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 548519 FAC MAINT - TOWEL SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Towel Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 171.2E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.7� Total: 188.0 , 220888 7/14/2016 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 116009372 INV#116009372 EDM301 - EDMOND; BACKGROUND CHECKS - JUNE 20 001.000.237.100 309.7E Total: 309.7'. 220889 7/14/2016 026510 WCIA 101382 STORAGE TANK LIABILITY INSURA Storage Tank Liability Insurance WW' 423.000.76.535.80.46.00 1,278.0( Total: 1,278.0( Page: 44 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 45 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220890 7/14/2016 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 9612343 FAC MAINT / PARKS - FIRE SUPPLII Y Fac Maint / Parks - Fire Supplies w 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 133.8z 9.8% Sales Tax c 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.1. >, 9614791 FAC MAINT / PARKS - FIRE SUPPLII Q. Fac Maint / Parks - Fire Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4,103.3, m 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 402.1 < 9625717 FAC MAINT / PARKS - FIRE SUPPLII Fac Maint / Parks - Fire Supplies o 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 w 563.4( o 9.8% Sales Tax a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 55.2' Q Total: 5,271.0, .. 220891 7/14/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7087 UTILITY BILLING - #10 ENVELOPES N Utility Billing - #10 Envelopes (5000) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 104.0( Utility Billing - #10 Envelopes (5000) v 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 T 104.0( 7 Utility Billing - #10 Envelopes (5000) c 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 104.0( 9.8% Sales Tax E 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 W.11 'cc 9.8% Sales Tax 6 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.1 � 9.8% Sales Tax m t 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 10.2( Total: 342.51 M r r Q 220892 7/14/2016 064213 WSSUATREASURER 369 JUNE SOFTBALL OFFICIALS JUNE SOFTBALL OFFICIALS 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,380.0( Page: 45 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 07/14/2016 10:48: 50AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220892 7/14/2016 064213 064213 WSSUATREASURER 122 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 122 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 46 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Total : 2,380.0( � U a) Bank total : 2,688,090.3: Total vouchers : 2,688,090.X o M Q. c E 0 Page: 46 Packet Pg. 69 0 L Q Q Q N M t0 T 0 i V E d E M V a Q 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA N m STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA o WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC a STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA E STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC O SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA o L STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB a a WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB N WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 M T STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC 4 WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC c WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB L a� SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA E WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA ? 0 STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD a- STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB c STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC a STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD u_ STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB r c STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA E E STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC t STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA Q STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 70 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 ElFM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB N m STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB o FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB a WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD O SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB o L STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB a a SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC N STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA M T STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA to STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE 4 STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG c STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN L a� STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC E M FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA ? 0 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD a WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB c STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB a STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA u_ UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA r c STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG E E STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA t STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB Q STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 71 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Protect Funding Protect Title Number Number WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 72 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title E1AA * c34" Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c354 Sunset Walkway Improvement STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvement STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STIR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c423 W38th 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 STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study _ STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC STIR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program 2014 Chip Seals 91 WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basi STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 73 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title - E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Updat FAC E41LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming c463 2015 Overlay Program WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study E5HA � SIWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications AM WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating WV Upgrades - Council Cham UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates 2016 Overlay Program i WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays E6CC 2016 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements 3rd Ave Rain Gardens ow UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza E81VIA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 74 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E1 CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN 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 STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM 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 STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th 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 STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4,113 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E41-A c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 75 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title 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 v WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update t SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study — 0 L STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program a c STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects E STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects o SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System o STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming Q- a STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) N as WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating r STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project co WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays 4 FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers CD General E5D6 c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis � STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility E M WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications Z 0 WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) d STM E51FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements N STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) >+ STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements y L SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays u_ r STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program E WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays Q STM E61FA iol 1 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STIR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 76 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E41-A General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA 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 E51FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 ElFM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E21FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E61FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E31FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 77 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i0o5 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 7/13/2016 Packet Pg. 78 Hour Type Hour Class 903 MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 840 (07/14/2016 to 07/14/2016) Description CLOTHING ALLOWANCE Hours Amount 0.00 5,512.50 MM Total Net Pay: n x co cQ V 7/1d/gniF W Attachment: PD clothing allowance (1392 : Approval of claim and payroll checks.) $5,512.50 $4,973.37 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Claim for Damages Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Linda Hynd Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by minute entry from Mary Ellin Block ($514.00), and by Stephen Crosby (amount undetermined). Narrative Mary Ellin Block 20209 87th Avenue W. Edmonds, WA 98026 ($514.00) Stephen Crosby 21606 79th Avenue W. Edmonds, WA 98026 (amount undetermined) Attachments: Block Claim for Damages Crosby Claim for Damages Packet Pg. 80 4.3.a JUL 12 Z016 CITY OF E DMOND S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM EDMVNS CITY CLERK Dato Claim Form Received by City 7-/2 •leo Please take note that 91141. aC.Z who currently resides at IoA1 - t i mailing address rcZ home phone # 1& - +ZA work phone #�O Z-`�2 and who resided at ..2-6.20c' f� A vt—, fl E i_ AN63,4, W,4 at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is Imo, is claiming damages against'D t t✓ in the sum of $ _5' + ❑ arising out of the following circumstances listed below. 4440hv, e6v2. i5 be;,J h4xyv.6e66. — DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 6 b TIME: Sa.�n I1 h LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: DAZJ ti YZ-_ &4v-i �: rrt 5ca � roblt DESCRIPTION: ] . Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. -i e - (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes X No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: ____ * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) DRIVER: (model) OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Form Revised 05/06/14 Page I of 2 m E 0 E U N 00 M r Packet Pg. 81 4.3.a Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. On Wednesday morning, 6/22/16, my water line was broken during the replacement of the water main on 87th Avenue West by D&G Backhoe. When I returned home, I turned on my kitchen sink faucet. There was a lot of air in the line, the water was very muddy, and the water flow very quickly turned to a trickle. I went out several times to talk with the workmen. They said to let the water run - the air would clear out, the water would clear up, and the flow would return to normal. When the water pressure did not return to normal and there wasn't even enough flow to draw hot water, I talked with the crew again. Guy Faussett, D&G Backhoe Construction Superintendent, asked if he could try to restore the flow. I allowed him into my house and he removed the kitchen faucet head and ran the water. He remarked on the amount of dirt coming through the line. Though he ran the water for some time, the water pressure did not improve. He tested the water pressure in my bathroom sink and it seemed fine. Faussett said that their new employee had been asked to run the water from my outside faucet after they repaired the line to flush it, but he hadn't run it long enough to clear the line of air and silt. When Faussett was unable to restore the water pressure to my sink, I said that I'd like to have a plumber address the issue and I expressed concern about my hot water tank, dishwasher and washing machine. Faussett said that it would be fine for me to call a plumber to fix the kitchen faucet pressure and to check out the other concerns I had. I asked if I should submit the bill to the City. He said that D&G would pay for the plumber and it wouldn't be an issue. I called Paul Rendon of Flow Control Plumbing (the plumber) and arranged for him to come to my house the following week. He advised me not to use the dishwasher until he could assess the problem. I was, therefore, without water pressure to my kitchen sink or use of my dishwasher for a full week. Rendon requested that I pick up a new kitchen faucet in case he couldn't repair the one I had. I purchased one from Keller Supply. On 6/23/16, Don from D&G Backhoe called to ask if he could come to my house to try to restore the water pressure to my kitchen sink. While I initially agreed, I called him back that same day to say that I would prefer to have the plumber address the issue. Don said I should submit the plumber's bill to the City and asked if he could be present when the plumber did the work. I agreed. I called Don twice the following week to update him on the plumber's schedule, including calling him when the plumber arrived at my house. On Wednesday, 6/29/16, Rendon determined that the kitchen sink faucet needed to be replaced because he couldn't make it work. He also flushed the water lines to my washing machine and bathroom faucets. Packet Pg. 82 °._fit hw 28704.3.a A-e - E `_FfJ',, ° -} CUSTOMERS ORDER NO. DATE ORDERED CADERTAKENBY DATE PROMISED ❑ A.M. ❑ P.M_ BILLTO ice- / PHONE ADDRESS MECHANIC CITY HELPER JOB NAME AND LOCATION ❑ DAY WORK ❑ CONTRACT ❑ .x RA DESCRIPTION OF WORK / f r r rr � ,r! OUANT. DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL USED PRICE AMOUNT �- i.``af a HOURS LABOR AMOUNT TOTAL MATERIALS MECHANICS A' J, ; @ / -HEL-FZERS—:, y :® f% TOTAL LABOR I hereby acknowledge the satisfactory completion of the above described work. TOl AL LABOR TAX G- f' SIGNATURE DATE COMPLETED TOTAL �f / z Packet Pg. 83 KELLER SUPPLY COMPAN Y 4.3.a KELLER SUPPLY EVERETT #2 2924 CHESTNUT STREET EVERETT WA 98201 425-259-0181 Fax 425-339-2699 Sold To: $ MARY ELLIN BLOCK 20209 87TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 ** C.O.D. ** C.O.D. ** C.O.D. ** Ordered by Mary Ellin Stephen Gomer ** PICK TICKET ** Order #: S009814702.001 P/O # : Faucet Printed: 13:17:20 27 JUN 2016 PDT Page # : 1 of 1 Ship To. $ MARY ELLIN BLOCK 20209 87TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 Reqd Date Ship Date Ship Via 06/27/16 06/27/16 WC WILL -CALL Salesperson HOUSE2 Reference # m Warehouse 0 E Shp 2 Prc 2 0 L Freight Allowed '0 0 No E Ordered Shipped Product Description Net Prc ********* Shipping Instructions ********** * ##### #### ##### ## ## * ## ## ## ## ## ## * ## ######## #### ####### * ## ## ## ## ## ## * ##### ## ## ##### ## ## * - Faucet - lea lea MOEN 67315C INTEGRA PULL OUT (6BLK) 169.050 Loc: ADIC000 Pn: 67315C Filled by Checked by SUBTOTAL SALES TAX Total Amount Pieces Ext PY v N 00 M N N E L 0 4- E 169.( 2 U U 0 m 169.( 15.`_ 184. E cva Q Customer Signature: Date: / / Overdue accounts will be charged 1.50% per month finance charge. KELLER SUPPLY COMPANY WILL NOT ACCEPT RETURNS OF LEADED PRODUCTS AFTER APRIL 1, 2013 Packet Pg. 84 " NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED " * 4.3.a being first duly swam, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described: t aatt I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56. x Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington [ County ❑ft&Q-Q K) W Ll I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that i—$10tAA-19- the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and lknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signaturl—,. Title My appointment expires: Z Please present the completed claim form to: Form Revised 05/06/14 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5'h Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Natary Public State at Washington KENDA FDDTE My Appointment Expires Fab IS. 2020 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 85 4.3.b RECEIVED -� CITY OF EDMONDS JUL 14 2016 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form mon� rr Re el�ed py City` 1. 1, �1f� Please take note that who currently resides at 2-_I_ (k (a -X}t►+ 4 Ve LL) - Z4 mw" . 1A�4 2 &&47 LC , mailing address _�dC�(2I� Au e r-g-7 . Cd- m o � c I I w--qwf� , home phone # r 3Cn1 �!F , work phone # , and who resided at !n 'ice-6h At : Q CAD IQ ic . ► Qw at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is '7 3 , is claiming damages against C^ - rAL mCAA 4 in the sum of $ �K"" eft arising out of the following circumstances listed below DATE OF OCCURRENCE: �- TIME: LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 1h oaLk -7q i" AA I S—, 11 Q 9A q'b 07 f DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the conduct and circuGnstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. ("tA,--:e 4 (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair hry ek1 Y'gzxz re'A, C� e� RYA ME'S 1 IpCI e . 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY License Plate # Driver License # Type Auto. (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 86 * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * 4.3.b I, s �}1 N ?- C2 -3i? being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56. X 9 IL Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington County of6f%x4744t t iS I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatthe person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to tie (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ��1� ti ��S❑Ff�sl��►I _w Q- -- �yStoN L�4t;j 4,y ►/i r = ?� O1 A#,4 ,1 1i Title��/ r [, My appointment expires: o�'� �-� 'z',''�.Ug4� a y' A�0 oil //Iftor WASP.►��, �11111�� Please present the completed claim form to Fonn Revised 05/06/14 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 87 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Wilhoit Property Donation Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History The City Council met in several Executive sessions to discuss this potential property acquisition. On July 12, 2016 Council forwarded this item for approval on the consent agenda. Staff Recommendation Council authorize the Mayor to sign and record the Quit Claim Deed on the property described. Narrative The City was approached by Mr. Doyle Wilhoit, wanting to donate his property to the City; parcel number 00434208002700, located in the Shell Creek ravine west of 9th. See map attached for location of this property. The City commissioned a Phase 1 ESA on this property which is attached. After review and discussion with Landau Associates, there is no concern of liability for this property. In fact, the City has an easement on this property, dating back to 1969, for construction and maintenance of the stream channel, and the right to remove trees, vegetation and other obstructions interfering with the stream channel. In addition, this parcel would be considered part of the PROS plan goal 4: Preserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education. This parcel is essentially a steep ravine, only accessible by neighboring properties. There is no city right of way that is used to access this property. It is zoned RS-6, but would be prohibitively expensive to mitigate the stream and wetlands in order to develop. Acquisition of this parcel would be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and stormwater functions. Attachments: GIS map Wilhoit property City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt 2016-06-08 Willhoit gift deed 20160706 Deed Doyle Willhoit land donation Packet Pg. 88 " City of Edmonds 11 D N N a) Wilhoit property I - .�; oti F ■ �a 1 951 0 94.04 188.1 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurz WGS 1984 Web Mercator_Auxiliary—Sphere current, or otherwise relial © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI( 4.4.a Memimdele .. _ Ly ...•Edrmn� $aald• J ' Lp-- Legend o M ° Storm Catch Basins 0 O Storm Manholes O Detention Facilities O Culvert Q O Q Facility Feature a Creeks Storm Line Facility Lines Storm Ditch 00 AsBuilt <all other values> PROPERTY, SEWER PROPERTY, STORM Q O L PROPERTY, WATER CL ® STREET, SEWER O t ® STREET, STORM ® STREET, WATER >Z R Easements E L! BID ❑ Parcels - - Sections Boundary (D Sections Edmonds Boundary cu ArcSDE.GIS. PROPERTY _BUILDIP Q ArcSDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLIN <all other values> Notes Potential Acquisition I Packet Pg. 89 4.4.b Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Tax Parcel 00434208002700 Edmonds, Washington May 26, 2015 Prepared for City of Edmonds LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 778-0907 Packet Pg. 90 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1-2 1.2 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 1-3 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND SETTING 2-1 2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 2-2 0 3.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION 3-1 0 0 4.0 AGENCY RECORDS REVIEW 4-1 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE REPORT 4-1 c 4.1.1 Subject Property 4-1 a 4.1.2 Adjacent and Proximate Sites 4-1 c 4.2 CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING, BUILDING, AND PLANNING DIVISIONS 4-2 z 4.3 CITY OF EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT 4-2 4.4 SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 4-2 4.5 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4-2 M T 5.0 USER -PROVIDED INFORMATION 5-1 a 6.0 INTERVIEWS 7.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 7.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY 7.1.1 Storage Tanks/Structures 7.1.2 De Minimis Conditions 7.2 SURROUNDING AREA 8.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 8.1 DATA GAPS 8.2 OPINION 9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT 9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT 10.0 REFERENCES 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx 6-1 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-2 7-2 8-1 8-2 8-2 10-1 DRAFT ii Packet Pg. 91 4.4.b FIGURES EigjLe Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Subject and Adjacent Properties TABLE Table Title Summary of Environmental Site Assessment Elements APPENDICES Appendix Title A Database Assessment Criteria / Certified Sanborn® Map Report / Environmental Data Resources Radius MapTm Report with GeoCheck® (on DVD) B Selected Site Photographs C Historical Aerial Photographs D Environmental Data Resources Historical Topographic Map Report E Environmental Data Resources City Directory Image Report F Qualifications of Environmental Professionals 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT iii Packet Pg. 92 4.4.b LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAI All Appropriate Inquiry AST Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM ASTM International BGS Below Ground Surface CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation City City of Edmonds Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment ft Feet RCW Revised Code of Washington USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tank 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT iv Packet Pg. 93 4.4.b This page intentionally left blank. 126:'IS P 0-4 181 R Phase I GSA( ily of Gdnxmds Pa —I Phase I GSA rpt.d('- DRAFT LO 00 M Q L Q Cn W m t a. FD V L m a 0 N C O E W 4- 0 V C d E t v m r Q Packet Pg. 94 4.4.b 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Edmonds (City), Landau Associates conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the following property located in Edmonds, Washington (subject property; Figure 1): Subject Property name: Tax Parcel 00434208002700 Subject Property address: No address associated with the parcel. 0 Legal description (or other Based on information from the Snohomish County website (2015), c physical property the subject property consists of tax parcel 00434208002700 in 00 description): block 080 D-00; which is 0.25 acres in size and is located in Section 24 of Township 27 North, Range 3 East of the Willamette a Meridian in Snohomish County, Washington. The subject property o is owned by Doyle Wilhoit. a 0 z The purpose of this Phase I ESA was to assess and document recognized environmental conditions for the subject property that may pose a potential liability to an owner in accordance with the guidelines of ASTM International (ASTM) as identified in its Standard Practice for Environmental Site 00 .MT. Assessment Process, E 1527-13. Historical recognized environmental conditions and controlled Q- recognized environmental conditions, as defined below, were also evaluated for the subject property. The i N w subject property is a 0.25-acre parcel located in a residential area of Edmonds, Washington and is — a� w unimproved, vacant land (Figure 2). The subject property is owned by Doyle Wilhoit. We understand z a that the subject property is being donated to the City, and the Phase I ESA is being conducted to evaluate and document environmental conditions associated with the property, and identify conditions that could L a pose a potential liability to an owner of the property. o E The ASTM standard defines recognized environmental conditions as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property due to any release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that 0 E pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The term is not intended to include de w 0 minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of the appropriate v governmental agencies. c A historical recognized environmental condition is defined as a past release of any hazardous z M substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been Q addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or met unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 1-1 Packet Pg. 95 4.4.b A controlled recognized environmental condition is defined as a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum projects allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. This assessment also identified, as appropriate, potential environmental concerns, which are conditions that do not meet the definition for a recognized environmental condition, but that warrant recognition by the user of this report. This Phase I ESA was conducted by the following environmental professionals: Project Environmental Professionals Environmental Heather R. Nielsen, L.G., Project Geologist Professional/Author: Site Reconnaissance: Timothy L. Syverson, L.G., Senior Associate Geologist Senior Report Reviewer: Timothy L. Syverson, L.G., Senior Associate Geologist 1.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed, as described in our scope of work dated March 18, 2015, consisted of a review of the history of the subject property, a review of agency information, and a site reconnaissance to observe current land use activities and environmental conditions. Landau Associates conducted this Phase I ESA in accordance with the guidelines of ASTM as identified in its Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment Process, E 1527-13. This standard, while subject to changes (as are all ASTM standards), is recognized as meeting the due diligence provisions of the federal statute [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); 42 USC 9601(35) (B)] and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Model Toxics Control Act [Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.105D.040] at the time this report was prepared. ASTM E 1527-13 satisfies the elements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) rule, which establishes requirements that purchasers must meet to limit their environmental liability under CERCLA and qualify for liability protections, including the "Innocent Purchaser," "Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser," and "Contiguous Property Owner" liability defenses that are provided by CERCLA. The specific elements of the ASTM process are summarized in Table 1, which describes where the information can be found in our report or if an element has not been addressed due to limitations/constraints imposed by project -specific conditions. Elements not included in ASTM E 1527- 13 (e.g., identification, sampling, and analysis of asbestos, radon, lead paint, and lead in drinking water and/or wetlands; regulatory compliance; cultural and historic resources; indoor air quality and vapor 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 1-2 Packet Pg. 96 4.4.b intrusion including the potential presence of mold or other biological contaminants; industrial hygiene; health and safety; ecological resources; and endangered species) were also not included in our scope of services. The Phase I ESA process is not a means of "finding everything there is to know about a property." Rather, it is an effort to evaluate the environmental liabilities associated with a property based on reasonably available information (both oral and written) within the budget, schedule, and project - specific limitations, all in accordance with the EPA's AAI rule. Authorization to proceed with these services was provided by the City on April 22, 2015. 1.2 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The following summarizes exceptions, limitations, or restrictions to the scope of work: Exceptions to, or deletions from, the None above referenced Scope of Work: Weather -related property restrictions: None The subject property is densely vegetated and includes steep slopes along the banks of Shell Creek, which crosses the property Property/Facility access restrictions: from southeast to northwest. The vegetation and topography prevented access to and inspection of the ground surface on the subject property. The subject property was observed, to the extent possible, from the adjacent properties. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 1-3 Packet Pg. 97 4.4.b 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The subject property is located north of Edmonds Street between 8tn and 9tn Avenues North in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The subject property consists of the undeveloped land along the west and east banks of Shell Creek (Figure 2). 2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property is characterized by the following (Figure 2): Property boundaries: North: Residential properties are present to the north and northeast of the subject property. Undeveloped property is present along Shell Creek to the northwest. South: Residential properties are present to the south of the subject property. Undeveloped property is present along Shell Creek to the southeast. East: Undeveloped property along Shell Creek and then residential properties are present to the east of the subject property. West: Undeveloped and then residential properties are present to the west of the subject property. Property description (acreage, The subject property is located in a residential area of Edmonds and is structures, roads, and other part of a deep ravine with Shell Creek flowing southeast to northwest improvements): along the ravine bottom. Elevations at the subject property range from about 175 feet along the east side of the parcel to about 120 feet at the bottom of the ravine. Slopes on the subject property are relatively steep, averaging from about 20 to 50 percent along the walls of the ravine with a maximum slope approaching 80 percent in some areas (Appendix A). The subject property is composed of one tax parcel and is 0.25 acres in size, as discussed in Section 1.0. The subject property is undeveloped. Property access: The subject property is unsecured, but access is limited by the steep slopes along the ravine. Estimated percentage of property covered by buildings and/or None; the subject property is undeveloped. pavement: Property operations: There are no active operations on the subject property. Type of sewage disposal system/provider: The subject property is not serviced by a sewage disposal system. Potable water source/provider: There is no potable water service at the subject property. Electric utility: There are no electrical services at the subject property. Natural gas and oil utilities: There are no natural gas or oil utilities servicing the subject property. According to the Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Radius MapTM Report with GeoCheck° (EDR report; Appendix A), no oil or natural gas pipelines are located within a'/4-mile radius of the subject property. Stormwater management Precipitation infiltrates into the unpaved ground surfaces of the subject facilities: property or drains to Shell Creek as surface flow. 5/26/15 P:A074V181AR\Phase I ESAACity of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA rpt.dorx DRAFT 2-1 Packet Pg. 98 4.4.b The subject property is shown on Figure 2; selected site photographs are provided in Appendix B. 2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY Subject property topography, geology, hydrogeology, and surface water are described below: Topography: The subject property is located in an area that slopes down to the northwest. Shell Creek flows southeast to northwest through a steep -sided ravine on the subject property that is heavily vegetated with bushes and trees. Geology: The Puget Sound region is underlain by Quaternary -age sediments deposited by numerous glacial episodes; the most recent of which is termed the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. Deposition occurred during a number of glacial advances and retreats that created the existing subsurface conditions. The regional sediments consist primarily of interlayered and/or sequential deposits of alluvial clays, silts, and sands that are typically situated over deposits of glacial till. These outwash sediments, which consist of sands, silts, and clays, were deposited by rivers, streams, and post -glacial lakes during the various retreats of the glacial ice. With the exception of the most recent recessional and alluvial deposits, the outwash sediments in many areas have been overconsolidated by the overriding ice sheets. According to a water resources investigations report for the western Snohomish County, Washington area, the following geologic units underlie the subject property (USGS 1997): • Vashon Till: This confining bed unit is a mixture of clay, sands, silts, pebbles, cobbles, gravels, and boulders deposited during the Fraser Glaciation, and is found at depths of approximately 0 to 200 ft below ground surface (BGS). • Vashon Advance Outwash: This unit lies beneath the Vashon Till and can be up to 200 ft thick. This aquifer unit consists of moderately well -sorted sand and gravel, and represents the advance outwash deposits of the Fraser Glaciation. • Pre-Vashon Units: The Vashon Advance Outwash is underlain by a series of interglacial sediments (consisting of mostly fine-grained sediments) and outwash sediments (consisting of medium to coarse sand and gravel with silt). These sediments are underlain by Tertiary -age Bedrock composed principally of cemented sandstone with interbedded shale and coal with a few volcanic and intrusive rocks. Based on geologic logs for wells completed in the area, the subject property is underlain by sands with clay or gravel layers to approximately 100 ft BGS; clay becomes predominant to 167 ft BGS, the maximum extent of the borings (Ecology website 2015) Hydrogeology: As discussed in Section 2.1, Shell Creek flows through the subject property. Groundwater is anticipated to flow with the creek toward Puget Sound, located approximately 3,000 ft to the northwest . Shallow groundwater was observed between 5 and 10 ft BGS in wells located with '/4 mile of the subject property (Ecology website 2015). Based on our experience, groundwater can be locally present in the upper, weathered portions of the till when it is perched on the contact with the underlying dense portion of the unit. The EDR report identified six wells within '/4 mile of the subject property (Appendix A). The wells are all owned by the United States Geological Survey — Washington and are all located to the southeast of the subject property. There is no record of depth - to -water in four of the wells, which range in depth between 60 and 992 ft BGS. In a well with a total depth of 50 ft BGS, groundwater was identified at 6 ft BGS in 1931. In a well with a total depth of 100 ft BGS, groundwater was identified at 54 ft BGS in 1931. 5/26/15 P:A074V181AR\Phase I ESAACity of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 2-2 Packet Pg. 99 4.4.b Floodplain and Surface Shell Creek flows through the subject property toward Puget Sound and is located Water Features: approximately 3,000 ft northwest of the subject property. The City municipal code identifies Shell Creek, in whole or in part, as a stream in which anadromous fish are known to occur. As a result, Shell Creek is classified as a Type F, anadromous fishbearing stream for purposes of this evaluation, and a standard buffer of 100 ft is prescribed to the waterway. Based on information provided in the EDR report (Appendix A), the subject property is not located within a 100- or 500-year flood zone, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 5/26/15 P:A074V181AR\Phase I ESA City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA rpt.docx DRAFT 2-3 Packet Pg. 100 4.4.b 3.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION A variety of resources were reviewed to develop the history of the subject and adjacent properties and to assess the potential for environmental impact to the subject property. These resources were obtained from EDR and Google Earth (2015) and include the following: • Aerial photographs (1941, 1944, 1952, 1968, 1973, 1979, 1980, 1990, 2006, 2009, and 2011 from EDR; and 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 from Google Earth) • Topographic maps [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1895, 1897, 1944, 1953, 1968, 1973, and 1981] • City directories (1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2008, and 2013) • Fire insurance maps (no coverage available). Copies of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps are provided in Appendices C and D, respectively. Landau Associates requested that EDR conduct a search for Sanborn Fire Insurance maps for the subject property; however, no fire insurance map coverage is available for the subject property. A copy of the EDR Sanborn Map report is included in Appendix A. A copy of the EDR City Directory Image Report is provided in Appendix E. Landau Associates reviewed these resources for the years listed above. Historical aerial photographs and USGS topographic maps were reviewed to help identify prior uses of the subject and adjacent properties that could potentially result in environmental impacts to the subject property. City directories were reviewed to help identify historical businesses and operations associated with the subject and adjacent properties. Note that most of the photographs are relatively high altitude images and, at such a scale, identification of more than large features, such as buildings, is difficult. Historically and/or environmentally significant findings from the aerial photograph, topographic map, and city directory reviews are summarized below. s V s � i o. M d 0 L � w Year dL a p 10 �g �L Vp Subject Property Adjacent Properties No development is shown on the subject property. Shell Unmarked roads are shown to the north and south 1895 X Creek crosses the subject in the vicinity of the subject property. No buildings property heading to the are shown on the map. northwest toward Puget Sound. There are no significant 1897 X changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent from the previous topographic properties from the previous topographic map. map. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 3-1 Packet Pg. 101 4.4.b U Cl f0 L t Q. M N d L M$ L 0 0 U Year WL 12 o10 +�+L Subject Property Adjacent Properties The subject property is visible The subject property is visible in an undeveloped, 1941 X as undeveloped, tree covered tree covered area. Trees extend to the southeast land. and northwest, following Shell Creek. A road is present southwest of the subject property. The aerial photograph shows buildings, which There are no significant appear to be residential, to the south and 1944 X X changes to the subject property southwest of the subject property. from the previous aerial The topographic map shows additional roads to the photograph or topographic map. south of the subject property, and unmarked buildings are shown to the south and southwest. There are no significant changes to the subject property The aerial photograph shows additional residential 1952 X from the previous aerial buildings to the south, west and north-northeast of photograph. the subject property. There are no significant The area around Shell Creek is colored green, 1953 X changes to the subject property indicating woodland. The area to the south and from the previous topographic southwest of the subject property is shaded orange, map. indicating urban development. The aerial photograph shows additional residential There are no significant buildings to the north, south, east, and west of the 1968 X X changes to the subject property subject property. The channel of Shell Creek is still from the previous aerial tree lined. photograph or topographic map. There are no significant changes to the adjacent properties from the previous topographic map. 1970 X The subject property is not listed in the city directory report. Adjacent properties are in residential use. The aerial photograph shows additional residential There are no significant buildings to the north, south, east, and west of the 1973 X X changes to the subject property subject property. from the previous aerial photograph or topographic map. There are no significant changes to the adjacent properties from the previous topographic map. 1975 X The subject property is not Adjacent properties are in residential use. listed in the city directory report. There are no significant 1979 X changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent from the previous aerial properties from the previous aerial photograph. photograph. There are no significant changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent 1980 X X from the previous aerial photograph. properties from the previous aerial photograph. The subject property is not Adjacent properties are in residential use. listed in the city directory report. There are no significant 1981 X changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent from the previous topographic properties from the previous topographic map. map. 5/26/15 P:A074V181AR\Phase I ESAACity of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.doex DRAFT c 0 c 0 m 0_ 0 L. IL M 00 M a L Q LIJ a� rn 0 M d a� M IL 0 t N 0 w 4- 0 V c m E t M Q 3-2 Packet Pg. 102 4.4.b U f0 L t Q. M N d L M$ L p C U Year 12 Subject Property Adjacent Properties 1985 X The subject property is not Adjacent properties are in residential use. listed in the city directory report. There are no significant 1990 X changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent from the previous aerial properties from the previous aerial photograph. photograph. 1992- X The subject property is not Adjacent properties are in residential use. 1999 listed in the city directory report. There are no significant 2002 X changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent from the previous aerial properties from the previous aerial photograph. photograph. There are no significant changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent 2003 X X from the previous aerial photograph. properties from the previous aerial photograph. The subject property is not Adjacent properties are in residential use. listed in the city directory report. There are no significant 2005 - X changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent 2007 from the previous aerial properties from the previous aerial photograph. photograph. 2008 X The subject property is not listed in the city directory report. Adjacent properties are in residential use. There are no significant 2009 - X changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent 2012 from the previous aerial properties from the previous aerial photograph. photograph. There are no significant changes to the subject property from the previous aerial There are no significant changes to the adjacent 2013 X X photograph. properties from the previous aerial photograph. The subject property is not Adjacent properties are in residential use. listed in the city directory report. 2014 X There are no significant changes to the subject property There are no significant changes to the adjacent from the previous photograph. properties from the previous photograph. The operational history of the surrounding properties developed from the information presented in the above table is summarized as follows: • North: Properties to the north of the subject property have been in residential use since first development occurred between 1944 and 1952. • South: Properties to the south of the subject property have been in residential use since first development occurred between 1941 and 1944. 5/26/15 P:A074V181AR\Phase I ESAACity of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 3-3 Packet Pg. 103 • East: Properties to the east of the subject property have been in residential use since first development occurred between 1952 and 1968. West: Properties to the west of the subject property have been in residential use since first development occurred between 1944 and 1952. Based on the review of aerial photographs, topographic maps, and city directories, the subject property has never been developed and Shell Creek has flowed from the southeast to the northwest through the subject property since at least 1895. No recognized environmental conditions were identified for the subject property during the historical information review. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 3-4 Packet Pg. 104 4.4.b 4.0 AGENCY RECORDS REVIEW Landau Associates reviewed information from publicly available environmental databases and contacted the City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds Fire Department, Snohomish County Health Department, and Ecology for information regarding potential environmental conditions at the subject and adjacent properties. Relevant information collected from the various agencies is summarized below. 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE REPORT EDR was subcontracted to conduct a search (as prescribed by ASTM) of publicly available federal, state, and local agency environmental databases. A regulatory agency database report was obtained from EDR, a complete copy of which is provided in Appendix A. The search focused on information in the various lists maintained by the agencies of sites with known and potential environmental conditions that may represent a threat to human health and the environment. EDR conducted its search of listed information (which is keyed to a geographic mapping system) using the location of the subject property, and identified sites listed in the databases that are located within a 1-mile radius of the subject property boundaries. Sites identified in the EDR report were evaluated as described in the database assessment criteria included in Appendix A. Due to the nature of contaminant migration in groundwater, only sites located within 1/4 mile and hydraulically upgradient of the subject property, or sites higher than or at equal elevation as the subject property that have activities that may affect groundwater, are assumed to have the potential to environmentally impact the subject property. As noted in Section 2.2, groundwater flow at the subject property is anticipated to be to the northwest toward Puget Sound; therefore, sites located to the southeast are potentially upgradient of the subject property. 4.1.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property was not identified or listed in the EDR report and, therefore, no recognized environmental conditions were identified for the subject property. 4.1.2 ADJACENT AND PROXIMATE SITES The EDR report did not identify any sites adjacent to the subject property or with impacts to groundwater within the prescribed search radius based on the anticipated northeast direction of groundwater flow; therefore, no recognized environmental conditions were identified for the subject property. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT c 0 :r 0 a 0 0 m a 0 L. IL 0 z 00 M r 4-1 Packet Pg. 105 4.4.b 4.2 CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING, BUILDING, AND PLANNING DIVISIONS A request for public records regarding building permits at the subject property was sent to the City of Edmonds on May 1, 2015. A reply was received on May 11, 2015 from Ms. Jeanne Startzman, Public Disclosure & Records Maintenance Specialist for the City of Edmonds. Ms. Startzman indicated that the City of Edmonds Engineering, Building, and Planning Divisions have no records for the subject property (Startzman 2015). 4.3 CITY OF EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT A request for public records regarding fire or hazardous materials incidents at the subject property was sent to the City Fire Department on May 1, 2015. A response had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Mr. Brad Reading of the Snohomish County Fire District 1 indicated that his department did not have any records of the subject property; he also indicated that the City would have records prior to 2010 (Reading 2015). 4.4 SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT A public records request was submitted on May 1, 2015 to the Snohomish County Health District for records pertaining to septic systems, environmental enforcement activities, underground storage tanks (USTs), wells, and hazardous materials at the subject property. A response had not been received at the time this report was prepared. 4.5 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Landau Associates conducted a search of Ecology databases through the Ecology website. The subject property is not listed in any of the Ecology databases (Ecology website 2015). Based on the results of the Ecology database search, no recognized environmental conditions were identified for the subject property. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 4-2 Packet Pg. 106 4.4.b 5.0 USER -PROVIDED INFORMATION Landau Associates requested that the City provide any information due to actual or specialized knowledge or experience regarding the subject property that is or could be relevant to recognized environmental conditions. The information request was provided by Ms. Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director of the City. Information provided is summarized below (Hite 2015). User Provided Information User Response User Comments Is the user aware of any environmental Yes ❑ No® cleanup liens against the subject property that are filed or recorded under federal, tribal, state, or local law? Is the user aware of any Activity and Use Yes ❑ No® Limitations (AULs), such as engineering controls, land use restrictions, or institutional controls that are in place at the subject property and/or have been filed or recorded in a registry under federal, tribal, state, or local law? Does the user have any specialized Yes ® No❑ knowledge or experience related to the subject property or nearby properties? Does the purchase price being paid for the Yes ❑ No® Ms. Hite indicated that the subject property was subject property reasonably reflect the fair being donated to the City. market value of the subject property? Does the user know the past uses of the Yes ❑ No® subject property? Does the user know of specific chemicals that Yes ❑ No® are present or once were present at the subject property? Does the user know of spills or other Yes ❑ No® chemical releases that have taken place at the subject property? Does the user know of any environmental Yes ❑ No® cleanups that have taken place at the subject property? Based on the user's knowledge and Yes ❑ No® experience related to the subject property, are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the subject property? 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 5-1 Packet Pg. 107 4.4.b 6.0 INTERVIEWS Ms. Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds indicated that the owner of the subject property stated that the property was a gift to him and he doesn't have any historical knowledge regarding the property. Therefore, there is no knowledgeable person to interview regarding the history of the subject property. Based on the available historical information, the subject property has never been developed, and there is no evidence of any operations on the property. As discussed in Section 8.1, the absence of an interview is considered a data gap. However, based on the available information that the property has never been developed, this data gap is not considered significant to the findings of this assessment. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT c 0 c 0 0 m a 0 L. a 0 z 00 M r 6-1 Packet Pg. 108 4.4.b 7.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE On May 19, 2015, Mr. Tim Syverson of Landau Associates conducted a reconnaissance of the subject and adjacent properties to assess current land use and environmental conditions. The focus of the reconnaissance, which was documented with notes and photographs, was to identify conditions with the potential to pose an environmental liability to a property owner or operator. Observations made during the reconnaissance are discussed below and selected site photographs are provided in Appendix B. The subject and adjacent properties are shown on Figure 2. 7.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY Landau Associates walked around the perimeter/boundaries to observe the subject property. The subject property is densely vegetated and includes steep slopes along the banks of Shell Creek, which crosses the property from southeast to northwest. The vegetation and topography prevented access to, and thorough inspection of, the ground surface on the subject property. The subject property was observed, to the extent possible, from the adjacent properties. Landau Associates made the following observations during the site reconnaissance: Issue Comments Hazardous materials or petroleum products: None observed. Hazardous waste: None observed. Solid waste: None observed. Wells: None observed. Wastewater: None observed. Drains, sumps, and drywells: None observed. Evidence of dumping or fill materials: None observed. Odors: None observed. Pools of liquid: None observed. PCB -containing equipment: None observed. Stormwater: There are no stormwater facilities on the subject property. Stormwater either infiltrates into the ground or runs off to Shell Creek. Pits, ponds, or lagoons (subject property): None observed. Shell Creek flows southeast to northwest across the subject property. Pits, ponds, lagoons (adjoining properties): None observed. Stained soil or pavement: None observed. Stressed vegetation: None observed. 5/26/15 P:A074V181AR\Phase I ESAACity of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT c 0 c� c 0 0 m a 0 L Q. r 0 LO 00 M 7-1 Packet Pg. 109 4.4.b Issue Comments Buildings: There are no buildings on the subject property. The subject property is currently undeveloped. The subject property slopes down to Shell Creek, which runs General exterior housekeeping/yardkeeping: from the southeast to the northwest across the subject property. Mature trees and undergrowth vegetation are present. There is no landscaping at the subject property. There is no electrical service to the subject property and there Electrical transformers: are no transformers on the subject property. No transformers were observed adjacent to the subject property. 7.1.1 STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES Landau Associates assessed the subject property for evidence of current or former USTs and ASTs including visual evidence such as fill ports, vent pipes, fuel pumps/dispensers, concrete pads, tank saddles, and mounts and noted the following: • Current USTs or ASTs: No evidence of current USTs or ASTs was observed • Former USTs or ASTs: No evidence of former USTs or ASTs was observed. 7.1.2 DE MINIMIS CONDITIONS ASTM defines de minimis conditions as those that "generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies" (i.e., minor soil staining). No de minimis conditions were identified at the subject property during the site reconnaissance. 7.2 SURROUNDING AREA Landau Associates observed adjacent properties from the subject property or from public rights - of -way. No evidence of recognized environmental conditions or potential environmental concerns for the subject property were observed on the adjacent properties during the reconnaissance. The following is a list of features on the adjacent properties (Figure 2): • North: Residential properties are present to the north of the subject property. Undeveloped property surrounds Shell Creek to the northwest. 0 South: Residential properties are present to the south of the subject property. Undeveloped property surrounds Shell Creek to the southeast. • East: Residential properties are present the east of the subject property. • West: Residential properties are present the west of the subject property. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT c 0 M a 0 0 m a 0 ILL. z 00 M r 7-2 Packet Pg. 110 4.4.b 8.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Landau Associates has conducted a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-13 for the subject property identified by tax lot number 00434208002700, located directly east of 827 Edmonds Street in Edmonds, Washington. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.0 of this report. This assessment has not revealed any recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, or potential environmental concerns in connection with the subject property. The significant findings of this assessment include: • The subject property is a 0.25-acre parcel located in a residential area of Edmonds, Washington. The subject property is densely vegetated and includes steep slopes along the banks of Shell Creek, which crosses the property from southeast to northwest. • The subject property is part of a deep ravine with Shell Creek flowing along the ravine bottom. Elevations at the subject property range from about 175 ft along the east side of the parcel to about 120 ft at the bottom of the ravine. Slopes on the subject property are relatively steep, averaging from about 20 to 50 percent along the walls of the ravine with a maximum slope approaching 80 percent in some areas. The overall subject property area slopes down to the northwest toward Puget Sound, located approximately 3,000 ft to the northwest. • The subject property is underlain by Quaternary -age glacial sediment. Based on subsurface investigations conducted at locations near the subject property, shallow groundwater was encountered between 5 and 10 ft BGS. Groundwater locally flows toward Shell Creek, and in the vicinity of the subject property flows to the northwest with the local topography. • The subject property is bordered by residences to the north, east, and west and beyond Edmonds Street to the south. Shell Creek flows from the southeast to the northwest across the subject property; the tree lined creek continues in these directions. • The subject property was undeveloped or unused since at least 1895. Adjacent properties to the south of the subject property have been in residential use since at least 1944. Adjacent properties to the north, east, and west have been in residential use since at least 1952. • Stormwater infiltrates into the unpaved subject property or drains to Shell Creek. No storm drains or stormwater system is present on the subject property. • Based on the site reconnaissance, no stained soil or stressed vegetation, asphalt or concrete was observed on the subject property. • The subject property is not listed in any Ecology or EPA databases. • There are no wells, ASTs, or USTs present at the subject property. • Based on the site reconnaissance, no potential polychlorinated biphenyl -containing material was observed on the subject property. • There are no water or sanitary sewer services at the subject property. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 8-1 Packet Pg. 111 4.4.b 8.1 DATA GAPS follows: The data gaps identified during our assessment and their potential impact on our findings are as Chain -of -Title Documentation. No chain -of -title report for the subject property was provided for review by the City. Property ownership information summarized in this report is based on an interview with the current owner (Doyle Wilhoit) and the Snohomish County Assessor. Based on this information, this data gap is not considered significant. Owner/Operator Interview. The owner of the subject property does not have any historical knowledge regarding the property. Therefore, there is no knowledgeable person to interview regarding the history of the subject property. The absence of an interview is considered a data gap. However, based on the available information that the property has never been developed, this data gap is not considered significant to the findings of this assessment. • Limited Access — Dense Vegetation and Steep Slopes. The subject property consists of densely vegetated steep slopes, which prevented access to the interior areas of the subject property along Shell Creek. There is no evidence of operations at the subject property that could result in conditions of environmental concerns; therefore, this data gap is not considered significant. 8.2 OPINION Our assessment found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions or potential environmental concerns for the subject property. There is no evidence that the subject property has ever been developed or used for any activities. Therefore, no additional evaluation of environmental conditions is warranted. If staining or other evidence of potential contamination is observed during future construction or redevelopment of the subject property, procedures should be in place for sampling and analysis of the impacted soil to evaluate appropriate handling and disposal practices. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 8-2 Packet Pg. 112 4.4.b 9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT This Phase I ESA was undertaken and this report prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds and their legal representatives (authorized users) for specific application to the subject property. It is intended to provide the authorized users with an understanding of the potential environmental liabilities associated with the property evaluated in this report. Reliance on this report by third parties or others who do not have a contractual relationship with Landau Associates on this project is at the sole risk c 'P M of the third parties or others. c 0 This report is based on observations and information obtained during one visit to the subject property and is based solely on the condition of the property on that day, supplemented with information c L obtained by Landau Associates and described herein. In evaluating the subject property, Landau a Associates has relied in good faith on representations and information abstracted from sources noted in z this report to the extent that they have not been contradicted by observations during the site u� reconnaissance or data obtained from other sources. Accordingly, Landau Associates accepts no M T responsibility for any deficiency, misstatements, omissions, or misrepresentations in the information a L provided to us. Qi Determining whether environmental conditions defined in this report indicate the presence of w contamination at levels of concern is a matter of judgment. Liabilities associated with contaminated sites are defined in part by CERCLA. The findings and conclusions of this report are based on our evaluation a m of information obtained and reviewed for this project and reflect our professional judgment with respect 2- M to that information. a 'o Landau Associates has performed the services and made the findings in accordance with generally accepted practices for Phase I ESAs in effect in Washington at the time the services were performed. The scope of services for this Phase I ESA was defined in our proposal and, unless specifically included in our scope of services and in this report, this Phase I ESA did not include services related to asbestos, radon, lead paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, or indoor air quality or vapor intrusion issues (including the potential presence of mold or other biological contaminants). This warranty stands in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. While this report can be used as a guide, it is neither a rejection nor an endorsement of the property. It must also be understood that changing circumstances in the environment and use of the property can alter the conclusions and findings contained in this report. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 9-1 Packet Pg. 113 4.4.b 9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 312, and we have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. We have developed and performed all appropriate inquires in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312 and ASTM E 1527- 13. Qualifications of the environmental professionals responsible for the site reconnaissance and generation of this report are provided in Appendix F. This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Heather R. Nielsen, L.G. Project Geologist Timothy L. Syverson, L.G. Senior Associate Geologist HRN/TLS/rgm 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 9-2 Packet Pg. 114 4.4.b 10.0 REFERENCES Ecology website. 2015. Searchable Databases. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/database.html. Washington State Department of Ecology. Accessed May 1. Google Earth. 2015. Aerial photograph: Edmonds Street between 8th and 9th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington (July 10, 2014). Accessed May 5. Hite, C. 2015. Email message from Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director, City of Edmonds, to Steve Quarterman, Landau Associates. Re: Task order for Landau. April 22. Reading, B. 2015. Email message from Brad Reading, Assistant Chief, Snohomish County Fire District 1, to Heather Nielsen, Landau Associates. Re: Records Request. May 12. Snohomish County website. 2015. Snohomish County Online Property Information. h!Ltp:Hgis.snoco.org/mgps/propeM L/viewer.htm. Snohomish County. Accessed May 5. Startzman, J. 2015. Email message from Jeanne Startzman, Public Disclosure & Records Maintenance Specialist, City of Edmonds, to Heather Nielsen, Landau Associates. Re: Records Request Received 5-1- 15. May 14. USGS. 1997. The Ground -Water System and Ground -Water Quality in Western Snohomish County, Washington. Water -Resources Investigations Report 96-4312. U.S. Geological Survey. 5/26/15 P:\074\181\R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt.docx DRAFT 10-1 Packet Pg. 115 Puget Sound eza = Caspers St m > G/ Subject Property I r 7 dmonds �`. S h W e� city Par WOOdwayl"I� Pine St �I N 0 0.5 1 Miles Data Source: Esri 2012 City of Edmonds Tax Parcel 00434208002700 LANDAU Phase I ESA ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington 4.4.b Snohomish County Park O io 41 Esperance r 231St St S C 3 Seattle Spokane Tacoma Olympia Washington Vicinity Map Figure 1 Packet Pg. 116 4.4.b • She�'c h reek Residences Edmonds St Residences t oo, Sprague St 0 z f° c o Q 0 L _ a 0 t LO ice 00 M r She yic � ■ �+. - reek Residences Residences Bell St Legend Note Subject Property 1. Black and white reproduction of this color Q original may reduce its effectiveness and Adjacent Properties lead to incorrect interpretation. Shell Creek 0 100 200 Data Source: Snohomish County GIS, ESRI World Imagery Scale in Feet City of Edmonds Figure Tax Parcel 00434208002700 Subject and Adjacent Properties LANDAU Phase I ESA ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 117 4.4.b TABLE 1 Page 1 of 2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ELEMENTS TAX PARCEL 00434208002700 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Phase I ESA Element per ASTM E 1527-13 Report Section in Phase I ESA Where (Including Elements of All Appropriate Inquiry Rule) Element is Addressed Comment Inquiry Performed by Environmental Professional Visual Inspection by Environmental Professional Interior of subject property Exterior of subject property Adjacent properties Interviews Current owner Past owners Key site manager Current occupants/operators cast occupants/operators Neighboring property owners (in the case of abandoned properties) Local fire department Local health department State or local agency with jurisdiction over environmental matters Local agency responsible for building permits and groundwater use permits Historical Source Review (first developed use or 1940, 5-year intervals) Fire insurance maps Property tax files Land title records U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps Local street directories Building department records Zoning/land use records Other historical sources 5/22/2015 PA074\1 81 \R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Phase I ESA_tb1.xlsx Section 9.1 Section 7.1 Performed by Tim Syverson on May 19, 2015. Section 7.1 Performed by Tim Syverson on May 19, 2015. Section 7.2 Performed by Tim Syverson on May 19, 2015. Sections 6.0 No interviews conducted. Adequate file information. Not conducted No interviews conducted. Adequate file information. Section 6.0 No interviews conducted. Adequate file information. Section 6.0 No interviews conducted. Adequate file information. Not conducted Not applicable. Not conducted Not applicable. Section 4.3 City of Edmonds Fire Department Section 4.4 Snohomish County Health District Section 4.5 Washington Department of Ecology Section 4.2 City of Edmonds Section 3.0 No coverage available. See Appendix A. Section 2.0 Records obtained from Snohomish County website. Section 2.0 Records obtained from Snohomish County website. Section 3.0 Records obtained from EDR. See Appendix D. Section 3.0 Records obtained from EDR. See Appendix E. Section 4.2 City of Edmonds Section 2.0 Records obtained from Snohomish County website. LANDAU ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 118 4.4.b TABLE 1 Page 2 of 2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ELEMENTS TAX PARCEL 00434208002700 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Phase I ESA Element per ASTM E 1527-13 Report Section in Phase I ESA Where (Including Elements of All Appropriate Inquiry Rule) Element is Addressed Comment Government Record Review Federal sites, including institutional controls and engineering Section 4.1 Records obtained from EDR. See Appendix A. controls registries State sites, including institutional controls and engineering controls Section 4.1 Records obtained from EDR. See Appendix A. registries Tribal sites, including institutional controls and engineering controls Section 4.1 Records obtained from EDR. See Appendix A. registries Local sites I Section 4.1 Records obtained from EDR. See Appendix A. Report Preparation Scope of services Section 1.0 Documentation of findings Sections 2.0 through 7. Opinion regarding recognized environmental conditions at the Section 8.2 Opinion regarding requirement for additional investigation at the Section 8.2 subject property Data gaps assessment/attempts to fill them Section 8.1 Conclusions Section 8.0 References Section 10.0 Signature Section 9.1 Environmental professional statement Section 9.1 Appendices including supporting documentation and qualifications Appendices A through F of environmental professional Review of User -Provided Information Conducted by Environmental Professional Specialized and actual knowledge Consider purchase price to fair market value Consider commonly known information Consider degree of obviousness of contamination 5/22/2015 PA074\1 81 \R\Phase I ESA\City of Edmonds Phase I ESA_tb1.xlsx Section 5.0 Ms. Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds Section 5.0 Ms. Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds Section 5.0 Ms. Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds Section 5.0 Ms. Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds LANDAU ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 119 4.4.b APPENDIX A Database Assessment Criteria/Certified Sandborn° Map Report/Environmental Data Resources Radius MapTM Report with GeoCheck° (on DVD) TO BE SUBMITTED WITH FINAL REPORT Packet Pg. 120 U) 0 fEMF Q D T m z 0 12 Attachment: City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt (1385 : Wilhoit Property Donation) A D m z 0 Attachment: City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt (1385 : Wilhoit Property Donation) 4.4.b City of Edmonds 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Inquiry Number: 4280457.9 May 01, 2015 (rEDR n 6 Armstreng Read, 41h Hoc -Shelton, Onn nOGUCUt M484 T*IM Free: &00.�$2.005O www.in.dtr%&t.com Packet Pg. 124 4.4.b EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo perdecade. When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. ++ CL 2- Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should the,. be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2015 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. Packet Pg. 125 4.4.b Date EDR Searched Historical Sources: Aerial Photography May 01, 2015 Target Property: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Year Scale Details Source 1941 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=750' Flight Date: June 11, 1941 EDR 1944 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' Flight Date: April 27, 1944 USGS 1952 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500' Flight Date: July 01, 1952 USGS 1952 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' Flight Date: July 02, 1952 EDR 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500' Flight Date: August 31, 1968 USGS 1973 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' Flight Date: July 09, 1973 USGS 1979 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' Flight Date: July 20, 1979 USGS 1980 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' Flight Date: July 08, 1980 USGS 1990 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' DOQQ - acquisition dates: July 10, 1990 USGS/DOQQ 2006 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' Flight Year: 2006 USDA/NAIP 2009 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' Flight Year: 2009 USDA/NAIP 2011 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' Flight Year: 2011 USDA/NAIP C O R C O 0 r L O Q O L a O t LO 00 M Q L 4280457.9 2 Packet Pg. 126 71 .40 df j fiLor -b ibf RWRW%E% A f..A Ar =PdMP� - W (uoi;euoa A:pedoJd 110411M: 98C0 ;da VS3 I ese4d IaoJed M04111M Spuowp310 A;13 :;uaua43e;;d 00 N a 1 I V �-14 _11. YEAR: 1952 = 500' ' 'ML SON. ' OPP A V1, & 11WAROO 14 -v I f Ij 4L INQUIRY M 4280457.9 YEAR: 1973 1 N (rDR 500' 1441 4 .Olvi 14 ow S27# LIM . dm� Ll ft��°' 4 F2 i a at INQUIRY #: 4280457.9 I N YEAR: 1979 (rEDR 500' 4.4.b ve. 'o Poo 14 W_ ul) 00 Cl) H ui (D J1, AV J, JL 4- 0 E A-6—A r P� -I � "'. ��. 4.4.b .' �- ock-■ ��' �• 4' '• —i I � � r } � y' �'��? R Y l • wok +7 ■' �� 7 �� } - j`'�� )� ra * [,.r w rn _ rdp ; - �.. � •� � . �. -,Y � � . • . ' t r` � fair _ i- i - � � � i•. Aw 17. LO co CL ti t V ,y J •�- rya` ui fr T`- `• N Tr � � i�t��--� q •ems i � -�—± � �.,,�+,.._� ,��* '. ti�• •1 { �j_�� t 1 -,,.� Ls _.� f ' +`ism r + i INQUIRY M 4280457.9 YEAR: 1980 1 Nr ' ! i +'JLf O IM 1Lit J.L 111 JJ t F-' zz+ T O O �•i k; a rpop r �= - + C ` ;t ti kl +. 6l RL ' cn a ,, L� ; x-� 45 v 106 16 { • _ - L Y 4- Lr0 /k ti f a _ O ' �, Y'dL +' n. LaWOLS jp lie Packet Pg. 136 v L _ )C � T-20 3 1991D 2014 v4 '-w I a I •� -4 f ,ague R —� --- -- --.. L, I, Edmo,ids- t_ do pqq _* L a Co Iola 0 WL I R . �` L f} • ' �* F 1 ■ i ` * .+ � 1 1 Lr - { t * 5 ti � G' o � I � # M F Packet -. i Imagers Date: 71261200r3 '47048'44.41" N 122022'05.16" W elev 12-7 ft eye aiL /_:)D�j n 0 l ji 4 fl1 0 X M cQ w 00 40 y 10 ■ 14 04 I ri Attachment: City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt (1385 : Wilhoit Property Donation) ti Af Attachment: City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA—rpt (1385 : Wilhoit Property Donation) w t CD Rit L i 1 - do rl � 1 j a � , * a { dF 1' IL . _ _� a •'• � '� .' ' . � ., } � ~ F '�.' , - ' • � T � � -_tee•- - Y, -' — -F VL — — _ I e-a. 1 { I � 1 a R f.j 0 - C=l lid - - f r L. 1, ' Ir co i y I -7 - A 40 7 1NJ �i RI • ; , r • 1 z• F +j' L 1�[y' ■ � � -F 511 - r I L � ' CD rr s .y } --4r _ Y ,� '6 + ; 5 I • • • • • • • +•• 9• 1. • I L. � w iCO vp jt to iy �!�.'� - ...BLS. ��, Y r.-- ._� _ Jr. or Attachment: City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt (1385 : Wilhoit Property Donation) i % 44 . 1, Mai L f h Av em Ok 4 4b IL6 2'J'4 Val IL Ail %L ip A4. d 16 A ps AL Co AV td NJ Tp� F I — co 'PF q f - �P, iDL PLJ NJ 0 t PLJ- CD fn NJ ph -Ed u ir It t I :3 4L cn jo -W-..r Al; 4L V 1.0 te"N 4MNSEFEEM00- P%b • - it mw op ie (uoi;euoa A:pedoad VOLIHM : SOCO ;d, VS3 I OSe4d 183-1ed MOLL 1M Spuouap310 AM0 :;ugWLj3e;;v y Y y r 3 *d i + S F ,• 1 . ir } Y 4 z F it } } I� i 0 r M • ' Y' �F4i 1 F' ,a � F • 4 ot - # •.r � L4 Ir ` Y '!J4 + ' R- k' c k .yC lk MET ti #: 4 - a � LI .'R4 - ' I � ' ''• • F Tom■ ' I 4 11 • / 1 1 • '1Ji ~ rt / 1 � _ th-Ave, Ll 4r WN JOJ I: t I ,y- i� F 44 • ' t# + 4, + i IF rF it f •J.~ � •• � i • ' • I + '• } R' 4+ L+ F i Lin ' 1-1 - LO 1p _ Q SF � M ,F- CD -- co 0 1 - mm PLJ N PL] O 'Pi F-L I rl M I i �I I--L F k 11DAL - f AA _ Iran I City of Edm M� rty Donation) Ol W V M O 3 cD rMIL 0 13 O (M Z 2) 13 X M Ma O m z 0 i MW Attachment: City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt (1385 : Wilhoit Property Donation) 4.4.b City of Edmonds 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Inquiry Number: 4280457.4 April 30, 2015 (rEDR n 6 Armstreng Read, 41h Hoc -Shelton, Onn nOGUCUt M484 T*IM Free: &00.�$2_005O www.in.dtr%&t.com Packet Pg. 148 4.4.b EDR Historical Topographic Map Report Environmental Data Resources, Inc.s (EDR) Historical Topographic Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topographic Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the early 1900s. Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should the be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2015 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. Packet Pg. 149 P! S 5 Wn c a No ppp o =gagr a ppp Fic Fa pp ..,`1`l;, •� : � � ?,'Poi nr 1 1 _ ------------ I "/Z so e,Coyd /Pt Edwards f''Y.' 1` \� Wells Pr.- i,l Pnes.ident Pr. p �A 1ef arson TARGET QUAD N NAME: SNOHOMISH TMAP YEAR: 1895 SERIES: 30 SCALE: 1:125000 I `�`�11o1 SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen Edmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 Packet Pg. 150 Historical Topographic Map 4.4.b ina,an 7-r. / Ska PO session/. Point L n. Head .l I� I I i i \ Apple Cove Pt.y,. h l Edwards Pt. Itu a,�Kll ll, l � .• - . Ab Wells Pt i ff rI '� .: I;i� llina„II ti\`illl1rS11titl l',o President Pt. .1111•fis-' II lluliinl j r Jefferson Pt. I � - i N. horri7 r �..I �ii• ..1. ! / TARGET QUAD N NAME: SEATTLE TMAP YEAR: 1897 SERIES: 30 SCALE: 1:125000 SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen Edmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 F Packet Pg. 151 Historical Topographic Map Moaner MeadowdalO 33 Browne t - • .y..• y BCd� 04 �'W I:% {'_�. ' III •L I S ` R •I, LO Edmonds -1_ ll iY'� 2 0Ilk 4 23s !i �a1 4a+ e i o 4_ V-- r }.-dwA�ds Pain- �" 30.J ES r i� �i ,z Paint We1ol! : TVJ � i O ' J Raj ,r* .1,r . TARGET QUAD SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. N NAME: EDMONDS ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen T MAP YEAR: 1944 Edmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 SERIES: 15 SCALE: 1:62500 Packet Pg. 152 Historical Topographic Map *4 9� ,I rl\ '7 KING Fd—d, Flo int % Norma q fil B4 IIII 0 ote da CL IL 0 U) 00 LU V. Moull(LOw - orn 0tr(� Uj 0 #1 (D TARGET QUAD SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. N NAME: EDMONDS ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen T MAP YEAR: 1953 Edmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 / -122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 SERIES: 15 SCALE: 1:62500 IPacket Pg. 153 1 TARGET QUAD SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. N NAME: EDMONDS EAST ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen T MAP YEAR: 1953 Edmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 SERIES: 7.5 SCALE: 1:24000 Packet Pg. 154 Historical Topographic Map 4.4.b TARGET QUAD N NAME: EDMONDS EAST TMAP YEAR: 1968 PHOTOREVISED FROM :1953 SERIES: 7.5 SCALE: 1:24000 SITE NAME: City of Edmonds ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street Edmonds, WA 98020 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. CONTACT: Heather Nielsen INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 Packet Pg. 155 Historical Topographic Map 4.4.b TARGET QUAD N NAME: EDMONDS EAST TMAP YEAR: 1973 PHOTOREVISED FROM :1953 SERIES: 7.5 SCALE: 1:24000 SITE NAME: City of Edmonds ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street Edmonds, WA 98020 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. CONTACT: Heather Nielsen INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 Packet Pg. 156 TARGET QUAD N NAME: EDMONDS EAST TMAP YEAR: 1981 PHOTOREVISED FROM :1953 SERIES: 7.5 SCALE: 1:24000 Historical Topographic Map SITE NAME: City of Edmonds ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street Edmonds, WA 98020 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. CONTACT: Heather Nielsen INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 Packet Pg. 157 Historical Topographic Map 4.4.b ADJOINING QUAD NAME: EDMONDS WEST SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. N MAP YEAR: 1953 ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen TEdmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 SERIES: 7.5 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 SCALE: 1:24000 Packet Pg. 158 Historical Topographic Map 4.4.b a C NAME: EDMONDS WEST N MAP YEAR: 1968 TPHOTOREVISED FROM :1953 SERIES: 7.5 SCALE: 1:24000 SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen Edmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 Packet Pg. 159 Historical Topographic Map 4.4.b N NAME: EDMONDS WEST N MAP YEAR: 1973 TPHOTOREVISED FROM :1953 SERIES: 7.5 SCALE: 1:24000 Edwards. Jm l 1 SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen Edmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 Packet Pg. 160 Historical Topographic Map 4.4.b NAME: EDMONDS WEST N MAP YEAR: 1978 TPHOTOINSPECTED FROM: 1953 SERIES: 7.5 SCALE: 1:24000 SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen Edmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 Packet Pg. 161 Historical Topographic Map 4.4.b r /' .-. O Q r -"" ,4 a LO ao CL LU aiLl 1 i a. d -•: ~ Edwa r / p � 1 iV vx ?ao W ??try i��d } 1 Sri �� • � V PA K } Q l I �ti NAME: EDMONDS WEST SITE NAME: City of Edmonds CLIENT: Landau Associates, Inc. N MAP YEAR: 1997 ADDRESS: 8th Avenue N/Edmonds Street CONTACT: Heather Nielsen TEdmonds, WA 98020 INQUIRY#: 4280457.4 SERIES: 7.5 LAT/LONG: 47.8123 /-122.3682 RESEARCH DATE: 04/30/2015 SCALE: 1:24000 Packet Pg. 162 M O 3 cD rMIL v fMIL �v CD O C MN 0 cD c.Q CD X M 13 O m z 0 i u Attachment: City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt (1385 : Wilhoit Property Donation) 4.4.b City of Edmonds 8th Avenue N Edmonds Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Inquiry Number: 4280457.5 May 04, 2015 6 Armstrong Road Shelton, CT 06484 800.352.0050 CEDR9 Environmental Data Resources Inc www.edrnet.com Packet Pg. 164 4.4.b SECTION Executive Summary Findings City Directory Images TABLE OF CONTENTS Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction orforecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2015 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. Packet Pg. 165 4.4.b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Environmental Data Resources, Inc.'s (EDR) City Directory Report is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's City Directory Report includes a search of available city directory data at 5 year intervals. RESEARCH SUMMARY The following research sources were consulted in the preparation of this report. A check mark indicates where information was identified in the source and provided in this report. Year Target Street Cross Street Source 2013 0 Q Cole Information Services 2008 0 Q Cole Information Services 2003 0 Q Cole Information Services 1999 0 Cole Information Services 1995 0 Q Cole Information Services 1992 0 Q Cole Information Services 1985 0 Q Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1980 0 Q Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1975 0 Q Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1970 0 Q Cole Criss -Cross Directory RECORD SOURCES EDR is licensed to reproduce certain City Directory works by the copyright holders of those works. The purchaser of this EDR City Directory Report may include it in report(s) delivered to a customer. Reproduction of City Directories without permission of the publisher or licensed vendor may be a violation of copyright. c 0 :r c� c 0 0 1` m a 0 L d r 0 t LO 00 M 4280457-5 Pagel Packet Pg. 166 4.4.b FINDINGS TARGET PROPERTY STREET 8th Avenue N Edmonds Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Year CD Image Source 9TH AVE N 2013 pg Al Cole Information Services 2008 pg A3 Cole Information Services 2003 pg A5 Cole Information Services 1999 pg A7 Cole Information Services 1995 pg A9 Cole Information Services 1992 pg All Cole Information Services 1985 pg A13 Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1980 pg A15 Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1975 pg A17 Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1970 pg A19 Cole Criss -Cross Directory c 0 :r c� c 0 0 1` m a 0 L d r 0 t LO 00 M 4280457-5 Page 2 Packet Pg. 167 4.4.b FINDINGS CROSS STREETS Year CD Image Source EDMONDS ST 2013 pg. A2 Cole Information Services 2008 pg. A4 Cole Information Services 2003 pg. A6 Cole Information Services 1999 pg. A8 Cole Information Services 1995 pg. Al Cole Information Services 1992 pg. Al Cole Information Services 1985 pg. A14 Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1980 pg. Al Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1975 pg. Al Cole Criss -Cross Directory 1970 pg. A20 Cole Criss -Cross Directory c O :r c� c O 1` m O L d r 0 t LO 00 M 4280457-5 Page 3 Packet Pg. 168 C City Directory Images Target Street Cross Street 9TH "E N 2013 Source Cole Information Services 120 MATT ABEYTA PSCKENMORE 125 BONNIE THOMAS 221 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 311 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 322 DON STARTZMAN 408 ERICA BERGMAN 412 ZACK SIVAKUA 416 BODIL ARSVOLD 503 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 506 PETER BENVENUTI 509 ERIC THUESEN 522 SAM HATCH 529 STEVEN MCCLURE 530 CAROLYN MANGELSDORF 604 JOEL WILLIAMS 612 JOSEPH AIGUIER 643 RANDY JOHNSON 645 JOHN WISKERCHEN 647 ASEEM PRAKASH 657 ROBERT CAMPBELL 702 LIONEL KAGLEY 707 PAUL WEBSTER 715 K CORWIN C 4280457.5 Page: Al Target Street Cross Street Source V, Cole Information Services EDMONDS ST 2013 311 MAPLE PARK DIGITAL LLC PC PALOOZA LLC DBA COMPUTERFIX 315 GREG OLSON 330 CHLOE MAILER 332 LORRAINE REED 403 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 418 ALF TOMSON 505 ASHLEY PETTY JOBETH KEELEY JOHN FUNG TRAVIS GERALD 714 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 720 RANDY MILLER 723 JEFF NEILSEN 728 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 729 BETH WHITNEY 733 BRUCE TONEY 739 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN SCHEUERMAN THERESE 741 BERNARD HOOVER 745 NEIL THOMPSON 746 PATRICIA FESTER 750 DARRELL MARMION 751 QUENTIN JURIN 810 RICH REBENSTORF 811 BILLY ANDERSON 818 DANIEL RADLEY 820 RICHARD THORPE 821 FERENC GERGELY 827 SCOTT LINDENMUTH 830 JAMIE HUNTER 850 KAREN PHILLIPS 909 CRAIG SMITH 910 JAMES DRAKE 914 MARCUS OLDELEHR 917 GREGORY BEACH 920 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 923 WILLIAM SCHENCK 925 JOHNINE GREGORY 934 DENNY LUCE 935 RACHAEL DROUIN 941 JOSEPH SCHMAUS 945 ELNO NIEMI 950 ELEANOR ANDERSEN 960 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 965 DONALD WAYNE 1000 GLENN KELTTO 1010 VERNE WOOD 1020 CHARLES MCMILLEN 1026 LINDSAY MEAD C 4280457.5 Page: A2 Target Street Cross Street 9TH "E N 2008 Source Cole Information Services 120 CHRISTINA SOWEL 125 BONNIE THOMAS 221 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 311 JEFF DEVINE 322 FRANCIS WERTSBAUGH 408 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 412 JO DRAKE 416 BODIL ARSVOLD 503 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 506 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 509 ERIC THUESEN 522 HELON ERVIN 529 JUDITH TOURTELLOT 530 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 604 DONALD MAYFIELD 612 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 643 RANDY JOHNSON 647 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN RELIABLE REMODEL 657 WILLIAM KASPER 702 LIONEL KAGLEY 707 ANDREW SELDEN ANDREW SELDEN TILE & STONE 715 KEVIN CORWIN C 4280457.5 Page: A3 Target Street Cross Street Source V, Cole Information Services EDMONDS ST 2008 311 RENATE METHE 315 LEE FITZPATRICK 330 LARISSA CHUPRINA MARMION ORCHARDS 332 A MCKINNEY 403 ROBERT WARFIELD 418 DENNIS DURHAM 505 DONNA SNELL MARILIE MARSHALL 714 DANIEL GOW 720 RANDY MILLER 723 JEFF NEILSEN 728 CHARLES CROUSE 729 DONALD WHITNEY 733 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 739 JOSEPH SCHEUERMAN 741 BERNARD HOOVER 745 JOSEPH SCHMAUS 746 TRACY BRIGGS 750 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 751 ANDEW SHEAPRED 810 RICH REBENSTORF 811 HAROLD MUSTARD 820 RICHARD THORPE 821 DENIS MURPHY 827 SCOTT LINDENMUTH 830 JAMIE HUNTER 850 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 909 CRAIG SMITH 910 JAMES DRAKE 914 MARCUS OLDELEHR 917 GREGORY BEACH 920 RONALD HAMMILL 923 WILLIAM SCHENCK 925 STEPHEN GREGORY 934 DENNY LUCE 935 DORIS FITZPATRICK THOMAS DROUIN 945 EINO NIEMI 950 ARNOLD ANDERSEN 960 TOM SANGER 965 PETER AYE 1000 KEIJO HYVONEN 1010 BARBARA TURNER 1020 CHARLES MCMILLEN 1026 WENDELL MEAD C 4280457.5 Page: A4 Target Street Cross Street 9TH "E N 2003 Source Cole Information Services 120 LEONA SOWELL 125 THOMAS PRICE 221 MICHAEL MONTANARI 311 JAMES WARD 322 FRANCIS WERTSBAUGH 408 BRENT SOMMERSETH 412 KOSES SIVAKUA 416 RAY ARSVOLD 503 JUDY WALGAMOTT 506 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 522 HELON ERVIN 529 JASON TOURTELLOT 604 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 612 VIRGINIA DEAVER 643 RANDY JOHNSON 647 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 657 WILLIAM KASPER 702 PAUL VOLPE 707 ANDREW SELDEN 715 KEVIN CORWIN C 4280457.5 Page: A5 Target Street Cross Street Source V, Cole Information Services EDMONDS ST 2003 311 APRONS GALORE PLUS 315 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 330 HENRY MARMION 332 A MCKINNEY 403 ROBERT WARFIELD 418 JASON AUGUST 505 BLUES BOX CABINETS DONNA SNELL HAYWIRE JUDISSA ANDERS ROBERT WARFIELD ROBERT WYATT 714 DANIEL GOW 720 KRISTI HILDAHL 723 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 728 CHARLES CROUSE 729 DONALD WHITNEY 733 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 739 FRED SCHEUERMAN 741 BERNARD HOOVER 745 JOHN WULF 750 STEVEN COOK 751 THOMAS BELT 810 RICH REBENSTORF 811 BILLY ANDERSON 818 DANIEL RADLEY 820 RICHARD THORPE 821 FERENC GERGELY 827 SCOTT LINDENMUTH 830 MATTHEW MITCHELL 850 WILLIAM PHILLIPS 909 CRAIG SMITH 910 JAMES DRAKE 917 GREGORY BECK 920 DENNIS KARL 923 PRESENTATION CASE LTD WILLIAM SCHENCK 925 STEPHEN GREGORY 934 DENNY LUCE 935 LES FITZPATRICK 945 EINO NIEMI 950 ARNOLD ANDERSEN 960 VERNI BROOKS 965 PETER AYE 1000 KEIJO HYVONEN 1010 GEORGE TURNER 1020 CHARLES MCMILLEN 1026 WENDELL MEAD C 4280457.5 Page: A6 Target Street Cross Street 9TH "E N 1999 Source Cole Information Services 120 DORI WHITE 125 BONNIE THOMAS 205 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 221 CONRAD CALLAHAN 311 KINNELLS SCOTTISH TEA OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 322 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 408 BRENT SOMMERSETH 412 JO DRAKE-SIVAKUA 416 W ASHTON 506 PETER BENVENUTI 522 HELON ERVIN 529 JUDITH TOURTELLOT 612 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 643 RANDY JOHNSON 647 ALMA HUSBY 657 WILLIAM KASPER 702 PAUL VOLPE 707 WILLIAM TRUDEAU 715 KEVIN CORWIN C 4280457.5 Page: A7 Target Street Cross Street Source f Cole Information Services EDMONDS ST 1999 315 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 330 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 332 KEVIN MCKINNEY 714 DANIAL GOW 723 DEBBIE VEVIK 728 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 729 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 733 JOHN KAPLAN 739 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 741 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 745 JOE SCHMAUS 810 HAROLD SCHMIDT RICH REBENSTORF 811 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 818 DANIEL RADLEY 820 MARY THORPE 827 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN 830 MATTHEW MITCHELL 850 WILLIAM PHILLIPS 909 BOYLE DAVE A CAPT CRAIG SMITH 910 JAMES DRAKE 917 SUSAN STELZER 920 RON HAMMILL 923 RESTAURANT ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS 934 JAY LUCE 935 LESLIE FITZPATRICK 945 EINO NIEMI 950 ARNOLD ANDERSEN 960 VERNI BROOKS 965 DIANNE SHINER 1010 RAYMOND TURNER 1020 CHARLES MCMILLEN 1026 WENDELL MEAD C 4280457.5 Page: A8 Target Street Cross Street 9TH "E N 1995 Source Cole Information Services 120 BENTHALL, PAUL 211 CALLAHAN, CONRAD N 221 CALLAHAN, CONRAD 311 GODFREY, BRETT 408 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN 412 DRAKESIVAKUA, JO SIVAKUA, KOSES 503 WOLGAMOTT, FRED A 506 BENVENUTI, PETER 529 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN 530 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN 643 JOHNSON, RANDY T 647 BOX, A 657 KASPER, WILLIAM J 702 VOLPE, PAUL A 707 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN 709 OKEEFE, DANIEL 715 ZIPPER, JOHN C 4280457.5 Page: A9 Target Street Cross Street Source f Cole Information Services EDMONDS ST 1995 311 AIR RIGHT SEATTLE BUKIS, MICHAEL LAMENDOLA, BENNY MCMANUS, J SONGY, JAMES 315 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN 330 MARKER, PATRICK C 332 MCKINNEY, KEVIN 403 GEHLEN, MARK 418 PETERS, BRENT 505 ANDERS, JUDISSA J 714 ROSSELET, NANCY 720 HILDAHL, JOEL A 723 JOHNSON, ELMER JR 728 CROUSE, FLOYD 729 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN 741 HOOVER, JOAN 745 FIORITO, KAREN 750 STEVEN COOK ACOUSTIC KEYBOARD 810 REBENSTORF, RICH SCHMIDT, HAROLD 811 KINCAID, MAXINE 818 BOLAND, JAMES 820 THORPE, MARY P 821 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN 827 LINDENMUTH, SCOTT S 850 PHILLIPS, WILLIAM V 909 BOYLE, DAVE A 910 DRAKE, JAMES A 917 STELLER, KEITH 920 HAMMILL, RON 921 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN 923 SCHENCK, WILLIAM J 925 GREGORY, STEPHEN 934 LUCE, JAY 935 FITZPATRICK, LESLIE B 950 ANDERSEN, ARNOLD C 960 BROOKS, VERNI 1000 HYVONEN, KEIJO W 1010 TURNER, RAYMOND G 1020 MCMILLEN, CHARLES D 1026 MEAD, WENDELL B C 4280457.5 Page: A10 Target Street Cross Street 9TH "E N 1992 Source Cole Information Services 120 BENTHALL, PAUL 221 CALLAHAN, CONRAD 311 GODFREY, BRET 412 DRAKESIVAKUA, JO SIVAKUA, KOSES 416 ASHTON, W A 503 WOLGAMOTT, FRED A 506 BENVENUTI, PETER 522 ERVIN, HELON M 643 JOHNSON, RANDY T 647 KVERNENES, KAREN 707 TRUDEAU, WILLIAM F 715 ZIPPER, JOHN C 4280457.5 Page: Al Target Street Cross Street Source f Cole Information Services EDMONDS ST 1992 311 A BETTER WORLD BETTER WORLD CO 403 PAIGE, GEORGE 720 HILDAHL, JOEL A 723 JOHNSON, ELMER JR 728 CROUSE, FLOYD 750 S COOK KEYBRD SV 810 REBENSTORF, RICH SCHMIDT, HAROLD 811 GRAHAM, TERRY D 818 BOLAND, JAMES 820 THORPE, RICHARD J 821 ROKEBERG, JANE M 827 LINDENMUTH, SCOTT S 830 MITCHELL, MATTHEW P 850 PHILLIPS, WILLIAM V 909 BOYLE, DAVE A 910 DRAKE, JAMES A 920 HAMMILL, RON 921 CLONINGER, PAUL C 925 FARREL, JOHN J 930 NELSON, WALTER D 934 LUCE, JAY 935 FITZPATRICK, LESLIE B 950 ANDERSEN, ARNOLD C 960 BROOKS, VERNI 1000 HYVONEN, KEIJO W 1010 TURNER, RAYMOND G 1020 MCMILLEN, CHARLES D 1026 MEAD, WENDELL B C 4280457.5 Page: Al2 Target Street Cross Street Source - Cole Criss -Cross Directory 9TH AVE N 1985 • 9TH AVE N 98424 1- 1699 '1 505 $A F36 074500 110 NP 120 Paul 8 nth ll 76 774-4670 125 Albert E Carter 79 775-0374 1 Conrad Callahan 81 7 7 ; 86 11 Laddie J Aglarap 76 7 71 -6532 322 405 NP 8 8 Beaman 82 774 - 8487 412 Phillip 1f Butler 83 7 1- 3421 416 VV Andrew Ashton 83 775-9807 503 Or F A 11 l amott 66 77 - 1595 06 Peter Benvenuti 77 778 - 8770 515 NP 522 H M Ervtn 79 778-5-425 529 r S L Steeves 67 774-4060 0 Garr R Greenwood 83 7 7 - 81 604 NP 612 George Buckley 11 775-8492 643 Frank J Porter 81 77-1 647 mes 83 771 -3250 C 4280457.5 Page: A13 Target Street Cross Street Source V-1, Cole Criss -Cross Directory EDMONDS ST 1985 8 �11• UVIt haul i 4+ Floyd Crouse 61 1 78 - 80 729 Tom Sickler 11 7 1- 7010 747 P 750 A M Moms 83 775- 4727 1 0 L Bruce ,Ones 83 776-- 8317 811 L A Lind 83 7 8- 2975 J M Trawl 7 6 - 4337 818 Wayne antra 1 7 - 2914 Wayne L Nattrass 81 7 7 8- 2642 8 0 Richard J Thorpe 75 775-2380 821 Jane M Rber 7 - 1570 7 Scott S Undenmuth 80776-6362 0 NP O Wt1harn V Phillip* • 75 778-4892 909 S L Boyle 75 77 - 70 910 James A Drake 81 771 - 2485 1 Paul C Cloninger 69 774-5295 925 John J Farrel 65 776- 2773 934 Denison J Luce 76 7 7- 6203 935 L 9 Fit pairick 77 77 - 8108 QA6; Finn jam, A 1 7 7Q C 4280457.5 Page: A14 Target Street Cross Street V _ 9TH AVE N 1980 Source Cole Criss -Cross Directory 9TH AVE N #- 199 072360 120 Paul Banthall . E . # . * . pm78 125 A Iberl E CoOlor .... , . . 79 Lddis J rap ♦ i J 05 Wilbur El OiM . * • r ■ ■ . r 408 1 . # .. a a a a # . • • ■ NP 06 Pole I l . • # # • a • 1 22 • # * . 4 4 q f # # . f • H M Ervin * 0 # # GNP • • 679 29 . • * , Dr S L Stwmi # # . ! • i * .67 530 W An&ew AOW - a a 0 w W77 98020 $B--D le #7 1 776-1595 776-5425 0W 775-9807 612 David M Strang# , .078 774-8987 C 4280457.5 Page: A15 Target Street Cross Street Source V-1, Cole Criss -Cross Directory EDMONDS ST 1980 747 0 ,�#.f.;..i.... DV4M I Cook .... . mid R Ley . • • . 810 Ronald Wilhom .. . oil 0 818 ! # . # , ■ } . • • s R dwd J T" 1 w * 827 # # , . . . # i i i • Scott Lin mouth O Y D Jorgansw.. • O Willem v P111li� ■ . . • 909 S L Boyle . i l t ... 1 Paul C C 925 JoW J Farrel . . 934 DWiW J Lum 935 L B Fitzpatrick • . ■ , . 945 Eft S N*mi ... ■ . . 0 Amold C Andersen . i 960 Sa a Ta.naka i i i i i 965 Cdr M] W Riley # � W Ohl O lOn * • # • 1010 R Georoe T umr i 1020 Charles 0 McMillen ■ # 1026 Wardell B Mead . * 1033 teeth M rnugh . . . 1036 Loyd W Clark ... . 1039 E G Ms.... ,. .1VP . • # a 7 76-6362 • .. -68 . . - 4892 * 3 - .. o . .. -2773 * r . -0 .77 "108 + 4 .61 - 5779 . 4 -11 i.4. - 6526 r , 78 -063 1 .. i66 -1 • w65 776-1557 # • 0 6454 778-4985 . 681 .. m62 778-7619 ... -1 35 4280457.5 Page: A16 Target Street Cross Street Source V - Cole Criss -Cross Directory 9TH "E N 1975 TH AVE N 98020 0 a • 00 0.0 a a a* #. 0 00 a 9* 0.0 00 a a-8# 0 a a 0 0 0 • 0 0 1� 1699 T 505 S8*wD 311 00NALD 8 CHELIN 322 NP 405 0 M MILLER 3 7787915 W I LBUR 8 OLSON 7787915 06 PETER J SOMMERSETH 7784087 3 OR F A WOLGANC)TT 6 7761595 506 ESTHER MOSS 7787690 JAMES RAMSAY 7784536 Isis NP 522 H H MILLHOLLAND 7785425 0 00NALD A HARD I ES 4 7745886 604 F 612 J V BIGFORD 7781569 643 APT A S EINMO 7785681 A-F A& a s i a W i i • a — 7 rqo " -A 'wr A i C 4280457.5 Page: A17 Target Street Cross Street Source - f Cole Criss -Cross Directory EDMONDS ST 1975 728 FLOYD GROUSE 7786860 729 E N COLLINS A 7751325 747 NP 750 OONAL D I COOK 7784552 810 S M CRAG 4 7745913 `'•~ 8] 1 L A L I ND 07782510 LAWPENCE H LIND —778 510 81 8 FRANK D HARDAN 7761343 820 R I CHARD J THORPE —7752380 621 NP 830 Y D JORGENSEN =7749687 850 WILLIAN V PHILLIR —7784892 909 S L BOYLE -7767480 921 PAUL C CLONINGER 9 7745295 925 JOHN J FARREL 7762773 934 ALBERT all CONSAN I —7780432 45 E INO S N1EMi 7765779 950 ARNOLD C ANDERSEN 7781891 960 SANAE TANAKA 9 7786526 965 DON TORGET 4 7742973 1000 CHARL S E OLSON 8 7783619 1010 N TURNER U7745053 R GEORGE TURNER 7761557 1020 CHARLES D MCMILLEN 7764354 1026 WENDELL 8 MEAD 7784985 1033 KENNETH MINUGH 7786816 1036 L OYD W CLARK 7787619 4280457.5 Page: A18 Target Street Cross Street Source V - Cole Criss -Cross Directory 9TH "E N 1970 9 H AVE N 98020 iw 0 6 6. 1- 1699 T 505 SAewD 1 1 T SIPS ECNA ANDERSON2 PR87661 205 N 311 0 NALD F CHELIN 9 77842431 22 P E ROWLAND 7 PR84637 405 WILeUR a OLSON P 0 91 AFC HALL F MILLER PR87915 408 p 416 LEE CALK INS 503 R F A WULGAMOTT 506 EST MOSS 3 515 ILL i MIN 522 H H M 1LL OLL N 9DR SL L STEEVES 530 R J MYHRE 604 EL D N M R R I LL 612 J V BIGFORD 43 CAPT A S EINMO R MCMILLEN 702 AL G DDW 7766256 PR i 9 PF 8 79 PR29 PR65425 7744060 PR84393 RR814 Peel PA95681 P P C 4280457.5 Page: A19 Target Street Cross Street Source - V' Cole Criss -Cross Directory EDMONDS ST 1970 7 1 4 LAA E MARCY'6 7782413 723 ELMER JOHNSON JR 5 7782433 728 FL0 CiE PRa 729 E ER TT J RUSS LL U7 494 4 747 L. Ai S A HENNUM PRO2687 150 DO IALO I COOK PRe45052 811 EDWAPD S LELAND U7769218 1B FRANK C HAPDAN PP 1 4 80 DONN A SHARP 9 770 821 RON A KNUTSON 8 PR80065 8.30 W ILL I M V P ILL I PS 4 PR6489 909 LEONIDAS S JO DAN4 PR 0028 921 PAS. C CLONINR 9 7745295 925 ,SO N J FARREL 5 PR 277 945 ETNO S N IEMI PR65779 = 0 ARNOLD C ANDER S N PR61891 90 SANAE TAlAA 9 7782 1000 COARLES E OLSON 6 PR83619 1010 R GEORGETURNER 5 7761557 JORO CHARL ES D MC M I LLE N PR64354 1026 W E NDCLL B MEAD P P 8 4 9 8 103) KeNNETH M [NU GH PR0 81 1036 LCVD W CLARK 2 PR7 1 9 1039 M C MCLENNAN PP 655e a 0% a. 4% is a a r% /• t t a i I Ell � # m # a- �a a, a� V% W% a 1% Aft -m C 4280457.5 Page: A20 101 0 h M 0 3 cD fMIL Mu 0 h 0 In D T m z 9 X T I Attachment: City of Edmonds Willhoit Parcel Phase I ESA_rpt (1385 : Wilhoit Property Donation) 4.4.b Tim Syverson, L.G. Senior Associate Expertise Tim is the environmental due diligence/Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) practice lead for Landau Associates. He has more than 20 years Due Diligence &Risk of consulting experience focused on project development and management for Management various regional, national, and international industrial, governmental, and retail Environmental Site clients — including Daniels Real Estate, Wilbur -Ellis Company, Crop Production Assessments and Services, The Boeing Company, the Washington State Department of Investigations Transportation (WSDOT), and Home Depot USA, Inc. His work for these clients has Regulatory Analysis/Agency included property assessments including due diligence for property acquisition or Negotiations divestiture, the design and implementation of subsurface investigations, development of remedial strategies and identification of appropriate cleanup Site Characterization & levels, and working with the project team engineer in the design and Remediation implementation of corrective actions. Project Management North Lot Development, LLC/Daniels Real Estate, Qwest/Century Link Field North Lot; Seattle, WA. Tim is the project manager for environmental services in support of the purchase, cleanup, and re -development of the 3.85-acre North Lot parking Education lot. The scope of work to date has included a Phase I ESA, reviewing relevant M.S., Geology, Western historical facility and regulatory documents, focused Phase 11 soil and groundwater Washington University, 1984 sampling and analysis to address data gaps identified during the Phase I ESA, supplemental drilling and sampling to complete a MTCA Remedial Investigation and B.S., Geology, University of Feasibility Study (RI/FS), preparation and implementation of a Cleanup Action Plan Minnesota, Duluth, 1981 (CAP). The RI/FS and draft CAP were completed under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The final CAP and the Cleanup Action was implemented under a Prospective Purchaser Consent Decree negotiated with Ecology. Registration/Certification Home Depot USA, On -Call Environmental Services; Various Sites, OR and WA. Licensed Geologist/ Project manager for ongoing support for this major retail developer for property Hydrogeologist: Washington, acquisition and site redevelopment. Services include Phase I and 11 due diligence No. 901 assessments for property acquisition, characterization of soil and groundwater in Registered Professional the areas where hazardous substances have been released to the environment, Geologist: Oregon, evaluation of the regulatory status of the released substances, quantification of the No. G1342 liabilities associated with future potential cleanup actions and onsite management of hazardous substances during site development. Projects in Oregon include assessment of sites in Hermiston, The Dalles, Newport, and Eugene. Phase I and II ESAs, Soil Remedial Action — Aerospace Facility; Kent, WA. Project manager for a due diligence assessment for potential sale or lease of a more than 100-acre industrial facility. The assessment included review of facility and regulatory agency files, site operational history, and physical site conditions to assess potential conditions of environmental concern that could pose a liability to the client or future owners/lessees. The results of the initial assessment were used to develop a work plan for site investigations to document current site conditions and evaluate potential conditions of environmental concern. The Phase I assessment, preparation of a Phase II work plan, and completion of the Phase II field investigations were conducted in a 2-month period to meet the client's due diligence schedule. An independent cleanup of soil was contracted under the Voluntary Cleanup Program, and a No Further Action determination was received from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 14 LAr* i)AL+� SSCKIII Packet Pg. 191 4.4.b Tim Syverson, L.G. Phase I and II ESAs and Underground Storage Tank (UST) Removals for 10 Former Page 2 Gasoline Station Properties; Various Locations, OR and WA. Project manager for site assessment and closure, many including expanded Phase I ESAs with supplemental soil and groundwater sampling and analysis, the decommissioning and removal of UST systems, collecting soil confirmation samples for analysis, and preparing site characterization reports. The work was conducted to assess soil and groundwater conditions for the potential presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and/or their byproducts, and to ensure compliance with Ecology Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup levels. Landau Associates also provided oversight of the UST removal and collected confirmation samples to ensure compliance with state regulations. Wilbur -Ellis Company On -Call Environmental Services; OR and WA. Project manager for environmental services for this national agricultural chemical, fertilizer distribution, and supply company. Services include support related to property sale or acquisition, characterization of soil and groundwater, hazardous materials handling and disposition, and regulatory compliance. Projects in Oregon include assessment of facilities in Portland, Jefferson, and Woodburn. WSDOT On -Call Hazardous Waste Services; Various Sites, WA. Project manager for environmental services provided to WSDOT in support of various road improvement projects. The work to date has included underground storage tank (UST)/aboveground storage tank (AST) decommissioning and follow-on remedial actions, as needed; site assessment and inspection work in support of property acquisition for roadway rights -of -way; and expedited support for handling and appropriate disposal of potentially hazardous materials encountered during roadway projects. Environmental Claim Evaluations, Confidential Client, 31 sites; WA, OR, ID, AZ, and CA. Project manager for preparation of site assessments and summaries of 164 environmental claims at agricultural chemical sites in multiple states. The work included reviewing available site -specific soil and groundwater analytical data collected by the previous operation in the context of applicable state and federal regulations and preparing summary reports for each claim. The work was completed to support a cost allocation and liability settlement with the previous owner/operator to meet the terms of the client's purchase agreement. 14 LArgi)AL+l SSCKII Packet Pg. 192 4.4.b Heather Nielsen, R.G., L.G. Senior Staff Geologist Expertise Heather Nielsen is a senior staff geologist with 8 years of experience in the environmental Environmental Site consulting industry. Her experience includes Phase I and II site investigations, hazardous Assessments buildings materials (HBM) surveys, groundwater monitoring, stormwater sampling, drilling oversight, permitting, data evaluation, and reporting. She has designed HBM surveys Hazardous Building based on facility size and type of materials present. Heather has also performed fieldwork Materials Surveys on numerous cleanup projects involving the removal and remediation of chlorinated Site Characterization solvents, gasoline -related compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, and Groundwater Monitoring metals. Storm water Sampling Heather has conducted multiple Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) throughout Oregon and Washington. Properties include undeveloped land, residential Subsurface Investigations properties, and commercial/industrial spaces. Heather is based in Portland, Oregon. TriMet, On -Call Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Services; Portland, Education OR. Senior staff geologist responsible for daily management of this contract. Heather conducts Phase I ESAs and designs HBM suveys (both visual and invasive) around the M.S., Geology, Portland greater Portland area. Some projects include follow-up Phase II work, including subsurface State University, 2005 soil investigations, surficial soil sampling, soil vapor sampling, heating oil tank B.S., Geology, University investigations, and underground injection control sampling. Work has included multiple of Puget Sound, 2003 properties with multiple owners needing to be organized into single cohesive reports. Heather has supported 64 TriMet Phase 1 (-44) and Phase II (-20) ESA projects under this contract. Registration Portland Development Commission (PDC), Flexible Services Contract to Provide Registered Geologist, Environmental Services; Portland, OR. Senior staff geologist responsible for conducting 2012/Oregon, Phase I investigations and HBM surveys throughout the Portland area. Some projects No. G2160 include follow-up Phase II work, including subsurface soil investigations, surficial soil sampling, heating oil tank investigations, and geophysical surveys. Licensed Geologist, 2013/Washington, Metro, On -Call Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment Services; OR. Senior staff No. 3010 geologist responsible for conducting Phase I investigations throughout the Portland area. Some projects include follow-up Phase II work, including subsurface soil investigations and surficial soil sampling. Certification Port of Vancouver, Environmental Due Diligence; Vancouver, WA. Conducted a Phase I Transportation Worker investigation on the Moorage 5/Hickey Property. Heather's responsibilities included Identification Credential scheduling with the client, conducting a site reconnaissance, interviews, records research, (TWIC) file review, Environmental Data Resource report review, and report preparation. Recognized environmental conditions were identified for the property and Phase II recommendations Asbestos Building were made. Inspector 24-hour Training Home Depot, Due Diligence Phase 1/11 Environmental Site Assessment; Battle Ground, OSHA WA. Staff geologist responsible for conducting a Phase I ESA on industrial and residential HAZWOPER PER Tr Training land in Clark County. The Phase I ESA found recognized environmental conditions and a Confined Space Entry follow-up Phase II ESA was conducted. The Phase II ESA included subsurface investigation First Aid and CPR Training for the collection and characterization of soil and groundwater samples. Port of Newport, International Terminal, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; Newport, OR. Staff geologist responsible for conducting a Phase 11 ESA of the former Navy barge, the SS Hennebique. Field activities involved obtaining samples and inspecting the sunken hull, currently used as a loading dock by the Port of Newport. Planet Granite, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; Portland, OR; Senior staff geologist responsible for design, implementation, and reporting of HBM survey services on a commercial/industrial site in northwest Portland. P K I I % L I I __ r Packet Pg. 193 4.4.c RETURN ADDRESS: City of Edmonds City Clerk 121 5"' Avenue N Edmonds, Washington 98020 Reference No: n/a Grantor: Doyle Willhoit Grantee: City of Edmonds Legal Desc.: Lots 27, 28 and 29, City of Edmonds, Block 80, Volume 2 of Plats Tax ID #: 004342-080-027-00 DEED The GRANTOR, Doyle Willhoit, an unmarried person, does hereby grant and convey as a gift, without warranties, to the GRANTEE, City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, all of his right, title and interest in, the following described real estate, together with all after acquired title of the Grantor herein, other than any title hereafter acquired by Grantor from Grantee. Lots 27, 28 and 29, City of Edmonds, Block 80 according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, in Snohomish County, Washington. TOGETHER with the North 10 feet of vacated Edmonds Street lying adjacent thereto per Ordinance No. 1430, recorded under Auditor's File No. 2105195, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. DATED this Doyle Willhoit By: STATE OF )SS COUNTY OF day of 92016. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Doyle Willhoit is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated (Seal or stamp) Signature Title My appointment expires Acknowledgement of acceptance of deed by the City of Edmonds this day of , 2016: David O. Earling, Mayor Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 194 4.4.d RETURN ADDRESS: City of Edmonds City Clerk 121 5"' Avenue N Edmonds, Washington 98020 Reference No: n/a Grantor: Doyle Willhoit Grantee: City of Edmonds Legal Desc.: Lots 27, 28 and 29, City of Edmonds, Block 80, Volume 2 of Plats Tax ID #: 004342-080-027-00 DEED The GRANTOR, Doyle Willhoit, an unmarried person, does hereby grant and convey as a gift, without warranties, to the GRANTEE, City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, all of his right, title and interest in, the following described real estate, together with all after acquired title of the Grantor herein, other than any title hereafter acquired by Grantor from Grantee. Lots 27, 28 and 29, City of Edmonds, Block 80 according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, in Snohomish County, Washington. TOGETHER with the North 10 feet of vacated Edmonds Street lying adjacent thereto per Ordinance No. 1430, recorded under Auditor's File No. 2105195, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. DATED this � day of , 2016, Doyle ]ho" ,� By: STATE.y }SS COUNTY Ol• j I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Doyle Willhoit is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated 2 01( By: (Seal or �� CYNTHIA D. NOTARY PUHM011 Tentl.4 Uzi - STATE OF WASHINGT?Squ COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 29, 2018 the City of Edmonds this _ day of , 2016: David O. Earling, Mayor Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 195 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Amendment #3 ILA WDFW Fishing Pier Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History City Council has previously authorized an Interlocal Agreement with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the management of the design and rehabilitation of the Fishing Pier. Council also authorized two amendments to this contract. The original ILA authorized the design of the project. The first amendment authorized the construction. The second amendment extended the contract and defined the construction. On February 9, 2016, Council awarded the contract for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project to Razz Construction. On May 17, 2016, Staff provided a project update and preliminary budget to the City Council for additional repairs to the Fishing Pier. On June 14, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the June 21st consent agenda for approval. Council approved the change order on June 21, 2016, to incorporate all the changes identified thus far. On July 12, 2016, Council forwarded this item for approval on the consent agenda. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign Amendment number 3 to the Interlocal Agreement with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Narrative The is for third amendment to the ILA for the Fishing Pier rehabilitation project acknowledges additional repairs are needed, and allocates an additional $500,000 to the project. Background: The City's Contractor for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project uncovered extensive damage along the pier edges during the initial phase of demolition work. Substantial damage was found in the existing rebar and concrete due to moisture penetration within the interior of the pier structure. The amount of damage was beyond the scope of work and contract price of the original construction contract. Packet Pg. 196 4.5 The Contractor's cost proposal to complete the additional repair work is $429,110. The cost will be partially offset by decreasing Bid Item 3 for Edge Spall/ Delamination Repair by $109,800 and deleting Bid Item 14 for Unexpected Repair Work for $92,232. The total cost of the Change Order is $227,078. In addition to the change order cost for the repair work, costs related to construction management and other construction changes are necessary to complete the project. The total project budget is now estimated at $1.9M and the extra costs are outlined in the attached revised budget. The City has secured additional funding from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office to pay for the increased project cost. The City's Contractor for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project uncovered extensive damage along the pier edges during the initial phase of demolition work. Substantial damage was found in the existing rebar and concrete due to moisture penetration within the interior of the pier structure. The amount of damage was beyond the scope of work and contract price of the original construction contract. The Contractor's cost proposal to complete the additional repair work is $429,110. The cost will be partially offset by decreasing Bid Item 3 for Edge Spall/ Delamination Repair by $109,800 and deleting Bid Item 14 for Unexpected Repair Work for $92,232. The total cost of the Change Order is $227,078. In addition to the change order cost for the repair work, costs related to construction management and other construction changes are necessary to complete the project. The total project budget is now estimated at $1.9M and the extra costs are outlined in the attached revised budget. The City has secured additional funding from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office to pay for the increased project cost, and is the subject of this amendment. Attachments: Amendment #3 and Attachment A Packet Pg. 197 4.5.a Washington Department of FISH as WILDLIFE CONTRACT AMENDMENT TITLE: Edmonds Pier - Design, Permitting & WDFW NUMBER: 13-2156 Construction AMENDMENT NUMBER: 3 CONTRACTOR: City of Edmonds AMENDMENT VALUE: $500,000.00 AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTRACT END DATE: 07/15/2016 10/31 /2017 The above -referenced Contract between the State of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); and City of Edmonds is hereby amended as follows: 1. See Attachment A. All other terms and conditions of this Contract remain in full force and effect. THIS AMENDMENT is executed by the persons signing below, who warrant that they have the authority to execute this Amendment. CITY OF EDMONDS Signature and Date Printed Name and Title CMS No. 16--0673 9 Page 1 of 1 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Signature and Date Printed Name and Title Packet Pg. 198 4.5.a ATTACHMENT A AMENDMENT - SCOPE OF WORK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS WDFW CONTRACT NO. 13-2156 A. The City of Edmonds ("City") has begun construction of the project. The scope of work for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation project has increased significantly due to unforeseen structural deficiencies and other issues, the sum exceeding the contingency for construction. B. WDFW has received additional funding from the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and has allocated additional WDFW capital budget funding for the construction of repairs to the pier. The funding is in the following form: $ 50,000 WDFW Capital Budget $450,000 WDFW WWRP Grant from RCO $500,000 TOTAL WDFW will allocate $5,000 of the funds above for WDFW's project management of the contract. The remainder, Not To Exceed $495,000, is available for reimbursement to the City for approved construction, project management, construction management, inspection, and other necessary expenses due to construction. WDFW will reimburse the City for work performed, in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions of this Agreement. C. RCO requires interpretive signage for the project, and these signs are added to the scope of the project. D. This amendment will not take effect until funds from RCO are received by WDFW and a 'Notice To Proceed' is issued by WDFW to the City. Packet Pg. 199 4.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with BergerABAM for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On July 12, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the July 19, 2016 consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Narrative In 2006, BergerABAM was hired by the City to conduct a structural condition survey of the Edmonds Fishing Pier. The report recommended that structural repairs should be made as soon as possible to prevent further deterioration. The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in July 2014 to hire a consultant to provide engineering design services for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. The City received statements of qualifications from six engineering firms and the selection committee chose BergerABAM to provide engineering design services for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. On October 30, 2014 the City entered into a $128,600 contract with BergerABAM to provide final design and bid support services for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. The City entered into Professional Services Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with BergerABAM for $99,900 on October 1, 2015 for construction support services for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. The City proposes entering into Professional Services Supplemental Agreement #2 with BergerABAM for $40,500 to extend construction support services for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. The extension of construction support services is necessary because of the increase in project scope and duration for the alternate edge repairs required to remedy the substantial rebar corrosion and concrete deterioration. Attachments: BergerABAM Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 200 Supplemental Agreement 2 No. 1 0 [ CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING MAYOR 121 5TM AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov r890 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and BergerABAM, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project, dated October 30, 2014; and WHEREAS; extended construction support services have been identified; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of October 30, 2014 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $128,600 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, and which was increased by $99,900 by the Supplemental Agreement No. 1, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $40,500 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $269,000 ($128,600, plus $99,900, plus $40,500). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. Packet Pg. 201 4.6.a DONE this CITY OF EDMONDS Bv: Mayor David O. Earling day of , 20 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney BERGER ABAM By: Title: S:\Staff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E4MB.Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab\Berger ABAM.Supp 2.doc Packet Pg. 202 4.6.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, 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: SAStati\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E4MB.Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab\Berger ABAM.Supp 2.doc Packet Pg. 203 EXHIBIT A 4.6.a 'i BergerABAM 30 June 2016 Mr. Henry Schroder, P.E. Project Manager City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300, Fed era! Way, Washington 98003-2600 206/431-2300 • 206/431-2250Fax • www.abam.com Re: Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Fee Proposal for Engineering Services — Construction Support Supplement No. 1 BergerABAM Project No. A15.0130.01 Dear Mr. Schroder: BergerABAM Inc. is submitting this proposal to the City of Edmonds to provide extended construction support services for the fishing pier rehabilitation. We have based this proposal on our observations of the work to date and the extended completion date discussed with you. SCOPE OF WORK We will continue our construction period support past the original assumed completion of early July, to an assumed completion by 16 August 2016. This support was described in our 24 September 2015 proposal to the City. Our efforts estimated herein are also based on the assumption that the contractor will continue to take a proactive approach to executing the work. We have included work by Tinnea & Associates in our scope; they were retained after discussions with the City regarding the additional corrosion observed at the start of the concrete deck demolition that is tied to original construction defects. A copy of their invoice to us is attached. SCHEDULE We will continue our work as currently performed, which includes attendance at weekly meetings, additional field inspection support, and additional office support. FEE We propose to perform this additional work on a time -and -materials basis using the rates defined in the attached fee estimate worksheet. Based on our assumptions stated above, our total additional fee proposal is $40,500 (Forty Thousand Five Hundred Dollars). We will only exceed this amount with your authorization. Please note that BergerABAM's annual salary adjustments occur 1 July of each year, and this additional work will be in that window. We have provided an allowance for increase in rates, and will strive to work within the available budget. Packet Pg. 204 4.6.a Mr. Henry Schroder 30 June 2016 Page 2 We assume this work will be authorized as an amendment to BergerABAM's City of Edmonds Professional Services Agreement dated 30 October 2014 that was executed for the 2014 final design work. CLOSING We assume that if this proposal is accepted, the City will prepare an amendment that, when executed, will serve as our notice to continue. Alternatively, if this proposal is acceptable, an executed (signed) copy of this letter can serve as a notice to proceed. Sincerely, Scott Branlund, PE, SE Senior Project Manager/Diving Officer CSB:keh Attachment BergerABAM Fee Estimate for Additional Construction Support Tinnea & Associates Invoice No. 1612702EP ACCEPTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS Signature Name (Printed) Title Date Packet Pg. 205 EXHIBIT B 4.6.a Labor Sr Project Manager Project Manager Senior Engineer Const Technician Landscape Arch Mgr Landscape Designer CAD Operator Administrative Assistant Project Coordinator Subtotals BA Labor (by task), O/H = Overhead = 168.30% Profit = 10% of (DSC + O/H) Branlund Nielsen Sheesley Perry Sacamano Christian Mendenhall Bretana Gramling DSC = Direct Salary cost 80.10 61.83 37.12 34.69 60.00 33.61 36.47 32.67 29.95 Subconsultants, Rate = DSC+O/H+Profit"(DCS+O/H) $243.49 $187.95 $112.84 $105.45 $182.39 $102.17 $110.86 $99.31 $91.04 and Expenses Task 7 - Construction Support 7.1 Additional Site Visits 18 4 36 32 8 $14,030 7.5 Additional Review/Respond to RFls 6 2 24 8 $5,389 7.6 Additional Review/Respond to Submittals 6 2 24 8 $5,389 7.9 Contract administration 2 1 4 7 $1,576 Subtotal: 32 8 88 48 8 7 Total Hours - BergerABAM: 32 8 88 48 8 7 Subtotal - BA Labor: $7,792 $1,504 $9,930 $5,062 $1,459 $637 $26,383 Subconsultants Tinnea & Associates $13,460 Subtotal Subconsultants: $ 13,460 BA Expenses Site Visits and Meetings 12 trip(s) @ 90 mles per round trip @ $ 0.540 per mile = $ 583 Subtotal BA Expenses: $ 583 ATTACHMENT - BERGERABAM FEE ESTIMATE FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT City of Edmonds A 7� Fishing Pier Rehabilitation - Construction Support Services Supplement BergerABAM► BergerABAM �/ Date: 30 June 2016 IS Subtota m BA Lab Q Tasks N m t d LY L d C t $26, 38. to I.L 0 00 M a Date: 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 206 4.6.a Tinnea & Associates, LLC 2018 E Union St Seattle, WA 98122-2836 �IIrr.7 SCOTT BRANLUND BERGER ABAM ENGINEERS 33301 9th Avenue, Suite 300 Federal Way, WA 98003 Invoice Date Invoice # 6/6/2016 1612702EP P.O. No. Terms Project A15.0130.01 Net 60 1612703 EDMOND... Item Description Amount Consulting Edmonds Pier A15.0130.01 Corrosion consulting: see following pages for details. 13,459.62 Total S 13,459.62 Payments/Credits So.00 Balance Due 513,459.62 Phone # 206.328.7872 Packet Pg. 207 4.6.a Edmonds Waterfront: Talic # ABAM # 1612703 A15.0130.01 Employee Hours/EA Rate Cost Principal 19880 $ 217945 $ 4.1305851 CP4 27850 $ 151985 $ 41175088 CID Tech 17800 $ 95870 $ 1626690 Project Assistant 2000 $ 104005 $ 208010 CADD II 24090 $ 93037 $ 21324891 Total Labor $ 12,64130 ODC basic field tools 2900 $80900/dy $ 160900 Canin 4-wheel 2800 $300800/dy $ 600800 mileage 3000 $ 0,34 $ 58832 Total ODC $ 81832 Total Invoice $ 13,?459062 w C U) CO a L L CO W N� L 'a a� c ii 0 CO M T r C 0) E 0 L Q M i a) E Q Q C� C Q CO Q L L d CO d E t ci t+ Q Packet Pg. 208 4.6.a Date Hours Role Rate Job # What Hours Role Rate What 04/05/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/06/16 0.50 Principal $ 217.45 04/07/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/07/16 4.00 Principal $ 217.45 04/07/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/08/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/12/16 0.75 Principal $ 217.45 04/12/16 2.00 Principal $ 217.45 04/13/16 4.00 CAD II $ 95.70 04/13/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/14/16 2.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/16/16 0.50 Principal $ 217.45 04/18/16 2.00 CAD II $ 95.70 04/18/16 0.33 Principal $ 217.45 04/19/16 2.90 CAD II $ 95.70 04/19/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/19/16 0.50 Principal $ 217.45 04/19/16 0.83 Principal $ 217.45 04/20/16 0.75 Principal $ 217.45 04/20/16 0.83 Principal $ 217.45 04/21/16 2.00 CAD II $ 95.70 04/21/16 0.20 Principal $ 217.45 04/22/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/24/16 0.67 CAD II $ 95.70 04/25/16 2.25 CAD II $ 95.70 04/25/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 04/27/16 1.33 CAD II $ 95.70 04/28/16 8.00 CAD II $ 95.70 05/03/16 0.75 CAD II $ 95.70 05/04/16 0.25 Principal $ 217.45 05/04/16 1.00 CAD II $ 95.70 05/04/16 1.00 Principal $ 217.45 05/09/16 0.10 Principal $ 217.45 056/06/16 3.00 Principal $ 217.85 Total: 44.70 included in my email of 5/9/2015 to JET CAD II: 24.90 Principal: 19.80 Tota I: 44.70 1612703 PC with ABAM 1612703 PC+ Review'As Builts', CDs & photos 1612703 Direct CP2 on mobing equipment 1612703 Inspect Fishing Pier 1612703 Data process / review 1612703 Data process / review 1612703 Conf call with ABAM 1612703 CP design 1612703 maps & CP design 1612703 PC with ABAM 1612703 CP design 1612703 CP design 1612703 drawings 1612703 PC with ABAM 1612703 drawings 1612703 email 1612703 CP design 1612703 PC with ABAM 1612703 CP design 1612703 PC with ABAM 1612703 drawings 1612703 PC with ABAM 1612703 PC with ABAM 1612703 drawings 1612703 drawings 1612703 CP design, email 1612703 maps 1612703 maps 1612703 maps 1612703 PC with ABAM 1612703 drawings 1612703 CP design, email 1612703 email 1612703 report 3 CP Tech $95.70 mobe 5 CP Tech $95.70 inspect 4 CP Tech $95.70 potential map, mobe 5 CP Tech $95.70 potential map, mobe 17 CP Tech Packet Pg. 209 4.6.a Date Hours Role Rate Job # What 4/19/2016 5 CP4 151.85 1612703 mobe, on site 4/20/2016 1 CP4 151.85 1612703 mobe 4/26/2016 6.5 CP4 151.85 1612703 pc, mobe, on site 4/27/2016 2.5 CP4 151.85 1612703 design 4/28/2016 3 CP4 151.85 1612703 design 4/29/2016 2.5 CP4 151.85 1612703 design 5/2/2016 2 CP4 151.85 1612703 design 5/3/2016 3 CP4 151.85 1612703 design 5/4/2016 2 CP4 151.85 1612703 design CP4: 27.5 Packet Pg. 210 4.6.a Tinnea & Associates Fully Burdened Billing Rates April 2016 Labor Category hourly labor rate Principal $217.45 Principal Engineer $200.80 Corrosion Specialist $174.05 CP Specialist $151.85 Senior Corrosion Technologist $134.12 Corrosion Technologist II $122.77 CIP3 Coating Inspector $115.70 Project Assistant $106.65 Corrosion Technologist 1 $110.45 CIP2 Coating Inspector $104.30 CP Technologist / Lab Tech $98.95 CP Technician / CADD II $95.70 CIP1 Coating Inspector $91.60 UST CP Tester / CADD 1 $83.30 Corrosion Technician $75.75 Clerk I / Technician $71.60 ODC Item ODC rate Reproduction 8'/2" x 11 " (b&w) $0.17/sheet 8'/2" x 11 " (color) $1.05/sheet 11" x 17" (b&w) $0.35/sheet 11 " x 17" (color) $2.10/sheet 24" x 36" Plot Mylar (b&w) $18.75/sheet 24" x 36" Plot bond (b&w) $6.25/sheet 24" x 36" Plot bond (color) $7.75/sq ft Tra vel mileage (or Federal rate) $0.540/mi parking cost per diem (cost up to Fed rate) cost air fare / other travel cost Computer Use BEM $160.00/hr CAD (in overhead) NR Graphics (in overhead) NR Testing - Field* basic field equipment charge $80.00/dy basic field equipment charge $300.00/wk BART - microbe tests $40.00/ea Field ASR testing $100.00/ea Chloride powder sampling rig $100.00/dy Chloride powder sampling rig $375.00/wk Chloride core sampling rig $150.00/dy Chloride core sampling rig $525.00/wk Chloride profile grinder $150.00/dy Chloride profile grinder $525.00/wk GECOR-9 Concrete Rebar Corrosion Meter $400.00/dy ODC Item ODC rate Testing - Field* Concrete resistivity/moisture meter $100.00/wk Concrete resistivity/moisture meter $375.00/wk Portable XRF analyzer $800.00/dy Portable XRF analyzer $3,200.00/wk LPR corrosion rate logger (on site) $350.00/mo ER corrosion rate logger (on site) $350.00/mo Ultrasonic testing $100.00/dy Ultrasonic testing $375.00/wk CSN surface tests (chloride, sulfate, & nitrate) $90.00/ea DYNA Z6 adhesion Tester $125.00/dy DYNA Z6 adhesion Tester $425.00/wk Delfesko Positector coating thickness gauge $30.00/dy Delfesko Positector coating thickness gauge $100.00/wk GPS80 synchronized CP current interrupters $60.00/dy GPS80 synchronized CP current interrupters $175.00/wk vLoc 2 Pro utility locator & transmitter $125.00/dy vLoc 2 Pro utility locator & transmitter $400.00/wk Ground penetrating radar - concrete structures $2,000.00/wk Special equipment (e.g., GPS synchronized tests) varies call * min daily charge is 1.5 days Testing Lab - Water Samples sample log -in / prep $30.00/ea chloride (CalTrans 422) $30.00/ea pH (ASTM D1293) $25.00/ea redox (APHA SM2580B) $25.00/ea conductivity / resistivity (ASTM D1125) $25.00/ea sulfate (CalTrans 417) $50.00/ea sulfides (Pb acetate paper) $40.00/ea Testing Lab - Soil Samples sample log -in / prep $50.00/ea chloride (CalTrans 422) $40.00/ea pH (ASTM G51) $30.00/ea redox (ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5) $40.00/ea resistivity (ASTM G57 - as received) $15.00/ea resistivity (ASTM G57 - saturated) $15.00/ea resistivity (ASTM G57 - minimum) $30.00/ea sulfate (CalTrans 417) $50.00/ea sulfides (Pb acetate paper) $30.00/ea DIPRA (no chlorides) $125.00/ea AWWA/ANSI C105/21.5 (with chlorides) $200.00/ea Testing Lab - Concrete sample log -in / prep $50.00/ea phenolphthalein test (carbonation - loss of pH) $30.00/ea chloride concrete (acid sol. ASTM C1152) $125.00/ea chloride powder (acid sol. ASTM C1152) $100.00/ea chloride concrete (acid sol. SHRP S/FR-92-110) $85.00/ea Packet Pg. 211 4.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Presentation of Goods & Materials Agreement for Sole Source Justification for the procurement of stone cladding, paving and site furnishings for the Veteran's Plaza from Coldspring Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History On January 20, 2015, Council approved the project concept for the Veteran's Plaza. On July 12th, Council forwarded this item for approval on the consent agenda. Staff Recommendation Authorize on consent agenda. Narrative The Veteran's Plaza Steering Committee provides project design oversight and fundraising for the Veteran's Plaza in conjunction with the City of Edmonds. The Committee has required that American sourced stone be used for the project and has selected Coldspring 'Mountain Green' granite for the majority of the Veteran's Plaza stonework. The selected stone is only available from Coldspring's quarry in Jay, NY. After thorough research the consultant, Site Workshop, was unable to find alternate vendors who could provide fabrication and graphics along with the selected American -sourced granite or find alternate sources that would provide comparable color and quality. The proposed vendor, Coldspring, is able to fabricate the stone veneer, paving and site furnishings, apply sandblasted text and images, deliver materials and provide project support. Coldspring is a natural stone manufacturer based in Minnesota. On July 6, 2016 they provided a price quote of $131,250.00, including shipping, for stone cladding, stone paving and stone site furnishings for the Veteran's Plaza. With the addition of Washington State Sales Tax, the total price is $144,112.50. Attachments: Sole Source Justification Contract for Purchase of Stone Packet Pg. 212 4.7.a SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION The City of Edmonds' Purchasing Policy and Procedures require that quotes or competitive bidding be conducted for all purchases'of $10,000 or more. However, there are exceptions to this requirement. A sole source purchase means that a single vendor is uniquely qualified to meet the purchasing objective and therefore is exempt from the bidding process. Date 6/28/2016 Amount including freight and sales tax $144,112.50 Department Parks Requestor Carrie Elite Stone Cladding, Paving, and Site Furnishings Package for Edmonds Veterans Plaza. Includes fabrication and delivery of stone wall veneer, paving, steps, benches and seating cubes. Vendor Name Coldspring Granite Address 17482 Granite West Road City, State, Zip Code Cold Spring, MN 56320 Phone Number 425z836-0670 Contact Jerry Cunningham Please check appropriate box ❑ Research has determined that equipment or service is necessary and available from only one vendor. ❑ item specifically required by grant or contract provisions. ❑ Government mandated services. ❑ Emergency purchase, repair services or parts replacement. ❑ Only compatible with existing system or equipment. ® Other -- Please explain The selected vendor will fabricate stone veneer/paving/site furnishings, apply sandblasted textlimages, deliver the materials, and provide project support. The 1 c 0 �a (D i 0 Cn O 0 Cn N 0 a 0 c ca a� r aD 00 Cl) c 0 U 15 a� U 3 O U) 0 Cn r c m E U fC Q Packet Pg. 213 4.7.a Veterans Plaza Steering Committee that provides project design oversight/fundraising in conjunction with the City of Edmonds required that American stone be used. The Committee selected Coldspring `Mountain Green' granite for the majority of project stone. The selected stone is only available from Coldspring's quarry in Jay, NY and we were unable to find alternate sources that provide comparable color/quality. Based on our research, we believe that other fabricators would have to purchase stone from Coldspring to meet project requirements. VENDOR CERTIFICATION Vendor certifies that the City is getting the lowest price offered as compared to similarly situated clients, terms and conditions. Vendor Date CITY CERTIFICATION: I am aware of the City's requirements for competitive bidding and the established criteria for justification for sole source/sole brand purchasing. As an approved department designee, I have gathered the required information and have made a concerted effort to review comparable/equipment or service. This effort is documented in this justification. hereby certify as to the validity of the information and feel confident that this justification for sole source, sole brand procurement meets the City's criteria and will withstand an audit the State Auditor's Office, or a vendor protest. Department Designee Mayor (if required) City Project/Budget Number: E6MAlc480 E Date Date Packet Pg. 214 4.7.b GOODS & MATERIALS AGREEMENT between the City of Edmonds and Coldspring THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made by and between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), and Coldspring located and doing business at 17482 Granite West Road, MN 56320-4578, telephone number (800) 328-55040, respectively (the "Vendor") as a sole source procurement contract for goods and materials. AGREEMENT I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. The Vendor shall provide the following goods and materials to the City: Exterior stone paving, stone cladding and stone site furnishings as follows: Manufacturer Name / Part Description Coldspring - 556 square feet of Academy Black paving, 1-15/16" thick, Thermal finish - 24 square feet of Academy Black steps, 6-1/8" thick, Thermal finish - 1065 square feet of Mountain Green wall cladding, varying thicknesses, Diamond 10, Diamond 100 finish - 50 square feet of Mountain Green seat cubes, 1' - 3" thick, Diamond 10 finish - 103 square feet of Mountain Green Type 2 benches, 6" thick, Diamond 100, Diamond 10 finish - Shop Drawings Goods and materials shall comply with Site Workshop LLC drawings T0.00, L1.10, L2.10, L3.00, L3.01, L3.20, L3.40 and L3.50 dated May 10, 2016 and specification Section 044256 - Exterior Stone Cladding, Section 321440 - Stone Paving and Section 129310 - Stone Site Furnishings dated June 17, 2016. Veteran's Plaza CPN E6MA/c480 Packet Pg. 215 4.7.b Price includes freight. Unloading is not included. Reference: Coldspring quote dated 7/6/16. II. TIME OF COMPLETION. Upon the effective date of this Agreement, the Vendor shall provide and deliver all site furnishings within 84 calendar days and paving and cladding within 70 calendar days to the City of Edmonds Veteran's Plaza, 250 5th Avenue N, Edmonds, WA and site furnishing shop drawings shall be delivered within 21 calendar days and paving and cladding shop drawings shall be delivered within 35 calendar days. Time is of the essence for this Agreement. The delivery date shall be mutually agreed upon between 8:00 AM and 2:00 PM, Monday through Friday only. III. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Vendor an amount not to exceed One Hundred Forty-four Thousand, One Hundred Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($144,112.50), including freight and Washington State Sales Tax, for the goods and materials included in this Agreement. The City shall pay the Vendor the full amount within 30 days of receipt of all merchandise listed above when received in good condition. If the City objects to all or any portion of an invoice, it shall notify the Vendor and reserves the option to only pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute. In that event, the parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. Certification of Price: The Vendor hereby certifies that the City is receiving the lowest price offered as compared to the Vendors' similarly situated clients, terms and conditions. Defective Goods. The Vendor guarantees the City that the goods and materials shall be free of any and all defects in the workmanship and materials. The City reserves its right to withhold payment from the Vendor for any defective or unauthorized goods or materials. Final Payment: Waiver of Claims. VENDOR ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PAYMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF CLAIMS, EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY AND PROPERLY MADE AND IDENTIFIED BY VENDOR AS UNSETTLED AT THE TIME REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IS MADE. IV. WARRANTY. This Agreement is subject to all warranty provisions established under the Uniform Commercial Code, Title 62A, Revised Code of Washington. The Vendor warrants that the goods and materials to be provided pursuant to this Agreement are merchantable, are fit for the particular purpose for which they were obtained, and will perform in accordance with their specifications and the Vendors' representations to the Veteran's Plaza CPN E6MA/c480 Packet Pg. 216 4.7.b City. The Vendor shall correct all defects in workmanship and materials within five (5) years from the date of the City's acceptance of the goods or materials. In the event any part of the goods or materials are repaired, only original replacement parts shall be used — rebuilt or used parts will not be acceptable. When defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for five (5) years from the date such correction is completed and accepted by the City. The Vendor shall begin to correct any defects within seven (7) calendar days of the receipt of notice from the City of the defect. If the Vendor does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time as determined by the City, the City may complete the corrections and the Vendor shall pay all costs incurred by the City in order to accomplish the correction. V. INDEMNIFICATION. The Vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Vendor performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's sole negligence. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VI. INSURANCE. The Vendor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the provision of goods or materials to the City. No Limitation. The Vendors' maintenance of insurance as required by the Agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Vendor to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. Minimum Scope of Insurance. The Vendor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under the Vendors' Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -Vendors Endorsement CG 20 15 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. Minimum Amounts of Insurance. Vendor shall maintain the following insurance limits: Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and a $2,000,000 product liability aggregate limit. Other Insurance Provisions. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: Veteran's Plaza CPN E6MA/c480 Packet Pg. 217 4.7.b 1. The Vendors' insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Vendors' insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Vendors' insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage. The Vendor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Vendor before goods or materials will be accepted by the City. VII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Non -Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. B. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the Snohomish County Superior Court, Snohomish County, Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section IV of this Agreement. C. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3) business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and Veteran's Plaza CPN E6MA/c480 Packet Pg. 218 4.7.b shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. D. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written consent of the non -assigning party shall be void. If the non - assigning party gives its consent to any assignment, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without additional written consent. E. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Vendor. F. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement. However, should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. G. Compliance with Laws. The Vendor agrees to comply with all federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Vendors' business, equipment, and personnel engaged in the provision of goods or materials as set forth in this Agreement or accruing out of the provision of those goods or materials. Veteran's Plaza CPN E6MA/c480 Packet Pg. 219 4.7.b IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall become effective on the last date entered below. VENDOR: CITY OF EDMONDS: By: By: Print Name: Print Name: David 0. Earling Its Its Mayor DATE: DATE: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: VENDOR: CITY OF EDMONDS: Coldspring City Clerk, City of Edmonds 17482 Granite West Road 121 Sth Avenue North MN 56320-4578 Edmonds, WA 98020 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passe , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorn Veteran's Plaza CPN E6MA/c480 Packet Pg. 220 4.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Authorization for Mayor to Execute a Lease Agreement with Neopost for Postage Meter Equipment Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History On June 21, 2011, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Lease Agreement with Pitney Bowes for Postage Meter Equipment. This lease expired on July 1, 2016. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council Authorize the Mayor to Execute a Lease Agreement for Postage Equipment with Neopost on the consent agenda. Narrative One of the responsibilities of the City Clerk's Office is to process and post all City mail. The City's 60- month lease agreement for postage equipment with Pitney Bowes expired on July 1, 2016. It is staffs recommendation that the City contract with Neopost for the Neopost IS-5000 mail processor, which is equivalent to our current processing equipment. The monthly lease amount is $578.20, which includes the ConnectSuite e-Certify Process, and it is for a 60-month term. This amount includes postage meter rental, full maintenance agreement, USPS Rate updates, delivery, installation and training. This amount does not include tax. The City of Edmonds will realize a savings of approximately $150 per month from the current lease amount. In addition, we will enjoy an added level of service by taking advantage of ConnectSuite, Neopost's web -based solution which streamlines the preparation and management of certified mail. Neopost's customer service and maintenance facility is located in Tukwila, Washington. We have visited their facility, received a demonstration of the equipment, and met members of their service department. For this reason, we anticipate an increased level of responsiveness to our requests for service and repair. Neopost is one of three companies that has been awarded the State Contract for this mail processing equipment. Because the equipment has gone through the bidding process with the state, the City is able to take advantage of this pricing. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and approved as to form. This proposal was presented to the City Council at the July 12, 2016 Council Meeting. There was Council consensus to approve this item on the Consent Agenda at the next available meeting. Packet Pg. 221 4.8 Attachments: Neopost Proposal 06-21-2011 Council meeting packet - mailing equipment contract Packet Pg. 222 f�. ,ovatio Mail Processing Solution City of Edmonds Philip Baldwin Government Account Executive 425.444.5898 P.Baldwin@neopost.com Neopost Northwest Statement of Confidentiality This proposal and supporting materials contain confidential and proprietary business information of Neopost USA. These materials may be printed or photocopied for use in evaluating the proposed project, but are not to be shared with other parties. Packet Pg. 223 About Us Neopost solutions enable companies to expertly a receiv digital documents, physical mail and packages, allowing them to better with their customers. Founded in 1924, Neopost has grown to become a globi leader in mailing solutions, and a major player in digital communications and shipping solutions. Neopost provides a wide range of hardware, software ai services tailored to organizations of all sizes. We believe that people are the key to business success. Our decentralized operational philosophy fosters local customer relationships based on accessibility, responsiveness and trust. A Worldwide Network North America 9% Over of sales -._. 200 U.S. locations 6,200 employees Direct presence in 31 countries ' Solutions distributed in over } 90 countries J Over $1.21113 in sales N 0 0. 0 L- a. 0 0 z 800,000 r customers Soo R&D engineers ' Global Footprint With a Strong Local Pr+eseiice Shipping �1 Business Process Solutions Data Cleansing & Enrichment Maintain high -quality contact databases with accurate addresses that improve mail and package deliverahillty, A Document Printing Print high -resolution color documents at the lowest costs per page. Extend your in-house printing capabilities. ,XT Mail Metering Move your mail out the door with ease, allocate the costs, and report on your spending patterns. Document Automation Create engaging, ready -for - automation documents that cost less to process and send, Document Folding/Inserting Automate mail assembly with high-performance, ultra -secure document handling equipment. Parcel Shipping Ship packages through any carrier using comparison shopping software that eliminates overspending. Delivery Channel Management Distribute documents via physical mall or digital delivery based on your customers' preferred format. Maii Addressing Print stand -out envelopes or postcards that increase response rates. Simplify direct mail preparation, A r� v� �t Mail & Package Receiving Open a whole day's mail in minutes. Track the arrival, movement and delivery of packages at your facility. Learn more at www.neopostusa.com `Tr i' i ..)r. 6LUMw. Itah"W a IN-750 Mailing System Product Overview Internet -connected iMeterT" postage meter provides access to a suite of powerful Apps Modern, ergonomic design with a color touchscreen and multiple weighing platform options Mixed -size automatic feeder handles different mail shapes with no sorting required In -line Dynamic Scale accelerates processing by weighing and measuring mail on the fly Exclusive Postal Rate Wizard offers guided selection across 140 USPS® rates and services Automatic secure sealing and a built in postage label dispenser enhance productivity Additional Features Quiet inkjet printing w/low ink email alerts Up to 175 letters/min. (110 in dynamic mode) Envelope thickness up to 5/8" Auto -downloaded postal rate updates 6 Rate shortcut keys & 9 job/imprint memories 8 Standard & 2 customizable ad slogans 10 customizable text messages Automatic mail class inscriptions Date received printing for incoming mail 70-department account tracking (expandable) PIN -protected access for up to 50 operators MyNeopost account w/postage usage reporting NeoFunds@ bill -for -postage service System Dimensions Mailing System with tray (Length x Depth x Height) 67" x 18" x 13" Weight 78 lbs. Environmental. Commitment The IN-750 carries Neopost's Eco Label. The Eco label signifies the implementation of green strategies surrounding raw materials, packaging and energy consumption to reduce or eliminate impact on the environment. =0-- The IN-750 is compliant with environmental regulations and Energy Star. 0 0. 0 a` 0 Q. 0 am Z r c m E z a 4.8.a IS-5000 Mailing System Product Overview Internet -connected iMeterT'" postage meter provides access to a suite of powerful Apps Efficiency at your fingertips with a repositionable color touchscreen interface Engineered for speed, durability, ergonomic perfection, and unmatched throughput High -capacity feeder handles heavy stacks of assorted size mail and pieces up to .8" thick Dynamic Scale accelerates processing by weighing and measuring mail on the fly Advanced pump spray system securely seals envelopes with the flaps open or closed Additional Features System Dimensions Batch/Dynamic: 300/140, 260/130, 210/120 Ipm Mailing system, dynamic scale, tray Multiple weighing platform capacities (Length x Depth x Height) 78" x 25" x 14" Optional conveyor stacker 40" x 14" x 12" Auto -downloaded postal rate updates _ Customizable control panel screen Weight 169 Ibs, Internal postage label dispenser Permanent print head w/100K-imprint ink tank 8 Standard and 2 customizable ad slogans WM 10 custom text messages & 15 job memories Automatic mail class inscriptions Print permit imprints & date stamp p p p incoming mail � 100-department account tracking (expandable) Generate management and presort reports MyNeopost account w/postage usage reporting' NeoFunds@ bill -for -postage service Cn 0 0. 0 a 0 Q. 0 m Z c m z a SOLUTION SUMMARY Neopost IN750 Mailing system including Dynamic Weighing Module, 30# capacity weight platform, and conveyor / stacker Neopost IN75❑ 60 Month Lease amount: $397.71 per month Lease amount includes postage meter rental, full maintenance agreement, USPS Rate updates, delivery, installation and training. Amount does not include tax COMMENTS d Lease is invoiced quarterly City of Edmonds Neopost IS5000 Mailing system including Dynamic Weighing Module, 30# capacity weight platform, and conveyor / stacker 60 Month Lease amount: $514.20 per month Lease amount includes postage meter rental, full maintenance agreement, USPS Rate updates, delivery, installation and training. Amount does not include tax WA State Contract #03415 0 0. 0 L- a. 0 0. 0 m z r c m E r Q 4.8.a Product Overview e>?* connG ctSuiie w €:e"My Electronic Certified Mail— Solution �rI • Simple web -based solution that streamlines the preparation & management of Certified Mail'" ■ Prepare one mail piece at a time or upload multiple addresses for batch processing • No forms to handwrite and no labels or Return Receipt" cards to apply to envelopes ■ Centralized tracking of all items you've mailed - no need to enter long tracking numbers Saves $1.35 per letter by providing a digital signature in place of the green card Mailing activity and signature information automatically stored and organized for you in the cloud Additional Features No local software to install Easy -to -use interface and process flow Compatible with most web browsers Supports multiple users Custom profiles for users and document settings Generates USPS@ form 3877 (Firm Mailing Book) if round dating/proof of mailing is desired Delivery status reports by date range Reports are downloadable for import into other systems Stores all data for the lifetime of your subscription cwmcmae M w M c� ® o Q. 0 L 0 a o .. .... _ z c E t r Q Stop handwriting USPS® Certified Mail'M forms. Streamline your preparation process and start saving today with ConnectSuite e-Certify from Neopost. Here's how it works: R" Enter recipient's address or import a text file containing multiple addresses for batch processing. Addresses are validated for accuracy and proper formatting. Mail piece data uploaded to USPS@. Print one or multiple banner pages. Banner pages contain the return address, recipient address and a Certified Mail`" barcode. Banner pages are placed on top of the document sets intended for the same recipient. Banner pages and corresponding document sets are folded together and inserted into a double window Certified Mail'" envelope. Ili �l�l�l!11#�Illl� ru rr„wra .+trim Meter the Certified Mail- envelope(s) for $1.35 � Wm w-' less than the "green card" paper -based method WOO _� � $5 120 (reflects reduced amount for electronic Return Receipt- service). � �� r Delivery status of all sent items is automatically tracked and displayed in a user-friendly online portal. Download electronic PDF signature files as needed (replaces "green card"). All activity and signature files are stored for the lifetime of your subscription. Run simple or advanced searches and print or export reports. !Ir MM u4.�Iw.iL4S14� ��M1N1R�l /M�} W FEl��YCli l�f� v��.w YM..M�iv�.w.r ��h�f� 1• W 0 0. 0 a` 0 Q. 0 a) z r c m E z ns a Packet Pg. 230 SOLUTION SUMMARY City of Edmonds ConnectSuite E-Certified subscription, including configuration, installation, training. Automates Certified Mail process, Saves $1.40 in postage per signature LEASE PRICING WITH TERM DPTIQNSValid until: 7/23/16 Option A Lease Term (months) Monthly Amount Option B Lease Term (months) 36 $ 77.00 48 Monthly Amount $ 69.00 Option Lease Term (months) 60 Monthly Amount $ 64.00 COMMENTS Above amounts do not include tax, and are based on open market pricing, item not presently available on WA State contract. 0 0. 0 L a 0 0. 0 z r c m E r Q V6 r 134 �1 Our Sales Approach. At Neopost, we take the time to fully assess your workflows before making recommendations, propose cost-effective solutions that match your business requirements and accurately represent our capabilities. Implementation. You're in control - delivery, installation and training are scheduled on your timeline. Neopost professional installers are knowledgeable, skilled and efficient. Your staff will receive hands-on equipment training at your site or instruction via web conference for select software products. Product Performance. Neopost dedicates between 4% and 5% of its revenue to research and development. At every level, our systems are designed to be simple to use, economical to operate and dependable for years. Nationwide Support. When contacting our Customer Excellence Center in Texas, you'll never be transferred outside the U.S. for any reason. On average, customer calls are answered in under two minutes, and over 80% of reported issues are resolved while you're still on the phone with us. Local Customer Care. There are over two hundred Neopost offices across the country. Neopost account representatives in your community are easily accessible by phone, email or in person. Our decentralized, closer -to -the - customer business philosophy empowers local management to make quick decisions when responding to customer concerns. Technical Service. Neopost has the industry's best customer -to -field technician ratio. Average call-back time is under one hour. We arrive on - site in less than four hours for 90% of all service requests. Nine out of ten customers are up and running again after our first visit. 0 0. 0 a` 0 0. 0 m z c m E 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 232 rl Neopost takes corporate citizenship seriously. We are firmly committed to our planet and have ISO 14001 environmental management system certification. Neopost's environmental policy focuses on two main areas: the effect of our activities on the environment and the carbon footprint of our products and services. Lcodesi'g1i. The ecodesign of Neopost equipment aims to minimize environmental impacts throughout the entire product life cycle. This green design policy sets environmentally -friendly specifications for raw materials and manufacturing processes as well as machine weight, packaging, distribution, energy efficiency and recyclability. Our entire range of mailing systems is Energy Star Certified. Sleep mode enables our newest machines to consume as much as 50% less energy. We develop our products to ensure a minimum recyclability rate of 75%. We also collect and recycle the ink cartridges used by Neopost postage meters and inkjet printers. Neopost remote diagnostics technology reduces travel required for technical support. We also use fuel -efficient vehicles and intelligent route planning to reduce COz emissions. The Neopost ecolabel promotes the environmental performance and energy efficiency of our equipment. Rem-anufactu, - . Machine return flows have been redesigned and production lines adapted to support a robust remanufacturing program. Today, Neopost manufactures as -new machines using components retrieved from end -of -contract equipment. These remanufactured systems offer the same functions, services, quality and reliability standards as new equipment. Remanufacturing reduces the impact of our processes on the environment by up to 40%. 0 0. 0 L a 0 Q. 0 a) z r c m E z ns a n ' C eop �S� TERMS & 0 NOITI N � S GOVERNMENT PRODUCT LEASE AGREEMENT any In this Product Lease (the "Lease"), the words "You" and "Your" mean the lessee, which is Order Form the entity that is identified as the Customer on the Government Product Lease Agreement Order Form ("Order Form"). "We," "Us" and "Our" mean the lessor, MailFinance Inc. "Supplier" refers to either Neopost USA Inc., or any other third party that has manufactured, or is providing services related to, the Products. 1. Lease of Products. THIS LEASE IS UNCONDITIONAL AND NON -CANCELABLE (except as provided in Section 24, below) during the Initial Term (as defined below). You agree to lease from Us the equipment, embedded software, Software, and other products listed on the Order Form, together with all existing and future accessories, embedded software programs, attachments, replacements, updates, additions and repairs, (collectively the "Products") upon the terms stated herein. For the avoidance of doubt, postage meters for use in mailing machines are excluded from the definition of Products. The term "Software" means any software that is subject to this Lease, other than software programs that are embedded in the hardware. Software is subject to the additional terms as may be provided by the Supplier. 2. Promise to Pay. You promise to pay to Us the lease payment shown on the Order Form ("Lease Payment") in accordance with the payment schedule set forth thereon, plus all other amounts stated in this Lease. 3. Initial Term; Renewal. 3.1 FMV Lease. The Initial Term of this Lease will begin on the date the Products are installed and will continue for the number of months shown on the applicable Order Form ("Initial Term"). Unless You have opted for an LTOP Lease as described in Section 23, You must notify Us in writing at least thirty (30) days before the end of the Initial Term that You intend to either (i) return the Products at the end of the Initial Term; or (ii) purchase the Products pursuant to Section 22. If You have not opted for an LTOP lease and You fail to give us such notice, then this Lease will automatically renew for consecutive periods of one (1) month each (each a "Renewal Period"). The amount You pay for the Products will remain unchanged during each Renewal Period. We will not notify You that the Initial Term or any Renewal Period is ending. You may terminate this Lease at the conclusion of any Renewal Period by giving Us thirty (30) days prior written notice of Your intent to do so. If You notify Us in writing that You intend to terminate the Lease, as set forth above, You shall either return the Products pursuant to Section 12 of this Lease or purchase the products pursuant to Section 22. 3.2 LTOP Lease. If you have opted for an LTOP Lease as described in Section 23, then the term of this Lease will begin on the date the Products are installed and will continue for the number of months shown on the applicable Order Form ("Initial Term"). At the conclusion of the Initial Term of an LTOP Lease, we shall (i) transfer title of all hardware Products to You as set forth in Section 23; and (ii) Your license to use any Software Products shall continue without the need to make any further license payments to Us. 4. Payments. Lease Payments, and other charges provided for herein, are payable in arrears periodically as stated on the Order Form ("Lease Payment"). You agree to make Lease Payments to Us at the address specified on Our invoices, or at Page 1 of 6 other place designated by Us within thirty (30) days of the date of Our invoice. 5. Delivery and Location of Products. The Products will be delivered to You at the delivery address specified on the Order Form ("Delivery Address") or, if no such location is specified, to Your invoice address. Your acceptance of the Products occurs upon delivery of the Products. You shall not remove the Products from the Delivery Address unless You first get Our written permission to do so. 6. Ownership, Use, and Maintenance of Products. We will own and have title to the Products during the Lease. You agree that the Products are and shall remain Our personal property. You authorize Us to record (and amend, if appropriate) a UCC financing statement to protect Our interests. You represent that the Products will be used solely for commercial purposes and not for personal, family or household purposes. At Your own cost, You agree to maintain the Products in accordance with the applicable operation manuals and to keep the Products in good working order, ordinary wear and tear excepted. 7. Assignment of Supplier's Warranties. We hereby assign to You any warranties relating to the Products that We may have received from the Supplier. 8. Relationship of the Parties. You agree that You, not We, selected the Products and the Supplier, and that We are a separate company from the Supplier and that the Supplier is not Our agent. IF YOU ARE A PARTY TO ANY POSTAGE METER RENTAL, MAINTENANCE, SERVICE, SUPPLIES OR OTHER CONTRACT WITH ANY SUPPLIER, WE ARE NOT A PARTY THERETO, AND SUCH CONTRACT IS NOT PART OF THIS LEASE (EVEN THOUGH WE MAY, AS A CONVENIENCE TO YOU AND THE SUPPLIER, BILL AND COLLECT MONIES OWED BY YOU TO THEM). 9. Default. You will be in default under this Lease if You fail to pay any amount within ten (10) days of the due date or fail to perform or observe any other obligation in this Lease. If You default, We may, without notice to You, do any one or more of the following, at Our option, concurrently or separately: (A) cancel this Lease; (B) require You to return the Products pursuant to Section 12 below; (C) take possession of and/or render the Products unusable, and for such purposes You hereby authorize Us and Our designees to enter Your premises, with prior reasonable notice or other process of law; and (D) require You to pay to Us, on demand as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, an amount equal to the sum of: (i) all Lease Payments and other amounts then due and past due; (ii) all remaining Lease Payments for the then -current term, together with any taxes due or to become due during such term (which You agree is a reasonable estimate of Our damages); and (iii) in the event that You failed to promptly return the Products to Us, an amount equal to the remaining value of the Products at the end of the then -current term, as reasonably determined by Us. You shall also pay all Our costs in enforcing Our rights under this Lease, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses that We incur to take possession, store, repair, or dispose of the Products, as well as any other expenses that We may incur to collect amounts owed to Us. We are not required to re -lease or sell the Products if We repossess them. These remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to any and all other remedies available to Us. Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 U) 0 0. 0 a` 0 a 0 am z r c d E z c� Q NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 234 4.8.a n ' TERM & C NOITI N eo �S� 5 0 � S p 10. Finance Lease. You agree that this Lease is a "finance lease" as defined in Article 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"). To the extent permitted by law, You hereby waive any and all rights and remedies conferred upon You under UCC Sections 2A-303 and 2A-508 through 2A-522, or any similar laws. 11. Loss; Damage; Insurance. You shall: (i) bear the risk of loss and damage to the Product(s) for the Initial Term and any Renewal Period; and (ii) keep the Product(s) insured, at Your expense, against all risks of loss and damage in an amount at least equal to its full replacement cost. 12. Return of Products. Unless You take title to the hardware Products pursuant to Section 22 or Section 23, then You are required to return the Products under this Lease. In such a case, at the end of the Lease, You shall, after receiving an Equipment Return Authorization ("ERA") number from Us, promptly send the Products, at Your expense, to any location(s) that We designate, in addition to paying Us Our then -applicable processing fee. The Products must be properly packed for shipment with the ERA number clearly visible, freight prepaid and fully insured, and must be received in good condition, less normal wear and tear. 13. Assignment. YOU SHALL NOT SELL, TRANSFER, ASSIGN, SUBLEASE, PLEDGE OR OTHERWISE ENCUMBER (COLLECTIVELY, "TRANSFER") THE PRODUCTS OR THIS LEASE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 14. Disclaimer of Warranties. WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE SUITABILITY OF THE PRODUCT(S), ITS CONDITION, ITS MERCHANTABILITY, ITS FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ITS FREEDOM FROM INFRINGEMENT, OR OTHERWISE. WE PROVIDE THE PRODUCTS TO YOU "AS IS," "WHERE IS" AND "WITH ALL FAULTS." 15. Limitation of Liability. WE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU AND YOU SHALL NOT MAKE A CLAIM AGAINST US FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE (INCLUDING INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES), OR EXPENSE OF ANY KIND ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE DELIVERY, INSTALLATION, USE, RETURN, LOSS OF USE, DEFECT, MALFUNCTION, OR ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE PRODUCTS (COLLECTIVELY, "PRODUCT MATTERS"). NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS LEASE, EXCEPT FOR DIRECT DAMAGES RESULTING FROM PERSONAL INJURY OR DAMAGE TO TANGIBLE PROPERTY CAUSED BY OUR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT, THE MAXIMUM OUR LIABILITY TO YOU FOR DAMAGES HEREUNDER SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL OF THE AMOUNTS PAID TO US HEREUNDER BY YOU. 16. Notice. All notices, requests and other communications hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be addressed to You or Us, as applicable and shall be considered given when (i.) delivered personally, or (ii.) sent by commercial overnight courier with written confirmation of delivery. 17. Integration. The Lease represents the final and only agreement between You and Us. There are no unwritten oral agreements between You and Us. The Lease can be changed Page 2 of 6 only by a written agreement between You and Us. Any additional terms and conditions referenced on any Purchase Order shall be void and have no effect on this Lease. 18. Severability. In the event any provision of this Lease shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. The parties agree to replace any invalid provision with a valid provision, which most closely approximates the intent and economic effect of the invalid provision. 19. Waiver or Delay. A waiver of any default hereunder or of any term or condition of this Lease shall not be deemed to be a continuing waiver or a waiver of any other default or any other term or condition, but shall apply solely to the instance to which such waiver is directed. We may accept late payments, partial payments, checks, or money orders marked "payment in full," or with a similar notation, without compromising any rights under this Lease. 20. Survival of Obligations. Your obligations under this Lease shall survive any expiration or termination of any government procurement contract that may be related to it. Any obligations and duties which by their nature extend beyond the expiration or termination of this Lease shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease. 21. Choice of Law; Venue; and Attorney's Fees. This Lease shall be construed in accordance with, and all disputes hereunder shall be governed by, the laws of the State of Connecticut, excluding its conflict of law rules. The state and federal courts in Hartford County in the State of Connecticut shall have the exclusive jurisdiction and venue over all controversies arising out of, or relating to, this Lease. The prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and the court shall be authorized to award such amounts. 22. FMV Leases. If this Lease is a fair market value lease, as indicated by the lease rate that has been used by Us to calculate Your Lease Payment then, unless You are in default, You may elect to purchase the hardware Products at the end of this Lease on an "as is, where is" basis for their fair market value, as reasonably determined by Us. In the event that You elect to do so, You must give us sixty (60) days prior written notice of Your election to purchase such Products. 23. LTOP Leases. If this Lease is a lease to purchase, as indicated by the lease rate that has been used by Us to calculate Your Lease Payments then, at the end of the Initial Term and after You have made all of the Lease Payments, We shall transfer title to all hardware Products that are subject to this Lease to You on an "as is, where is" basis. 24. Termination. 24.1 Non -Appropriation. a. You warrant and represent that You intend to enter into this Lease for at least the entire Initial Term and that You are doing so for an essential government purpose. You agree that, prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, you shall not terminate this Lease in order to obtain the same or similar Products from another vendor. b. You may terminate this Lease at the end of Your current fiscal year, or at the end of any subsequent fiscal year, if appropriated funds are not available to You for the Lease Payments that will be due in the next fiscal year. In the event of such a non -appropriation, then You shall provide written notice to Us that states: Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 U) 0 0. 0 a` 0 a 0 am Z r c d E s c� Q NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 235 neopostJ4TERMS &CONDITIONS Sufficient funds have not been and will not be appropriated for the remaining payments due under the Lease. I confirm that we will not replace the Products with similar equipment from any other party in the succeeding fiscal year. 24.2 Convenience. You may terminate this Lease at anytime and for any reason or for no reason ("Termination for Convenience"); provided that You comply with the provisions of this paragraph. In the event of a Termination for Convenience, You shall pay Us a termination charge equal to the net present value of the periodic payments remaining in the Initial Term or, if applicable, the then -current Renewal Term, discounted to the present value at an interest rate equal to six percent (6%) per annum. Such amount must be received by Us within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the termination. 25. Additional Postage Meter Terms. If the Products require a postage meter, then You agree that Neopost USA's Postage Meter Rental Agreement shall govern your rental of such postage meter. POSTAGE METER RENTAL AGREEMENT 1. Incorporation of Certain Terms. Customer acknowledges that: (i) it has entered a Government Product Lease Agreement with MailFinance Inc. (the "Lease"); and (ii) if the Products that are subject to the Lease includes a mailing machine, then the terms of this Postage Meter Rental Agreement ("Rental Agreement") shall govern its rental of the Postage Meter (as defined below) for such machine. Any defined terms in the Lease shall have the same meanings in this Rental Agreement, except that "We," "Us," and "Our," refers to Neopost USA Inc., and any reference to "Products" shall refer to the Postage Meter. Sections 11, 12 and 14 through 25 of the Lease are hereby incorporated into this Rental Agreement, except that any reference in those sections to the "Lease" refer to this Rental Agreement. 2. Provisions as to Use. You acknowledge that: (i) as required by United States Postal Service ("USPS") regulations, the postage meter(s) identified on the Order Form (the "Postage Meter") is being rented to You and that it is Our property; (ii) the Postage Meter will be surrendered by You upon demand by Us (iii) You are responsible for the control and use of the Postage Meter; (iv) You will comply with all applicable laws regarding Your use or possession of the Postage Meter; (v) the use of the Postage Meter is subject to the conditions established from time to time by the United States Postal Service; and (vi) the Postage Meter is to be used only for generating an indicia to evidence the prepayment of postage and to account for postal funds. It is a violation of Federal law to misuse or tamper with the Postage Meter and, if You do so, We may terminate this Rental Agreement upon notice to You. 3. Rental Fee, Term, and Taxes. The rental fee for the Postage Meter rental during the Initial Term is included in the Lease Payment. For each Renewal Term, You agree to pay Our then -current fee for the Postage Meter rental. The Postage Meter rental fee does not include the cost of consumable supplies. The term of the rental shall be equal to the term of the Lease and is NON -CANCELABLE. You agree to pay all applicable taxes related to Your acquisition, possession, and/or use of the Postage Meter including all property taxes on the Postage Meter. Furthermore, You agree to pay the applicable fee to cover Our expenses associated with the administration, billing and tracking of such charges and taxes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event You are tax exempt, upon providing Us a certificate, You will not be required to pay any taxes covered by such certificate. You agree that you will return the Postage Meter at the end of the Lease term and that You will do so in the manner set forth in Section 12 of the Lease. Furthermore, You agree that if you fail to return a postage meter within thirty (30) days of receipt of the ERA then You will pay a postage meter replacement fee of $1,000. 4. Postage Meter Maintenance, Inspections, and Location. We will keep the Postage Meter in good working condition during the term of this Rental Agreement. The United States Postal Service regulations may require Us to periodically inspect the Postage Meter. You agree to cooperate with Us regarding such inspections. We may, from time to time, access and download information from Your Postage Meter to provide Us with information about Your postage usage and We may share that information with Our distributors and other third parties and You hereby authorize Us to do so. You agree to promptly update Us whenever there is any change in Your name, address, telephone number, the licensing post office, or the location of the Postage Meter. 5. Postage Advances. We do not sell postage. In the event You require an emergency advance for postage, We, at Our sole discretion, may advance You money to reset the Postage Meter. If We do provide such an advance, You agree to repay Us within five (5) days from the time of such advance: (i) the amount of the emergency advance; and (ii) the then -current advance fee. 6. Default. In the event You fail to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in this Rental Agreement, or any other Agreement with Us or any of Our affiliates, including, but not limited to, MailFinance Inc., and Mailroom Finance, Inc., then We may, without notice: (i) repossess the Postage Meter(s); (ii) disable the Postage Meter; (iii) immediately terminate this Rental Agreement; and (iv) pursue any remedies available to Us at law or in equity. Furthermore, upon the return of the Postage Meter, You hereby authorize Us to offset any amount of postage remaining in the Postage Meter, prior to any refund to You, against any amount due to Us or any of Our affiliates. You shall also pay all of Our costs in enforcing Our rights under this Rental Agreement, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses that We incur to take possession, store, or repair, the Postage Meter, as well as any other expenses that We may incur to collect amounts owed to Us. These remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to any and all other remedies available to Us. 7. Rate Updates. A. MAINTENANCE OF POSTAL RATES. It is Your sole responsibility to ensure that correct amounts are applied as payment for mailing and shipping services. We shall not be responsible for returns for delivery delays, refusals, or any other problems caused by applying the incorrect rate to mail or packages. Page 3 of 6 Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 0 a 0 a` rn 0 a 0 am Z c d E s cc Q Packet Pg. 236 4.8.a n ' TERM & C NOITI N eo �S� 5 0 � S p B. Rate Updates with Online Services. If the Order Form indicates that You are enrolled in Our Online Services program, then We will make available periodic updates for Your covered Products and/or Postage Meter, including updates to maintain accurate USPS rates for the USPS services that are compatible with such Products or Postage Meter. The rate updates that are offered with Our Online Services program are only available for products that are Integrated (as defined below) into Your mailing machine. For the purposes of this section, "Integrated" means that the covered hardware cannot properly operate on a stand-alone basis and it has been incorporated into the mail machine. Products that are not Integrated including, but not limited to, all Software and scales with "ST-77," or "SE" in the model number will not receive updated rates as part of Our Online Services program (collectively "Excluded Products"). C. Rate Updates with Rate Change Protection and Software Advantage. If You have any of Our Excluded Products, You may have elected to purchase Rate Change Protection ("RCP") from Us for Your hardware products or Software Advantage for Your Software. If the Order Form indicates that You have selected RCP or Software Advantage, We will make available e the following updates for Your covered Products or Software: (i) updates to maintain accurate rates for the services offered by the USPS and other couriers that are compatible with Your covered Products or Software; and (ii) updates for major zip or zone changes that are compatible with Your covered Products or Software. If any reprogramming is required because You have moved the Products or Postage Meter to a new location, none of the services described in this Section cover the cost to do so. If You have not selected RCP or Software Advantage, You agree that We may send You periodic rate updates as needed and You agree to either: (i) promptly pay the then -current price for such update; or (ii) return the unused, update to Us within ten (10) business days of receiving it. Customers with an outstanding Accounts Receivable balance may not receive a rate update until the open balance is resolved. 8. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT. By signing this Postage Meter Rental Agreement, You acknowledge and agree that You have read the United States Postal Service Acknowledgement of Deposit (the "Acknowledgement") and will comply with its terms and conditions, as it may be amended from time to time. 9. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TERMS. A. To the extent that the activities for which the Postal Service is obligated to perform particular functions, those functions will be governed by the USPS Domestic Mail Manual, as may be amended from time to time, or its successor, in effect at the time of the obligation. Specifically, to the extent that the Postal Service provides refunds to customers using postage evidencing devices, the policy and procedure governing the payment of refunds will be conducted in accordance with the Domestic Mail Manual, as amended, in effect at that time. B. If the meter is used in any fraudulent or unlawful scheme or enterprise, or is not used for any consecutive 12 month period, or if the Customer takes the meter or allows the meter to be taken outside the United States without proper written permission of the U.S. Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-6807, or if the Customer otherwise fails to abide by the signs of postal regulations and this Rental Agreement regarding care and use of the meter, that this Agreement and any related postage meter rental may be revoked. The Customer further acknowledges that any use of this meter that fraudulently deprives the U.S. Postal Service of revenue can cause the Customer to be subject to civil and criminal penalties applicable to fraud and/or false claims against the United States. The submission of a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement can result in imprisonment of up to five (5) years and fines of up to $10,000 (18 U.S.C. 1001). In addition, a civil penalty of up to $5,000 and an additional assessment of twice the amount falsely claimed may be imposed (3 U.S.C. 3802). A false statement in this application or the mailing of matter bearing a fraudulent postage meter imprints are examples of violations of these statutes. C. The Customer is responsible for immediately reporting (within seventy-two hours or less) the theft or loss of the postage meter that is subject to this Rental Agreement. Failure to comply with this notification provision in a timely manner may result in the denial of refund of funds remaining on the postage meter at the time of the loss or theft. D. The Customer understands that the rules and regulations regarding use of this postage meter as documented in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual may be updated from time to time by the United States Postal Service and it is the Customer's obligation to comply with any current or future rules and regulations regarding its use. neoFunds/TotalFunds ACCOUNT AGREEMENT 1. Incorporation of Certain Terms. You acknowledge that You have entered a Government Product Lease Agreement with MailFinance Inc. (the "Lease") and a Postage Meter Rental Agreement with Neopost USA Inc. (the "Rental Agreement"). If you have an eliible postage meter, then you will have access to a neoFunds postage funding account (for Neopost POC accounts) or a TotalFunds® postage funding account (for Hasler TMS accounts) and this neoFunds/TotalFunds Account Agreement ("Account Agreement") shall govern Your use of such account. Any defined terms in the Lease or Rental Agreement shall have the same meanings in this neoFunds Agreement, except that "We," "Us," and "Our," refer to Mailroom Finance, Inc., an affiliate of Neopost USA Inc. Sections 14 through 20 of the Lease are hereby incorporated into this Account Agreement Page 4 of 6 Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 �a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a) Z r c m E s M Q Packet Pg. 237 4.8.a n ' TERMS & CO NOITI N eo �S� � S p except that any reference in those sections to the "Lease" refers to this Account Agreement. 2. Establishment and Activation of Account. You hereby authorize Us, to establish an account in Your name ("Account") for funding the purchase of postage from the United State Postal Service ("USPS") for use in the postage meter. Your Account may also be used to purchase supplies, pay for the Postage Meter rental, and obtain certain other products and services from Neopost USA. The establishment of Your Account shall be subject to Our approval of Your creditworthiness. Any use of the Account shall constitute Your acceptance of all the terms and conditions of this Account Agreement and all other documents executed or provided in connection with the Account. The Account may not be used for personal, family, or household purposes. 3. Operation of Account. Each time an employee or agent of Yours with the express, implied, or apparent authority to do so (each an "Authorized User") uses the Account to receive a postage meter reset or obtain other products or services that Neopost USA Inc. is authorized to provide, Neopost USA Inc. will notify Us of the amount to be applied to Your Account balance. If the Account is used to obtain postage, then We will transfer the requested amount of postage to the USPS on Your behalf and Your Account will be charged for the amount of postage requested and any related fees, if applicable. You can continue to pre -pay the USPS for postage and understand that pre -paid postage funds will be used first to pay for my postage meter resets. You further understand that neoFunds/TotalFunds will provide additional available postage funds when Your pre -paid account balance is zero (SO). When You request a postage meter reset, if You have the funds on account with the USPS, those funds automatically will be withdrawn first to pay for postage, and any additional amounts due for postage and related fees will be billed through the neoFunds/TotalFunds Account under the terms and conditions of this Account Agreement. If the Account is used to acquire products or services from that Neopost USA is authorized to provide, then We shall pay the applicable amount to Neopost USA Inc. and add such amount to Your Account balance. 4. Payment Terms. You will receive a billing statement for each billing cycle in which You have any activity on Your Account. Payments are due on the due date shown on Your billing statement. You may pay the entire balance due or a portion of the balance, provided that You pay at least the minimum payment amount shown on Your statement. However, if You have exceeded the Account Limit, then You must pay the entire amount of any overage, as well as the minimum payment amount shown on Your statement. Whenever there is an unpaid balance outstanding on Your Account which is not paid in full by the due date shown on Your billing statement, We will charge You, and You agree to pay, interest on the unpaid balance of the Account for each day from the date the transaction is posted to Your Account until the date the unpaid balance is paid in full, at the Annual Percentage Rate (as defined below). The Account balance that is subject to a finance charge each day will include outstanding balances, minus any payments and credits received by Us on Your Account that day. The Annual Percentage Rate applicable to Your Account will be equal to the lesser of eighteen percent (18.00%) per annum or the maximum permitted by law. Each payment will be applied to reduce the outstanding balance of Your Account and replenish the amount available to You. We may refuse to extend further credit if the amount of a requested charge plus Your existing balance exceeds Your Account Limit. 5. Account Limit and Account Fees. You agree that We will establish a credit limit on Your Account (the "Account Limit"). The exact amount of the Account Limit will be indicated on Your invoice. We may, in Our sole discretion, allow Your balance to exceed the Account Limit. In the event We do so, You agree to pay Us an additional fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount by which the Account Limit is exceeded for each transaction that You initiate after Your Account has reached the Account Limit. Such amount will be charged to Your Account on the date that the relevant transaction(s) occurs. Unless prohibited by applicable law, You agree to pay the amounts set forth in this Account Agreement, which may include, without limitation, the amounts specified above, a fee for a late payment, and a fee for any checks that are returned as a result of insufficient funds. Unless prohibited by applicable law, We may charge You and You agree to pay Our fees then in effect for copies of Your monthly statements. All such fees shall be added to Your Account balance. 6. Cancellation and Suspension. We may at any time close or suspend Your Account or temporarily refuse to allow further charges to Your Account. You can cancel Your Account at any time by notifying Us in writing at the address provided on Your Account statement of Your desire to do so. No cancellation or suspension will affect Your obligation to pay any amounts You then owe under this Account Agreement. We will notify You of the Account balance in the event of any termination and all outstanding obligations will survive the termination of this Account Agreement by either party. 7. Default. We may declare You in default if You: (i.) have made any misrepresentations to Us; (ii.) at any time, have done or allowed anything that indicates to Us that You may be unable or unwilling to repay the balance of Your Account as required under this Account Agreement; or (iii.) are in default under this Account Agreement or any lease, rental, or other agreement with Us, Neopost USA Inc., or their affiliates. If You are in default, or upon any cancellation of Your Account, We shall not be obligated to continue to provide the Account service or extend further credit under this Account Agreement. If We are required to take collection action or any other legal action under this Account Agreement, You shall pay upon demand by Us all court and collection costs, along with reasonable attorney's fees. These remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to any and all other remedies available to Us. 8. Remedies. If We have declared that You are in default under this Account Agreement, then We may: (i) declare all agreements You have with Us in default and due and payable at once without notice or demand; (ii) refuse to make further advances on Your behalf to reset Your postage meter; and (iii) exercise any other rights that We may have. In addition, You agree that any default under this Account Agreement shall constitute a default under any agreement You may have with any of Our affiliates, including, but not limited to, Neopost USA Inc., MailFinance Inc. 9. Amendments. We may amend this Account Agreement, or any of its provisions, including without limitation any fees and charges and/or the Annual Percentage Rate, at any time by at least thirty (30) days written notice to You, and such Page 5 of 6 Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 'E U) 0 a 0 a` rn 0 a 0 d z c m E z c� a Packet Pg. 238 4.8.a n ' TERM & C NOITI N eo �S� 5 0 � S p written notice may be included in Your billing statement. Any such amendment will become effective on the date stated in the notice and will apply to any transactions after such date, as well as to any outstanding balance on Your Account. 10. Notice: Any notice required to be given under this Account Agreement by either party hereto shall be given if to You, at the address shown on Your Order Form, and if to Us at P.O. Box 30193, Tampa, Florida 33630-3193. 11. Miscellaneous. You understand that We may obtain credit reports in connection with Your Account now and in the future. This Account Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, without reference to its conflict -of -laws rules, and any applicable federal laws. The sole jurisdiction and venue for actions related to the subject matter hereof shall be in a State or Federal Court within the State of Florida. ONLINE SERVICES AND SOFTWARE AGREEMENT 1. Incorporation of Certain Terms. You acknowledge that You have entered a Government Product Lease Agreement with MailFinance Inc (the "Lease"). Any defined terms in the Lease shall have the same meanings in this Online Services and Software Agreement ("OSS Agreement"), except that "We," 'Us," and "Our," refer to Neopost USA Inc. Sections 13 through 21 of the Lease are hereby incorporated into this OSS Agreement, except that any reference in those sections to the "Lease" refer to this OSS Agreement. 2. License Grant and Additional Terms. In exchange for the license fees that are included in Your Lease Payment, We hereby grant to You a nonexclusive, nontransferable license to use the Software products, including related documentation, described on the Order Form solely for Your own use on or with the Products. You warrant and represent that You will not sell, transfer, disclose or otherwise make available such Software products or copies thereof to third parties; provided, however, that the Software products may be used by Your employees or independent contractors using the Products. No title or ownership of the Software products or any portion thereof is transferred to You. You acknowledge and agree that there may be additional terms and conditions that apply to Your use of any Software provided by Us. Such terms may be provided with the Software, or made available at www.neopostusa.com/softwareterms/ and may be supplemented by Us or third party licensors, from time to time, by notice to You. You acknowledge and agree that You have access to the appropriate version(s) of the applicable terms provided at the address above and corresponding to Software described on the Order Form at the time you enter this OSS Agreement. Such terms are incorporated herein by this reference and You agree to be bound by such terms as if they were fully stated herein. 3. Use of Websites. Neopost USA Inc. and/or any of Our affiliates, suppliers, including, but not limited to, MailFinance Inc. may, from time to time, make certain websites available to You in order to provide You with certain services ("Websites"). If You access any such Websites, You acknowledge and agree that Your use of the Website is subject to the terms of use and/or license terms in effect at the time You use the Website. Such terms are available on the Websites for Your review. You acknowledge and agree that such terms may be supplemented and modified from time to time ("Supplemental Terms"). Your use of a Website after Supplemental Terms have been issued will signify Your acceptance of those terms. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this OSS Agreement and the Supplemental Terms, the Supplemental Terms shall control. Page 6 of 6 Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 239 4.8.a City of Edmonds 121 5`h Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3163 425 775-2525 WSCA/NASPO: ADSPO11-00000411-4/WA 03415 To: MailFinance Inc. 478 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, CT 06461 800-881-6245 WSCA/NASPO - PURCHASE ORDER - LEASE SHIP TO: Scott Passey City of Edmonds 121 5`h Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3183 425 775-2525 P.O. DATE REQUISITIONER SHIPPED VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 IS5000A Digital mailing system 1 IS56STACKER Conveyor/Stacker 1 IS56DWMPKG Dynamic Weighing Module 1 ISWP30 30# weighing platform 1 WP3070STDN Scale stand Postage meter and maintenance for term $30,852.00 60 month lease at $514.20 p/mo (invoiced quarterly) $514.20 SUBTOTAL SALES TAX 9.8% SHIPPING & HANDLING OTHER TOTAL 3,023.50 $33,875.60 1. Order is governed under the terms and conditions of the WSCA/NASPO Master Price Agreement Contract Number ADSP011-00000411-4/WA 03415. Enter this order in accordance with the prices, terms, delivery method, and specifications listed above. 2. Payments will be sent to: MailFinance 25881 Network Place Chicago, IL 60673-1258 Federal ID Number: 94-2984524 3. Send all correspondence to: MailFinance Inc. 478 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, CT 06461 Phone 203-301-3400 Fax: 203-301-2600 Authorized by Print Name and Title Date N O O. O L a 0 O. 0 d Z r C d E z tt to a Packet Pg. 240 4.8.a ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENTS This Addendum to Agreements is by and between MailFinance Inc. ("MailFinance"), Neopost USA Inc. ("Neopos USA") and ("Customer") with reference to the following: A. MailFinance and Customer are entering into a Product Lease Agreement (the "Lease"), pursuant to which MailFinance will lease products to Customer. B. Concurrently herewith, Neopost USA and Customer are entering into an Online Services and Software Agreement (the "OSS Agreement") pursuant to which Neopost USA will make certain other services available to Customer. C. Any defined term used herein shall have the same meaning as in the Lease, or the OSS Agreement. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and in the Lease, and the OSS Agreement, the parties agree to amend the OSS Agreement as follows: 1. Section 2, titled "License Grant and Additional Terms" is hereby amended to add the following to the end of this section: "Your use of the Services is limited to the number of Electronic Certified Mail pieces (each an "eCert") indicated on the Order Form ("Annual Volume Limit"). In the event You exceed the Annual Volume in any year, You agree to pay an overage charge for each eCert used over the Annual Volume Limit as outlined below (the "Overage Charge"). The Overage Charge will be determined as a product of the number of eCerts You process in excess of the Annual Volume Limit multiplied by the Overage Charge associated with tier for the excess as set forth below:" Annual Volume Band (# of eCerts) * Overage Charge 1-500 $ 0.25 501-1,000 $ 0.24 1,001-2,000 $ 0.23 2,001-4,000 $ 0.22 4,001-8,000 $ 0.21 8,001-16,000 $ 0.20 16,001-32,000 $ 0.19 32,001-64,000 $ 0.18 64,001-128,000 $ 0.17 128,001 or more $ 0.16 * Volume bands renew annually The Lease, Rental Agreement, neoFunds/TotalFunds Agreement, Maintenance Agreement, OSS Agreement, and this Addendum contain the complete understanding and agreement between the parties hereto, and supersede all representations, understandings or agreements prior to the execution thereof. Any changes or additions to the foregoing agreements will be valid only if they are in writing and signed by the appropriate parties. eCertify Lease Addendum 5/18/2015 HPL Packet Pg. 241 4.8.a In the event of any conflict between the terms of the Lease, OSS Agreement, and this Addendum, the terms of this Addendum shall control. The parties have caused this Addendum to Agreements to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the date set forth below. Customer: By: Printed Name: Title: Date: MailFinance Inc. By: Printed Name: Title: Date: Neopost USA Inc. By: Printed Name: Title: Date: eCertify Lease Addendum 5/18/2015 HPL Packet Pg. 242 4.8.a MailFinance A Neopost USA Company Product Lease Agreement with Meter Rental Agreement Section (A) Office Information Office Number Office Name Phone # Date 9300 Neopost Northwest (800) 910-7678 06/24/2016 Section (B) Billing Information Company Name City of Edmonds DBA Billing Address 121 5th Ave N City State Zip+4 Edmonds WA 98020-3163 Contact Name Scott Passey Phone (206) 775-2525 Contact Title Fax Email Address scoft.passey@edmondswa.gov PO # Section (C) Installation Information (if different from billing information) Company Name City of Edmonds Installation Address 121 5th Ave N City State Zip+4 Edmonds WA 98020-3163 Contact Name Scott Passey Phone (206) 775-2525 Contact Title Fax Email Address scott.passey@edmondswa.gov Main Post Office Edmonds PO 5-Digit Zip Code 98020 Section (D) Products Qty Model / Part Number Description (include Serial Number, if applicable) 1 DT-ECERT2KAS e-Certify Subscription - Level 3 (up to 2,000 a-Certs per year). 1 DT-ECERT e-Certify Configuration Fee Section (E) Lease Payment Information & Schedule Tax Status: 0 Taxable Number of Monthly Payment Months (Plus applicable taxes) ❑ Tax Exempt First 60 $64.00 Certificate attached Billing Frequency: ❑ Monthly ❑d Quarterly ❑ Annually Billing Method: Current Lease Number: ❑� Standard ❑ ACH (Customer to submit authorization form) Section (F) Postage Meter & Postage Funding Information Meter Model Machine Model Postage Funding Method: Postage Funding Account: ❑ Bill Me ❑ Prepay by Check ❑d POC ❑ TMS ❑ ACH Debit (Submit customer authorization form) ❑ New ❑ Existing Existing Account Number: Service Products (Check all that apply) ❑ Online Postal Rates iMeterTm App (SP10) ❑ Online Postal Expense Manager iMeterTm App (SP20/NeoStats) ❑ Online E-Services iMeterTm App (SP30) ❑ NeoShip BASIC - Requires NeoFunds/TotalFunds (EP70) ❑ NeoShip Install & User Guide (EP70GUIDES) ❑ RunMyMail ❑ Supply Auto Ink Order - Requires NeoFunds/TotalFunds ❑d Maintenance d❑ installation/Training ❑ Software Support Section (G) Approval Existing customers who currently fund the Postage account by ACH Debit will not be converted to NeoFunds/TotalFunds unless initialed here This document consists of a Product Lease ("Lease') with MailFinance Inc.; and a Postage Meter Rental Agreement ('Rental Agreement'), Maintenance Agreement, and an Online Services and Software Agreement with Neopost USA Inc.; and a NeoFunds/TotalFunds Account Agreement with Mailroom Finance, Inc. Your signature constitutes an offer to enter into the Lease and, if applicable, the other agreements, and acknowledges that you have received, read, and agree to all applicable terms and conditions (version DirectLease-04-16), which are also available at http://neopostusa.com/terms/DirectLease-VO4-16.pdf, and that you are authorized to sign the agreements on behalf of the customer identified above. The applicable agreements will become binding on the companies identified above only after an authorized individual accepts your offer by signing below, or when the equipment is shipped to you. Authorized Signature Print Name and Title Date Accepted Accepted by Neopost USA and its Affiliates MailFinance Inc., 478 Wheelers Farms Rd, Milford CT 06461 Date Accepted Form L51186e-04/16 Terms Revision R-04-16 (PF) Packet Pg. 243 Contract Summary 4.8.a (UWashington State Department of Enterprise Services Contract Summary NASPO Mail and Postage Machines and Service AValueftnt Contract#: 03415https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/apps/ContractSearch/ContractSummary.aspx?c=03415 Replaces: 02713, 06907 NASPO Multi -State contract (Arizona lead state). Washington has signed a Participating Addendum, effective 05/12/15. ALL state agencies MUST submit an "Equipment Approval Request Form" prior to utilizing this contract for medium and high volume equipment per RCW 43.19.720. You can find this form in the Pricing and Ordering Information. ALL ORDERS should contain the following (1) Mandatory Language: "PO is subject to NASPO Contract # ADSP011-00000411-7", (2) Your Name, Address, Contact, & Phone -Number. c E Current Term Start Date: 05-12-2015 Award Date: 05-12-2015 Est. Annual Worth: $1,406,551 Commodity Code(s): 600-02 ,600-03 ,600-05 ,600-0E a) Q Current Term Ends On: 10-11-2016 Final Term Ends On: 10-11-2016 m ,600-11 ,600-15 ,600-16 ,600-17 ,600-19 Diversity: 0% WBE 0% MBE a� J Contact Info: Master Contracts & Consulting — Breann Aggers at (360) 407-9416 or breann.aggers@des.wa.gov M M T Who can use this contract? .. fn Organizations with Master Contract Usage Agreements o L a. Current Documents Historical Documents Resources n 0 0. Rebid Schedule Original Contract Comments a) Pricing & Ordering Solicitation Vendor and Contract Performance Feedback Contract & Documents Best Buy Form c Amendments FAQ R r r Q Small Contractors OMWBE Veteran Business FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC. - N N W16252 NEOPOST USA INC - W32206 ` I N I N M=OMWBE Certified Minority Owned W=OMWBE Certified Women Owned MS=Self Identified Minority Owned WS=Self Identified Women Owned Packet Pg. 244 https://fortress.wa.gov/... ch/ContractSummary.aspx?c=03415https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/apps/ContractSearch/ContractSummary.aspx?c=03415[6/23/2016 1:19:42 PM] Contract Summary NASPO ValuePoint 4.8.a The NASPO ValuePoint Cooperative Purchasing Organization (formerly WSCA-NASPO) creates multi - State contracts in order to achieve cost-effective and efficient acquisition of quality products and services. NASPO VP contracts maximize cost avoidance, reduce individual state administrative costs, and encourage market competition and product availability through standard specifications and consolidated requirements. NASPO VP contracts are available for use by public agencies when approved by the State Purchasing Director. List of current NASPO ValuePoint contracts Cr W © Copyright 2012 Department of Enterprise Servil Packet Pg. 245 https://fortress.wa.gov/... ch/ContractSummary.aspx?c=03415https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/apps/ContractSearch/ContractSummary.aspx?c=03415[6/23/2016 1:19:42 PM] 1ashington State Department of Enterprise services Pricing & Ordering Contract number 03415 — NASPO Mail and Postage Machines and Services Date Issued: June 8, 2015 Effective Date: June 8, 2015 Contractors Names: Francotyp- Postalia Inc. Neopost — see contract 03415 Pitney Bowes Inc. Award date: October 11, 2016 Primary Use By: Washington State Political Subdivisions. All State Agencies, Political Subdivisions of Washington and Oregon State, Qualified Non-profit Corporations, Participating Institutions of Higher Education (College and Universities, Community and Technical Colleges). Authorization to Purchase ALL state agencies MUST submit an "Equipment Approval Request Required: Form" prior to utilizing this contract for medium and high volume equipment per RCW 43.19.720. You can find this form below. In RCW 43.19.720, Department of Enterprise Services (DES) has a responsibility to "...review current and prospective needs of state agencies for any equipment to process mail throughout state government." To facilitate compliance and provide state agencies a consistent approach to the review of these requests, categories with restricted access have been identified below. DES provides the forms to gather the information necessary to do an analysis. All equipment reviews and notifications take place prior to order placement. F] Equipment approval request form. docx Contact CMS at: crosmail@des.wa.&ov Contract Manager: Breann Aggers Email: breann.aegers@des.wa.eov Phone: (360) 407-9416 Alternative Contact: Customer Service Phone Number: (360) 407-2210 Email: I contractingandpurchasing@des.wa.gov 4.8.a Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 246 4.8.a Restricted NASPO Master Agreement/ WA Participating Awarded Vendor Purchase Pricing Addendum's Francotyp-Postalia Inc Instructions for accessing pricing: (FP) Barr Turlay (630) 827-5866 Go to the NASPO ValuePoint site at (224) 240-2937 www.naspovaluepoint.org, Service/Supplies: (877) 770-7230 Click on the Current Contract bturlay@fp-usa.com Portfolios tab at the top of the page, See Restricted In the keyword search type Mailing FP Purchases Equipment, Supplies and Maintenance, Click on Contractors (7) tab on the right side of the page, Choose the manufacturer, FP Choose download pricing document from that manufacture. Neopost Instructions for accessing pricing: Larry Laissue (206) 858-3543 Go to the NASPO ValuePoint site at Sales: (425) 444-5898 Service: (206) 436-6863 www.naspovaluepoint.org, Supplies: (206) 764-9000 I.Iaissue@neopost.com Click on the Current Contract Portfolios tab at the top of the page, See Restricted In the keyword search type Mailing Equipment, Supplies and Neopost Purchases Maintenance, Click on Contractors (7) tab on the right side of the page, Choose the manufacturer, Neopost Choose download pricing document from that manufacture. c a� E a a w L aD 0 CU N 0 a 1- 0 c 0 E m a� a� a a� J M 00 M r 0 0. 0 a N 0 0. 0 m z r c 0 t U a r Q Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 247 4.8.a Services Provided — 1. GOODS/SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED • Mailroom Equipment • Desktop solutions through Production Equipment. • Software solutions for small users • Maintenance agreements for purchases and legacy. • Maintenance available for both equipment purchases made under this contract, and equipment purchased previous to this contract. 2. RESTRICTED PURCHASES The following equipment categories are available to customer agencies without restriction: • Rental Postage Meters • Ultra Low Volume Mailing Systems • Low Volume Mailing Systems • Low Volume Folder -Inserters • Low Volume Tabbers • Software License and Subscription (except return mail certification) Restrictions apply to the following equipment categories z • The following categories may be purchased when a printer from the state computer equipment contract will not meet the functional requirement (as determined by the State Auditor). m • Low Volume Ink Jet Envelope Mail Labeler • Medium Volume Ink Jet Envelope a� • High Volume Ink Jet Envelope Addressing System a • Production Ink Jet Envelope Addressing System N • Items from the following categories may be purchased by state agencies only with prior approval in writing from Consolidated Mail Services (CMS). This restriction does not apply to other purchasers • Medium Volume Mailing Systems M • High Volume Mailing Systems v • Integrated Postal Scales y • High Volume Letter Folders Q. • Inserter Productions a • High Volume Folder -Inserter N • Production Folder -Inserter Q. • Medium Volume Tabbers a)a) High Volume Tabbers z r • Pre -Sorting Equipment • Return Mail Certification Software Licenses and Subscriptions • State agencies may purchase items from the following category when furniture available from Correctional r Industries (CI) does not meet functional requirements. (as determined by the State Auditor). This restriction does Q not apply to other purchasers. • Mailroom Specific Furniture Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 248 4.8.a Agreement Number: DES Use Only MASTER CONTRACT USAGE AGREEMENT This Master Contract Usage Agreement (the "Agreement") is made pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, and other applicable laws, by and between the state of Washington (the "State"), acting by and through the Department of Enterprise Services ("DES"), an agency of the State, and a state agency, or local or federal agency or entity, or public benefit nonprofit corporation, or any tribe located in the State ("Buyer"). 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Agreement is to establish the terms and conditions for when Buyer purchases or acquires goods and services for its direct use under contracts entered into by DES that permit such use ("Master Contracts"). 2. Duration: This Agreement will become effective on date of execution, and will continue in full force and effect until thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice from either party cancelling this Agreement. 3. Agreement Contact Information: Contact person to whom contract documents and related communications are to be mailed or faxed. Organization Name: C , Tax Identification Number: _ 00 Unified Business Identifier Reguiedfor Non-profit: 3 [ 00 Dq Contact Name: m C Title: e Address: � 5 City: State: Zip- D Phone Number: c l - 2-7 f _ 3 Email Address: 4. Cancellation Qf Agreement: This agreement can be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice provided to DES at: Email to: mcua@des.wa.gov OR Mail to: WA Dept. of Enterprise Services Attn: ACCO P.O. Box 41409 Olympia, WA 98504-1409 5. Financial Res onsibilit : Buyer will deal directly with the Master Contract contractor, supplier, or service supplier ("Contractor") for any purchases Buyer makes pursuant to this Agreement and under a Master Contract. DES does not accept any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any purchase Buyer makes under a Master Contract. Packet Pg. 249 4.8.a Agreement Number: DES Use Only 6. Compliance with Other Laws: Each of the parties will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing its own purchases. 7. Master Contract Audits: Buyer agrees to cooperate with DES, the Office of the State Auditor, federal officials, or any third party authorized by law, rule, regulation or contract, in any audit conducted by such party related to any Master Contract(s) that Buyer has made purchases from pursuant to this Agreement, including providing records related to any purchase from a Master Contract. In addition, Buyer agrees to provide, upon request from DES, documentation to confirm its eligibility to use Master Contracts. S. Dispute Resolution: If there are any disputes between Buyer and a Contractor, Buyer agrees to (a) provide DES written notice of the nature of the dispute; and (b) unless otherwise provided in the Master Contract or as set forth below, work in good faith with the Contractor to resolve the dispute without the involvement of DES. DES may, upon request, review and assist in the resolution of a dispute, and if DES chooses to do so, the Buyer will cooperate with DES in that resolution process. In its sole discretion, DES may, but is not obligated to, upon written notice to Buyer, resolve disputes with a Contractor on behalf of Buyer and all other state, local, and federal agencies, local governments, and public benefit nonprofit corporations with similar or related disputes with such Contractor. 9. No Separate Entity: No separate legal or administrative entity is intended to be created by, or for the administration of, this Agreement. 10. Hold Harmless: Each party agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the other party harmless from any claim arising from such party's sole negligent, reckless, or willful misconduct. 11. Entire Agreement: This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any other prior written agreements between the parties, with respect to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties having read this Agreement, agree to it in each and every particular, and have executed it below. APPROVED APPROVED WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES Entity Name Entity Name Signature Signature Farrell Presnell, Acting Assistant Director _ AC IPerr�.d Name/Title Name/Title Date Date Packet Pg. 250 4.8.b AM-4022 Item #: 2. K. City Council Meeting Date: 06/21/2011 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Finance Type: Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Lease Agreement with Pitney Bowes for Postage Meter Equipment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the lease agreement. Previous Council Action On 07-18-06, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Lease Agreement with Pitney Bowes for Postage Meter Equipment. This lease is due to expire this year. On 06-14-11, the Finance Committee reviewed the lease agreement. Councilmember Petso had questions about potentially purchasing the equipment versus leasing. She asked that City Clerk Sandy Chase research this information. Ms. Chase responded on 06-15-11 that the underlying equipment could be purchased, however the meter itself is federally regulated and can only be rented. Councilmember Petso agreed with placing the lease agreement as presented on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative One of the responsibilities of the City Clerk's Office is to process and post all city mail. Currently, the city has a lease agreement with Pitney Bowes for postage meter equipment that is due to expire. The equipment has proven to be extremely reliable, and required very little service through the years. The response to any requests for repairs or assistance has been excellent. Pitney Bowes is proposing to replace the equipment and enter into a new lease agreement. The new equipment (DM 1100) will be very similar to what is currently used; a positive change is that the speed will be slightly higher because the equipment will be new. The proposal for the DM1100 includes set up and training, meter rental, maintenance and shape based rating. Included is a 30 pound scale (which is the same as the city currently has) and all new rate changes that the post office has will be automatically added to the machine at no cost. The monthly lease amount is $718.60 (not including tax) and it is for a 60 month term. We will realize a savings of approximately $75 per month from the current lease amount. Pitney Bowes was awarded the State Contract for this mail processing equipment. Because the equipment has gone through the bidding process with the state the city is able to take advantage of this pricing. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and approved as to form. Packet Page 218 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 251 4.8.b Attachments Exhibit 1: Pitney Bowes Contract for DM1100 Exhibit 2: Pitney Bowes Contract for DM1100 Attachment A Exhibit 3: DM 1100 Equipment Information Exhibit 4: State Contract Information Exhibit 5: Additional State Contract Information Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Sandy Chase 06/16/2011 01:54 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/16/2011 01:58 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/16/2011 02:37 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/16/2011 02:38 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/16/2011 Final Approval Date: 06/16/2011 Packet Page 219 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 252 c ICE * _-•'.�� SSTA�, sus f, Sic! o`'•v cow ,v * *. �� Fo �;✓" � asa ', •.� F „aop. TF ? OFF22 Multi -State Postage and Mail Processing Equipment, Accessories, Services and Supplies Equipment Confirmation Form This form must be used and attached to each equipment lease, purchase, service or rental encumbrance document to confirm the selection of equipment covered under the Statewide Contract Number OFF22 on file at OSD. All of the terms and conditions of the Statewide Contract, OFF22 are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. Conflicting or additional terms, conditions or agreements included in or attached to this form, which conflict with the terms of the OFF22 Statewide Contract shall be considered to be superseded and void. Eligible Entities are only required to sign this confirmation form. This form is optional for all supply purchases. Participating State Contract Number:_6907 Purchase Order/Encumbrance Number: Fiscal Year: 2011 Eligible Entity: Contractor Lease Name: Pitney Bowes Global Financial Services (PBGFS) CITY OF EDMONDS Contractor Purchase, Service or Meter Head Name: Pitney Bowes Inc. (PBI) Contact Person: Contact Person: Brenda Mascott Phone: (425) 771 0240 ext Phone: (360) 661 2439 ext E-Mail: E-Mail: brenda.mascott@pb.com Fax: (425) 771 0265 ext Fax: (203) 617 6637 ext Entity Billing Address: Contractor Lease Remit Address: Contractor Purchase, Service or 121 5TH AVE N Pitney Bowes Global Financial Service Meter Head Remit Address: Box 856460 Pitney Bowes Inc, Box 856390 Louisville, KY 40285-6460 Louisville, KY 40285-6390 EDMONDS WA 98020-3163 Lease FEIN/Vendor Code Number # Purchase, Service or Meter Head Contact: Phone: 201344287 FEIN/Vendor Code Number # Sandy Chase (425) 771 0240 60495050 Delivery Address: (If different from Billing Address Above) X 60 (Multiple Address and Contact Information Entity must attached Term Lease # Months the appropriate information to the form) 121 5TH AVE N Meter Head Term Lease # Months EDMONDS WA 98020-3163 ❑Rental (Not to exceed 6 months) Contact: Phone: ❑Purchase (Optional) Huda Olsen (425) 771 0240 ext Check off the applicable box for equipment type and Maintenance Check off the applicable box for equipment sub -category: Plan and number of years after warranty period: x Category 1 New Equipment ❑ Predecessor Maintenance ❑ 2A ❑ 2B ❑ 2C ❑ 2D❑ 2E❑ 2F❑ 2G❑ 2H Service Term after Warranty Period; ❑Warranty ❑X 2"d Year X13 `d Year ❑X 4th Year X❑ 5`h Year Purchase, Lease and Service Billing Options: (Billed in advance unless indicated in arrears below.) ❑X Plan A Yearly Service with applicable response time Term Lease ❑ Monthly Quarterly ❑ Semi -Annual ❑ Yearly ❑ Arrears ❑ 4 Hour X❑ 8 Hour ❑ 12 Hour ❑ 24 Hour Rental ❑Plan B Time and Material with applicable response time ❑ Monthly ❑Quarterly ❑ Arrears ❑ 4 Hour ❑ 8 Hour ❑ 12 Hour ❑ 24 Hour Service Plan A �[:] Monthly ❑X Quarterly ❑ Semi -Annual ❑ Yearly ❑ Arrears Form Revisid%l3e&PJ*WrMT7T fM8 Page 1 of 2 1 Packet Pg. 253 NOTE: Contractors are required to include one (1) month worth of complete supplies necessary to operate each piece of based upon the monthly volumes indicated within the OFF22 terms and conditions upon installation and training. 4.8.b Equipment Equipment/Accessory Quantity Purchase Number Of Trade- Net Total Annual Service N I oral Model Description (E.G. Digital Price Or Lease Or In Lease, Plan Selected Cost For Number Postage Equipment) Monthly Rental Value Purchase Or With Applicable Service Lease Or Months Rental Net Rate Rental Equipment Per Unit/Each Equipment Costs After Warranty Cost See Attachment A for Details $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ GRAND TOTAL $ Special Instructions/Additional Information (e.g. equipment model traded, software license information, lease document information for contractor tracking purposes only, supplies exchanged): See Attachment B Eligible Entity and Contractor signatures below acknowledge ONLY that the equipment order has been placed pending delivery, installation, start-up supplies and training. ELIGIBLE ENTITY: X: (Signature) NAME: (Print) TITLE: CONTRACTOR: X (Signature) NAM E: (Print) TITLE: DATE: I DATE: Eligible Entity and Contractor signatures below acknowledge completion of the four (4) items below to the Eligible Entities satisfaction in addition to the payment start and termination dates. Eligible Entity must check off all four (4) items below acknowledging completion prior to final approval. ❑ 1) Equipment delivered undamaged from the Contractor. ❑ 2) Received one (1) complete set of supplies based upon the monthly volumes within the OFF22 terms and conditions. ❑ 3) Equipment is installed and operational. ❑ 4) Received initial satisfactory training from the Contractor. Lease, Rental or Purchase payment terms do not begin until the appropriate items above have been approved by the Eligible Ei Payment Start Date of this Lease, Purchase or Rental Payment Termination Date of this Lease, Purchase or Agreement: Rental Agreement Month Day Year Month Day Year ELIGIBLE ENTITY: X: (Signature) NAME: (Print) TITLE: DATE: CONTRACTOR: X: (Signature) NAM E: (Print) TITLE: DATE: tity. Form RevisioftDatk,3PaAVr`jV17gf2A98 Page 2 of 2 1 Packet Pg. 254 Pitney Bowes Engineering the flow of communication- NASPO MASTER AGREEMENT OFF22 4.8.b ATTACHMENT A State Contract Number [ 6907 ] Purchase Order Number [ Equipment Equipment/ Accessory Qty Purchase Number Of Trade- Net Total Service Plan Net Total Model Description (E.G. Digital Price Or Lease Or in Lease, Selected With Cost For Number Postage Equipment) Monthly Rental Value Purchase Or Applicable Net Service Lease Or Months Rental Rate Rental Equipment Per Unit/Each Costs SVAF DM1100 WOW Mailing 1 $387.37 60 $0.00 $23,242.20 $191.09 $191.09 System 1M00 IntelliLink Interface / PSD 1 $63.00 60 $0.00 $3,780.00 $0.00 $0.00 for DM500-DM1100 1FAN INVIEW Accounting - 300 1 $0.00 60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Accounts 1FW6 30lb Interfaced Weighing 1 $51.58 60 $0.00 $3,094.80 $0.00 $0.00 1E90050 NASPO Warranty Label 1 $0.00 60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 MP30 15/30 lb Weighing Platform 1 $0.00 60 $0.00 $0.00 $12.51 $12.51 U7PS Power Stacker for DM900, 1 $31.18 60 $0.00 $1,870.80 $28.23 $28.23 DM 1000 1D00 IntelliLink Subscription 1 $0.00 60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $533.14 $0.00 $718.60 $185.46 $185., TOTALS: GRAND TOTAL: Packet Page 222 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 255 v n C v cc N N W 0 01) 77 1p N U1 M � � 0 O D O (cn �3 0 LO -TID� o : C� 3 -� o C: cD- 3 3C�° cu cu C� t (1383 : Lease Agreement for Postage Meter Equipment) F0 4.8.b Simple control center operation • IntelliLink° Command Center - This integrated and intuitive interface is your command center. This allows you to direct your system demands from this single, central location. The command center swivels so that it can easily be seen from all operation angles, and easily detaches for high-speed Internet connection. • Easy -To -Read Prompts - The IntelliLink° technology is incredibly powerful but has been designed to be simple to use for any level operator. The system guides the user with step- by-step instructions such as set-up, accounting, rating, and processing functions needed to get the mail out. • Job Presets - Doing a lot of routine jobs? No problem! The system can store in memory up to 25 of your everyday jobs so that even new operators can run the application easily. IntelliLink° Command Center Brings all control of the DM1100 into a single, central display Auto Sensors Automatically align mail for precise imprints Mixed Mail Feeding Eliminates sorting by weight or size Envelope Ads Add messages to your mail with a choice of downloadable envelope ads • Simplified Rating - The Control Center puts you in command, giving you the flexibility to choose what rate is appropriate for the job. Select from USPS' Domestic and International rates as welt as standard rates from UPS and FedEx. • Full Postal And Carrier Rating - In addition to having access to domestic and international postal rates, you can view published rates for FedEx and UPS. Having the flexibility to compare rates and classes empowers you to make the best decision for your business. • Auto Oversize and Auto Class Select - No need to manually intervene when you have an oversized or overweight piece of mail. The system's intelligence recognizes the piece and applies the correct postal surcharge and/or correct class as appropriate. Weigh -on -the -Way - Allows you to process mixed weight, mixed size mail and apply Shape Based Rating rules Ergonomically Designed Console Provides the correct operator working for maximum productivity, minimizes noise and vibration and ample supply storage : Platform Weighing Choose from 15 lb. to 149 lb. weighing parcel options Stacking Options Maximize the DM1100's throughput speeds with productivity -enhancing mail handling .!,S-N F r $ 00.3T re=u.rnFF,-+i lrc..Pf . - SF r Uses digital technology to print USPS°- compliant Information Based Indicia fI81P1 secure postage and applies downloadable postal inscriptions Packet Page 224 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 257 4.8.b Process more mail in less time — eliminate end -of -day bottlenecks High -Volume Mailers Demand Speed - and get it with the DM1100"'. There is no other mailing system in its class that can get your big jobs done at the speeds the DM1100'" can handle. This highly talented system automatically feeds, seals, prints postage and stacks up to 295 pieces per minute of uniformly sized mail. In an operation like yours, time is a precious commodity. And you can rely on the DM1100's advanced technology to help you get the jobs out the door quickly. • True Mixed Mail Feeding eliminates manual sorting of varying types of mail. With specialty designed self -aligning rollers and anti -skew sensors, the DM1100'" feeder stack accepts capacity up to 6" of varied types of material in a continuous stream. Even "puffy mail" (bubble - lined envelopes) moves effortlessly through the system with accurate rating and solid postage application. • Weigh -On -The -Way'" (WOW'") In -line weighing processes mail faster than ever before at 140 letters per minute, handling mixed -sized mail up to 12" x 15" and weighing up to 16 oz. 11hi automatically. WOW'" comes complete with Shape Based Rating so the system individually weighs your mail pieces, measures the size and sets the system to print the correct postage on each piece. This maximizes the overall throughput of your mail and eliminates end -of -day bottlenecks. • Seal in Open and Closed Flap Minimize hand -sorting with the DM1100'. The system is highly intelligent and accommodates mixed envelope flap configurations. If you have a stack of closed flap, open flap and pre -sealed mail at[ mixed together, it's no problem. The DM1100` handles them effortlessly. • Postcards and "Dark Mail" can be difficult to process. But not for the DM1100". Equipped with advanced detection sensors located throughout the feeding and transport path, difficult material is processed painlessly. The sensors automatically align the mail piece to protect its contents while ensuring precise postage imprinting. • Jet -Spray Sealing with Sensor Controls gives you the confidence that any style envelope is securely sealed. Exclusive sensors identify and follow the contours of the envelope flap, applying the appropriate amount of sealant to the glue line. The system's unique interlocking pressure rollers apply just the right amount of pressure to ensure tip -to -tip sealing. • Differential Weighing - This feature enables you to place mixed mail pieces on the scale platform, and as you remove a single piece from the stack, the correct rate is calculated and the proper postage is printed. This greatly speeds the processing of mixed weight mail and parcels, and increases your mailroom efficiency. • Auto Tape Mode - Processing heavier mail that requires a tape can be repetitive and time consuming. This feature sets the system to automatically generate a tape when material is placed on the scale. • Dual Tape Capability - The DM1100" Drop -In Roll Tape system is designed with efficiency in mind. You can use the feature with either gummed Fivuiiii or pressure -sensitive tape and A deliver the tape either wet or dry. Your supply usage will be trimmed down since each tape is cut to the exact size. ■ Standard INVIEW' Accounting - Tracks and displays expenses for up to 300 accounts. A built-in keypad allows the full naming of accounts, and speed codes provide for quick selection as well as 15 operators, transaction level data and enhanced reporting capabilities. Packet Page 225 of 959 Packet Pg. 258 4.8.b Intellilink° Technology — gives you direct access to a complete suite of management information and service capabilities that will help raise your mail center to new levels of productivity and efficiency. Constant Connection • 24/7 High Speed Internet Connectivity For Speedy Downloads. • Upload Confirmation Services transactions for convenient mail piece tracking. USPS° and carrier rate updates • IntetliLink' downloads carrier and postal rate, class and service changes directly to your system when you need them USPS° and other carrier payment solutions • Pre -pay for postage and earn interest on the balance of your Reserve Account or get a postage advance with 24/7 access. Download improved system features and upgrades • Get instant updates to your DM Series"' operating system for maximum performance and productivity while eliminating near -term obsolescence. Download USPS° Confirmation Services • E-Return Receipt - This service from the USPS° eliminates the need to fill out the traditional Return Receipt "green cards" and gives you a substantial discount. Combine e-Return Receipt with Certified Mail" to get both proof of mailing and proof of delivery. • Delivery Confirmation" - Get confirmation on the date, Zip Coder" and time the mail piece was delivered. • Signature Confirmation'" - All the advantages of Delivery Confirmation with the additional benefit of requiring the recipient's signature. A proof of delivery record, including the recipient's signature, is maintained by the USPS° and is available by fax, mail or e-mail. • Certified Mail`" - Receive an optional proof of mailing as well as a unique tracking number that allows you to obtain delivery details online. Features on demand • Envelope Ads can be downloaded to promote your business, your favorite charity or to celebrate a holiday. • Postal Inscriptions are required to meet USPS" regulations for postal discounts and can be downloaded when considering a new class of mail. Virtually unlimited accounting options Money management at its best. Whether you want to track 1 or 1,000 accounts, the flexibility is yours. Allows you to effectively manage, track and charge -back departmental or client costs. • Download Departmental Accounting software to expand your accounting capacity. Packet Pg. 259 4.8.b D 1100TM specifications Size Length: 77"w/drop stacker, 87" w/power stacker Width: 24", Height: 19" Weight 137 lbs. Electrical Operates on 100-240 VAC, 50/60 Hz, 6.5 amps max. plus 3.0 amps max. accessory outlet UL listed Speed/Productivity Up to 295 letters per minute (non -WOW'" mode) Up to 145 letters per minute (WOW'" model Media Specifications Minimum: 3 1/2" x 5" postcard size Maximum: 12" x 15" with WOWTM 13" x 15" without WOW'" Thickness:.007" min. to 3/4" max. Envelope Flap Depth for sealing: - Flaps open: Minimum .75", Maximum 4" - Flaps closed: Minimum .75", Maximum 2.75" Constant Connection - High Speed Internet Connectivity Connectivity Requirements - Supplied installation kit includes LAN adapter and 14' Ethernet cable - IntelliLinkTM Command Center easily detaches to simplify connections - Optional analog modem connectivity avaitable Guaranteed satisfaction At Pitney Bowes, we are committed to providing our customers with the finest products backed by the highest quality service, and we won't be satisfied until you are satisfied. Ask your sales representative for more information about our Customer Satisfaction Guarantee. Pitney Bowes, the Corpora le Design, rnryneenng the Ilow of comnumcatmn, OM Series, OM1100, IntelliLmk, Weigh -On -The -Way and WOW are trademarks owned by Pitney Bowes Inc. USPS,Certified Mail, 0etrvery C-hrmanon, Signal re C-fi—,atior -nd Zlp Cade are Irademarks owned by the United States Postal servo-e. All others trademarks are the property of the respective owners Standard operating features Standard Auto -Dating Operating Features Multiple Tapes (1-991 Low Fund Alert High Value Protection Original Value Resetting Sealant Level Indicator Seal Only And No Seal Modes Low Ink Alert Password Security Standard Envelope Advertisements (8) Standard Postal Inscriptions (101 Maximum Thickness Warning Weigh -on -the -Way' (WOW'") Technology Mixed Size, Thickness And Weight Feeding Open And Sealed Envelope Feeding Time/Date Stamp Custom Messaging Postage Pass Optional Features Differential Weighing and Peripherals Interfaced Weighing Platforms (15 lb., 30 lb., 70 lb., 149 lb.) Barcode Scanner Power Stacker Furniture Console PC Monitor Mounts Document Printer Business Manager Accounting Budget Manager Accounting Residual Rates Service professionals ready when you need them If you need service, our nationwide network of 1,500 trained Pitney Bowes service professionals is ready to help. Our Computer Enhanced Service Management System lets us record your request, instantly call up a complete history of the equipment, and quickly dispatch a local Customer Service Representative with the right skills. ©2008 Pitney Bowes Inc. An Equal Opportunity Employer, Printed In U.S.A. Packet Page 227 of 959 L. Pitney Bowes World Headquarters 1 Elmcroft Road Stamford, CT 06926-0700 For more information call tall -free: AD 119550708 1-800-322-8000 Packet Pg. 260 4.8.b About GA I Jobs Ridging DDigm huCarrsin�Dn Fadity & Travel, Visit Hone & Canbdds with titre state & Public Wxks Office Servioes Cars & Parlang the Capib3l Surplus Purchasing & Contracts >> Contracts Printable Version Multi -State Postage and Mail GA Processing Equi Performance Contract#: 06907 Replaces: 08101 Related Contracts: 13600 This multi -state contract is for postage and mail processing equipment, accessories, services and supplies. This contract is awarded to multiple contractors: Formax, Division of Bescorp, Inc.; Francoptyp-Postalia, Inc.; Hasler, Inc.; Neopost, Inc.; Pitney Bowes, Inc. The contract consists of Category 1 and 2 described below, with Category 2 consisting of sub -categories 2A through 2H. Category 1 - Postage and mailing systems equipment, accessories, service and supplies, including full equipment and accessory product lines and service maintenance levels for 4-, 8-, 12- and 24-hour response times for annual rates (Plan A) or time and material hourly rates (Plan B). Category 2 - Mail processing equipment, accessories, service and supplies, including full equipment and accessory product lines and service maintenance levels for 4-, 8-, 12- and 24-hour response times for annual rates (Plan A) or time and material hourly rates (Plan B). Sub -Category 2A. Folding/inserting equipment Sub -Category 2B. Folding equipment Sub -Category 2C. Tabbing equipment Sub -Category 2D. Sorting equipment Sub -Category 2E. Mail/letter opening equipment Sub -Category 2F. Pressure sealing equipment Sub -Category 2G. Check imprinting/endorsing equipment Sub -Category 2H. Bursting equipment Current Term Start Date: 02-02-2008 Award Date: 02-02-2008 Est. Annual Worth: $2,491,157 Current Term Ends On: 11-13-2012 Final Term Ends On: 11-13-2012 Commodity Code(s): 600-02 ,600-03 ,600-05 ,600-08 ,600- 11 ,600-14 ,600-15 ,600-16 ,600-17 Diversity: 0% WBE 0% MBE Contact Information: Office of State Procurement - Customer Service (360) 902-7400 or Ismail@ga.wa.gov Who can use this contract? " Washington State agencies " Qualified Cooperative Members (Political Subdivisions/Non-Profit Organizations) " Participating Colleges, Universities, Community & Technical Colleges Contract Documents & Resources View Current Contract Information (CCI) Green -recycled product listing Contractor(s): BESCORP INC FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC. NEOPOST USA INC PITNEY BOWES Contract Activity Submit Contractor Feedback Best -buy Notification The symbol of a tree indicates that environmentally preferred or friendly products are available. These products may not be available from all vendors on this contract. Performance Based Contracting: Packet Page 228 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 261 4.8.b Performance -based contracts identify expected deliverables, performance measures or outcomes; and payment is contingent on their successful delivery. Performance -based contracts also use appropriate techniques, which may include but are not limited to, consequences and/or incentives to ensure that agreed upon value to the state is received. GA Home Page I Contact us I Feedback Access Copyright © 2006 Washington State Department of General Administration All Rights Reserved AfikWashingbDn Packet Page 229 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 262 4.8.b State of Washington Current Contract Information Revision date: June 8, 2011 Contract number: 06907 (replaces #08101 & Commodity code: 13600) 7490 Contract title: Multi -State Postage & Mail Processing Equipment Purpose: Update Pitney Bowes vendor contact information Award date: 02/02/2008 Period of 02/15/2008 performance: through: 11/13/2010 Contract term: Not to exceed 6 years or 11/13/2012 Contract type: This contract is designated as mandatory use. Scope of Contract The State of Washington has joined as a participant on the Massachusetts multi -state mail contract #OFF22. The State of Massachusetts manages the contract on behalf of state members including the State of Washington. You will be directed to the Massachusetts site for contract information that is not included on this document. Contract is awarded to five contractors for multi -state postage and mail processing equipment, accessories, services and supplies. Category 1: Postage and Mailing Systems Equipment, Accessories, Service and Supplies. Category 2: Mail Processing Equipment, Accessories, Service and Supplies. Products/Services The contract consists of Category 1 and 2 described below with Category 2 consisting of Sub - available: Categories 2A through 2H. Category 1 - Postage and Mailing Systems Equipment, Accessories, Service and Supplies Including full equipment and accessory product lines and service maintenance levels for 4, 8, 12 and 24 hour response times for annual rates (Plan A) or time and material hourly rates (Plan B). Category 2- Mail Processing Equipment, Accessories, Service and Supplies Including full equipment and accessory product lines and service maintenance levels for 4, 8, 12 and 24 hour response times for annual rates (Plan A) or time and material hourly rates (Plan B). Sub -Category 2A. Folding/Inserting Equipment Sub -Category 2B. Folding Equipment Sub -Category 2C. Tabbing Equipment Sub -Category 2D. Sorting Equipment Sub -Category 2E. Mail/Letter Opening Equipment Sub -Category 2F. Pressure Sealing Equipment Sub -Category 2G. Check Imprinting/Endorsing Equipment Sub -Category 2H. Bursting Equipment Contract Exception #1: Any State agency that wishes to acquire "commercial" or exclusions: "production" grade mail processing equipment or accessories must first obtain written approval from Consolidated Mail Services in cooperation with the Purchasing Activity's Contract Administrator. Exception #2: In addition to Exception #1, any correctional facility that is part Packet Page 230 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 263 4.8.b of the Washington State Department of Corrections and involved in the processing of secure inmate mail must first obtain authorization from that agency's HQ Purchasing Manager before acquiring any mailing equipment or accessories other than Pitney Bowes. Contractors: This contract is awarded to multiple contractor(s). 1. Formax, Division of Bescorp, Inc. 2. Franco-Postalia, Inc. 3. Hasler, Inc. 4. Neopost, Inc. 5. Pitney Bowes, Inc. Primary user General use: All State Agencies, Political Subdivisions of Washington and Oregon State, agency(ies): Qualified Non-profit Corporations, Materials Management Center, Participating Institutions of Higher Education (College and Universities, Community and Technical Colleges). Contract pricing: See eyeglasses icon with individual contractors below Ordering FOR ORDERS.... ALL CUSTOMERS MUST COMPLETE A EQUIPMENT information: CONFIRMATION FORM FOR EACH LEASE. See forms with individuals below Ordering See Massachusetts website: https://www.ebidsourcing.com/ or www.comm-pass.com procedures: Equipment Confirmation Form (ECF) must be used and attached to each equipment lease, purchase, service or rental encumbrance document to confirm the selection of equipment covered under the Statewide Contract Number OFF22. Conflicting or additional terms, conditions or agreements included in or attached to this form, which conflict with the terms of the OFF22 Statewide Contract shall be considered to be superseded and void. Customers are required to sign this confirmation form instead of a separate lease, purchase, service or rental agreement. This form is optional for all supply purchases. Current $0.00 MBE $0.00 WBE $0.00 OTHER $0.00 participation: EXEMPT MBE 0% WBE 0% OTHER 0% EXEMPT 0% Contract Manager: Lead State for Darren Walz, Procurement Manager, Operational Services Division Contract: Room 1017, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108 Massachusetts Phone:617-720-3106 Fax: 617-727-4527 Email: Darren.Walz@state.ma.us Packet Page 231 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 264 4.8.b Washington Customer Service Contact: Office of State Procurement General Administration 21011th Avenue SW, GA Bldg, Room 201 Olympia, WA 98504-1017 Phone: (360) 902-7400 Fax: (360) 586-2426 csmail @ ga.wa.stov contract number 06907 Visit our Internet site: www.ga.wa.gov HOW TO FIND THE MASSACHUSETTS CONTRACT ON THE WEB: The complete details of the contract are located on Comm -Pass at www.comm-pass.com. Use the following steps • Front page of Comm -Pass select search for contracts link, • Search page — input OFF22 in the document number box and click search, • Sentence Link — Click on the sentence link at the top of the search page and the contract title will appear, • Click on the eyeglasses at the end of the active contract name, • Click on the Terms Tab for additional contract information or click on the Vendor Tab to view the list of Contractors, Click on the eyeglasses for all Contractors to expand the view and at the bottom of the expanded view are the approved cost files. As a Contractor's websites are approved the Contractors Name will become a live link to the pricing which may replace the cost files at the bottom of the expanded view. NOTES: I. Best Buy: The following provision applies to mandatory use contracts only. This contract is subject to RCW 43.19.190(2) & RCW 43.19.1905(7): which authorizes state agencies to purchase materials, supplies, services, and equipment of equal quantity and quality to those on state contract from non -contract suppliers. Provided that an agency subsequently notifies the Office of State Procurement (OSP) contract administrator that the pricing is less costly for such goods or services than the price from the state contractor. If the non -contract supplier's pricing is less, the state contractor shall be given the opportunity by the state agency to at least meet the non -contractor's price. If the state contractor cannot meet the price, then the state agency may purchase the item(s) from the non -contract supplier, document the transactions on the appropriate form developed by OSP and forwarded to the SPO administering the state contract. (Reference General Authorities document) If a lower price can be identified on a repeated basis, the state reserves the right to renegotiate the pricing structure of this agreement. In the event such negotiations fail, the state reserves the right to delete such item(s) from the contract. II. State Agencies: Submit Order directly to Contractor for processing. Political Subdivisions: Submit orders directly to Contractor referencing State of Washington contract number. If you are unsure of your status in the State Purchasing Cooperative call (360) 902-7415 or visit https:Hfortress.wa.gov/galinet/servlet/PCACoopListSv III. Only authorized purchasers included in the State of Washington Purchasing Cooperative (WSPC). It is the contractor's responsibility to verify membership of these organizations prior to processing orders received under this contract. A list of Washington members is available on the Internet http://www.ga.wa.gov/servlet/PCACoopListSv, contractors shall not process state contract orders from unauthorized users. IV. Contract Terms: This participating addendum to the Massachusetts contract includes by reference all terms and conditions published in the original Participating Addendum, including Standard Terms and Conditions, and Packet Page 232 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 265 4.8.b Definitions, included in the Competitive Procurement Standards published by OSP (as Amended). These terms along with the Master Contract terms created by Massachusetts control transactions in the State of Washington. Mass Contract Terra and Conditions.doc SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Vendor Information M M 9 Formax PA.doc Francotyp-Postalia Hasler PA.doc PA.doc Company Name: Formax, Division of Bescorp Inc Doing Business As (DBA): Formax 9 9 Neopost PA.doc Pitney Bowes PA.doc Programs: tLL13 r Comments: Awards for Category 2, Sub -Category 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E, 2F, 2G and 2H. Name: Eric Flinton Title: Government Contracts Address 1: 44 Venture Dr City: Dover State or Province: NH Postal Code: 03820 Country: US Phones: 800-232-5535 ext. 37 Phone2: Phone3: Faxi: Products: Pressure sealers, inserters, document folders, bursters, cutters, letter openers joggers, etc. E-mail: eflinton@formax.com Website: http://www.formax.com Effective Start Date: 2007-11-14 08:00:00.0 Effective End Date: 2010-11-13 17:00:00.0 Vendor Code 1: VC6000064124 Washington Vendor Number W8953 Upload Date Document Description View Formax Pricing OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model LOCAL CONTRACTOR FOR WASHINGTON SALES: 9 ITAVIv Formax local Equipment contractor Confirmation Form.dc Packet Page 233 of 959 Packet Pg. 266 4.8.b Company Name: Francotyp-Postalia, Inc. Doing Business As (DBA): FP Mailing Solutions Home Page http://www.fp-usa.com/ Comments: Awards for Category 1, Category 2, Sub -Category 2A and 2E Name: Joan Rader Title: Major Account Coordinator Address 1: 140 N Mitchell Ct., Suite 200 City: Addison State or Province: IL Postal Code: 60101 Country: US Phonel: 800-341-6052x5722 Phone2: 630-827-5722 Alternate Contact: Russell Wood, Western Region Major Account Manager, FP Mailing Solutions, 140 N. Mitchell Court, Suite 200, Addison, IL 60101; (630) 981-1290; rwood@fp-usa.com Fax1: 800-810-3761 Fax2: E-mail: Jrader@fp-usa.com Website: http://www.fpusa.net/maaorgvtaccts.cfm Effective Start Date: 2/15/2008 Effective End Date: 11/13/2010 Washington Vendor Number Vendor Code 2: 5 Vendor Documents Upload Date Document Description View Francotyp- Postal ia Pricing OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model LOCAL CONTRACTOR FOR WASHINGTON SALES: ,L;Wql� M Q - A 4.. Franco Postalia Equipment FP Products 2010 to FP Product Line.pdf contact info Confirmation Form.dc 2012.pdf Vendor Information Company Name: Hasler, Inc. Doing Business As (DBA): Programs: r x Comments: Awards for Category 1, Category 2, Sub -Category 2A and 2C equipment, accessories, services and supplies. Name: Lucv Bovd (877) 311-4860 x 2920- cell- (626) 376-7655 Packet Page 234 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 267 4.8.b 437 Countrywood Lane Encinitas, CA 92024 Fax (928) 396-7655 Title: Public Sector Business Development Manager Address 1: 478 Wheelers Farms Road City: Milford State or Province: CT Postal Code: 06461 Country: US Phones: 800-237-9154x2112 Phone2: (203) 301-3400 Phone3: Faxi: 203-925-5427 Fax2: E-mail: I. boydOneopost.com Website: Effective Start Date: 2007-11-14 08:00:00.0 Effective End Date: 2010-11-13 17:00:00.0 Vendor Code 1: VC6000200080 Vendor Code 2: 3 General Correspondence Address Hasler, Inc., P.O. Box 3811, Milford, CT 06460-8711 Customer Payments Address Hasler, Inc., P.O. Box 3808, Milford, CT 06460-8708 Vendor Documents Upload Date Document Description View Hasler Pricing OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model Welcome to NESCA. pdf Vendor Information L � Hasler Contractor Information. doc WI Hasler WA Dealer List 11-12-09.XLS Company Name: Neopost Inc. Doing Business As (DBA): Equipment Confirmation Form.dc 9 Hasler. exclusions on 06907.doc Programs: Ltn x * Comments: Awards for Category 1, Category 2, Sub -Category 2A, 2B and 2C, equipment, accessories, services and supplies. Name: Jim Leiby i.leiby@neopost.com Title: Director, Government Sales Address 1: 30955 Huntwood Avenue City: Hayward State or Province: CT Postal Code: 94145 Country: Packet Page 235 of 959 1 Packet Pg. 268 4.8.b Phonel: Alternate Contact: Cell Phone: Office Phone: Fax1: E-mail: Website: Effective Start Date: Effective End Date: Vendor Code 1: Vendor Code 2: Vendor Documents Neopost Pricing EZiI�3:�cZ:1YL:1rE�Iic? Philip Baldwin, Public Sector Business Development Manager Nexxpost Mailing and Imaging Solutions 5200 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 140, Seattle WA 98188 206-764-9000 www.nexxDost.com (425) 444-5898 (206) 764-9000 Philip.baldwin@nexxpost.com www.nexxpost.com 2007-11-14 08:00:00.0 2010-11-13 17:00:00.0 VC6000264572 2 Document Description OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model LOCAL CONTRACTORS FOR WASHINGTON SALES: Nexxpost, LLC, Excel Business Systems Digital Mail Machines, Pacific Office Equipment Welcome to Nexxpost Contact Neopost - Equipment NESCA.pdf Information.doc WASHINGTON 11-12- Confirmation Form.dc Company Name: Pitney Bowes Inc. Doing Business As (DBA): Programs: :5 : X Comments: Awards for Category 1, Category 2, Sub -Category 2A, 2D and 2E equipment, accessories, services and supplies Name: Robert Mailo Title: State Government Contract Manager Address 1: 959 Concord St City: Framingham State or Province: MA Postal Code: 01701 Country: Phones: 800-322-8000x36770 Phone2: Phone3: View Packet Page 236 of 959 Packet Pg. 269 4.8.b Faxi: Fax2: E-mail: bob.mailo@pb.com http://www.pb.com/cqi- Website: bin/pb.dll/asp/SPLlnterest.do?sitelet=StateandLocal&catOID=- 20071 &=en&country=US Effective Start Date: 2007-11-14 08:00:00.0 Effective End Date: 2010-11-13 17:00:00.0 Vendor Code 1: VC6000199850 Vendor Code 2: 1 Vendor Documents One item found Upload Date Document Description View Pitney Bowes OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model Pricing WASHINGTON STATE CONTACT FOR PITNEY BOWES Contractor: PITNEY BOWES Mail Machines and maintenance on existing mail equipment Equipment Confirmation Form.dc Contact: Chelsea Jorgensen Phone: (206) 851-3353 Government Account Representative E Mail: Chelsea.Jorgensen@pb.com e-Fax: (203) 460-3251 Alternate: Art Adams Phone: (203) 351-7866 e-fax: (203) 460-3827 Director, Government Contracts E Mail: Art.adams@pb.com ORDERS TO: BILLING FROM: PAYMENT TO: Chelsea Quimby Pitney Bowes Pitney Bowes Pitney Bowes 1313 N. Atlantic PO Box 856390 Spokane, WA 99201-2302 Louisville, KY 40285-6390 Call Contractor to arrange service. General: 1-800-322-8000 Billing: 1-800-228-1071 Equipment Repair: 1-800-522-0020 Consumable Supply Line: 1-800-243-7824 Ordering procedures: Place order directly with Chelsea or area representative Minimum orders: None Credit card acceptance: Visa, MasterCard, American Express, & Discover Federal ID No.: 06-0495050 Delivery time: 30 days After Receipt of Order Packet Page 237 of 959 Packet Pg. 270 4.8.b Shipping destination: Exclusions on contract Freight on Board (FOB) destination A Exceptions. exclusion s on 06907.doc Supplier No.: W3321 Packet Page 238 of 959 Packet Pg. 271 4.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Citizen Board Candidate Interviews - Edmonds Public Facilities District Candidate Appointments Staff Lead: Andrew Pierce Department: City Council Preparer: Andrew Pierce Background/History In order to fill two vacancies on the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board (the "Board"), the Board submitted the recommendations and applications of two individual candidates, Mr. Patrick Mulva and Mr. Kevin McKay, for consideration for appointment. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council appoint the candidates to the Board on the consent agenda at the following Council meeting. Narrative The Council convened a special meeting prior to the July 19th Council meeting to interview Mr. Patrick Mulva and Mr. Kevin McKay. Attachments: PFD Minutes for Board Appointee Recomendations PFD Board applications Packet Pg. 272 4.9.a Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors Meeting June 23, 2016 The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board meeting convened at 7:32 a.m. in the Edmonds Center for the Arts Green Room, 410 Fourth Avenue North, Edmonds. EPFD Board Members Present Marla Miller, President Susan Loreen Bob Rinehart EPFD Board Members Absent Larry Ehl, Vice President Mike Popke 1. Call to Order ECA Staff Present Joseph Mclalwain, Executive Director City Staff Present Scott James, Finance Director Other Guests Present Tom Mesaros, City Council Liaison Board President Miller called the meeting to order. 2. Board President's Comments Board President Miller commented there is a lot going on at ECA; Mr. Mclalwain and his staff are doing a great job planning the 10th Anniversary celebration and she encourage board members to attend. 3. Approval of Minutes — April 28, 2016 BOARD MEMBER LOREEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2016. BOARD MEMBER RINEHART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Approval of Disbursements — March 2016 Board President Miller relayed the Admin/Finance Committee reviewed the disbursements, staff responded to questions, and the Committee recommends approval. Board members complimented the reporting structure. BOARD MEMBER RINHART MOVED TO APPROVE: April • EPFD DISBURSEMENTS OF VOUCHER #12234-12297 $176,845.61 • ECA DISBURSEMENTS OF VOUCHER #50661-50675 $ 3,907.65 • TRANSFER OF FUNDS: ECA TO EPFD CHECKING #50676-50677 $ 35,000.00 • TRANSFER OF FUNDS: EPFD 1st SECURITY SAVINGS TO CHECKING #90005-90006 $ 52,000.00 • TRANSFER OF FUNDS: ECA TO EPFD DEBT SERVICE $ .00 • BOND DEBT SERVICE: TO CITY OF EDMONDS PAYMENT - 2012$ $ .00 BOND PAYMENT — 2008 $ .00 • LGIP TRANSFER TO 1ST SECURITY DEBT SERVICES $ 73,000.00 • RESTROOM RENOVATION PAYMENTS — REYNOLDS GEN. CNTR'G: $ 67,934.78 Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes June 23, 2016 Page I Packet Pg. 273 4.9.a • TOTAL May • EPFD DISBURSEMENTS OF VOUCHER #12298-12427 • ECA DISBURSEMENTS OF VOUCHER #50678-50718 • TRANSFER OF FUNDS: ECA TO EPFD CHECKING #50719-50721 • TRANSFER OF FUNDS: EPFD 1st SECURITY SAVINGS TO CHECKING #90007 • TRANSFER OF FUNDS: ECA TO EPFD 1ST SECURITY DEBT SERVICE • BOND DEBT SERVICE: TO CITY OF EDMONDS PAYMENT - 2012 BOND PAYMENT — 2008 • LGIP TRANSFER TO 1ST SECURITY DEBT SERVICES • RESTROOM RENOVATION PAYMENTS — REYNOLDS GEN. CNTR'G: $408,688.04 $416,988.62 $ 27,101.47 $145,000.00 $ .00 $ .00 $ 42,996.25 $ 66,485.00 $ .00 $ 40,346.78 • TOTAL $738,918.12 BOARD MEMBER LOREEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5. PFD Board Business • Retiring District Board Members: Bob Rinehart, Susan Loreen Mr. Mclalwain acknowledged the service of Board Member Rinehart for two terms, eight years of service on the EPFD Board as a mentor, leader, and friend; he has been incredible to the Board, the organization, all the committees he served on and the projects he's taken on. The organization will forever feel the impact of his investment of time, energy and resources. Mr. Mclalwain thanked Board Member Loreen for her service on the Board for past three years, representing the interests and imagination of Edmonds Community College as a partner. He also expressed appreciation for her patience over the past nine months as the best timing, process and candidates were selected. He and the organization will be forever grateful for her investment of time and resources. On behalf of the Board, Board President Miller thanked both for their service. She expressed appreciation for Board Member Loreen's calm, thoughtful comments and questions and for her patience and faithful attendance even after voicing her interest in retiring from the Board. The Programming and Marketing Committee has also appreciated her participation. She will be missed on the Board. Board Member said she plans to volunteer at ECA. Board President Miller commented Board Member Rinehart is a special friend of hers and to Edmonds and is helping Edmonds become a better place. He is very much appreciated. Board Member Rinehart commented it has been a wonderful experience and he appreciated the commitment and professionalism of the EPFD and ECA Boards. He liked where the ECA was now and found it comforting to leave at this point. It has also been wonderful working with Mr. Mclalwain. Board Member Loreen said she has served on a lot of different boards during her career; this is truly the most organized and professional. She was very impressed with the ECA and its boards and she hoped to stay involved. Mr. Mclalwain summarized both Board Member Rinehart and Loreen are welcome to continue participating in standing committees, noting the importance of their institutional knowledge. • Vote to Recommend New EPFD Board Candidates: Action Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 274 4.9.a o Kevin McKay and Patrick Mulva Mr. Mclalwain described the strong search process for EPFD board members that included interviewing three candidates; these two are recommended for consideration and approval to recommend to the Edmonds City Council for appointment. He requested Councilmember Mesaros' assistance with an agenda memo to add consideration and approval of the two candidates to an upcoming City Council agenda, with the intent they would attend the July EPFD Board meeting. Councilmember Mesaros suggested inviting the candidates for an interview with Council prior to a Council meeting which would be followed by approval on the Consent Agenda. Council interviews were tentatively scheduled for July 12. Mr. Mclalwain and Board President Miller described the candidates' backgrounds, advising the interview panel highly recommends their approval. BOARD MEMBER RINEHART MOVED TO APPROVE KEVIN MCKAY AND PATRICK MULVA FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE EPFD BOARD. BOARD MEMBER LOREEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Mclalwain confirmed EPFD board members do not have to live within the district. • Appoint New ECA Board Members: Action o Bridget Barrington, Lindsay Geyer, and Susan Schalla Mr. Mclalwain explained the relationship between the EPFD and ECA Boards requires the EPFD Board formally appoint new ECA Board members. The ECA recruitment committee went through an extensive process to identify candidates and unanimously recommend approval of these candidates to the ECA Board. He described the candidates' backgrounds. BOARD MEMBER LOREEN MOVED TO APPROVE APPOINTMENT OF BRIDGET BARRINGTON, LINDSAY GEYER, AND SUSAN SCHALLA TO THE ECA BOARD. BOARD MEMBER RINEHART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution PFD2016-2: Approving Program Director, Gillian Jones, to Sign Artist Contracts Mr. Mclalwain explained this would allow the program director to sign contracts up to a specified amount. He will also continue to be involved. BOARD MEMBER RINEHART MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PFD2016-2, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMING TO SIGN PRESENTED ARTIST AND EDUCATION/OUTREACH ARTIST CONTRACTS ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT. BOARD MEMBER LOREEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Executive Report • Accounting Manager Search — Update Mr. Mclalwain reported the search process closed June 17. Approximately 20-25 resumes have been received and he is reviewing qualifications. He was not certain the compensation offered will attract the qualifications/experience he is seeking for position. The Admin/Finance Committee is discussing next steps if a qualified candidate is not identified including potentially Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 275 4.9.b City of Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application (PLEASE PRINT Ott TYP€) NOTE: Thisform is a publk record and maybe subject to disclosure upon request Edmonds Public Facilities District (8aard or Comm issian) Name:_ Kevin McKay Address: _ Lynnwood, WA 98036 April 4, 2016 Day Phone: R Evening Phone: CPIs: E-mail.- Occupational status and background:__ VP for Finance & Operations, Edmonds Community College (I've been with the College for 23yars}. Have lived in Snohomish County over 30 years, organizatiornal affiliations: Trustee for the Foundation for Edmonds School District Board member for Leadership Snohomish County (also alumni, class of 2012) Why are you seeking this appointment?_ I have enjoyed many programs at the EGA and believe it is one of our regional gems. l have worked with the ECA in my role at the College and through LSC, and believe I can contribute back to my community by serving the ECA. What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria;+ Ma►nY ears of public sector and community Leadership experience, and a passion to serve our community. Please list any other Board, Commission, Committee, or official positions you currently hold with the City of Edmonds: N/A Additional comments: It would be an honor to serve on the EPFD Hoard in support of such an important and vital community resource. Please return this completed form to. Edmonds Pubiic Facilities District Address; 410 4th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 email: lisah@ec4arts.org T 5lgnpture phone: 425.275.4485 Revised 413a/14 Packet Pg. 276 4.9.b Kevin McKay Lynnwood, WA 98036 EXPERIENCE Edmonds Community College - VP for Finance & Administration January 2009 - PRESENT Lead and manage the campus Finance and Operations division, including Budget, Payroll, Security & Emergency Preparedness, Facilities, Information Technology, and Auxiliary Services. Participate in campus leadership as a member of President's Cabinet, represent the college at State commissions and committees. • Serving as chief business and fiscal officer of the College. • Serving as College Ethics Officer. • Working effectively with President's Cabinet in policy formation, strategic planning, and budget development. • Presenting to and informing the Board of Trustees regarding College business, budget, and operational initiatives. • Providing strategic analysis of policy options, critical college programs, and initiatives. • Ensuring high quality and efficient delivery of administrative services to all College services, programs, and activities. ■ Ensuring all financial and administrative functions comply with state and federal laws, guidelines, and procedures. ■ Providing leadership to organizational units within the business and operations areas. • Ensuring an effective, capable, and collaborative administrative staff by appropriate selection, training, development, evaluation, and motivation. • Representing the College to legislative and community groups, federal and state agencies, and professional organizations. • Serving as the Business Advisors Commission representative on the Statewide Technology Transformation Task Force IT subcommittee and on the State Board's "Lift -and -Shift" and "Go -Forward" stee~ing committee. Packet Pg. 277 4.9.b Edrnonds Community College - Director of Informotlon Technology February 2005 - January 2009 Lead and manage afl aspects of campus IT organization, including budgeting, auditrequlrements, and personnel (40+full and part time employees)_ Represent IT to administration and instructional staff, as well as to statewide and national audiences. Work closely with campus programs and staff. Edmonds Community College - Director ofDfstonce teorning September 1999 - February 2005 Managed all aspects of rapidly growing, self-support distance learning program. Managed program staff, developed and managed budgets, tracked and projected program growth, prepared reports, oversaw faculty training and support, coordinated with carnpus administration, represented college at state councils and national conferences. Edmonds Community College - Coordinator ofDistance Learning 1993 - 1999 Washington State Energy Office - Remote System Operator, Intern 1992 - 1993 5eafirst Bank - Customer Service MonogerlOfficer 1984 - 1992 EDUCATION University of Phoenix - Master's of Monagement, Public Administration 2008 2010 University of Phoenix - Bachelor's of Science, Business Management 2005-2007 Edmonds Community College - A,T.A Energy Management & Accounting; Certificate, Commercial Energy Mariagemeni 1992 - 1994 Packet Pg. 278 4.9.b Edmonds Citi.zeln. Board. and Commission Application PLEASEPRINT OR TYPE) NOTE. This form is a publk roeccrd and may be subject to disclosure upon request Edmonds Public Facilities District (Board or Commission) Name: Patrick T. Muiva Address. Edmonds, WA 98026 oate. 3/31 /2016 Day Phone: _ _--- Evening Phone. - Cell: E-mail Occupational status and background: Retired (2014) Vice President. Controller and Officer of Exxon Mobii Corporation (XOM). Extensive experience on profit and non-profa boards. Worked directly with the Exxon Mobil Board. Organizational affiliations: Member of Financial Executives International and former Chair of Finance Committee for the American Petroleum Institute. Current Board member with the Institute of Flight, formerly Future of Flight at Paine Field. Why are you seekingthls appointment?.It provides and opportunity to be more actively involved in an important part of the community- 1 believe I have a good background for this Board and can contribute to its success. What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? Extensive board (profit & non-profit) and organizational governance experience- Considered a"financial" expert by the Securities & Exchange Commission Please list any other Board, Commission, Committee, or official positions you currently hold with the City of Edmonds: Nor.e, Additional comments: We moved to Edmonds in 2015 and are season subscribers to the EGA. This Board provides an opportunity to contribute to the community for something we thoroughly enjoy. Please return this completed form to: Edmonds Public Facilities District Address: 4104th Ave K Edmonds, WA 98020 email. GsahL&ec4arts.org phone: 425- 275.4485 Signature Revised4IW114 Packet Pg. 279 4.9.b Patrick T. Mulva Edmonds, WA 98026 March 31, 2016 Edmonds Public Facilities District 410 41h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Sir/Madam: Thank you for the opportunity to apply for a Board position with Edmonds Pu blic Facilities District, Attached is the completed application form. In addition, I have taken the liberty of also including additional biographical information for your reference. If there are any questions or additional information that I can provide, please contact me on either ray cell at or email me a I am very interested in this opportunity and believe I can contribute to the overall success of the Board. Sincerely, Patrick T. M u Iva Attachmer}ts Packet Pg. 280 4.9.b Patrick T. Melva Mr. Melva was born in Green Bay, Wisconsin. He holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Notre Dame, and an MBA htom the University of Texas - San Antonio. He served three years in the U.S. Air Force prior to joining Exxon Mobil Corporation in 1976. During has 38 year career with ExxonMobil, he was named I'mance director of the Exxon companies in Malaysia in 1991. In 1996, he moved to Canada and was appointed controller of Imperial ail Limited, an ExxonMobil Company. In 1 �98, he was appointed senior vice-president, finance and administration, and a director of Imperial Oil Limited. In 2002, he was tamed Vice President -investor Relations and Secretary of Exxon Mobil Corporation_ In 2004, Mr. Muiva was named Vice President, Controller and Qfticer of the Corporation. He retired from Exxon Mobil Corporation in 2014, Mr. Melva has seared as the chairman of the American Petroleam Instimte's Finance Committee. He is a member of the Financial Executives International, has been a Trustee of the Financial Executives Research Foundation, and a member of the University of Texas San Antonio Business School Advisory Council. He has also served on the Boards of the "Toronto and the Dallas United Way organizations. Pat and his wife Mary moved to Edmonds in early 2015. Packet Pg. 281 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Public Hearing to receive citizens' comments on Proposed Sign Code Amendments (60 min.) Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History The City Council received a briefing on the Planning Board's recommended sign code changes on July 5, 2016. The Planning Board had several discussions on options for temporary portable signs downtown, including their meetings of April 27 and May 11, 2016. A Public Hearing was held on May 25, 2016 to gather input on three options dealing with temporary (e.g. A -frame) signs in the Downtown area, including (1) banning temporary portable signs such as A -frames, (2) allowing them as temporary signs for 60 days only (same as current code), or (3) allowing them as a form of permanent signage with restrictions on time, place and manner. In addition to the amendments regarding temporary portable signs, the draft amendments address a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. At the June 8, 2016 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board indicated a preference for Option 3 and requested staff prepare a recommendation to City Council for Option 3 and the other clarifying amendments. Staff Recommendation Provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance for City Council adoption. Narrative This is a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendations to the City Council on proposed amendments to the Edmonds sign code. The City Council requested the Planning Board to provide recommendations concerning temporary portable signs in the downtown area. Staff is also working on updates to the City's development code on various subjects, and some minor updates to the sign code are incorporated into the draft code amendments being considered here. Various types of signs are used as temporary portable signs downtown, including A -frames, stanchions, easels, etc. In the updated code the proposal is to call these types of signs "pedestrian signs" for simplicity's sake, and to recognize how they are used (as a form of semi -permanent signage). For pedestrian signs in the downtown area (e.g. A -frame, stanchion, or other freestanding portable signs), the existing code considers these to be 'temporary signs' and only allows them for a total of 60 days in a calendar year. However, no permit is currently required for such signs, so tracking them is Packet Pg. 282 6.1 extremely difficult. The Planning Board considered three options regarding these types of signs: Option 1 would have no longer permitted pedestrian signs, Option 2 would maintain pedestrian signs but require a permit so the signs could be tracked, and Option 3 would permit "pedestrian signs" as permanent signage (so that the 60-day limit no longer applies), but also include specific conditions on duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the building or curb, and only in front of the store), and how many (only one per ground floor entrance). After considering public comments and deliberating on the three options for pedestrian signs, the Planning Board settled on Option 3 as the preferred option. The Planning Board also expressed support for the other minor amendments to the sign code considered in this update. The Board's recommendation is summarized in Exhibit 1, with Exhibit 2 containing the code changes recommended by the Board. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Planning Board Recommendation Exhibit 2: Recommended Changes to Edmonds ECDC 20-60 Sign Code Exhibit 3: Meeting Minutes Exhibit 5: Pictures of signs from Phil Lovell Exhibit 4: Sign Code Comment Letters Exhibit 6: Staff presentation from 2016-07-05 Packet Pg. 283 6.1.a '11 . 18yV CITY OF EDMONDS 121 Sch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 42S.771.0220 • Fax: 42S.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Proposal: ECDC 20.60 Sign Code Update File Number: AMD20160002 From: Phil Lovell, Chair City of Edmonds Planning Board Date: June 22, 2016 SCOPE OF SIGN CODE UPDATE The City Council requested that the Planning Board provide recommendations concerning temporary portable signs (pedestrian signs) in the downtown area. While the broader code update may consider additional amendments to the sign code, this update is primarily focused on the temporary portable signs in the downtown area. In addition to the temporary portable sign issue, the recommendation also includes a number of minor amendments intended to clean up and update the code language based on issues that have arisen from implementing the existing code. None of the recommended changes would substantially change the number of signs or the amount of sign area currently allowed by the sign code. PUBLIC PROCESS The City has held two open houses (August 3, 2015 and December 15, 2015) soliciting opinions on and options to address portable signs in the downtown area. The Planning Board has discussed the sign code over the course of seven meetings, including a public hearing on May 25, 2016. In addition to the public meetings, numerous written comments were submitted with recommendations and concerns about portable signs in the downtown area. COMMENTS The Planning Board received comments from the downtown business community as well as citizens who frequent the downtown area. Some general concerns about portable signs included visual clutter, pedestrian obstacles as signs are placed on the sidewalks, and issues with enforcement as currently the temporary portable signs are limited to being displayed only 60 days during a calendar year. Businesses expressed the importance of pedestrian signs in attracting customers. Businesses outside of the main shopping corridor also expressed a need for off -site signage to direct customers to their locations. Opinions were also offered regarding sign design (e.g. uniform sign design) and difficulties of sign placement on older structures under the existing sign code. Packet Pg. 284 6.1.a PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION Having considered all of the public comments and evaluated the pros and cons of various options, the Planning Board respectfully submits the amendments included in Attachment 1 for the City Council's consideration. This recommended code will create a new section in the sign code for pedestrian signs (ECDC 20.60.055) that will permit pedestrian signs as a new type of permanent signage with specific conditions. This recommended code will: • Limit the number of pedestrian signs to one pedestrian sign per ground floor entrance, • Require signs to be brought in when the business is closed, • Restrict the placement of pedestrian signs to ensure a clear path for pedestrian access, • Provide enough flexibility for placement to address each site's specific conditions, • Require a permit for signs to aid in enforcement, and • Count each pedestrian sign towards the overall number and square footage of signage allowed per business. The Planning Board also fully supports the other recommended amendments to clarifying and update the sign code. These amendments will make the code more understandable and provide opportunity for the City to work with unusual architectural situations in order to accommodate necessary signage opportunity. In addition to the recommended code amendments, the Planning Board encourages the City Council to consider the following items of concern. Neither the existing nor the recommended sign code allows for off -site signage. Businesses with locations off the beaten path or in hard to find locations expressed a strong need for signage that can direct traffic to their locations. The Planning Board recommends the City develop a program that provides directional signage at strategic locations downtown that could direct traffic to businesses similar to other City directional signage around town. The Planning Board recognizes there may be legal ramifications of such a program and maintenance issues with such signs; however, the City has a vibrant downtown with thriving businesses and signage is important for businesses to remain vital. Such a program could be developed with input from the Arts Commission and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED!). Numerous comments were received encouraging uniform design in signage. While the Planning Board was not interested in forcing uniformity on businesses, nothing in the proposed amendments would prevent businesses from creating a uniform sign program that meets the code requirements. The Planning Board encourages some level of uniformity in the design for pedestrian signs. • The sign code allows and encourages blade signs by not counting the sign area of blade signs four feet or less against the allowable sign area. Nothing in the code prevents blade signs from accommodating changing information. The City should encourage the use of blade signs as a means for businesses to provide changing information. • The City should seek to employ technological measures when available to assist is sign code application. Packet Pg. 285 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Sections: 20.60.000 Purpose. 20.60.005 Definitions. 20.60.010 Permit required. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. 20.60.030 Wall signs— Maximum area and height. 20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area. 20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs— Regulations. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. 20.60.055 Pedestrian Signs 20.60.060 Campaign signs. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. 20.60.070 Construction signs. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. 20.60.095 Exempt signs. 20.60.100 Administration. Page 1/18 20.60.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to enact regulatory measures to implement those goals and policies stated in the Edmonds Comprehensive Policy Plan and to achieve the following objectives: A. Protect the public right-of-way from obstructions which would impair the public's use of their right-of-way. B. Minimize the hazard to the public represented by distractions to drivers from moving, blinking, or other similar forms of signage or visual clutter. C. Provide for distinct signage for each distinct property. D. Encourage the use of graphics/symbols to reduce the visual clutter associated with overly large letters or extensive use of lettering. E. Minimize potential for view blockage and visual clutter along public rights -of -way. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.005 Definitions. For the purposes of the enforcement of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: "Attached sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building. Attached signs include wall signs, projecting signs, and window signs. "Boxed cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that is roughly rectangular in shape and provides for internal illumination and changing the message of the sign by replacing a single transparent or translucent material such as a Plexiglas/lexan face. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that is essentially a rectangular box and one that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign, or an "outline cabinet sign." Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 286 Edmonds Page 2/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE "Building ID/historic sign" is a permanent sign that identifies or names a building and assists in creating landmarks in the city. Examples include dates, "1890"; names, "Beeson Building"; or addresses. "Campaign sign" is a temporary sign displaying a message relating to a candidate, political party, or issue that is registered or certified for an upcoming election. "Commercial sign" is a sign displayed for the purpose of identifying a commercial use, or advertising a service, product, business or venture that is offered for trade or sale. "Community event banner" is a noncommercial sign composed of cloth, fabric, canvas or similarly flexible material that promotes a temporary community event endorsed, operated or sponsored wholly or in part by a local public entity the jurisdiction of which includes the city of Edmonds. "Community events" are nonprofit, governmental or charitable festivals, contests, programs, fairs, carnivals or recreational contests conducted within the city. "Construction sign" is a permanent or temporary sign displayed on premises where any physical excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work is currently occurring, pursuant to a valid building permit. "Directional symbols" are small in size (two square feet or less) and intended to provide on -site directions to specific locations or areas (such as parking areas, drive -through facilities, ATMs and entries and/or exits), hours of operation, parking limitations, warnings of hazards, prohibition of activities (such as "no parking"), historical markers and similar public information. Directional symbols are not considered to be signage as regulated in this chapter. "Fixed sign" is any sign attached or affixed to the ground or any structure in such a manner so as to provide for continuous display for an extended or indeterminable period of time. Fixed signs include, but are not limited to, freestanding signs and wall signs. "Freestanding sign" is any sign that is not attached or affixed to a building. Freestanding signs can be further described as "monument signs" or "pole signs." "Governmental sign" is a sign owned, operated or sponsored by a governmental entity, and which promotes the public health, safety or welfare. Governmental signs include, but are not limited to, traffic signs, directional and informational signs for public facilities, publicly sponsored warning or hazard signs, and community event banners displayed by a governmental entity on public property. "Group sign" is a sign or signs on one sign structure serving two or more businesses sharing a parking facility. "Halo sign" is a sign where the light source is concealed behind an opaque face and the rays of illumination are projected outward around the edges of the sign or directed against the surface behind the sign forming a silhouette or halo effect. Halo signs are not considered to be internally illuminated signs for the purposes of this chapter. "Identification structure" is a structure intended to attract the attention of the public to a site, without the use of words or symbols identifying the businesses. Examples include fountains, sculptures, awnings, and totem poles. "Internally illuminated signs" include any sign where light shines through a transparent or semi -transparent sign face to illuminate the sign's message. Exposed neon is considered to be a form of internal illumination. "Marquee" or canopy is a permanent roofed structure attached and supported by the building. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 287 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 3/18 "Marquee sign" is any sign attached to or made a part of a building marquee. A marquee sign is a form of projecting sign. "Monument signs" are freestanding signs that have integrated the structural component of the sign into the design of the sign and sign base. "Noncommercial sign" is a sign that is intended to display a religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic message, that is not primarily associated with a good, product, or service offered for sale or trade. Noncommercial signs include signs advertising incidental and temporary commercial activities conducted by churches and nonprofit businesses, clubs, groups, associations or organizations. "Off -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting, that is offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at some location or premises other than that upon which the sign is posted or displayed. Off -premises signs include all signs posted or displayed in the public right-of-way. "On -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting that is lawfully permitted to be offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at the location or premises upon which the sign is posted or displayed. On -premises signs also include signs not related to any particular location or premises, such as signs displaying religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic messages that are intentionally displayed by the owner of the property or premises upon which the sign is displayed. "Outline cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that roughly follows the shape of the text or symbology of the sign and provides for internal illumination. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign and one that is essentially a rectangular box or a "boxed cabinet sign." An "outlined cabinet sign" will be treated more like an "individual letter sign" where the area of the sign is calculated based on the actual outlined shape of the sign. "Permanent sign" is a fixed or portable sign intended for continuous or intermittent display for periods exceeding 60 days in any calendar year. "Pole signs" are freestanding signs where the structural support for the sign is one or more aexposed pole(s). Pole signs may include community event banners where the banner is supported by at least two poles that are permanently attached to the ground ("pole -mounted community event banners"). Signs with two poles that are not more than six (6) feet in height are considered to be monument signs. "Portable sign" is any sign that is readily capable of being moved or removed, whether attached or affixed to the ground or any structure that is typically intended for temporary display. Portable signs include, but are not limited to: 1. Signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 288 6.1.b Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 4/18 2. Pedestrian signs, including signs such as A -frame (sandwich board), stanchion, easel, or post -style signs 8. "A" and „T„ fFaFne signs; 4. Wooden, metal, or plastic "stake" or "yard" signs; S. Posters or banners affixed to windows, railings, overhangs, trees, hedges, or other structures or vegetation, except for pole -mounted community event banners; 6. Signs mounted upon vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way, except signs identifying the related business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation of the business, and except for signs advertising for sale the vehicle upon which the sign is mounted; 7. Searchlights; 8. Inflatables. "Premises" is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed, except within the boundaries ef the BG eF BD zene iR the dewRtewn aetivity eenteF aS defined an the eeMpFehensive plan, where 11 pFemises" shall Include any portion of the public sidewalk which fronts upon the let. "Projecting sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface of such building or wall. "Reader board sign" is a sign that is designed to allow for a change in the message, either by adding or removing plastic letters, or by means of electronics and lights. Reader boards do not include signs which have a changeable message where the sign does not change more than once per day and where the changeable features are integrated with the background and overall design of the sign, including the sign's typefaces, colors and symbology. Individual letters or numbers placed on a solid colored background is considered to be a reader board. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 289 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 5/18 Two Left: Acceptable changeable message sign; Two Rieht: A reader board. OPEN HOUSENOVEMBER It •a ILI ro- !�EVlLAR PCWEHEOr THE SOHCOIH AHU WORSHIPPASTOR HARRY H JOHNS ill "Real estate sign" is a sign displaying a message relating to the sale or rent of real property. "Sign" is any structure, device or fixture that is visible from a public place, that incorporates graphics, symbols, or written copy for the purposes of conveying a particular message to public observers, including wall graphics or identification structures. "Sign area" is the maximurn actual area of a sign that as visible from any single point of observation from any public vantage point. SUPP90ing StFUGWFes which aFe paFt of a sign display shall be n the ealeulation of the sign area area of a sign on which copy is to be placed, as set forth in ECDC 20.60.020(A). "Temporary sign" is an allowed per a sign intended for short-term display, not to exceed 60 calendar days in any calendar year. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 are not regulated as temporary Signs. "Wall graphic" is a wall sign, including murals, in which color and form, and primarily without the use of words, is a part of the overall design on the building(s) where the wall graphic is proposed. A wall graphic may be painted or applied (not to exceed one-half inch in thickness) to a building as a part of its overall color and design, but may not be internally lighted. Internally lighted assemblies, including those which project from the wall of the structure, or which are located on any accessory structure on the site, shall be considered wall signs and comply with the requirements of this chapter. "Wall sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a wall and that is parallel to and not projecting more than 12 inches at any angle from such wall. Wall signs include signs that are painted directly upon a wall. "Window sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a window, or a sign displayed within 24 inches of the inside of a window in such a manner as to be visible from any public place. [Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3631 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 8, 2007; Ord. 3561 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3514 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.010 Permit required. A. Except as provided in this chapter, no permanent sign may be constructed, installed, posted, displayed or modified without first obtaining a sign permit approving the proposed sign's size, design, location, and display as provided for in this chapter. B. Design approval is not required for the posting of permanent signs in residential zones; provided, that the restrictions and standards of this chapter are met. If additional signage is requested for conditional or nonconforming uses in residential zones, the property owner shall apply for design review. Design review is not required for any sign which does not require a building permit. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 290 Edmonds Page 6/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE C. A sign modification shall include, but is not limited to, relocations, modifications to size, design, height or color scheme, or the replacement of 25 percent or more of the structural material in the sign area. Normal and ordinary maintenance and repair, and changes to the graphics, symbols, or copy of a sign, without affecting the size, structural design, height, or color scheme, shall not constitute modifications for purposes of this section. [Ord. 3514 § 2, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section, and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000, the criteria set forth in ECDC 20.10.070, and the standards and requirements of this chapter; provided, that for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review the application in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural design board are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. rPv'P ;;hl^ as Type " appeal (See ECDC 20 n1 005) established In ChapteF 20.105 EGDG f9F appeal ef staff deeisiens and signs reviewed Linder subseetien (A)(!) of this seEtien are appealable as provided thereimn-. 1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety: a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter; b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter; c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood. B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed below in subsection (B)(1) and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section. a n accordance with the pelleles A-f ECDC 2-0.10.000, the crite—ria Set fe—rth in ECDC 2-0.1-0.07-0, and the standards and requirements of this chapte.r. The deei-sien A-f the arehiteetuFal design beaFd en any sign peFmit applicatien may be appealed te the city eeuncil PUFSUant to the procedwe established in ECDC 20.10.080 faF appeal of aFEhiteetwal 1. The ADB shall review any Assign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests th@# m^^* ," of the fellewin criteria that arise from one of the followinE two situations: a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two streets or has an unusual geometric shape or topography; b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity. 2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria: ea. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity; Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 291 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 7/18 db. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50 percent. C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme, style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the procedure established in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. 2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to: a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum one -fourth -inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component; c. Material/color samples; d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight-and-one-half-inch-by-11-inch format to include a description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist's resume; and evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee; and e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated historic district. 3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include: a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no fluorescent paints; b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering. Consideration should be given to anti -graffiti coating; and c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale, color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 292 Edmonds Page 8/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. A. Sian Area. The area of a Bien shall be calculated as follows: 1. The area of a sign is maximum actual area of a sign that is visible from anv single point of observation from any public vantage point. The sign area is normally the smallest rectangle that encloses the entire copy area of the sign. 2. Individual letters, numbers or symbols applied directly to a wall or structure and used to form the sign shall be calculated individually; 3. Supporting structures which are part of a sign display shall be included in the calculation of the sign area, except that the supporting structure of a monument sign or pole sign shall not be included when calculating the sign area. STORE ? NAME 1 140S Left: Sign Area = X * Y Right: Applied individual letters are calculated separately Monument sign: the base is not included in the calculation of sign area (dashed rectangle) A. When located on a wall or mansard roof, no sign may extend above the highest point of the wall or mansard roof when the mansard roof is on a one-story building., or above the eave er drip line ^f a pitched roof on which it '`,s located. Other than a mansard roof on a one-story building, ,-a sign may not be attached above the eave or drip line on a pitched roof. B. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, no sign or any part of a sign may be designed or constructed to be moving by any means and shall not contain items such as banners, ribbons, streamers and spinners. Signs with type that is movable to change the message (reader boards) are allowed, subject to the specific requirements detailed elsewhere in this chapter. C. "moo^ signs shall Signs that extend into or over a public right-of-way unless an enff8aehment ^ „.,:} has been approved fseeshall comply with -Chapter 18.70 ECDC4. D. Exposed braces and angle irons are prohibited unless they are part of a decorative design that is integral to the design of the sign. Guywires are prohibited unless there are no other practical means of supporting the sign. E. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, fluttering or moving lights or other illuminating device which has a changing light density or color; provided, however, temperature and/or time signs that conform in all other respects to this chapter are allowed. Electronic reader boards may have messages that change, however, moving messages are not Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 293 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 9/18 allowed. Messages that change at intervals less than 20 seconds will be considered blinking or flashing and not allowed. F. No light source which exceeds 20 watts shall be directly exposed to any public street or adjacent property. G. No illumination source of fluorescent light shall exceed 425 milliamps or be spaced closer than eight inches on center. H. No commercial sign shall be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. unless the commercial enterprise is open for business and then may remain on only as long as the enterprise is open. I. No window signs above the first floor shall be illuminated. J. Sign height shall be determined as follows: 1. For attached signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point on the sign to the average finished grade. 2. For freestanding signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point of the sign area or its support to the average elevation of undisturbed se4the finished grade at the base of the supports. K. Portable signs may not be used as permanent signage; only fixed signs are permitted. L. The following matrix summarizes the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district within the city: Sign Type Downtown' SR-99' Westgate/SR-1043 Neighborhood Commercial (BN BP and FVMU Zones) Business Uses in RM Zones Wall -mounted P P P P P Monument C P P C C Pole N P N N N Projecting P P P P P Internal Illumination C P P C N Reader Boards C C C C C Individual Letters P P P P P Boxed Cabinet N P C C N Building ID P P P P p 5;A1g(a,.0,,h PARF,JS Pedestrian P N N N N Wall Graphics C C C C C ' Downtown includes all properties within the Downtown Activity Center defined in the Comprehensive Plan. SR-99 includes all properties within the Medical -Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3 Westgate/SR-104 includes all properties within the Westgate Corridor, the Edmonds Way Corridor, and within the Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 294 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 10/18 Note: In the above table, P = Permitted; N = Not permitted; C = Conditionally permitted through design review if consistent with the standards itemized in ECDC 20.60.020(M). M. The following standards clarify how some signs identified as "conditionally permitted" must be installed to be permitted in the city of Edmonds. 1. Monument signs over six feet in height must be reviewed to ensure that the materials, colors, design and proportions proposed are consistent with those used throughout the site. 2. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and neighborhood commercial areas may only light the letters or logos/symbols. The background of a sign face may not be illuminated. 3. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas must be mounted on the wall of the building. They may not be mounted on or under an attached awning. 4. Internally illuminated signs that use exposed neon may only be located in the interior of buildings in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas. 5. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area shall not be permitted to be higher than 14 feet in height. 6. Reader board messages are limited to alphanumeric messages only. 7. Reader boards are only permitted for public uses or places of public assembly. Public uses and places of assembly include, but are not limited to, schools and churches as well as local and regional public facilities. 8. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be coordinated with and compliment the colors used on the building. 9. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be opaque and not allow any internal illumination to shine through. [Ord. 3631 § 2, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. A. Business and Commercial Zone Districts (BN, ABC, BD, WMU, CW and CG). 1. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the BN, BC, BD and CW zones shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall containing the main public entrance to the primary building or structure located upon a separate legal lot. 2. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the CG zone shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage along a public street and/or along a side of the building containing the primary public entrance to a maximum of 200 square feet. The allowable sign area shall be computed separately for each qualifying building frontage, and only the sign area derived from that frontage may be oriented along that frontage. Sign areas for wall -mounted signs may not be accumulated to yield a total allowable sign area greater than that permitted upon such frontage, except that businesses choosing not to erect a freestanding sign may use up to 50 percent of their allowable freestanding sign area for additional attached sign area. Use of the additional area shall be subject to the review of the architectural design board. 3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall, projecting, and freestanding signs, in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less and Window - window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign area permitted. 4. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is three per site, or three per physically enclosed business space on commercial sites with multiple business tenants. A site with more than one street frontage Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 295 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 11/18 is allowed a maximum of five (5) signs. Pro[ecting (including blade) signs of four square feet or less and Wandew-window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total number of permitted permanent signs. Multi -tenant sites are allowed one additional group sign per street frontage identifying the individual subtenants at the site. The total sign area of all signs permitted on site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter. 5. Where permitted, pedestrian signs do count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted. B. Residential Zone Districts (RS, RM). 1. The maximum allowable signage area for individual residential lots shall be four square feet per street frontage, except as provided in subsection (13)(2) of this section. 2. The maximum allowable signage area for formal residential subdivisions, planned residential developments (PRD), or multifamily structures containing at least 10 dwelling units shall be 10 square feet per main street entrance into the subdivision or PRD. Only one sign may be provided at each main entrance. 3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall and freestanding signs, in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign area permitted. 4. Signage in excess of that provided in subsections (13)(1) and (2) of this section for lawful nonconforming or conditional nonresidential uses in residential zones may be approved through the issuance of a sign permit pursuant to ECDC 20.60.010, subject to the maximum area and height limitations established for signs in the BN zone. 5. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is one, except that multifamily sites with more than one vehicular entrance may have one permanent sign per entrance. The total sign area of all signs (excluding incidental signs) permitted on -site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter. [Ord. 3805 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3628 § 9, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.030 Wall signs — Maximum area and height. A. The maximum area of any wall sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 4 square feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 1 square foot per lineal foot of attached wall B. The maximum height of any attached sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CGL 14 feet or the height of the face of the WMU, FVMU building on which the sign is located, consistent with ECDC 20.60.020(A) [Ord. 3628 § 10, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 296 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 12/18 20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area. The maximum area of any window sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 4 square feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU,FVMU 1 square foot per each lineal foot of window frontage [Ord. 3628 § 11, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions. A. The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM Not permitted BN, BP BC, BD, CW. WMU, FVMU 16 square feet CG 32 square feet B. The maximum height of any projecting sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM Not permitted BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CGS WMU, FVMU 44-feeFHeight of the wall to which the sign is attached C. The bettem of the SigR area of prejecting sign-s shall be at least eight feet in height and at least 1-1- feet in height ;f ;t projects eve.r a „hide traveled right of .. The sign area of a marquee sign may not exceed two feet in vertical dimension. [Ord. 3628 § 12, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs — Regulations. A. Regulation. Permanent freestanding signs are discouraged. Freestanding signs shall be approved only where the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that there are no reasonable and feasible alternative signage methods to provide for adequate identification and/or advertisement. B. Maximum Area. The maximum area of a freestanding sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 10 square feet (subdivision, PRD, multifamily) 4 square feet (individual residence sign) BN BP 24 square feet (single) 48 square feet (group) BC, BD, WMU, 32 square feet (single) FVMU 48 square feet (group) CW 32 square feet (single) 48 square feet (group) CG Sign area shall be governed by subsection (C) of this section Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 297 Edmonds Page 13/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE C. Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs — CG Zone. The total allowable sign area for freestanding signs on general commercial sites shall be 56 square feet or one-half square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 160 square feet of freestanding sign area. Multiple business or tenant sites shall further be allowed an additional 24 square feet of freestanding sign area for each commercial tenant or occupant in excess of one up to a maximum sign area of 160 square feet. Corner lots choosing to accumulate sign area under the provisions of subsection E of this section shall be limited to 160 square feet. D. Maximum Height. The maximum sign height of freestanding signs shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign R5, RM 6 feet BN, BBC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 14 feet CG 25 feet E. Location. Freestanding signs shall be located as close as possible to the center of the street frontage on which they are located. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, freestanding signs may not be located on public property. Sites on a corner of two public streets may have one sign on the corner instead of a sign for each frontage. Monument signs not more than six feet in height may be located in a zoning setback, but not less than five (5) feet from a property line. F. Number. In all zones, each lot or building site shall be permitted no more than one freestanding sign, except in the business and commercial zones where a lot or site has frontage on two arterial streets, in which case there may be permitted one sign per street frontage subject to the restrictions on area contained within this chapter. G. Landscaping. 1. Each freestanding sign shall have a landscaped area twice the size of the sign area at the base of the sign The landscaping and sign base shall be protected from vehicles by substantial curbing. 2. The applicant shall provide a landscape performance bond in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of the landscaping, or $1,000, whichever is more. The bond shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 17.10 ECDC. [Ord. 3631 § 3, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 13, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. There are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.055 Pedestrian Signs. Pedestrian signs are only permitted on private property and in the adjacent right-of-way in the BC, BD, CW, and CG zones located within the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Pedestrian signs are only permitted if they meet the following requirements. 1. Pedestrian signs maybe permitted to be located either (1) between the business ground floor entrance and the public right-of-way, or (2) on the sidewalk in front of the business storefront if the pedestrian sign meets the following standards. a. Only one pedestrian sign is permitted per ground floor entrance; b. Businesses may make arrangements to rotate their pedestrian signs provided they meet the one sign -per -ground floor entrance standard; Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 298 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 14/18 c. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry, unless it is placed in a location that better preserves public pedestrian and vehicular access: d. A business with multiple ground floor entrances shall have no more than one pedestrian sign. e. The sign shall be located to provide a minimum of five feet of clearance for pedestrians to pass. The preferred locations are within two feet of the building face or within two feet of the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles; f. Pedestrian signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. Pedestrian signs are limited to six (6) square feet in area and 3-1/2 feet in height for A -frame or sandwich board signs, or six (6) square feet in area and 4-1/2 feet in height for stanchion, easel or other types of pedestrian signs. 20.60.060 Campaign signs. A. On -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in all zones, subject to the maximum sign size limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080. B. Off -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in the public right-of-way; provided, that the following requirements are met: 1. All campaign signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B). 2. All off -premises campaign signs shall be removed within 10 days after the primary, general, or special election to which they pertain. 3. Off -premises campaign signs shall be posted and displayed no earlier than upon declaration of candidacy in accordance with Chapter 29.15 RCW, or other formal registration or certification of the candidate, party, initiative, referendum or other ballot issue for an upcoming election, or 60 days prior to the election, whichever time period is greater. C. There is no maximum number of off -premises campaign signs that may be posted. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. A. On -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in residential and commercial zones, subject to the maximum signage area and sign number limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080. B. Off -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage, subject to the following requirements: 1. Two and only two types of off -premises real estate signs shall be permitted: a. An off -premises real estate directional sign is a sign displaying a directional arrow and either a company or logo, or an indication that the property is for sale by its owner, and installed for the purpose of directing the public to the property. b. An off -premises open house sign is a form of temporary off -premises sign indicating the property is currently open for viewing. 2. All off -premises real estate signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B ). Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 299 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 15/18 3. The maximum number of off -premises real estate signs allowed per property shall only be the number reasonably necessary to direct people to the premises. An agent or owner shall be permitted no more than one off -premises real estate directional sign per intersection and five in total. No more than one off -premises open house sign shall be displayed per intersection and no more than five in total. a. Each off -premises real estate directional sign shall bear a legible tag located on the sign or supporting post indicating the date of posting and the address of the property to which it pertains. b. Off -premises real estate open house signs shall only be posted during daylight hours when the real estate agent or owner is in attendance at the property for sale or rent, and shall be removed immediately upon the termination of an "open house" or other similar property display event. 4. No off -premises real estate signs shall be fastened to any traffic control device, public structure, fence, rock, tree or shrub. C. All on -premises and all off -premises real estate directional signs shall be removed within seven days after the closing of the sale or lease of real property to which the sign pertains. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.070 Construction signs. Construction signs shall, irrespective of their duration, conform to the general regulations for permanent signs specified under ECDC 20.60.020. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the maximum area of a construction sign in any zone shall be 32 square feet. No sign permit is required for the posting of construction signs; provided, that all construction signs shall be removed from the premises within 10 days of the cessation of the excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work on site. Zone Maximum Area of Signage (per Street Frontage) RS 16 square feet, or 32 square feet if one sign is displayed for a project consisting of building permits issued for four lots or more. Only one sign may be displayed per project. All other 32 square feet zones The preceding square footages shall be in addition to any other temporary signage permitted by ECDC 20.60.080 [Ord. 3514 § 3, 20041. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. A. On -Premises Temporary Signs. On -premises temporary signs are permitted in residential and commercial zones, in addition to any allowed or permitted permanent signage, subject to the following restrictions and standards: 1. Residential Zones (RS, RM). a. Only portable, freestanding or attached signs may be used as temporary signage. b. Commercial on -premises temporary signage is not permitted, except for real estate signs as defined by ECDC 20.60.065. c. Maximum number is one attached or freestanding sign. 2. Commercial Zones (BN, ABC, BD, WMU, FVMU, CW, CG). a. Only portable, freestanding or attached signs may be used for temporary signage; PFeVi ed, that "sandwiel; heard" er "A" frame portable signs shall only be permitted In the 13C, BD and QU zener. "Attached" signs may be affixed to any existing building or sign structure that is permitted as a Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 300 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 16/18 permanent structure on the property. New temporary structures whose sole purpose is to display the temDorary sien are not otherwise permitted. b. Maximum duration of display is 60 days in any calendar year for the cumulative posting of all temporary commercial signage upon each commercial location or premises. A permit is required, specifying the duration and location of display. c. Maximum number of temporary signs is one freestanding sign per property street frontage, and one attached sign per building. 3. The total maximum area of on -premises temporary signage shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Temporary Sign RS, RM 6 square feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 20 square feet CG 30 square feet 4. The total maximum area for each allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Temporary Sign RS, RM 6 square feet (freestanding and attached) BN, BP BC, BD, 6 squape feet (fFeest nd ng) CW, WMU, 20 square feet (attached) FVMU CG 6 square feet (freestanding) 30 square feet (attached) 5. The maximum height of any allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet (freestanding and attached) BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 3 feet (freestand ng) 14 feet (attached) 6. In no case shall temporary signage be posted, located, or displayed in violation of the regulations for permanent signs set forth in ECDC 20.60.020 through 20.60.050. B. Off -Premises Temporary Signage. Off -premises temporary signs are allowed in residential and commercial zones, in accordance with the restrictions and standards set forth below: 1. Commercial off -premises temporary signage is prohibited, except for real estate signs as permitted by ECDC 20.60.065; provided, that such off -premises real estate signs shall be posted, displayed, and removed as provided for in that section, in addition to the provisions of subsections (13)(5) through (9) of this section. 2. Noncommercial off -premises signs are permitted in the public right-of-way; provided, that the posting and display of off -premises signs in the public right-of-way shall require a street use permit where required pursuant to Chapter 18.70 ECDC. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 301 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 17/18 3. Maximum duration of display for all temporary off -premises signs is a cumulative of 60 days in any calendar year, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs. Display may be continuous or intermittent, except as otherwise provided in this section. 4. Except for campaign signs as provided in ECDC 20.60.060, all off -premises noncommercial signs relating to a specific meeting, event, or occurrence shall be removed within 48 hours following the conclusion of the meeting, event, or occurrence to which they relate. 5. Only portable freestanding signs may be used as temporary off -premises signage; provided, that the following types of portable freestanding signs are prohibited from use as an off -premises sign: a. Signs with a vehicular chassis or support with or without wheels; b. Posters and banners; c. Signs mounted upon vehicles; d. Searchlights; e. Inflatables. 6. Maximum number of allowed off -premises signs to be displayed simultaneously shall be one sign per sign poster except as provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs and in ECDC 20.60.065 for real estate signs. 7. Maximum allowable sign area for all temporary off -premises freestanding signs is six square feet. 8. Maximum allowable sign height for all permitted off -premises signs is three feet. 9. All off -premises temporary signage shall be posted and displayed in accordance with the following restrictions: a. Off -premises signs may not be placed in any portion of the public right-of-way typically used by motor vehicles in a lawful manner. b. Off -premises signs shall be placed so as not to impede pedestrian, bicycle, or handicapped travel or access. c. Off -premises signs shall not be posted in a manner or location which impairs traffic safety by unreasonably blocking line of sight at intersections. d. Off -premises signs shall be constructed of suitable material and design to adequately withstand the reasonably expected normal or average weather conditions during the intended display period of the sign. e. Off -premises signs shall be regularly inspected to ensure that they have not been damaged or destroyed by natural forces or vandalism. Damaged and destroyed signs shall be immediately removed or repaired so as to avoid threats to public health and safety or the accumulation of unclaimed refuse upon the public rights -of -way. f. Off -premises signs shall not be posted upon public property other than the public right-of-way, and shall further not be posted within or upon planter boxes and flower beds within the publicly maintained landscaped portions of the public right-of-way. [Ord. 3628 § 14, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. A. General. All signs not expressly permitted by this chapter are prohibited. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 302 Edmonds Page 18/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE B. Hazards. Signs which the director of public works determines to be a hazard to vehicle or water traffic because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage, are prohibited. These signs shall be removed if they already exist. C. Confiscation of Prohibited Signs in Public Rights -of -Way. 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. D. Any signs confiscated by the city shall be held for 10 working days after which such signs may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. The owner of any confiscated signs may recover the same upon payment of a $25.00 fee to cover the cost of confiscation and storage. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.095 Exempt signs. The following types of signs are exempted from regulations of this chapter, except that the dimensional and placement standards shall apply unless variance is required by other provisions of local, state or federal law: A. Governmental signs. B. Signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law. C. Official public notices required by provision of local, state, or federal law. D. Signs not visible from a public location. E. Seasonal and holiday displays not incorporating the use of written copy or graphics to convey a message. F. Gravestones. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.100 Administration. A. General. The community development director is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter. He or she shall adopt application requirements for sign permits. Fees shall be as stated in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Installation Permits. Many signs require installation permits under Chapter 19.45 ECDC and may require plan checking fees as well. C. Notice of Violation. Whenever the planning director becomes aware of a violation of the provisions of this chapter, the planning director shall cause a notice to be sent to the alleged violator informing him or her of the violation, the applicable code section, and a time within which to remedy the violation. The notice shall also advise of the penalties for continued violation of the code as specified in this chapter. If the violation has not been corrected within the time limit specified, the planning director shall refer the matter to the city attorney's office for institution of appropriate legal action. D. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of $25.00 for each day of continued violation. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 303 6.1.c handling, etc. Council concurred with staff s recommendation to implement an administrative fee; the amount discussed was $50 per impact fee for a single family structure and $100 on a commercial or multifamily structure and if a builder chooses to defer an impact fee, an additional $50 fee would be due. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the administrative fee for multi -family would be $100 per unit. Ms. Hope answered it is per unit for single family or townhomes and one per building for multi -family. The impact fee is per housing unit. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FEE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. PRESENTATION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED SIGN CODE Development Services Director Shane Hope commented there have been discussions for some time about updating the sign code, the particular focus of this amendment has been on A -frame and similar type signs in the downtown area due to concerns with clutter versus the benefit signs provide. There have been a couple public open houses on the topic as well as several Planning Board meetings. Planning Manager Rob Chave displayed photographs and described sign types: • Pedestrian signs (new term) o A -frame, easel, stanchion and similar signs intended to attract the attention of pedestrians • Projecting / blade signs o Usually found under awnings but may project off a wall or hanger • Monument signs o Free standing o Lower than a pole sign Mr. Chave reviewed Planning Board public hearing options: Option 1: No Option 2: Pedestrian Option 3: Pedestrian Portables (A -frames) Signs as Temporary Signs as Permanent Signs (Existing Code) Signs with restrictions Pedestrian Sign No Yes Yes Permitted? Size Allowed No 6 s . ft. 6 s . ft. Location Allowed No w/in 2 ft. of building or w/in 2 ft. of building or street edge; 4 ft. clear street edge; 4 ft. clear zone zone How Many No 1 per business 1 per storefront Duration No 60 days per year When business is open Benefits of approach? ? ? ? He reviewed the Planning Board's recommendation: • Option 3 for pedestrian signs: o A form of permanent signage with restrictions, and counts against overall sign area (no longer classified as "temporary") o Only one per ground floor entrance o Only allowed while business is open Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 304 6.1.c o Businesses may rotate their signs o Locate within 10 feet of entry o Minimum 5 feet of pedestrian clearance; prefer within 2 feet of building or curb o Maximum 6 sq. ft. in size Mr. Chave said although pedestrian signs generated the most comments and debate, other code modifications are needed to address the 2015 Supreme Court decision related to signs being content neutral. He reviewed other proposed code modifications: • "Directional Symbols" allowed for directions 0 Symbols can be illuminated (not just letters) • Halo signs specifically allowed • Sign height tied to actual finished grade • Monument signs better defined, minimum setback • 1-story buildings with mansard recognized • Sign area practice codified (calculate outlines) • ADB can grant modifications due to unique architectural elements of a building Mr. Chave advised a public hearing is scheduled in two weeks. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the distance for ADA accessibility. Mr. Chave answered 44 inches. The Planning Board made that more restrictive, recommending an increase to a 5-foot clear zone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented enforcement is an issue; while walking on Main Street tonight, she noticed outdoor dining that was so far out into the sidewalk, sign poles, etc., there was only approximately 18 inches remaining. If outdoor dining blocking the sidewalk was not enforced, she questioned whether signs blocking the sidewalk could be enforced. She preferred blade and stanchion signs, noting if A -frame signs are not placed appropriately they prevent ADA accessibility. Ms. Hope acknowledged outdoor dining is not part of the sign code but whenever the City receives a call regarding something affecting ADA accessibility, staff visits the site and either moves the object or requires the manager move it. If there are repeated offenses, the City can withdraw their permission to have outdoor dining. Items blocking accessibility are generally moved when brought to the store/restaurant's attention. On occasion, individual diners will move the tables/chairs. She summarized staff addresses situations when they learn of them but do not patrol for them. With regard to signs, because there is no permitting process, it is very difficult to oversee placement of the signs. With a permit process, it would be simpler as the sign location would be identified in the permit. If the Council approves a permit process, staff plans to contact business owners to inform them how to seek a permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for requiring signs be within two feet of the building or street edge. While in Port Townsend recently, she noticed they have markings on the sidewalk in front of businesses that identifies the area where nothing can be located in an effort she assumed to protect sidewalk accessibility. She suggested something like that, noting signs are great for businesses, but she was concerned with signs wandering similar to the outdoor dining. Ms. Hope staff has also discussed having outdoor dining designated by poles inserted into the sidewalk. Mr. Chave said when pedestrian signs are treated as permanent signage, they require a permit like other types of signs. When a business applies for a permit, they need to identify where the sign will be located. That allows staff to identify other things that may be in the area such as street furniture. A permit provides significantly more information before placement of the sign and regulates where the sign is supposed to be which assists with enforcement. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with having a permitting process but did not like the visual pollution that signs cause. Trip Advisor, Yelp, etc. are the new ways to get around and determine what to see, eat, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 305 6.1.c visit, etc.; social media is the new way of advertising. She does not see A -frames in other cities she visits as a tourist. One of the options considered should have been a 90-day moratorium to see if businesses really need A -frame signs. Councilmember Tibbott expressed interest in six square feet as a requirement, understanding that the shape could vary with total square footage of six feet. Mr. Chave agreed there are different sign types; the easel sign is likely okay because the sign area is determined by the surface area, not the base although the easel may be too tall. The proposed code includes a 3.5-foot height limit for A -frames and 4.5-foot limit for stanchion signs. Councilmember Tibbott concluded as long as the easel was under four feet and the sign area was under six square feet it would be okay. Mr. Chave said that was the intent of "pedestrian signs;" although there are different forms, they serve the same purpose so the intent was to treat them the same. Councilmember Tibbott asked how the pedestrian sign regulations applied to an office building with one entrance and 6-7 offices; whether the building was allowed one sign or 7. Mr. Chave answered one per entrance. Councilmember Tibbott observed the businesses could collaborate and rotate the signs. Mr. Chave agreed the businesses could rotate signs and/or they could also list more than one business on a sign. Buildings also have other options such as a monument sign with space for individual businesses. In one instance, those are not really used which raises the question whether businesses were making the best use of the signage available. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was a way to incentivize the use of that type of sign. Mr. Chave answered blade signs 4 feet or less are free and do not count against a business' sign area, a significant incentive. Pedestrian signs not allowed elsewhere in the city but are often displayed, particularly by businesses that are setback on a site. A -frames tend to be displayed near the road. If monument signs are more accessible, businesses may feel less need to supplement them with an A -frame sign. Councilmember Tibbott observed one of the photographs Mr. Chave presented was an office building with multiple signs for the businesses. He asked if there was any ability to regulate color choices. Mr. Chave said it is problematic to regulate sign colors as well as sign content. Mr. Chave commented whatever is decided with regard to pedestrian signs, the Council may want to revisit the sign code related to uniform signage. There may be an opportunity via collaborating with the BID to develop a sign system. Testimony at the Planning Board indicated new businesses or businesses not on 5th & Main feel the need for an A -frame sign on the main street. Once electronic media, websites, etc. gain momentum and fulfill that purpose, businesses may find A -frames are no longer needed. One of potential projects for Western Washington University is a website or app providing information regarding local businesses. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the blade signs and asked whether buildings with interior businesses can display blade signs. Mr. Chave said they can. Councilmember Tibbott suggested incentivizing that. Mr. Chave said currently blade signs have a maximum height of 14 feet; to accommodate buildings with a second floor, the 14-foot limit was removed which allows blade signs to be displayed on the wall as high as the business in the building. Councilmember Tibbott observed a startup business was allowed a sign in their window for 60 days and asked if they could be allowed an A -frame on a corner for up to 60 days to introduce their new business. Mr. Chave answered that is not in the current code and may be tricky. Sign codes need to have narrow exceptions and treat everyone the same. If an offsite sign were allowed for 60 days, anyone would be allowed to have an offsite sign for 60 days. Councilmember Tibbott said his suggestion was to limit it to new business. Mr. Chave said that would need to be figured out. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 306 6.1.c Councilmember Teitzel said he was not particularly a fan of A -frame signs, agreeing they contribute to visual clutter in the wonderful downtown business area. Having said that, he believes it behooves everyone to have healthy businesses downtown because healthy and vibrant businesses attract visitors who spend money. When meeting with the Edmonds Downtown Alliance last month, he asked them how important A -frame signs were to them; the unanimous response was they were very important, particularly for walk-in businesses as they believe the signs encourage people to visit their store. With that information, now is not the time to abandon A -frame signs but he agreed they needed to be restricted and controlled better and this was a good step in that direction. Assuming Option 3 was tacit approval for placement of A -frame signs either near the building or the curb, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the City was liable if a sign flew up in windstorm and injured someone. City Attorney Jeff Taraday deferred to the standard negligence analysis; is the City acting reasonably in permitting of the sign which what would be the analysis a court would look to. The Public Duty Doctrine also protects the City from negligence type liability. Although it was difficult to say definitively whether the City would have liability, certainly the ability to travel safety on the sidewalk would be factored into any analysis of a sign permitting scheme. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether this change would affect all business districts or only the downtown core. Mr. Chave answered the provisions mentioned earlier other than pedestrian signs would affect all zones; pedestrian signs are specific to commercial zones in the downtown -waterfront area which includes downtown as well as Harbor Square and the waterfront. Pedestrian signs are not allowed outside that area currently and would not be permitted under the proposed code. Councilmember Mesaros asked about real estate A -frame signs and directional real estate signs. Mr. Chave answered that is related to the overall code review regarding the Supreme Court decision; an in- depth review will be necessary. The City Attorney's office has begun that review but it is beyond the scope of this amendment. Councilmember Nelson commended the Planning Board and staff for developing the proposed code, recognizing there are many competing interests. With regard to uniformity, everyone wants the City to be beautiful, for people to visit and be informed but also avoid visual pollution. When he visits a small city for the firsts time, although he may use his phone for directions or a review, he likes to wander around and look at the stores. He asked for further information regarding uniformity. Mr. Chave answered there is a lot of creativity related to signage; no sign looks the same. Even in areas with specific design controls, there is a lot of room for creativity. A -frames are such a simple construction, it would be difficult to regulate uniformity other than requiring a dark background, etc. The problem with signage is as soon as an idea is developed for what looks good, someone will propose something they think looks equally as good but is totally different. Uniformity is one of the most difficult things to regulate; it is generally done by regulating size, location, etc. and everything else takes care of itself. Uniformity would be more in the BID's purview such as a bulk buy with a fabricator where there is a discount for a preferred sign choice. There are options other than a regulator scheme; like most things related to design, it is in the eye of beholder and extremely difficult to write regulations that do a good job. Councilmember Nelson said that may be something to explore in the future via a task force, how the downtown should look; signs play a part in that. Mr. Chave said a BID representative came to Planning Board; they were interested in working with the City on cooperative programs that would obviate the need for A -frame signs. For example, developing a signage program that the BID could help fund that addressed uniformity, recognized the needs of new business, directional signage for new businesses, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the sign code regulated sign color. Mr. Chave answered no, other than lighting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she liked the Planning Board's Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 307 6.1.c recommendation; she was not interested in allowing A -frames to be located a distance from the business due to the clutter that creates. She liked the wayfinding signs that the BID has installed. Mr. Chave agreed that may be the future; A -frames are an older style sign. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also liked the blade signs, commenting she is seeing more blade signs in other cities. Mr. Chave said if Council adopts amendments to the sign code, that would provide an opportunity to inform businesses of the new regulations, inform them that blade signs are free, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also liked the stanchion signs. Mr. Chave said those could be somewhat expensive initially; the BID could contract with a fabricator to provide a discount which may encourage businesses to use that type of sign as well as address the issue of uniformity. Councilmember Teitzel referred to 20.60.055.1.c "The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry, unless it is placed in a location that better preserves public pedestrian and vehicular access" and 20.60.055.1e, "The sign shall be located to provide a minimum of five feet of clearance for pedestrians to pass. The preferred locations are within two feet of the building face or within two feet of the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles," observing allowing the sign to be placed by the curb adds to the visual clutter seen in Edmonds today. He proposed A -frame signs be required to be within two feet of the building face and not allow them to be placed by the curb. This would be easier to enforce, reduce visual clutter, and make the sign look like part of the building. Council President Johnson recalled this issue arose a few years ago when Ms. Shippen spoke to the City Council about visual clutter. She asked how many code enforcement complaints about pedestrian signs there have been since then. Ms. Hope answered not a lot, there are usually 2-3 people who watch the signs and make a complaint. Staff immediately responds to any complaints about ADA accessibility. If the Council approved the Planning Board's recommendation, Council President Johnson asked how staff would implement it. Ms. Hope recognized big changes take time; the intent is to begin with an educational program to inform of expectations, opportunities and the date for compliance; the program would include a mailing, press releases, working with the BID to get the word out, etc. Council President Johnson encouraged residents to speak to the Council at the public hearing regarding their opinions. Councilmember Tibbott said he recently met an out-of-town friend downtown on a sunny Saturday when the sidewalks were crowded and his friend had no problem navigating his wheelchair downtown. He was concerned with the recommendation for a 5-foot pedestrian clear space, observing the 44-foot minimum provides approximately 6 inches on each side of a wheelchair. In his experience there was no problem navigating on a busy Saturday. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented disability is her life and she likes the 5-foot requirement. She wondered whether Councilmember Tibbott was able to walk beside the person in a wheelchair through an area with outdoor dining. She thanked the Planning Board for recommending the additional space. Mr. Chave said engineering is also looking at Chapter 18.70 related to rights -of -way, permitting, street furniture, etc. and may also present ideas to the Council. 2. 2016 2" QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Scott James presented the 2nd quarter budget amendment: • 9 decision packages • (847,431) reduction in revenues • ($494,402) reduction in expenditures for items previously discussed by Council • $40,180 are new items for Council to consider expenditures Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 308 6.1.c Council President Johnson acknowledged a number of FD1 staff in the audience, relaying her understanding Fitch & Associates had provided FD1 management a briefing. FD1's annual report to the City is scheduled on March 22, the next opportunity for the Council and FD1 to discuss this issue publically. Councilmember Nelson inquired about the distribution of ALS responses in Edmonds. Dr. Knight said the report maps out all call volumes and concentrated demand. There were 2 areas of concentration; he recalled they were Stations 20 and 17. A GIS component of the report maps where stations should be located, one uses current stations so there is no capital outlay and another identifies optimized station locations which the City and FD1 may find useful because current performance could be provided from 2 station in the future if they were relocated. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether citizens could expect a higher survivability rate from enhanced ALS coverage. Dr. Knight answered the majority of calls are BLS but ALS calls are very time sensitive and enhanced coverage would allow ALS units to arrive sooner, a reallocation of service to provide better service. For BLS calls there would not be much difference because the clinical condition does not require that level of service. Mayor Earling commented on the value of having FD1 personnel present. He recognized the FD1 union will be interested in interacting with Councilmember and there was nothing inappropriate about that. He invited Mr. Taraday to comment on that dialogue. Mr. Taraday said if Councilmembers were contacted by union members, they should feel free to discuss the matter with them but requested they forward any questions and/or concerns to him, Mayor Earling and Mr. James to ensure they get forward to Fitch & Associates and are addressed in the report. He wanted to ensure the Council has the ability to make a fully informed decision whether to implement one of the alternatives and has the best information. Mayor Earling commented Fitch & Associates have been stupendous in providing information and thorough analysis. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope provided a project overview: • Development Code updated intended to: o Provide more readability, accuracy, consistency o Make inadequately addressed code topics more complete o Address new issues as appropriate (for example, stormwater LID techniques) o Clarify roles and processes o Resolve conflicts/overlaps • Planning Board criteria for update: o Public Process: ■ Open & broad -based o Principles: ■ Consistency w/ state laws ■ Consistency w/ Comp Plan ■ Predictability + some flexibility ■ Recognition of property rights ■ Clear, user-friendly language & format ■ Enforceability o Key Objectives: ■ Reasonable & clear processes ■ Expanded & up-to-date definitions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 309 6.1.c ■ Protection of critical areas & shorelines ■ Recognition of diverse neighborhoods & their characteristics ■ Pedestrian -friendliness & biking access ■ Low impact stormwater management Ms. Hope reviewed: • Project budget: o $150,000 allocated by City Council o $110,800 used by end of 2015 o Remaining $39,200 to be requested as 2016 carryforward in next quarterly budget amendment Influencing factors o Staff resources ■ Amount of time remaining after regular ongoing work (development review, etc.) and special projects (e.g., SMP) o PB principles & objectives o Public process & input o Stormwater LID integration o Changing legal environment (new laws, court cases) John Owen, MAKERS, reviewed current code topics: Land Division "Subdivisions" Types Current Code Proposed Code Short subdivisions Short subdivisions Formal Subdivisions Formal subdivisions Binding site plan (commercial) He provided details regarding short subdivisions: • Proposed concept: Define as 8 lots rather than 4 (state allows up to 9 lots) while adding stronger design standards and clearer criteria • Why? Eliminates incentive for property owners to do 2 side -by -side 4-lot ("short") subdivisions and instead have unified design Mr. Owen reviewed design options: Current Code Proposed Code Conventional Conventional Planned Residential Development (PRDs) PRD (?) Modification Requests Low impact design (LID) He explained the LID concept allows greater flexibility to cluster lots & achieve more conservation or enhancement for: • Existing trees • Natural areas • Stormwater LID features • Native vegetation or • Solar access Mr. Owen described standards for LID of subdivisions (conceptual): May Must Width and area for individual lots may vary to Provide additional protection or enhancement of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 310 6.1.c certain extent trees, critical areas, natural features, LID stormwater management, or solar access Side & rear setbacks may be somewhat reduced Limit total impervious surfaces to certain % of lot when interior to the development (not adjacent to neighboring lots) Provide careful protection to trees being retained Not result in overall density greater than allowed for zoning district Mr. Owen identified other concepts for updating the subdivision code: • Allow "fee simple" unit lot design for townhomes • Require sidewalks on both sides of street for larger subdivisions • Require access directly from a public ROW or from a shared driveway or private street meeting updated City standards • Clarify language as needed for underground utilities, easements, dedications, etc. He described the subdivision review process: • Short plat (8 or fewer lots) o Administrative review o Appeal to Hearing Examiner ■ Same as current short plat process Formal plat (9 or more lots): o Hearing Examiner decision on preliminary then Council decision on final plat o Appeal to courts ■ Same as current formal plat process He emphasized this would provide: • Clearer standards re coverage, massing, stormwater infiltration, etc. • Less need for staff interpretations" related to impacts to surrounding neighborhoods • More "internal site flexibility" to protect trees, natural stormwater drainage, provide greater buffers around property, etc. Mr. Owen identified another current code topics, Signs: • Sign standards issue: o How to calculate sign area o What counts as sign area? Entire sign board counts o Entire sign structure counts o Entire cabinet counts Mr. Owen reviewed: Proposed clarification #1 o Only the area of the individual letters count Sign Area Calculations: o Concept: Update the way maximum sign area is regulated for multi -tenant commercial buildings o Current: Maximum allowed sign area is now consolidated for all businesses in the building: 1 sf of sign area per 1 lineal foot of building frontage containing the main public entrance Proposed clarification #2 o Apply measurement to individual storefront (and not whole multi -tenant fagade) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 311 6.1.c He described: Design concept for wall mounted signs: o Signage to be centered, proportional, and shaped to architectural features of the buildings o Signage not to exceed 2/3 of individual storefront dimension. This standard also applies to upper level businesses o Drawings of examples o Allow face of mansard roof on existing 1-story buildings to serve as wall for wall sign Concepts for temporary signs downtown o Allow stanchion (aka portable post -style) signs as an alternative to A -frame signs o Require a permit for stanchion or A -frame signs so they can be tracked o Refine requirements for A -frame or "stanchion" signs in the ROW downtown o Other standards: o One sign per business o Must be temporary — not limited by # of days, but must be removed after business hours o Must have a city permit 0 3% foot height limit o Place sign within 2 feet of building and 10 feet of business entry o Place signs to maintain at least 4 feet of clearance or pedestrian traffic o Otherwise — a blade sign could be used to advertise the additional business • Downtown directional signs concept o Up to 4 locations o Master sign plan (subject to design approval from Architectural Design Board) o City permit o Maintained by entity that sponsors master sign plan • Pole signs o Many Washington cities no longer allow new pole signs o Along Highway 99 ■ Highway 99: only place in City where pole signs are currently allowed ■ Consider options to limit new pole signs • Sign code concepts for Highway 99 o Prohibit NEW pole signs altogether (or prohibit them only on properties smaller than a certain size) o Allow monument sign within setback, if sign is not taller than 6' and not blocking views for traffic safety • Other sign code issues o Legal issues under review based on recent court decisions about signs o Miscellaneous clean-up Ms. Hope recognized there are a lot of topics to be addressed; priorities proposed in the 2016 schedule are: • Subdivisions • Signs • Stormwater LID Ms. Hope identified next steps: • City Council questions/comments - Feb. 23 • Planning Board - Feb. 24 • Finalization of Critical Area Ordinance - TBD • Draft code language for subdivisions and signage - spring 2016 • Continued integration of stormwater LID practices • Preparation of additional code updates - 2016 schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 312 6.1.c Ms. Hope highlighted other code updates that were not part of original discussion but need to be completed by July 2016: • Building and Fire Code update (every 3 years) • Impact fee process as a result of legislation changing the process for single family homes Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what is considered temporary in the sign code. Ms. Hope answered temporary is something that is not permanent or attached. The code refers to temporary as A - frame signs, banners, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council could determine the length of time for a temporary sign. Ms. Hope answered a temporary sign can be up during the day and taken down at night, displayed for a certain number of days, etc., there are several options. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to stanchion signs as an alternative to A -frame signs, recalling the stanchions used to designate outdoor dining impacted ADA access on sidewalks. She was concerned with the use stanchion signs on the sidewalk. Ms. Hope clarified the concept was allow one A -frame or one stanchion, not both, located next to the building and there would need to be ADA access. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented many of the sidewalks downtown are not considered ADA accessible due to their width. Ms. Hope commented the rationale for the stanchion sign as an alternative to the A -frame sign is it takes up less space on the sidewalk. For example, Mill Creek allows stanchion signs but does not allow A -frame signs. The disadvantage of stanchion signs to the business is they are more expensive than an A -frame sign; an advantage is they do not take up as much sidewalk area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented in the past she rarely saw A -frame signs, they have proliferated downtown. Ms. Hope agreed there are a lot of A -frame signs; the intent of the proposal is to reduce the clutter. For example there are A -frame signs located around the corner from a business which would not be allowed. If the Council chose, another option is no A -frame signs although there would be pushback from businesses who believe A -frames and other signage provide visibility. She recognized the importance of an active, pedestrian friendly downtown, pointing out successful businesses contribute to that environment. Mr. Owens shared the concern with stanchion and A -board signs; the current proposal includes requirements to avoid blocking the path, providing ADA accessibility, etc. The primary change is requiring a permit for A -board signs. A proliferation of A -frame signs has been seen everywhere, in part because they are so easy. Requiring a permit will allow enforcement, ensures concerns with ADA access are addressed, and encourages more attractive, well-built signs. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Natalie Shippen's concerns with signage. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed A -board signs are clutter and need to be regulated as they are not temporary. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his interest in LID in subdivisions. He inquired about maintaining more natural vegetation in a subdivision and how that may relate to the CAO. Ms. Hope responded the CAO will apply regardless of the subdivision method. The idea of LID is providing more flexibility on internal dimensions of lots to preserve special features (not a critical area) on a property without reducing the number of lots and retaining the same perimeter requirements. Councilmember Tibbott said incorporating native vegetation into the design of a subdivision versus requiring a percentage on each lot would result in a better design for the neighborhood and potentially better habitat and sustainability. Ms. Hope agreed, relaying her understanding of Councilmember Tibbott's comments that the City should encourage preservation or planting of native vegetation even if it is not required. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with that emphasis and asked to what extent LID helps accomplish that. Ms. Hope said that the intent of LID is to provide ways to retain trees, native vegetation, solar access, etc.; the standard rectangular approach does not provide those additional values. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 313 6.1.c Councilmember Buckshnis commented which she agrees LID is a great idea and a trend in the future, it may be difficult to educate Edmonds citizens that it is good for the environment. She often receives complaints about houses that occupy the entire lot. She did not like zero lot line but has seen that used in other cities. Ms. Hope clarified the proposal does not include zero lot line but possibly less setback in the interior between properties. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his awareness of the controversy over A -frame signs and visual clutter on streets in Edmonds especially downtown. He asked whether staff has talked to businesses and/or the Chamber about A -frame versus blade signs. Ms. Hope answered yes; there is strong support from the business community for continuing to allow A -frame signs although some like blade signs. There was a lot of pushback on not allowing any A -frame signs. Councilmember Teitzel commented Carmel, California, allows blade signs and wall -mounted signs but not A -frame signs. It is very pleasant to stroll through Carmel; the sidewalks are wide and uncluttered allowing 2-3 people to walk abreast. He was not a fan of A -frame signs and suggested the City consider either strict regulations or banning them. Ms. Hope offered to provide options for more regulation if A - frame signs are allow or not allowing them which is a policy decision for the Council to make. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. I. CONSIDERATION OF THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided highlights of the CAO update: Update stated in fall 2014, with review of existing code and BAS • 12 Planning Board and City Council meetings regarding the CAO Council adoption January 26, 2016 and Mayor veto • December 15, 2015 code in Exhibits 1 and 2 He reviewed the intent of tonight's discussion and next steps: • Review proposed Council amendments (8) • Flesh out any new amendments • Next step options: o Vote on amendments tonight and direct staff to bring back ordinance for consider, or o Decide whether to hold another public hearing and if so, o Schedule public hearing on March 15 o Schedule work session March 22 o Make decision on the ordinance on April 5 Councilmember Buckshnis said in response to Mr. Lien's opinions in the agenda memo, she changed some of her amendments and created new amendments. If the Council decides to hold a public hearing, Mr. Lien said he will provide comment on some amendments to flush out other potential amendments for the public hearing. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was a bit of a chicken or egg; he preferred to discuss the amendments tonight, the Council reach agreement on the amendments, and if they are not too different from staff s proposal, to make a decision tonight and schedule approval of the CAO on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Tibbott supported moving forward with a decision on the CAO without another public hearing, recognizing there have been two public hearings and a significant amount of public comment via Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 314 6.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 24, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Samuel Kleven (Student Representative) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2016 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred to the written Director's report, which was included in their packets. He specifically noted the summary of what has been done to date to implement the Strategic Action Plan, and he encouraged Board Members to review the document. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Mr. Chave advised that Ms. Hope and the consultant team provided a progress report on the Development Code Update to the City Council on February 23rd. For the Board's information, he played a video recording of the presentation. The following is a summary of the presentation: Packet Pg. 315 6.1.c Ms. Hope advised that the Development Code Update is intended to make the code more readable, accurate and consistent; make inadequately -addressed code topics more complete; address new issues as appropriate; clam roles and processes and resolve conflicts/overlaps. She recalled that the Planning Board previously identified criteria by which the update would proceed, and the City Council allocated $150, 000 for the project. About $110, 000 of the funds were used in 2015, and $40, 000 will be carried over into 2016 to continue the project. Ms. Hope said the update is significantly influenced by staff resources. While they have helpful consultants, a large amount of staff time is needed to work through the topics. Staff time is influenced by other projects on the work program, as well as ongoing development review and special projects. The update is also influenced by the Planning Board principles and objectives, the public process and input, stormwater low -impact design (LID) integration, and the changing legal environment (new laws and court cases). Ms. Hope introduced John Owen of Makers, the consultant for the Development Code Update. John Owen, Makers, advised that he has been working with City staff on a number of code sections in tandem with each other. One, in particular, is the Subdivision (land development) Code, which is a topic that has received a lot of comments from the Planning Board, City Council, citizens, and development community. When reviewing the Subdivision Code, he considered three different types of land use actions: short subdivisions, formal subdivisions and binding site plans for commercial properties. The proposed concept at this time is to re -define short subdivisions as 8 lots or less rather than 4 lots or less, while adding stronger design standards and clearer criteria. It is believed that this approach will cut out incentive for property owners to do two, side -by -side, 4-lot (short) subdivisions and instead have unified design that results in better land utilization and more opportunities to mitigate impacts of development. Mr. Owen explained that there are several different design options to consider. The current code allows for conventional design, as well as Planned Residential Development (PRD), which relaxes some of the requirements for subdividing properties. Under the proposed new language, it is anticipated there would be less need for PRDs because the updated code would allow some flexibility that would make some aspects of land division easier. The current code also allows for modification requests, leading to what is commonly called "staff interpretation " or other review actions, and he proposed that this option be substituted with LID requirements or options. This approach would allow greater flexibility to cluster lots and achieve more conservation or enhancement for existing trees, natural areas; greater setbacks next to adjacent properties; stormwater and LID features; native vegetation protection and solar access. Relaxing the internal subdivision requirements will allow for greater outer buffers, more LID features, and a greater opportunity to save large trees. The idea is to do what is important for the environment and surrounding property owners, but allow more flexibility with regard to how the buildings relate to one another and how they are arranged internally on the lot. Mr. Owen observed that some may interpret the proposed changes as making it easier for property owners to subdivide by allowing short subdivisions of up to 8 units. While the proposed LID Standards would allow a developer to vary the width and area of individual lots to a certain extent and the interior setbacks may be somewhat reduced, there would be greater requirements for protecting and enhancing critical areas and natural features, stormwater management and solar access. The standards would also limit the amount of impervious surface to a certain percentage of a lot and require careful protection of the trees being retained. He emphasized that the concept would not result in an overall density that is greater than allowed in the zoning district. Mr. Owen reviewed other concepts for updating the Subdivision Code such as allowing `fee simple" unit lot design for townhomes, requiring sidewalks on both sides of street for larger subdivisions, requiring access directly from a public right- of-way, and clarifying language as needed for underground utilities, easements, dedications, etc. Mr. Owens said that, while the application requirements are nearly the same for both short and formal plats, the review processes vary. Short plats are administratively reviewed, with appeals going before the Hearing Examiner. Formal plats are preliminarily approved by the Hearing Examiner, with a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision and appeals go to the court. No changes have been proposed for the process. However, the proposed amendments will result in clearer standards related to coverage, massing, stormwater infiltration, etc. This will result in fewer "staff interpretations" related to impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and more internal site flexibility to protect trees, natural stormwater drainage, greater buffers around the property, etc. Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 316 6.1.c Mr. Owen said there have also been a lot of comments pertaining to the Sign Code, particularly about how the City calculates sign area. He explained that there are different ways to measure sign area, and Edmonds currently only counts the actual size of the letters and not the area around the letters. This encourages larger letters instead of the objectionable panel or backlit signs you see in other communities. The concept is to update the way that maximum sign area is regulated for multi -tenant commercial buildings. Currently, the maximum allowed sign area is one square foot of sign area per one lineal foot of building frontage on the main public entrance. He recommended that the language be clarified to apply the measurement to individual storefronts and not an entire multi -tenant facade. Mr. Owen said another change that would improve the overall quality and design of signs is to make sure they are centered in proportion and shape to the architectural features of the building. In addition, signage should not two thirds of the individual storefront dimension or articulation of the building. In reviewing examples, these proposed changes will help keep the sign to a reasonable size and proportion to the rest of the building. Mr. Owen said another thing that is unique to Edmonds is allowing signs to be on the mansard roof of a one-story building, and no changes are being proposed to this provision. However, one of the more controversial aspects of the sign code is sandwich board or A frame signs. The proposed concept is to encourage the use of stanchion (portable post style) signs as an alternative to A frame signs. Stanchion signs are less disruptive, yet highly visible. It is not the intent to discourage businesses from advertising. At the same time, they want to ensure there is a clear, safe pedestrian environment, as well as a sense of visual regularity and decorum in the downtown. Another option is to require a permit for stanchion or A frame signs so they can be tracked. It is also necessary to refine the requirements for A frame or stanchion signs in the right-of- way to make sure there is clear right-of-way, that they are close to the business, and that the numbers are limited. Mr. Owen said the proposed amendments also encourage blade signs to advertise the additional businesses. Blade signs do not have any of the disadvantages of the stanchion signs, and they actually have very good visibilityfor both pedestrians and people in vehicles. They are also considering a master plan for directional signs in the downtown so that signs can be placed in key locations. These signs are particularly important for businesses that are off the main streets. Permitting would be required and some organizational effort would be needed. Mr. Owen said many Washington Cities no longer allow new pole signs. Currently, the City only allows pole signs on Highway 99, and he recommended the City consider prohibiting new pole signs altogether and encouraging monument signs, instead. He recognized this may meet some opposition; but in the end, both businesses and other citizens tend to prefer signs that are visible but not intrusive. Mr. Owen said there are also legal issues under review related to signs that are based on recent court decisions. General miscellaneous clean-up of the sign code language also needs to be done. Ms. Hope noted that various items came up on the work plan that altered the City's ability to move forward with the Development Code Update. However, the current plan is to start with updates to the sign and subdivision codes. She reminded them that a related Development Code issue is the Critical Areas Ordinance, which has not yet been adopted. In addition, the fire code must be updated every three years and will be coming before the City Council for adoption before July. Also, the State implemented a change to the impact fee process, which requires that there be a different process for single-family homes; and the City needs to update its code to implement this new requirement before July. The intent is also to continue integrating stormwater LID techniques into various sections of the code, and staff is currently working with the Engineering Department to complete this task. Mr. Chave announced that the presentation was followed by approximately 15 minutes of questions by the City Council Members, and the entire presentation is available on line. Chair Lovell asked if the schedule was developed by the Development Services Department or the consultant. Mr. Chave answered that it was prepared by the Development Services Director, after consulting with Makers. Chair Lovell reported that he attended Ms. Hope's presentation to the City Council and recalled that a key concern was that the concept of "0" lot lines would force the housing units so close together that they could infringe on the concept of personal privacy while trying to preserve sections of a development site for natural habitat, LID, tree preservation, etc. He noted that if an area is deemed to be in a critical area, all of the requirements contained in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would apply. Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 317 6.1.c Chair Lovell recalled that there has been a lot of discussion in the past about sandwich board or A -frame signs, and the issue came up again at the Council level. These signs seem to populate the sidewalks and interfere with pedestrian access. It was asked if the City has solicited feedback from retail establishments that use the signs. Obviously, they want to preserve their sign capacity as much as possible. The task is to create balanced criteria that is acceptable to everyone but also provides a clear definition as to what comprises a temporary sign. Also, at the Council meeting, it was pointed out that Mill Creek Village does not allow sandwich board signs. Instead, they use blade signs that seem to go a long way to solving the issue. Chair Lovell advised that proposed amendments to the Sign and Subdivision Codes will come back to the Board for a\\ work sessions, a public hearing, and a recommendation to the City Council later in 2016. Mr. Chave agreed and advised that a major part of the Board's extended agenda will be filled with Development Code update topics. Board Member Crank said that, based on feedback from retailers in the City, the A -frame signs are more than just a logo. They provide valuable real estate for temporary advertising. Switching to stanchion or blade signs would eliminate a business's ability to highlight sales and specials. She presumes that this concern will come up at the public hearing regarding the proposed changes. A -frames offer critical advertising opportunities that businesses will have to pay for and provide in another way. Chair Lovell recalled that the proposed change would not eliminate a -frame signs, but it would add additional standards to get them closer to the entrances, provide adequate ADA access on the sidewalk, etc. He expects that the updated Sign Code would continue to allow A -frame signs, but it would clarify the requirements. He also acknowledged that retailers depend on A -frame signs. Mr. Chave commented that stanchion signs would not preclude the ability to change messages. They are simply a different type and shape of sign that takes up less footprint on the ground but still provides ample room for messaging. He noted that the sidewalks in the downtown area are typically narrow, and the intent is to figure out specific limits and regulations that will allow businesses to provide messaging without hindering pedestrian access. He commented that a variety of other stand- up sign types have been used effectively in the downtown. Board Member Cheung asked if digital signs are allowed in Edmonds, and Mr. Chave answered that they are permitted along Highway 99, but the decision was made many years ago that digital signs were not appropriate for downtown and most other commercial areas in Edmonds. However, he acknowledged that there are a few existing digital signs that have been grandfathered and will be allowed to remain. Board Member Robles asked if neon or LED signs would be allowed, and Mr. Chave answered that small ones that are located inside windows are allowed. It's an evolving technology, and historically, it has been tight in the downtown area because people live in very close proximity to the businesses and it is important to limit glare and light. Board Member Cheung asked of projection lighting is allowed. Mr. Chave said the City actually encourages indirect lighting in the downtown. For example, halo signs are a new technology where there is some form of a sign face, with a light that comes from behind and illuminates outside of the sign area. The code prohibits cabinet signs in the downtown, but halo signs are indirectly lit and can produce some really attractive effects with very little light bleeding off the site. He explained that it is tricky to write sign code because the technology evolves quickly. It is necessary to look at performance standards rather than listing the specific types of signs that are and are not allowed. It is more about effect (what you are trying to prevent or encourage). For example, Mr. Owen called out the City's method for calculating sign area as unique because it only counts the area of the applied letters and not the area surrounding the letters. This is a powerful incentive for people to do block letters, which tend to be more subtle and get the message across well, without a large, bright sign background. Board Member Stewart commented on the importance of positioning structures on the site to allow for environmental features to be utilized favorably. Cluster developments use this approach, and it has been done quite a bit in other jurisdictions. The proposed code talks about LID, which is mandated by the state and will be incorporated into the code. It is also important that the updated Subdivision Code encourage green building. Under LID, it talks about energy efficiency, locally sourced and sustainable materials, indoor environmental quality, and a host of other things. Usually, when you talk about green building, you also analyze the site; and if you have flexibility, you can position buildings to take advantage of Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 318 6.1.c environmental features on the site. She noted that King County is moving forward with this evolving concept, and Snohomish County is lagging behind. Chair Lovell clarified that the idea would be to allow adjustments in the positioning of the units to enable larger areas of the site to be preserved for natural habitat, shared green space, mini parks, rain gardens, etc. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that signs in the downtown should be designed to attract pedestrians, whereas signs on Highway 99 must attract vehicles passing by. She recalled previous City discussions where it was decided that signs that can attract people from more than two blocks away create too strong of a presence in the downtown, and that is where the word "garish" came into play. It is important to remember that this is the perspective that has been taken when looking at what is considered acceptable signage. She said she supports the performance based approach, which allows new technologies to be considered. Chair Lovell agreed that pedestrian -oriented signs are more appropriate for the downtown. Chair Lovell voiced concern that, typically, when small -lot development occurs, developers put up a fence around the development and clear cut the entire site. Implementing LID concepts will require careful planning by the City staff and developers. Board Member Stewart agreed that more planning will be required, but developers can actually save time later by retaining some of the existing environmental features on the site. It's a different way of thinking, but the concept is being used more. There are developers that take this approach, and perhaps they can attract developers from outside the City so the concept can begin to happen more. Chair Lovell asked if there is sufficient funding to complete the Development Code update. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate that the entire update will be finished in 2016. Right now, the consultant and staff are focusing on the most important parts (signage, subdivisions, and LID integration), and the remaining funds should be sufficient to complete these items. Staff hopes to complete the remaining work in house. He reminded the Board that another consultant is currently working with the Engineering Department to integrate LID into the engineering requirements, which will also require changes to other sections of the code. The City is also working with a consultant to prepare a Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He summarized that updating the Development Code is a very large project that involves various consultants and City departments. Board Member Monroe requested more information about the Council's concerns about "0" lot line development. Mr. Chave clarified that "0" lot line is not a concept that is currently being considered. Board Member Monroe asked if the changes to the short plat provisions would allow a developer to bypass some of the standards, and Mr. Chave answered no. The same standards would apply to both short and formal subdivisions. The proposed amendment relates more to the process. Short plats are administratively reviewed, but the City Council has to approve formal subdivisions. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the proposed amendment would result in eight, small houses placed in the corner of a large lot. Mr. Chave said there are standards and limitations that would prevent this from happening. However, there needs to be some flexibility given to allow LID to be worked into the site design. The current formal subdivision provisions offer very little flexibility and no opportunity to retain trees, etc. The real question is how much and what type of flexibility should be available in both the short and formal plat standards. Board Member Crank asked if the City Council's decision to postpone adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would impact the timeline for updating the Development Code. Mr. Chave said it could complicate the schedule, depending on how elaborate finishing off the CAO gets, since it will prevent senior staff from being able to work on the code update. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that she does not anticipate a large number of subdivisions with more than eight lots, given the limited land available in Edmonds for development/redevelopment. Mr. Chave agreed and said most of the future subdivisions will be 2 or 3-lot short plats. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said that, in her experience with reviewing large subdivisions that have protected lands in the greater Seattle area, you end up with development that protects the last frontier of the resources that are left. There is not much left of the good part of nature, and the proposed LID regulations would actually protect what is left on the parcels. She also observed that people seem to like living on these properties. Protected lands are never going to be developed and they will have them to enjoy in perpetuity. There are some very fine tradeoffs. Although the houses could be smaller, there has not been a lack of interest on the part of consumers wanting to get into the developments. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said Mr. Owen made some fine points to help the Board turn its thinking when he referred to the proposed changes to the interior side and rear setback requirements. He pointed out that only the people living in the Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 319 6.1.c development would be impacted by the reductions, and they would have a clear understanding of the tradeoffs. Mr. Owen also made a point about lessoning the need for staff interpretation, which is something developers continue to ask for. Developers want to know what they are working with up front so there are no surprises. Subdividing is a rather expensive process that involves a large number of experts, and it is important for the City to be very clear about what the rules are. Staff interpretations can drive up the cost for consumers. UPDATE ON EDMONDS WATERFRONT ACCESS STUDY AT -GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Chair Lovell explained that his presentation is not an official briefing. He is a member of the Waterfront Access Study Task Force and volunteered to update the Planning Board on the process because he believes it is important that the Board and public are kept up-to-date on how the study is progressing. The primary source of information related to the study can be found on the City's website, including task force meeting agendas and minutes. He advised that the task force meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of each month at 10 a.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall. The meetings are open to the public, although the task force does not solicit public comment at their regular meetings. Chair Lovell reported that two public open houses have been held pertaining to the study. At the first open house, the task force outlined the purpose of the study, as well as the approach they would take towards the challenge. The second open house was a work session where members of the public were allowed to walk through all of the proposed concepts being studied. Chair Lovell observed that the railroad has been in Edmonds for a very long time, and it is important to keep in mind that over -implementation of any access solution concept could alter the character of the City. There is a risk that solving the railroad crossing problems in Edmonds could result in turning the City into a railroad town rather than a waterfront town. Chair Lovell advised that the task force is comprised of five citizen representatives from the Edmonds community, as well as five representatives from the primary stakeholders: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Sound Transit (ST), Community Transit (CT), and Washington State Ferries (WSF). In addition to staff members who attend the task force meetings, the City has hired consultants from TetraTec and EnviroIssues to assist in the work. Chair Lovell provided an overview of the study schedule, noting that the project remains on schedule and the 2nd of five stages is currently underway. He reported that the task force has completed a technical analysis by observing, quantifying and documenting existing conditions at the Main Street and Dayton Street crossings. They have also reviewed data from previous studies and community input, compiled potential concepts to improve access and developed the following screening criteria: • Provide for continuous emergency response access. • Reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading. • Reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists at the Dayton Street and Main Street railroad crossings. • Provide safe and efficient intermodal passenger connectivity between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit, pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle modes of travel. Chair Lovell reported that the task force has completed its Level 1 review of each of the concepts based on the initial criteria. He provided an aerial photograph to illustrate the scope of the study area and explained that the remaining concepts have been divided into the following categories: overpass solutions, underpass solutions, on -site solutions, operational solutions, railroad modifications, and ferry facility modifications. He summarized that most of the concepts focus on overpass solutions, underpass solutions and ferry facility modifications. However, some concepts suggest on -site solutions such as providing first aid training and stationing a response team on the water side of the tracks and putting in a helipad. Railroad improvements, such as running the trains only at night, relocating the trains to Kirkland, or moving the tracks to the east of downtown so the waterfront is not interrupted, were also suggested. Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 320 6.1.c • Permanent signs already require a permit, and these permits should be reviewed by the ADB, who understands the technicality of aesthetics. • Temporary signs should require owner notification to the Planning Department. Ms. Shippen's written comments were entered into the record as an exhibit. Don Hall, Edmonds, said he owns a business in the downtown called Garden Gear and Gallery, so the subject of signs has an impact on him. He questioned why the current discussion only pertains to signs in the downtown. He suggested that the temporary sign ordinance should apply equally to all areas of the City so all businesses are on equal footing. He also questioned how requiring permits for temporary signs would improve the City's ability to enforce the Sign Code. He asked how much the permits would cost, how long they would be good for, and if a new permit would be required each year. He said he would prefer that store owners be required to remove their signs during non -business hours, but placing a 60-day time limit on temporary signs would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Hall said he supports many of the ideas proposed in the Development Services Director's memorandum, as they will improve the aesthetics of the downtown. However, enforcement will be vitally important, particularly in keeping signs in front of stores rather than further out on the sidewalk. He noted that many of the signs on the street corners are placed by real estate agents or by groups to advertise special events. These signs are typically A -frame types, similar to those used by the business owners. He questioned if real estate and group event signs would also require a permit and have a time limit placed upon them. Again he emphasized the need for the Sign Code to be equal. He noted that store owners have done a better job of keeping the signs off the street corners and closer to their storefronts, and the sign blight is no longer as bad as it used to be. However, he acknowledged there are still problems in some areas. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled that he was a member of the City Council 25 years ago, and he has lived in the same location of Edmonds for 50 years. He provided a drawing of the view he has across the street from his home towards the Olympic View Deli site at 196 h Street and Puget Drive. He emphasized the proliferation of signs at the shopping area, noting that some are the responsibility of the business and others were placed there by citizens. It is difficult to live across the street from a commercial establishment, but the City attempts to mitigate the impacts by requiring businesses to tone down their lights and activity during the evening hours. The drawing he provided is intended to illustrate how temporary signs are also a growing problem in areas other than downtown. Mr. Hertrich said he would like to see better enforcement of the Sign Code. At this time, it is primarily up to private citizens to report problems to the Code Enforcement Officer. He expressed his belief that the problem gets worse when the City allows less regulation and more proliferation. Eventually, it becomes difficult to get control of the situation. If the regulations are tight, fair and enforced equally throughout the City, there is less likelihood that signs will become a significant problem in the future. Mr. Hertrich reminded the Board that the City Council has been addressing the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in recent months. At their last discussion, he suggested that the CAO should specifically address the impacts associated with runoff from crumb rubber athletic fields into the City's creeks and waterways. Including crumb rubber fields in the CAO would assist in regulating the use to a greater depth in all areas of the City. Vice Chair Rubenkonig entered Mr. Hertrich's diagram to illustrate signage at the Olympic View Deli site into the record as an exhibit. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to the Development Services Director's written report to the Planning Board. She briefly reviewed the items contained in the report and invited Board Members to comment. Relative to the Public Workshop for the Highway 99 Area Plan, Board Member Crank indicated she would try to attend to represent the Planning Board. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she would try to attend the event, as well. Regarding the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC), Board Member Monroe indicated that he was assigned to serve as the Board's liaison to the Commission. DISCUSSION ON SIGN CONCEPTS: FOCUS ON TEMPORARY SIGNS Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 321 6.1.c Mr. Clugston reviewed that temporary signs in the downtown were previously discussed by the Board on February 241h, when staff provided an introduction to the topic. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to obtain feedback from the Board on how staff should proceed to craft draft regulations for their review on April 13th, followed by a public hearing on April 27th. He advised that members of the public have provided comments, and the consultant has prepared some draft language for the Board's consideration. Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, signs are regulated based on time, place and manner; and cities cannot treat signs differently based on content. This law was confirmed in a 2015 Supreme Court decision, Reed versus the Town of Gilbert. Although tonight's discussion will focus on signs in the downtown area, the entire sign code will need to be updated in the near future to make sure it is compliant with the law and the new court ruling. Mr. Clugston said the proliferation of A -frame signs in the downtown is a problem. The current code limits temporary signs to a maximum of 60 days of display per year. However, no permit is required, which makes it difficult to track how long a sign has been up or whether or not it complies with the 60-day time period. In addition, the location requirements are not well defined and the code does not place a limit on how many businesses can have temporary signs along a building frontage. The intent of the update is to maintain the message and character of the signs, but provide enough standards and criteria for people to clearly understand what is and is not allowed. Mr. Clugston explained that, generally, temporary signs are intended to make pedestrians aware of what is going on inside a business. He referred to Attachment 2 of the Staff Report, which is a poster from the public open house on the code update. The poster dealt with freestanding temporary signs and identified ideas for improving the code. Staff is seeking input from the Planning Board on which provisions to include in the draft code language that will be the subject of further discussion on April 131h and a public hearing on April 271h. He provided examples of the types of temporary signs that are spread sporadically throughout the downtown and briefly explained how the proposed concepts could be applied. He reviewed the following questions in an attempt to seek specific feedback from the Board: • Should freestanding temporary signs continue to be allowed in the downtown? The City could decide they want to keep the sidewalk as clear as possible and to minimize distractions. Recognizing that window signs and blade signs under canopies are already allowed and incentivized, the City may determine that freestanding temporary signs are no longer needed. On the other hand, the City could determine there is a place for such signage, but wants to make sure the regulations are more effective. • Should the 60-day provisions be replaced with more enforceable provisions? For example, the City could require that temporary signs can only be displayed during business hours or require that signs must have a permit? Requiring a permit would allow the City's Code Enforcement Officer to better track temporary signs. Should signs be more specifically located? For example, should they be limited to within 2 feet of the building, and/or within 10 feet of the building entry? Another option would be to require at least four feet of clearance for pedestrian traffic. The goal could be to create some distance criteria for where signs could be located relative to the building, and particularly to the entry, in order to avoid clutter and blockage of the pedestrian access. When a building is located right next to the sidewalk, it is easy to identify where the sign should be placed near the building. However, it is more difficult to make this determination in other situations. It is important to consider the context of each site. He provided several pictures to illustrate signs that are placed close to the building, as well as those that are placed further out into the right-of-way. • Should there be limits on how many freestanding signs can be located in front of a building? For example, should freestanding signs be limited to no more than one (or two) signs per building entry, or no more than one sign per ground level storefront business? If the intent is to limit signage in the right-of-way, it would be appropriate to limit the number of signs a business could have and perhaps even tie the signs to the ground floor storefronts. He provided an example of a business that had two A -frame signs, one next to the entrance and another across the sidewalk next to the street. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 322 6.1.c • Should specific types of signs be permitted or incentivized? While the Board may not be comfortable with A - frame signs, other similar sign types, such as stanchion or easel signs, might be appropriate. Perhaps the code should limit the maximum width and/or overall square footage of a sign. He provided examples of easel and stanchion signs, as well as suggested sign sizes the Board could consider. It is important to consider the right-of- way space, and large signs should probably not be allowed. Mr. Clugston provided pictures taken on Main Street to illustrate how temporary signs, blade signs, and wall signs have been used throughout the downtown. He particularly noted that most businesses on Main Street between 4th and 5"b Avenues use blade signs, which are mounted under their canopies and are used to alert pedestrians of a business' location. He asked the Board to provide feedback about whether or not A -frame or other temporary signs are necessary in the downtown, given that blade signs and wall signs above the canopies are both allowed. Again, he reminded the Board that the focus of the current discussion is on downtown signage, recognizing that the entire sign code will need to be reviewed and updated at some point in the near future. Board Member Crank asked why the proposed revisions would only apply to signs in downtown Edmonds. She asked if the intent is to try the new regulations for a period of time and then consider their application elsewhere in the City at some point in the future. Mr. Clugston said it is not the City's intent to use the changes as a trial or test. Temporary signage in the downtown has been identified as an issue, and the goal of the current effort is to fix the problems. However, it is possible that some of the elements will be deemed useful for application in other locations in the City when the entire sign code is updated. Board Member Crank said she supports directional signs in the downtown. Businesses that are not located on the main streets often get overlooked and do not get a high level of foot traffic. Directional signs might help mitigate a City decision to prohibit and/or limit A -frame signs in the downtown. To address some of her other questions, Board Member Crank referred to an existing business in the downtown, Arista Wine Cellars. This business uses an A -frame sign as a true temporary sign in the sense that the information on the sign is changed on a regular basis. They do a tasting event every Saturday using different products, and their A -frame sign is used to advertise the event to pedestrian traffic. She questioned how the proposed zoning provisions would be enforced. Does Edmonds have code enforcement? Mr. Clugston answered that the City has a Code Enforcement Officer. However, it is difficult for the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce the limitation currently in the code because no permit is required to inform how long the sign has existed and when it needs to be removed. Board Member Crank asked if the City has the resources to enforce the sign code if it is updated as proposed, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Board Member Crank asked how the 60-day limit would apply to Arista, which only displays the A -frame sign on Saturdays. Mr. Clugston said each sign would be allowed for a maximum of 60 days each calendar year, but the days would not have to run consecutive. Board Member Crank voiced her opinion that stanchion and blade signs are more permanent in the sense that they provide just enough advertising to identify the name of the business, and typically, the content cannot be easily changed to highlight special events. She pointed out that Gallery North is an example of a business that has taken advantage of all types of available advertising (A -frame, blade and wall signs) to catch the attention of both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. While this may seem excessive to some people, it is currently allowed. While she is not suggesting that the City take on the project, Board Member Crank said another potential mitigation to compensate for stricter rules related to temporary signs would be to create a digital map of the downtown that highlights the businesses, as well as their special activities. She noted that the City of Grape Vine, Texas, has a digital map of their downtown area, which is managed by the Chamber. A digital map could be a potential mitigation or business enhancement tool. It would be advantageous if the City could offer options outside of things that take up the limited space on the sidewalk. Board Member Cheung pointed out that most businesses bring their temporary signs in at night, so restricting the hours they can be on display would not be much of a change. He asked if there are any situations where a city owns the temporary signs and businesses can insert their own information onto the signs. If the signs were provided by the City, the City would have greater ability to track how long they are on display. Mr. Clugston said he does not know of any program of this type. The Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 323 6.1.c downtown association has tried to get larger, directional signs going. However, the purpose of this discussion is to focus on the signage that individual businesses can have. Board Member Stewart thanked staff for their presentation. She also thanked Ms. Shippen for her suggestions, which were summarized well. She asked if staff has looked at sign codes from other cities with similar downtown characteristics such as Fair Haven in Bellingham and Winslow on Bainbridge Island. Mr. Clugston answered no, but the examples provided by the consultant may have been culled from other jurisdictions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that a number of years ago, the ADB reviewed signs, but this responsibility was more recently transferred to the Planning Department as a staff decision. Mr. Clugston said signs that meet the Sign Code requirements are exempt from design review. He reminded the Board that the intent of the Sign Code is to look at time, place and manner rather than focusing on sign design. The design standards for signs in the downtown are fairly minimal and more related to location, size, etc. It is left to individual business owners to work within the constraints of the code and design a sign that works for them. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized that there would be no point in seeking feedback from the ADB regarding the Sign Code since they are no longer the relevant board to review signs. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that perhaps staff could provide additional information about a possible situational approach. For example, if a certain type of marketing strategy is needed, what type of sign would be appropriate. It might become more clear if they identify the size and criteria for the main signs, and then follow that discussion with criteria for temporary signs. Mr. Clugston cautioned that using a situational approach could end up considering the content of a sign, which is not something the City can regulate. However, the Board could identify a list of the sign types that are allowed and the standards that would apply. By a situational approach, Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she was thinking more about which types of signs are appropriate for each particular type of advertising. Staff shared the examples of easel, A -frame and stanchion signs, which may have different circumstances that suit their use best. Board Member Crank agreed that businesses have varied advertising needs, and one type of temporary sign might be more appropriate for their particular need. Mr. Clugston asked if Board Member Crank is suggesting that signs that allow for message changes should be handled differently than signs where the information is static. Board Member Crank answered that there may be situations where it is more suitable for a business to have a sign with static information, whereas another business might benefit more from a sign that can be easily changed. Mr. Clugston explained that, currently, businesses in the downtown are permitted to have three signs: a wall sign on the front of the building or canopy, a window sign, and either a blade sign located under the canopy or another allowed sign type. The Board could also recommend that a temporary sign be allowed as the third sign type, and it could have a changeable message. This would be a departure from the what the current code allows, but it is important to remember that the number of signs and the area allowed for signs is limited to a finite number. Mr. Clugston said that the intent of the examples provided by the consultant was to get away from having temporary signage located anywhere but right in front of the storefront. He recognized that businesses on side streets do not have as much pedestrian traffic, but they could pay more rent to move into a site that has more traffic. For temporary signage, the goal is to keep it right in front of the buildings. Board Member Stewart observed that the City does not have wide sidewalks, particularly in the downtown, and it was helpful to see the pictures that were provided by Mr. Clugston to get a perspective of the sidewalk width and how the temporary signs are impacting the space. If the City allows additional signs, they should be close to the building and out of the way of the walking pathway. However, she recognized that temporary signs have a function, and it is important to present some other options at the public hearing. She said she wants to hear from the business owners in the downtown about the how the changes would impact them and if adjustments could be made. Board Member Monroe asked if the City or business owner is responsible if someone were trip in front of a business. Mr. Clugston agreed to research the question and report back with an answer. Board Member Monroe said he supports less clutter and better pedestrian access routes so that pedestrians and people in wheelchairs are not blocked by signage in the walkway. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 324 6.1.c Board Member Crank asked if staff has engaged the downtown business owners in the process, and Mr. Clugston answered that the Development Service Director and the Economic Development Director have had discussions with a number of business owners in the downtown. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said it is difficult to consider changes to the downtown sign code when they do not know what the downtown would look like if the current sign code were enforced. Having this information would help them understand the signage needs of the commercial areas. Mr. Clugston agreed that there are examples of both good and bad signage, and staff is seeking direction from the Board on what is the best balance of signage versus non -clutter. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that staff provide the Board with good examples of each of the sign types that are allowed. This would help her have a better understanding of temporary signage. Board Member Monroe suggested that because many of the temporary signs are up year round, perhaps it would be better to call them "movable signs." Mr. Clugston said it would be useful to separate temporary signs that have changing messages from those that do not. Board Member Monroe agreed that there must be a balance that provides business owners with the signage they need, but keeps the signage out of the pedestrian walkways. Board Member Crank agreed that permits should be required at some level, particularly if the City has a Code Enforcement Officer to enforce the rules. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled the Development Services Director's previous presentation, in which she explained why some of the rules were not enforceable. Without a permit requirement, it is difficult for the City to know when a sign was put up and when it must come down. This was a strong reason to change the approach and require a permit for temporary signs. Board Member Monroe summarized that a permit requirement for temporary signs is one idea put forward for the Board's consideration. He asked if the limitations on time could be eliminated if a permit is required. Mr. Clugston said it goes back to how you define temporary. Most temporary signs are put out when the business opens and removed when it closes. Board Member Crank added that some have temporary messaging and others have more permanent messaging. Board Member Monroe said he hates to create code requirements that add more costs for the City's businesses. If the 60-day limitation is eliminated, there would be no need for a permit. Mr. Clugston said permits would still be helpful so the City can track the signs. Board Member Monroe suggested that perhaps one temporary sign could be allowed per business. The signs could be displayed during business hours. It would be easy for the Code Enforcement Officer to see if there was more than one temporary sign or if a sign was left out after business hours, and no permit would really be necessary. Mr. Clugston agreed that could be a workable approach if the Sign Code is written clearly enough to provide good guidance. The City already has clear standards for wall signs, monument signs, freestanding signs, blade signs, etc. to make sure height, size and location requirements are met. Board Member Monroe's concept would require that specific standards be created for temporary signs, as well. However, it is important to note that all of these other sign types require a permit so they can be tracked to ensure that they are code compliant. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that staff provide an overview of the process and goals associated with permitting to give the Board and citizens a better understanding of the process. She expressed her belief that temporary signs would be relatively difficult to track even if permits are required. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the City's code enforcement is done primarily on a complaint basis, and the Code Enforcement Officer does not typically drive around looking for problems. Mr. Clugston summarized that the Board is interested in code language that differentiates between temporary signs and moveable signs. They would like him to provide examples of codes from other jurisdictions, as well as examples of good and bad signs. He agreed to also provide some draft language on the concepts that were recommended by the consultant. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 325 6.1.c could not see a marked difference, and that the level of attendance at Planning Board meetings primarily depends on the agenda topics. Board Member Robles pointed out that there appears to be a willingness amongst the citizens to participate in the public process, but they typically are not aware of the process for doing so. He suggested that there needs to be improved communication with citizens to inform them of the Planning Board's agenda and how they can participate. Chair Lovell said he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig will work more closely with Council President Johnson to scope out the Planning Board's extended agenda and plan opportunities to meet jointly with the City Council. Board Member Crank commented on affordable housing and housing in general within the context of urban planning. She said she recently attended a Corporate Development Responsibility Conference where a professor from the University of Washington -Tacoma's Urban Study Program talked about the correlation between the large number of businesses moving into Seattle and the rising housing demand in South Snohomish County and North Pierce County. This reminded her of the need to have a broader sense of planning. They should focus less on numbers and more on who the people are and what is driving the need for housing. Economic Development should be paired with urban planning, and job creation and movement should play a role in the discussions. DUSCUSSION/REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: TEMPORARY SIGNS Chair Lovell referred to the discussion draft of potential sign code amendments and asked how it compares with the report prepared by the consultant. Mr. Chave explained that the discussion draft is intended to be a continuation of the Board's last discussion and is not anything close to a firm proposal at this point. However, it does provide examples for how to differentiate between sign types (A -frame versus stanchion) and location (right-of-way versus private property). He explained that A -frame signs in the downtown are currently unenforceable. They are treated as temporary signs, with a 60- day limit, but it is very difficult to know when the signs are placed. He suggested the Board could come up with a specific proposal to present at a public hearing, or they could provide a few different alternatives for the public to comment on. For example: A -frames could be prohibited, but other types of signs could be allowed. A -frame signs could be permitted, not as temporary signs, but as permitted signs that must meet more specific criteria related to location, size, etc. A -frame signs could be permitted as right-of-way signs, or a type of quasi -on -site sign. The code defines the area in front of your business as part of your premise where you do business. Mr. Chave explained that treating A -frame signs as right-of-way signs can be difficult, particularly when a business is set back. If an A -frame sign is placed in front of a store on private property, they probably would not want to allow a sign in the right-of-way, too. If businesses are only allowed to have one sign, the code should specify a preferred location. Mr. Chave specifically asked the Board to provide feedback about whether they support allowing A -frame signs as an legitimate type of signage in a pedestrian environment such as the downtown, but provide ways for them to be permitted and tracked. They could provide this as an option to solicit public comment. The current code allows the category of sign that includes A -frames in the downtown, recognizing that they have historically been allowed and the sign type fits best in a pedestrian environment. Although many businesses insist that A -frame signs are necessary and important, he did not feel they are an appropriate sign type on major arterials since they are not generally visible from the roadway and there is not significant pedestrian activity. Mr. Chave said it is important to consider that the sidewalks in Edmonds are typically narrow, and space is limited. There is always tension between pedestrian space and use of the space for a variety of amenities that complement the overall pedestrian environment. There is a purpose for signage to advertise specials that change on a daily basis, and it is much easier than a reader board that tends to get a little more garish and does not really fit with the environment. If A -frame type signs are allowed, the code should provide specific details about what the circumstances must be. For example, it would not make sense to allow one for every business. There are situations where a single entry leads into four or five businesses behind the street front, and allowing four or five A -frame signs along a single store front makes no sense. If the Board wants Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 326 6.1.c to allow A -frame signs, perhaps it would be appropriate to establish a standard for the maximum number of signs allowed per store front. Mr. Chave said the intent of the discussion draft was to put the information that was provided at the open house into verbiage for the Board's consideration. He emphasized that, under the existing code, A -frame signs are only allowed in the downtown. Continuing to regulate them as temporary signs is inconsistent with the way the signs are actually used. Referencing other types of signs makes some sense to provide some perspective. He cautioned that the sign code can regulate the type, location and dimensions of a sign, but it cannot regulate signs based on content. It is not possible to use examples from other jurisdictions because, by and large, most are out of compliance at this point. Board Member Crank said she recently visited three stores in downtown Edmonds that had A -frame signs. She asked the owners if they were aware of the sign code requirements. She also asked how they would feel if they were told they could no longer have A -frame signs in front of their establishments. None of them liked the idea of prohibiting A -frame signs. She recalled that, at the last meeting, she asked if the business owners had been contacted for feedback. The response was that the business owners had been contacted early in the process, but there was no follow up or description of the responses. She suggested that the Planning Board extend an invitation to the downtown business owners to attend the next Planning Board meeting in which the sign code is discussed to express their points of view. Mr. Chave said that the Development Services Director has reached out to the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED) and the Chamber for feedback. He commented that it is very difficult to discuss meaningful ideas with a large group of people in a regular Planning Board meeting setting. He suggested that a more effective way to solicit feedback from property owners and citizens would be to have an open house. As the discussion moves forward, the Board could offer a series of options and then solicit feedback. The feedback could be used to prepare a public hearing draft that hones in on the options the Board wants to pursue. Again, he suggested the Board put forward several options for the public to react to and encourage more specific comments. They can also use the City's website to solicit more feedback, and the Development Services Director could continue to work with the Edmonds Downtown Alliance and the Chamber as the discussion moves forward. Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to Board Member Crank's comments about responses she received from business owners, which relate back to the comment she made at the last meeting that the City does not know what Edmonds looks like with the sign code properly enforced. There is currently a proliferation of signs that are not allowed. For education purposes, she suggested the City could sponsor a campaign once or twice each year to get the illegal signs removed. Perhaps this could be done in cooperation with the Chamber and Edmonds Downtown Alliance. She expressed her belief that there is currently a lack of understanding, and perhaps the sign code is not as clear as it could be. She recalled that staff is recommending that only one sign per building be allowed, yet the graphic that was provided in the discussion draft is labeled as allowing one sign per business. Lastly, she voiced her opinion that stanchion signs pose less impediment to the pedestrian walkways than A -frame signs. Mr. Chave said staff is recommending that just one sign be allowed per building or one per entryway. He pointed out that, in some cases, a building hosts multiple businesses from a single entry. Allowing one sign per business could result in a large number of A -frame signs in front of the entryway and the sidewalk could become cluttered. Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps there could be a different standard to address buildings with multiple tenants. For example, a stanchion sign could be used with a strip of space on the sign for each business to advertise. Perhaps a larger sign size could be allowed in these situations. He acknowledged that this would necessitate design standards and an additional cost to businesses. Chair Lovell summarized that it appears that the Development Services Director has done some survey work with respect to the merchants in the downtown, and his understanding is that the merchants rely on the temporary signs to attract customers. However, staff has indicated that it is difficult to regulate A -frame signs as temporary signs based on the current code. The signs are currently allowed up to a 60-day period, but the City has no way of knowing when the signs are originally placed. In reading the Board's discussion from the last meeting, he gets the impression that the temporary signs are supposed to be of a nature that provides a message or information to the public that is not contained on the regular business signs. Examples of this include special sales, or daily menu items. While he supports the City continuing to allow the signs, he felt the number should be limited to one per business and they must be located within three feet of the business entry. He noted that this would be consistent with the consultant's recommendation. He observed that there are numerous other opportunities for signage, including wall signs, window signs, and blade signs. Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 327 6.1.c Chair Lovell suggested that if temporary signs are going to be allowed, they must have clear guidelines that can be applied throughout the entire City. However, he does not see how the City can regulate anything other than size, number and location. He noted that A -frame signs are not just a problem in the downtown area, but the problem seems to be more noticeable in the downtown where the sidewalks are narrower and there is more pedestrian traffic. Board Member Monroe said he likes stanchion signs least of all because they are taller. A -frame signs are lower to the ground and not as visible from the street. He said he also believes that A -frame signs are a safer option, as long as the required 4-foot walkway can be maintained as per the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). Board Member Stewart said she believes there are certain benefits associated with both stanchion and A -frame signs. She expressed her belief that placing A -frame signs next to the buildings rather than away from buildings is a safer standard. It is easier for those in wheelchairs to get by stanchion signs. She suggested that perhaps one stanchion sign per building could be allowed, and the message on the sign could be changed and tenants of the building could take turns. A -frame signs could be allowed, as long as they are tucked against the buildings. She would like to hear from the public as to the appropriate number of A -frame signs to allow per building or business. While they want to avoid clutter, they also don't want to take away a business owner's right to notify the public of changing conditions at their business. Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board should start by identifying the specific problems before having a lengthy discussion about potential solutions. This approach would help the Board determine whether the proposed solutions will actually help address the problems or if they will simply address personal preferences. For example, ADA accessibility is a problem that can be addressed by requiring that the signs are ADA compliant. Rather than placing A -frame signs next to buildings, a better location might be near the street trees where they will not impede pedestrian traffic. Another example of a problem associated with A -frame signs is that they create clutter and detract from the appearance of the downtown. A possible solution might be to limit the number of signs allowed per building or per business. Chair Lovell asked it if would be appropriate to create aesthetic uniformity for downtown signage. Mr. Chave cautioned that when developing sign standards for the downtown, it makes sense to describe the parameters for signs rather than trying to enforce uniformity of design. Currently, there is a lot of variety along the downtown streets, and variety tends to attract people. He suggested that the code should be very specific about the standards that must be met, but still allow for creativity. The Board all agreed that the approach suggested by Board Member Cloutier would be appropriate, and they further agreed that maintaining adequate pedestrian walkways, per ADA requirements, in the downtown is an important criterion. Board Member Stewart pointed out that the sidewalks in the downtown all different widths. There are some places where the sidewalks are wide enough to accommodate a stanchion sign without impacting the walkway. However, she is hoping that as Edmonds becomes more discovered, there will be more people using the sidewalks. That may require the City to revisit the sign code, and businesses may have to come up with other solutions. Mr. Chave said that last year the City decided to be more flexible with other kinds of signage. For example, they now encourage blade signs or projecting signs that are more attractive and effective as permanent advertising of a business. Signage that gives notice of changing events has its place, but it must be regulated in a way that is content neutral. Board Member Robles agreed that allowing for creativity should be part of the Board's consideration, but there is also an argument for uniformity. For example, the gas lamp district in San Diego is defined by ornate gas lamps. He suggested the Board could actually populate the criteria and have a contest. They could invite designers in the City to actually interview the citizens on behalf of the Board and propose some solutions. Also, the City has a database of business owners in the City, and there are methods for statistically sampling those individuals to obtain a representative opinion. He suggested they could combine these different approaches into a strategy. Chair Lovell asked if the breadth and depth of the Board's discussion has been narrowed down to temporary signage. Mr. Chave agreed that is the main focus of tonight's discussion. Staff is trying to figure out which direction the Board wants to go so that draft code language can be prepared for their consideration at a future meeting. Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps a representative from the Planning Board could attend the next meetings of the Chamber and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance to give a brief presentation and solicit feedback. Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 328 6.1.c Board Member Cheung referred to Board Member Crank's earlier comment and said he is not surprised that business owners seem to be unaware of the regulations for signs. He voiced concern about creating a sign code that is overly restrictive and/or too specific. It will be difficult enough just getting them to comply with a simple ordinance. Business owners should already know not to place signs in the middle of walkways, even if it is not specifically prohibited in the code. He cautioned that the Board should be realistic about what the new sign code will convey to businesses and whether or not they will actually comply with a lot of specific rules. Mr. Chave referred to Vice Chair Rubenkonig's earlier comment that the City does not know what the downtown would look like if the current sign code were enforced. He advised that the City has occasionally sent out general notices when the signage has gotten out of control. The Code Enforcement Officer has sent word to the Chamber and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance that the signs need to be better controlled. This approach has worked well in the past. It is not that the business owners do not know the rules, it is a matter of what they can get away with. For example, businesses already know they are not supposed to put signs blocks away from the business. There tends to be a constant push/pull, and people will try to see how much they can get away with. However, if the new rules are well understood and a sign permit is required, enforcement will be easy and quick. People will quickly figure out that their signs will get pulled if they haven't been approved by the City. The sign code will become self -enforcing over time. Board Member Cheung asked what happens with non -compliant signs. Mr. Chave answered that sometimes the signs are confiscated. For example, signs that are put in the right-of-way by clubs have been confiscated by the City, and people have quickly figured out other ways to do their signage. He suggested that addressing signs in the City will require education, combined with enforcement and clear, understandable rules. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that window signs can also add to the visual clutter. Mr. Chave said the sign code allows signs in windows up to a certain percentage of the window area. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the window signs must reflect on the activity of the business within. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City cannot regulate sign content. The idea behind allowing some amount of window signage is that it tends to be more temporary advertising. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the City currently has some wayfinding signs off the main road to direct citizens to public areas, but there are no wayfinding signs for businesses. She asked if it would be possible to allow wayfinding signs on Main Street to direct pedestrians to businesses off the main road. If this were allowed, then perhaps A -frame signs would not be necessary. Mr. Chave said that wayfinding signs for commercial uses would require a specific program that addresses design, maintenance, etc. The Edmonds Downtown Alliance could pursue this approach as one solution to signage, and another option would be the creation of a website or app for smart phones that advertise and direct people to the businesses. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if businesses could rent their window space to another business for advertising. Mr. Chave answered that there are restrictions on off -premise signage, which is generally not allowed. Chair Lovell suggested that permitted signs could be required to display stickers that provides physical evidence that they meet the sign code requirements. Board Member Cloutier felt this would be cumbersome for the City to administer, as it would require the Code Enforcement Officer to check all of the signs for labels. He reminded the Board that the goal is to enforce the standards without having to go business -to -business and sign -by -sign. For example, it would be easy to administer a requirement that ADA access must be maintained at all times. The Board discussed that the ADA standard will soon be updated to require 48-inches of sidewalk space. Board Member Cloutier suggested that once the Board has a clear understanding of the current sidewalk widths in the downtown, it will be easier for them to make an informed decision. Board Member Monroe reminded the Board that there are other competing factors that must be considered, as well, such as street trees and other amenities in the public rights -of -way. Board Member Monroe asked if the City would be held responsible if someone were to trip on a sign that is placed in the right-of-way. Mr. Chave said he does not have enough experience to say who would ultimately be responsible, but it would likely be both the City and the sign's owner. He reminded the Board that when the City issues a Street Use Permit, applicants must provide insurance verification and a Hold Harmless for the City, as well. He believes these same requirements would apply to Right -of -Way Permits. Board Member Monroe asked if the same would be required for signs, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. However, he acknowledged that there is no enforcement, and the requirement needs to be more clear. If signs are allowed in the rights -of -way, there needs to be some sort of insurance in the event that someone trips over them. Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 329 6.1.c Student Representative Klevin asked how the City monitors how many days per year a sign is put out. He suggested that a website could be set up that would allow businesses to schedule beforehand the days they will be displaying their signs. The City's Code Enforcement Officer could then check to make sure that only those businesses that signed up for the day are displaying signs. Board Member Cloutier agreed a website would be one option for showing when temporary sign permits are effective and/or expire. However, the Board has agreed that A -frame signs in the downtown will no longer fit the definition of a temporary sign. While the City wants to allow businesses to advertise special events, business owners should not be allowed to violate the standards. He summarized that staff is encouraging the Board to move away from temporary signs and make A -frame type signs their own category of business signage in the public right-of-way. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that "movable signage" would be a more accurate term. Board Member Crank suggested the Board go back to Board Member Cloutier's earlier suggestion that they hone in on what they are trying to solve. They should also consider what they are trying to prevent. Business owners are trying to prevent a loss of potential business for not having the signs as a source of advertising or marketing. If the City is focusing on issues they are trying to solve such as clutter, proliferation of signage, pedestrian access, etc. they should also try to mitigate any potential issues for the business owners. Board Member Cloutier suggested that instead of thinking of it as "preventing," they should focus on enabling the businesses to put out signage to continue their business. We can't give them everything they want, but we don't want to take away everything, either. Board Member Monroe asked if the Board supports the idea of allowing public signage in rights -of -way. Chair Lovell said the real problems seem to be fairly limited to the downtown bowl area, and it will be difficult for the City to regulate all temporary signs throughout the City (including real estate signs, political signs, etc.). If the Board agrees that temporary signs should be allowed in the pedestrian rights -of -way, there is not a lot more the City can do beyond requiring provisions for ADA accessibility and adequate clearance for pedestrians. He voiced concern about creating separate and different standards for each of the business districts in Edmonds. Board Member Monroe pointed out that downtown Edmonds is unique in that it is a pedestrian -friendly business area. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to make neighborhoods more walkable and safe. The intent is to create zoning and land use provisions that allow people to work, live and shop in their neighborhoods. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said her perception was that the discussion was focused on downtown Edmonds because it is unique in its walkability. The idea was to address this part of town and then look at other areas at a later time. Mr. Chave agreed that is the assumption staff has been working on. If you look at the sign code, A -frame types of signage are not allowed elsewhere in the City. Downtown is unique because the sidewalks are right up against the buildings. In other commercial areas, there are large pieces of property with buildings set way back from the sidewalk. He said the City Attorney has agreed that the City can regulate signs in the rights -of -way differently depending on the type of environment. However, he agreed with Chair Lovell that, if the City really wants to change the character of another business district at some point in the future, they could take a second look at the sign standards. But they are not there yet. He suggested the Board work on coming up with sign code standards that are unique to downtown Edmonds and see if they work before applying them elsewhere in the City. Chair Lovell noted that the chart that was included in the discussion draft implies that the same concepts they are considering for downtown signs would be applied elsewhere in the City. Mr. Chave said the chart needs more work and is not in keeping with the existing code. Chair Lovell voiced concern about having different sign code requirements for each commercial area in the City because it would make it more difficult to administer. He also voiced concern that, with the exception of the ADA requirements, many of the other requirements being suggested are subjective. Mr. Chave summarized that, based on the Board's discussion, staff will bring back more information to the next meeting for their consideration. He also agreed to meet with the Development Services Director to discuss future plans for outreach. He reminded the Board that the current focus is on right-of-way signs in the downtown. Although real estate and campaign signs are also temporary in nature, adjusting the sign code that applies to them will require close scrutiny from the City Attorney at some point in the future. They are not included in the current discussion. Board Member Robles recalled that a few months ago he provided a possible solution to the tree code based on a block chain, which is a new type of software. Such can also be developed for something like the sign code. He said he did not receive a Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 330 6.1.c o Add more pedestrian crossings across Hwy 99. o Slow traffic turning off Hwy 99 onto side streets. Improve public space o Include more wayfinding signs. o Activate the street by bringing buildings to the sidewalks. o Include landscaping as buffer between street and sidewalk. o Concern expressed over the number of car lots. "Car lots do not make good neighborhoods." Attract new businesses o Diversify the business mix in the area o Focus on attracting catalyst developments Next steps include: • Use results from public workshop and online survey to draft alternative scenarios • Public Open house - Thursday May 19, 7:00 — 9:00 pm o Swedish Hospital Auditorium, 21601 76`h Ae W, 41h floor, main building Ways to participate include: • Periodically check City websites o www.edmondsh)U99.org o www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highwa9—planning-project.html • Take the survey o www.edmondshwy99.org/workshop-surve • Get on the City email list • Watch for announcements in local media and City newsletters • Send comments to brad. shipleykedmondwa.gov Ms. Hope reviewed the project timeline • March — April 2016: Understanding Existing Conditions • April — June 2016: Develop Land use and Transportation Scenarios • April — Oct 2016: SEPA & Planned Action Environmental Impact Assessment • July — Sept 2016: Develop Subarea Plan • Oct — Nov 2016: Final Sub -Area Plan Councilmember Nelson thanked Ms. Hope and the consultant for the public workshop. He commented the number of Councilmembers at the public workshop illustrates the Council's interest in Highway 99. He also commented on the public workshop attendees' interest and their participation in the mapping exercise. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. I. UPDATE ON REVISING SIGN REGULATIONS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained sign codes are complex and have many issues such as free speech, aesthetics, community character, public access, etc. Staff has has heard many different concerns with the sign code over the years such as things that were unclear, things that other cities doing such as replacing pole with monument signs, etc. The primary concern that has been expressed is temporary signs in the downtown area. Most downtown businesses believe the opportunity for signage is important, increases their business and keeps the area vital and lively. Conversely, signs can also get in pedestrians' way if not placed carefully and can be viewed negatively. There is also an issue related to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 331 6.1.c enforcement; the code provides for limitations on signs but there is no permitting or tracking system and the City has only one code enforcement officer. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board is initially focusing on temporary signs. Sandwich/A-board signs are allowed downtown but not elsewhere in City. They are generally associated with pedestrian environments and it makes sense to regulate them that way because pedestrian signs are very different than other signs. Under the existing sign code temporary sign are allowed but only for 60 days; however, there is no permitting system to track those signs. The Planning Board is considering what signs need time limits and how sandwich board signs are used. Mr. Chave explained currently A -board signs are not used on a temporary basis for a specific number of days; the temporary nature is related to their removal when the businesses are closed. Many A -board signs are used for ongoing advertisement for things like menus, daily specials, or other temporary statements that inform patrons what is occurring in the business. One of the challenges is the sidewalk area downtown is limited, most downtown sidewalks are 8 feet wide. Although there is ample room, the issue is not having to many A -board signs so they are ubiquitous, identifying the best location on a case - by -case basis, determining a logical number based on number of storefronts, doorways, etc. Those details are not reflected in the current code. Mr. Chave said another issue under review with the assistance of the City Attorney is the recent Supreme Court case that limits the ability to regulate signage; regulations have to be content neutral. The basic rule is if a person has to read the sign to determine whether it's permitted, that is a problem Other jurisdictions' codes cannot be used as samples because most allow specific signs. For example, a menu sign; it would be necessary to read the sign to determine it was a menu sign. The City Attorney's office has been reviewing the City's sign code and have identified definition problems as well as other issues. Ms. Hope relayed the intent is for Planning Board to gather public input and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized there are a lot of issues associated with the sign code. Many temporary signs are not actually temporary; they have been in place for a very long item. She was unclear why temporary signs are a freedom of speech issue. Other cities do not allow sandwich board signs; if the City has never tried not allowing sandwich board signs, how do businesses know they are helpful. She suggested not allowing A -board signs for a 30-60 day trial period. Ms. Hope anticipated options would be presented to the Council that could include no temporary signs allowed on the sidewalk or other regulations such as where and when they can be displayed. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said if the Council was interested in completely prohibiting temporary signs, he would need to research whether that was defensible. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a permit for A -board signs had been considered. She wondered how many would be displayed if a permit were required. Ms. Hope answered consideration is being given to requiring a permit; most other sign types require a permit. A -board signs in Edmonds do not require a permit which makes them difficult to track. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she has been contacted by members of the disability community on more than one occasion with concerns about outdoor dining in the right-of-way blocking access; A- board signs adjacent to outdoor dining further block access. After measuring some sidewalks downtown, she found some are only 6 feet wide. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board is discussing the requirement for a permit especially for signs in the right-of-way. Requiring a permit would allow the sign location to be reviewed as well as whether there was a conflict with outdoor dining. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked people without a disability often don't think about signs blocking access Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 332 6.1.c Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a permit fee was required for blade signs. Mr. Chave answered no; a decision was made during Stephen Clifton's tenure not to require a permit. The signs are required to be mounted at a certain height but there is no fee for the permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas liked the blade signs and would like to see more. She remarked blade signs, A -frame, and signs in window can all be too much. Mr. Chave agreed that was the difficult part about the sign code; there were no objective studies that state what was more or less effective. There are only government ordinances regulating signs and publications from the sign industry that state more is better. That is why jurisdictions look at other jurisdictions' regulations; unfortunately, most are not in accordance with Supreme Court decision. Ms. Hope said another challenge is whether the business is located where it can display blade sign. Councilmember Teitzel said he attended a recent Edmonds Downtown Alliance meeting where the issue of signs was raised and there was a lot of emotion about A -board signs. Most business owners at that meeting believed it was the most cost effective sign method to attract customers. He agreed it would be important to find research that would inform business of other other options that may be as effective or more effective than an A -frame sign. Ms. Hope said it has been very difficult to find any academic research; most information is anecdotal. Council President Johnson recalled Natalie Shippen raising this issue in the past including the visual pollution in downtown Edmonds, the number of signs she observed and what they advertised. Council President Johnson said after a while, people become immune to what Ms. Shippen saw and she was unsure whether people actually read the signs. She agreed a range of options would be helpful, one of options should be a ban or a temporary ban and encouraged the City Attorney to work with the Planning Board and staff on a ban. She acknowledged a ban may not be popular but several Councilmembers have indicated they are not particularly supportive of sandwich -board signs. She recognized they are inexpensive and serve a purpose but questioned whether they were in the best interest of downtown Edmonds. Councilmember Nelson expressed support for temporary signs that were actually temporary; A -boards tend to be permanent. He supported options for temporary signs with regard to the type of signs, size, location, etc. He noted visitors may not walk by the A -board signs every day and may be informed by the information on the sign. He favored finding a balance to accommodate visitors, people with disabilities and pedestrians but did not support a temporary or permanent ban at this point. Councilmember Mesaros relayed as he was walking to tonight's meeting, the veterinarian was bringing in the sandwich -board sign at the Veterinary Clinic on 5th. The sign appears to be very temporary as it is brought in every night. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out real estate sandwich boards are often displayed outside the downtown area, typically on the weekend to direct people to open houses. He anticipated regulating those would be difficult. Ms. Hope agreed that is an issue; staff is not proposing to address those signs at this time. Mr. Chave clarified only commercial A -board signs are allowed downtown; A -board signs are allowed in residential zones. The challenge with real estate sign is they are located off -premise. Councilmember Mesaros commented there are two types of real estate signs, the A - frame and the small arrow stake signs. 7. REPORTS OF OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Buckshnis the WRIA 8's granting committee did two site visits for King County Flood Control grant program and two visits for the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and submitted their recommendations to the WRIA 8 Board. The WRIA 8 Board will review the recommendations on May 19. She abstasined from voting on the recommendation related to the Edmonds Marsh. She reported the Tree Board is hosting Cass Turnbull on May 5, 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. in Council Chambers to speak on "The Seven Myths of Site, Selection and Care of Trees." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 333 6.1.c response on his suggestion for the tree code, and he questioned if it would be appropriate to specify a block chain solution for regulating signs. He explained that block chains are a new technology, and he could provide more information if the Commission is interested. It is basically a decentralized database, where multiple writers can write in. In the case of signs, the City could provide a map of where signs could be allowed, and then the community decides and trades with local currency and/or credit. Board Member Cloutier summarized that the signs still end up where you want them, but you aren't saying that all businesses have to use their spot. Someone else can use that spot. Board Member Robles said it is a self- regulating and self -enforcing approach that would allow the City to stay out of the business of regulating signs. Chair Lovell said he is not sure the City is ready to apply the concept. Board Member Cloutier summarized that with this type of program, it would be the City's responsibility to set the standards, and it would be up to the Edmonds Downtown Alliance to create and administer the database consistent with the standards. Mr. Chave said the intent of the process is to adopt a new sign code. The draft language that has been provided to date was intended for information purposes. At their next meeting, staff will present draft language for the Board's consideration. A tentative public hearing is scheduled for May. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT Chair Lovell briefly reviewed the written report, noting that two Board Members attended the recent public open house relative to the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He also announced that Sound Transit's ST-3 draft program is available for public comment, and he urged Board Members to review the plan and provide appropriate comments. Board Member Stewart reported that the City Council spent little time on the Critical Areas Ordinance at their April 12th meeting. The agenda was quite full, and the Council only got through one amendment having to do with the mapping of critical areas being made available to the public on the City's website. The mapping system allows citizens to apply layers to the GIS maps to identify such things as critical areas, steep slopes, streams, pipes, infrastructure, etc. The intent is for citizens to have the ability to access the information on their own, and then approach City staff with questions when necessary. She said it was emphasized that the maps are not 100% accurate, and the mapping system makes note of this in a disclaimer. Mr. Chave provided more information about how the mapping system works. However, he cautioned that including critical areas in the mapping system can be misleading because they are not precise regulatory maps. Board Member Stewart shared examples of the information that can be accessed from the City of Seattle's website. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she receives regular communication from other jurisdictions in the area concerning the permitting activity that occurred throughout the month. This is helpful information, and she asked if it would be possible for the City of Edmonds to generate a report of this type, as well. Mr. Chave said the City's permit tracking system is available on line, but the City does not issue an email that summarizes the monthly permitting activity. Board Member Crank suggested that Vice Chair Rubenkonig provide examples to staff of reports that have been issued by other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave said the Building Division does a monthly report that summarizes the building permits that were issued, but it is not linked to a more extensive database. They do not currently have a method of doing a realistic report on all of the development activity in the City. Vice Chair Rubenkonig felt this would be a wonderful tool for the Board to have on hand. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the agenda for the April 27th meeting will include a continued discussion on the sign code, as well as a review and discussion of land division concepts. Chair Lovell asked staff to provide feedback from the City Council regarding the timeframe for rewriting the Development Code. Mr. Chave said the plan is to get as much of the update as possible finished in 2016. The sign code is a priority, as is the process section. The update of other elements will extend into 2017. He agreed to invite the Development Services Director to provide materials to update the Board on the overall schedule. Chair Lovell questioned the timing of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Board Member Crank reported that she attended the public meeting, but the timeline was not provided. The meeting was presented as the first step in getting the public involved Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 334 6.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 11, 2016 Vice Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Philip Lovell (excused) Valerie Stewart (excused) Samuel Klevin (Student Representative (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2015 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, referred to an email she sent to the Board prior to the meeting in which she shared an example of boxes being placed near the door of a business on which advertising materials could be placed. She noted that the boxes are small, mailbox type that can hang on the wall next to the entryways or on the walls. She also pointed out that the Board has had significant discussion about the purpose of A -frame signs, and there seems to be a general acceptance that they provide an economic benefit to the businesses in the downtown. However, there has been no discussion about how the signs benefit the general public. She urged the Board to have a discussion about the public purpose of having the signs in the rights -of -way. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written Director's Report. None of the Board had comments or questions about the report. REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: TEMPORARY SIGNS Packet Pg. 335 6.1.c Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the draft sign code amendments is scheduled for May 25"'. The purpose of the current discussion is to finalize or get closure on the options that will be presented to the public at the hearing. Staff s intent is to publish information relative to the three options by Friday, May 13"', so the public has adequate time to review and prepare for the hearing. He briefly reviewed the three options as follows: Option 1 — This option would essentially prohibit A -frame and sandwich board signs from being allowed in the downtown. The business "premises" would no longer be defined as including the sidewalk in front of the building, and these types of signs would no longer be permitted as an allowed sign type downtown. Option 2 — This option would add a new definition of "pedestrian sign" that would specify more types of signs, including stanchion signs and other similar types. This option would continue the ability of businesses to use pedestrian signs as a form of "temporary signage," but a permit would be required and the 60-day limit would be retained as it currently exists for other types of temporary signage. Basically, this option would continue the status quo, but add a permit requirement to help staff administer the regulations. Option 3 — This option would change how "pedestrian signs" are treated downtown, considering them as a type of regular signage rather than "temporary." In exchange for this, there would be more standards in terms of where they can be located and how many would be permitted. The pedestrian signs would also count against the total sign area permitted for a business or building. This option would acknowledge how a number of businesses in the downtown currently use temporary signs. Option 3 is similar to Option 2, but more specific. Rather than allowing signs along the entire storefront, the location would be limited to either two feet next to the building or two feet out at the edge of the sidewalk, whichever provides the best through -way for people. In some cases, it may be less intrusive to the pedestrian walkway if the signs are placed closer to the street near trees, etc. This approach allows the City to determine the best location for the signs in order to maintain optimal pedestrian access. Mr. Chave emphasized that the three options would be tied to pedestrian signs in the downtown/waterfront area, where there is a pedestrian environment. They would still not be allowed elsewhere in the City. Mr. Chave advised that in addition the three options pertaining to "pedestrian signs," there are a number of other suggested code amendments included in the draft material. These are attempts to clarify or rectify problems or inconsistencies staff have encountered in applying the sign regulations to specific circumstances over the years. He emphasized that none of the proposed amendments would increase the sign area or the number of signs allowed per business. Vice Chair Rubenkonig explained that the Board should focus its discussion on the three options that will be presented at the public hearing on May 25"'. Mr. Chave said the other proposed amendments will be included in the draft language that is published for the public hearing to solicit public comment. However, he agreed that the most significant change is to the temporary sign provisions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested it would be helpful for the Board to discuss the differences and identify the criteria by which the Board will review each of the three options. She reminded the Board that other sign types, including blade signs and window signs, are allowed in the downtown and do not count against the total sign area that a business is allowed to have. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that additional language from the sign standards was inserted into the draft code to make this clear. He noted that these signs are already allowed in the existing sign code. However, Option 3 would include pedestrian signs as part of the total sign area. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if staff has the resources to administer either Option 2 or Option 3, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He explained that, while Options 2 and 3 would both require permits, Option 2 would require a new permit every 60 days, and Option 3 would require just one permit that would be valid as long as the sign consistent with the code. Vice Chair Rubenkonig noted that the Board received written comments regarding the draft sign code from Phil Lovell, Chair of the Board, and from Laura Zeck, the owner of Zinc Art + Interiors. They also received a memorandum from the Edmonds Downtown Business Association (ED) outlining their Sign Advisory Board's proposed revisions related to the sign code. Board Member Crank noted that Board Members received the written comments just prior to the meeting. She suggested they wait to discuss their content until the public hearing. The remainder of the Board concurred that would be appropriate. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 336 6.1.c Board Member Crank referred to ECDC 20.60.080(A)(2)(c)(2), which states that portable temporary signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. She asked if this same provision would apply to Option 2, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and agreed to check the language to make sure the provision was included in both options. Board Member Crank suggested that it would be helpful if staff could provide pictures at the public hearing to illustrate signs that would and would not be allowed per each of the options. Seeing examples of what is currently happening in the downtown would also be a helpful tool, and graphic illustrations would help the conversation move along faster. Mr. Chave said he is planning to prepare a PowerPoint presentation that talks about the key provisions of each of the options, and examples will be provided, as well. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said it would also be useful for staff to prepare a matrix to clearly identify the differences between the three options. Board Member Robles observed that Option 1 would be easy to implement and administer, but Options 2 and 3 would be more difficult to control and manage. He recalled that, at the last meeting, he suggested that the Board also consider a "green dot" option, which originated from Board Member Cloutier's recommendation that the Board's discussion should focus on what problems they are trying to solve. The only tangible problem that has been identified is the need to maintain adequate pedestrian access and meet the American's with Disabilities (ADA) requirements. Given that the Board is accountable for ensuring the safety, health and welfare of the public, sign location should be planned based on this criterion. If the City wants to be in the business or regulating signs, he suggested this could best be accomplished if the City were to make the pedestrian signs and determine exactly where they can be located. Board Member Robles observed that signs are a type of contract, statement of fact or statement of value. Any sign that does not accomplish this should not be considered a sign. He said he believes the "green dot" approach is an easy way to manage pedestrian signs, and he is surprised that staff didn't put more effort into developing the concept further. There are other ideas that haven't been adequately heard, as well. He suggested that the Board postpone their recommendation until all ideas have been heard. Mr. Chave said that is the purpose of tonight's discussion. The intent is to offer several options for the public to respond to. Board Member Robles voiced concern that limiting the hearing to the three options would result in people commenting without having a full menu of options. He asked that his planned -location approach be included as an option for the hearing. Mr. Chave agreed to develop the option further if that is the Board's consensus. Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that the City Council agreed to work with students from Washington State University to develop a wayfinding sign program and/or technology that would provide information about businesses in Edmonds. Mr. Chave clarified that the City Council authorized staff to submit an application to participate in the program, but the selection is competitive and there is no guarantee that the City will be chosen. Board Member Monroe pointed out that, in addition to safety and maintaining pedestrian access, the Board has also discussed a desire to address visual clutter. Board Member Robles suggested it would be the Architectural Design Board's responsibility to establish the visual aspects of the sign code. Board Member Monroe concurred, but suggested that clutter should at least be part of the Board's discussion. Mr. Chave said that Option 3 would be easy to implement, and Option 2 would be more difficult. Board Member Monroe asked if the permit fee would be the same for both Option 2 and Option 3. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and explained that the fee would be minimal. The permit is intended to enable the City to track pedestrian signs to ensure that pedestrian areas are clear. The fee should be high enough to cover the cost of administration, but not so costly that it becomes an obstacle. Board Member Monroe suggested that both Options 2 and 3 imply a "green dot" solution, since they both limit where the signs can be placed. While the concept was not specifically included as an option, it was not necessarily excluded, either. Mr. Chave agreed and cautioned that what actually happens on the sidewalk can change over time. Adopting a "green dot" approach would require the City to update the sign code each time something changes. Board Member Robles suggested that the dots could be identified on a map rather than physical dots on the sidewalk. He cautioned against creating a sign code that is too detailed and difficult to understand, and he felt that the "green dot" approach would be the simplest approach and represent a good compromise. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 337 6.1.c Board Member Monroe asked the public benefit of allowing restaurants to serve food on the sidewalks. Mr. Chave answered that a study was done some years ago that looked at how to create a more vibrant and attractive downtown, and street life came up as being an important goal for the public environment. Allowing restaurants to have a limited presence on the sidewalk adds to street life. However, it is also important to manage where they can be located. Board Member Robles observed that, sometimes, outdoor dining expands beyond what the City approved and encroaches into the pedestrian area. Mr. Chave agreed and said that would be a code enforcement issue. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board should review each of the options based on the following criteria: 1. Whether or not pedestrian signs will be allowed. 2. What size of pedestrian signs can exist? 3. Where can pedestrian signs be located? 4. How many pedestrian signs will be allowed? 5. What benefit do pedestrian signs provide. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that this criterion should also be presented at the public hearing, along with examples to illustrate existing pedestrian signs, as well as how Option 2 and 3 would be implemented. Board Member Cheung suggested it would also be helpful for staff to specifically identify the differences between the three options. Vice Chair Rubenkonig led a discussion about the differences between the options and suggested that a matrix be prepared for the public hearing to visually illustrate the differences. The following is a summary of their discussion: • Permits: Both Option 2 and Option 3 would require permits for pedestrian signs. Option 1 would not allow pedestrian signs at all. Location: Both Option 2 and Option 3 would require that pedestrian signs provide a minimum of 4 feet of clearance for pedestrians to pass. Option 3 states that the preferred locations are within 2 feet of the building face or within 2 feet of the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles. This would provide more flexibility to place the sign in an area that is the least intrusive to the pedestrian walkway. The Board agreed that the location criteria should be the same in both Option 2 and Option 3. Board Member Cloutier observed that requiring the signs to be within 2 feet of the building or street would be similar to the "green dot" approach. Instead of dots, there would be green bands. This requirement would eliminate the need for a case -by -case sign review to determine location. Board Member Robles pointed out that, in some cases, putting the pedestrian sign next to the building requires pedestrians to walk closer to the street where there is no weather protection. He would prefer that the signs be placed closer to the street so that pedestrians do not have to walk in the rain. • Time Limitations. It was pointed out that Option 2 would impose a 60-day time limit on pedestrian signs, and Option 3 would not. In both Option 2 and Option 3, pedestrian signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. • Number of Pedestrian Signs Allowed: Option 2 would limit the number of pedestrian signs to one per ground floor storefront. Option 3 would also limit the number of pedestrian signs to one per ground floor storefront, but the signs would count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted. • Sign Size: Options 2 and 3 both identify the same maximum size for pedestrian signs. The difference is that the pedestrian sign area would count as part of the total sign area in Option 3, but not in Option 2. • Benefits. The Board had a brief discussion about the pros and cons of permanent signs to both businesses and citizens. The Board decided against having a lengthy discussion about the benefits criteria until after the public hearing. They discussed that the public would inform them of their views relative to the benefits of each of the options. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recommended that, at the public hearing, the Board should specifically solicit comments from the public relative to the pros and cons of each option. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 338 6.1.c Rather than focusing on the pros and cons of each of the options, Board Member Crank reminded the Board that they should focus on trying to solve the problems, which are ADA access and the proliferation of pedestrian signs. Board Member Cheung pointed out that all three options would require ADA compliance, which is a federal mandate. Board Member Robles asked if the City has a mission statement in place that could guide the discussion at the public hearing. Board Member Cloutier answered that the City has a mission statement, which is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Comprehensive Plan is a vision rather than the rule. Mr. Chave encouraged the Board Members to review the Downtown Waterfront Plan, as well as the Economic Development Element, which are part of the Comprehensive Plan. While the two documents do not specifically address pedestrian signs, they do speak about the pedestrian environment. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board's recommendation to the City Council relative to sign code amendments should tie in with the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the two elements identified by Mr. Chave. Mr. Chave said he anticipates the Board will receive a lot of input at the public hearing to help inform their recommendation. Board Member Monroe asked why staff is recommending a 60-day limit for pedestrian signs in Option 2. Mr. Chave said this is consistent with the current code language, so it would simply maintain the status quo. The Board prepared the following chart to illustrate their discussion: Existing Sign Type Sign Location Sign Size Time Limitation Pedestrian Sin Containment Option 1 No N/A N/A N/A N/A Option 2 Yes Pedestrian "Green Zone" Limited to 6 sq. ft. 60 days Perhaps within 2 Does not count feet of the against total sign building face or area or total within 2 feet of number of signs. the curb. Option 3 Yes Pedestrian "Green Zone" Limited to 6 sq. ft. No limit Perhaps within 2 Does count feet of the against total sign building face or area or total within 2 feet of number of signs. the curb. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that a public hearing on the draft Sign Code Amendments is scheduled for May 25"' Also on May 25th, the Board will continue its discussion about the Subdivision Code Update. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the Planning Board oversees the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Planning Department, and they get quarterly, or at least regular reports. In that capacity, she would like to explore how the activities of the department are chosen. In particular, she wants to focus on whether the Board has any oversite of the programs and volunteer opportunities for the environment, education and service. The Planning Board represents the community's interest, so their activism on behalf of the sustainability, health, and viability of the City Marsh, solar power, energy consumption, and involvement in volunteer service is important. She asked if Public Works or Parks and Recreation Departments are the managers of such programming. She reviewed that the Deer Creek Hatchery is located in Edmonds, and Edmonds has been designated as a Backyard Natural Habitat. The City also has a Beach Watcher Program and the Frog Lady, who is integral to many programs. She said she would like the Planning Board to look at all the programming (activities and commercial provisions) and consider what oversight should be provided. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 339 6.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 25, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5t" Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Samuel Kleven (Student Representative) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board Member Monroe asked when the Board would receive an update on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Chair Lovell noted that the item is identified as "pending" on the Board's Extended Agenda, but no specific dates have been identified. Mr. Chave reported that there was a public open house on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan last week. At this time, the consultant and staff are sifting through the comments received to prepare a summary report, which can be forwarded to the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS SIGN CODE Packet Pg. 340 6.1.c Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council requested that the Board provide recommendations concerning temporary portable signs in the downtown area. The focus of the hearing is to gather input on three options dealing with temporary signs. In addition to the amendments regarding temporary signs, the draft amendments also address a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates and issues. He emphasized that the Board has not singled out any of the three options as preferred, and they are interested in hearing from citizens and business owners regarding their preferences. The Planning Board will consider the public input as they formulate a recommendation for the City Council. He noted that the code language for the three options refers to temporary signs in the downtown as "pedestrian signs." He reviewed the three options as follows: • Option 1 would ban pedestrian signs such as A -frames. The Board has received public comment that the signs are an eyesore, block sidewalks, etc. Option 1 is a simple solution. If pedestrian signs are not allowed, then there is no need for regulations to govern them. Option 2 is a variation of the existing code, which considers pedestrian signs in the downtown to be temporary signs that are only allowed for a total of 60 days per calendar year. The 60-days can be spread out, such as once per week or focused around particular sales events. Option 2 would continue this practice, but add a new requirement for a low-cost permit so that the 60 days can be tracked and to ensure that signs are ADA compliant. Based on the existing code, these types of signs cannot be placed off of the property, and Option 2 would not change the requirement. However, Option 2 would specify where the signs can be placed and limit them to one pedestrian sign per street front, which could potentially equate to one pedestrian sign per business. • Option 3 would permit pedestrian signs as permanent signs, so the 60-day limit would no longer apply. It would also include specific conditions on duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the building or curb, and only one in front of the store), and how many (only one per store front). Some have commented that pedestrian signs are supplemental signage that is important for businesses, and a number of businesses use them on a regular basis. Option 3 recognizes the importance of pedestrian signs, but places restrictions on them. For example, only one would be allowed per store rather than one for each business in a building. Mr. Chave summarized neither Option 2 or Option 3 would allow pedestrian signs to be located away from the property, which is consistent with the existing code. That means that signs could not be placed on the corner to direct pedestrians to a business down the street. Because a permit would be required, the enforcement mechanisms would be clearer. Mr. Chave said that the Board is interested in the public's reaction to the three alternatives, particularly the benefits of each one. They have heard why prohibiting pedestrian signs would be a good thing, and they have received some commentary about why some business think they are important. Mr. Chave said there are also a number of proposed amendments that are not tied to pedestrian signs. These are intended to clean up and update the code language based on staff s working knowledge of the code. For example: • Directional signs are not specifically addressed in the code, and a proposed amendment would allow directional signs and not count them as part of the overall signage allowed for a business. • The code specifies when illuminated text is allowed, and a proposed amendment would clarify that logos can be illuminated, as well. • A proposed amendment clarifies that sign height is tied to the building and not what the original grade might have been. • The existing code considers monument signs on very short poles to be pole signs. For all practical purposes these are monument signs, and a proposed amendment will make this clarification. • The roof is the natural place for a sign on a one-story building with a mansard roof because there is no room on buildings with the storefront windows. A proposed amendment would clarify this exception for one-story buildings. • A proposed amendment would codify what has long been the practice for calculating sign area, which provides a strong incentive for letter signs. Rather than drawing a rectangle around the entire area the letters are applied to, sign are would be calculated by measuring the actual letters. This allows the letters to be larger. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 341 6.1.c • Currently, the Architectural Design Board (ADB) can grant modifications that are tied specifically to a site. Because there are a number of unique architectural features associated with buildings in the downtown, and strictly following the code may require that these features be covered up. A proposed amendment would allow flexibility for the ADB to consider other solutions put forth by property owners. The amendment would not result in more signage, but there would be more flexibility as to how the signs can be arranged on the building. Although he did not attend the Board's last meeting (May 1 lth) where the sign code was discussed, he read the minutes and met with Vice Chair Rubenkonig to review the Board's discussion. He summarized that the Planning Board's discussion has focused on the following: Pedestrian signs must adhere to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The Board heard a lot of feedback about the issue of clutter. Citizens have expressed concern that there are too many signs and they are being used in locations that are not adjacent to the businesses. Although pedestrian signs are currently limited to just the downtown commercial zones, the sign type if used prolifically in other commercial areas of the City, too. The Board is interested in providing adequate guidelines in the code to allow for fair administration of the regulations. It is also important that the regulations can be easily understood by citizens, business owners, and staff. Mr. Chave reported that the consultant the City hired to review the Sign Code has identified a number of sections that need to be clarified, particularly with respect to the size and configuration of signs on buildings. In addition, it has also been discussed that there are many other ways to advertise a business via social media such as Yelp, Google searches, etc. However, the real purpose of tonight's discussion is to hear from the public about the pros and cons of each of the options for regulating pedestrian signs in the downtown. After the Board forwards its recommendation to the City Council, the City Council will study the issue further and invite additional public comment before a final decision is made. Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, said she owns a business at 542 Main Street. Her background is in advertising, and she spent 20 years in advertising before opening her small business. Because her business is located above the fountain and not in the core business district, signage is a challenge. Sidewalk signage is extremely important to the success of her business, as it draws in foot traffic. She hears daily that people did not know her business was there until they saw her sign. Her business would suffer if pedestrian signs are no longer allowed. Temporary is an important way to communicate sales and special events. She voiced concern that Option 2 would significant limit the use of pedestrian signs to advertise special events, such as the Fire Station Open House or downtown merchant events that are done as a group. Without temporary signage, advertising these events would be challenging. Ms. Koenig suggested the Board consider an Option 4, which would allow pedestrian signs are permanent signs with some restrictions. She understands the importance of having a cohesive look, adhering to sign code rules, and maintaining ADA compliance. She suggested the City consider a universal sign design that would allow business to add their own images but maintain a cohesive look. Lastly, she commented that advertising via social media works for special events, but it does not bring in foot traffic. People walking downtown do not know her store is there until they see the pedestrian sign. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if Ms. Koenig was referring to pedestrian signage when talking about a universal, cohesive look, and Ms. Koenig answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if Ms. Koenig was referring to a specific sign when talking about bringing in foot traffic. Ms. Koenig answered that she has been using an A -frame sign that is placed next to a tree to advertise her business. In light of the proposed sign code changes, she has been trying other methods of signage that is closer to the building. However, they have not been successful because her building is set back off the street. Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee, said she is fortunate to have a great clientele, and she no longer needs A -frame signs to advertise her business. However, she is tucked in on Walnut Street off the beaten path and putting a sign at the corner of 5th and Walnut was instrumental in establishing her business. She voiced concern that the proposed sign code amendments would no longer allow signs to be placed off -premise. She also pointed out that her building is unique, and the current code does not allow signs above the roof line. That means her sign was limited to just two feet in height, and she had to modify her round logo to be an oval in order to maximize her sign space. From a marketing perspective, she is lucky she didn't fail Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 342 6.1.c because the brand logo is typically instrumental to a business. It would be great if the sign code were flexible enough to address these unique situations. Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, said he is the owner of Housewares on Main Street, as the newly -elected present of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED). He said he is also a member of Ed's Environment Committee, which is conducting a preliminary study of street amenities, and gathering information about A -frame signs is a part of the study. He said ED understands that the Board has defined three pedestrian sign options for consideration, and they are seeking additional input. The Environmental Committee has examined pedestrianss ignage as it relates to economic vitality, but also as to how the sign types impact the rights of the public to use and enjoy the sidewalks. Safety is an issue for the general public, and an additional concern for those with mobility and visual impairments. He said the purpose of his comments is to discuss the pros and cons of A -frame signage and offer some suggestions for additional or alternative sign options. Mr. Boehlke explained that because A -frame signs occupy public space, the stakeholders involved are business owners who may feel that the signs are their most important means of advertising and pedestrians who use the sidewalks. Most pedestrians that the committee has talked to want the sidewalks to be free of visual clutter and freestanding obstacles, and some even feel that A -frame signs should be banned. Other's don't have strong feelings about the subject either way, but they are concerned about the growing quantity of signs placed on the sidewalks and wonder if there are any regulations for limiting their size and quantity. He shared a summary of the pros and cons the committee has gathered over the past month as follows: Pros (input gathered primarily from business owners): • A -frame signs are seen by some business owners as an important, and in some cases, the only street level marketing tool available to them. This is especially the case for those businesses that are not located on 5"' Avenue or Main Street. Other business owners have said that they do not particularly like A -frames but they do not see any alternatives that are available for communicating specific messages about their businesses to pedestrians. • Pedestrian signage is needed because, typically, wall -mounted signs placed high above eye level are not seen by pedestrian traffic walking below them. Buildings without overhead canopies do not offer a place for "blade signs," making A -frames the only eye -level option for placing a message perpendicular to, and thus readily visible to, traffic flow. • A -frames offer businesses the opportunity to announce special offers and events. • Businesses located off the beaten path have found A -frame signs to be effective in drawing attention to their place of business. One reported that they have documented an increase in sales when this type of sign is on the street and a decrease when it is not. Cons (input gathered primarily from pedestrians): • They can create visual distraction and obstruct pathways, especially on smaller sidewalks, reducing the quality of the walking experience and affecting the easy flow of pedestrian traffic. • There is no control of materials, one was made with heavy metal and had sharp edges. • Too many occupy the street corners, making it difficult to cross the street. • Some are not designed to withstand winds and blow over on the sidewalk and/or into the street. • Some are placed too close to the curb so you can't open your car door. • A -frames advertising a condo in Firdale Village are brought into town and left out overnight. • It is difficult to navigate around them with a baby carriage or stroller. • It is difficult to push a wheel chair around them, especially when sidewalks are also cordoned off for restaurant eating areas. • A -frames are starting to creek back, is there no limit to them? • A -frames serve a function, but are difficult to control. Mr. Boehlke summarized that the subject of A -frame signs seems to elicit passionate and diverse options, and the committee has also noticed the challenges involved for the City when attempting to secure a consistent and fair approach to pursuing breaches of A -frame regulations as stated in the existing sign code. He explained that the issues of visual and physical clutter, as well as concern for public safety, are the reasons the committee began to seek other options. While the committee does not recommend that A -frames be banned, the thought is that, given additional choices, there will be an incentive for Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 343 6.1.c businesses to choose something more appropriate to their needs and more appealing to the customer that they are trying to attract (pedestrians). Although the initial options are preliminary, the committee has identified a couple of ideas that look promising: A. One idea is that each business, especially those located on side streets and at the edges of the downtown core, would be given the opportunity to have a removable sign hung from a permanent directional post and panel structure, which would be strategically placed at the street corners out of the pedestrian path. This sign type would be designed to be compatible with the existing historic light standard in downtown or become part of the "family of sign" types that the City has recently installed around town. B. Another alternative to A -frame signs for street businesses is to offer changeable mini -projecting signs about the size of a small A -frame sign. These would be doubled sided and attached to the building. They would be similar to A - frame signs in the sense that the message would be perpendicular to pedestrian traffic and changeable; but unlike A - frame signs, they would not impede pedestrian traffic. C. Because stanchion signs typically take up 50% less sidewalk space than A -frame signs, they would be an excellent alternative. Also, at the ADA ideal height of 5 feet above grade, they would be less of a tripping hazard than the 3- foot A -frame signs. D. An additional pedestrian level sign option should be made available for businesses located on the second floor. One idea would be to allow a building -mounted sign at their entry door. This option would be attached to the wall of their building and would be limited in size and quantity. Mr. Boehlke concluded his remarks by proposing that a long-term solution be developed providing a framework of wayfinding and informational signs with a cohesive, attractive and standardized framework within which each business may present their personalized message. He summarized that the most successful solution will have the support of both businesses and the walking public. The goal should be to make the town visually inviting and pedestrian friendly and to maximize the ability of small businesses to community with and attract customers. Judy Salinas, Edmonds, said she is the owner of Glazed and Amazed in Edmonds at 514 Main Street. She currently has a professionally -made A -frame sign that is located next to her window and changed up on a regular basis. However, the sign is only out during business hours. She said the A -frame sign helps people find her business, and she uses it to advertise special events. She voiced support for Option 3 and questioned how staff would control the 60-day limit proposed in Option 2. She summarized that small business struggle to stay in business so anything that can help them get the word out and get people to stop in is important. She said her business has been located in downtown Edmonds for 11 years, and it would be a huge disservice to her business to prohibit pedestrian signs altogether. Her business has an awning, which makes it difficult to see the name of her business other than the A -frame sign. Board Member Monroe asked if Ms. Salinas has considered the option of using a blade sign to advertise her business. Ms. Salinas answered that she has a small blade sign, but it does not allow her to advertise events. Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, said she has lived in the City since 2001 and has been a business owner (Snap Fitness) since February 27, 2008. She said she is very blessed to have her business located at the corner of 5`h Avenue and Walnut Street, since she is able to place a sign on the corner without blocking pedestrian traffic. She explained that she always asks new customers how they learned about her business, and 95% of them indicated that they drove by and saw her sign out front. She commented that visibility is very important. When people drive down 5th Avenue and stop at the light, her sign near the corner is very easy for people to see. The sign is used to advertise personal training and classes. The sign on the building is just general, and the A -frame sign advertises that the business is more than a gym. Ms. Rosenfelt recalled that at the last meeting, it was suggested that businesses use window signs to advertise. She tested this option out and found that members of the club took down the signs because they wanted to be able to see out the window while they were using the equipment. Also, when cars park on the street in front of the business, they block the view of the signs. She emphasized that it is imperative for business to have signs that are visible at eye level. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 344 6.1.c Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Ms. Rosenfelt to describe her pedestrian sign. Ms. Rosenfelt said it is a stand-up sign with a sand base so it doesn't blow over. The sign can be changed up with professional inserts. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that the sign would best fit the description of a stanchion sign. Board Member Monroe asked how clutter could be addressed at the corner. Ms. Rosenfelt said there are four corners at the intersection, and her business is the only one that uses the location now. She noted that her building is located at the corner, so the sign would actually be considered on -premise. The mixed use building has commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Signs would have to be located next to the street rather than on the sidewalk since there is a garden area on both sides of 5"h and Walnut. Joan Archer, said she has owned Aria Studio Gallery on Main Street for 15 years. She is also a member of the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA) and ED. She agreed with the concerns raised by the previous speakers, and her overall thought is that A -frame signs make businesses more visible. She said she puts out an A -frame sign on occasion, and it is very helpful in attracting customers to her business. It is located next to the building and is just visible from the fountain, but it does not disrupt pedestrian access. While other methods of advertising are good, it is important to keep in mind that downtown businesses have a number of other expenses: ED, Artwalk, and increased business taxes. She expressed her belief that A -frame signs have their place, but they should not be allowed to impair access or cause major issues. They should also be limited in size. Ms. Archer questioned why pedestrian signs are being discussed as a problem, except perhaps clutter. On the other hand, businesses are an integral part of the community, and they bring people to Edmonds. There are already a number of nit -picky requirements that businesses must deal with. While some restrictions are necessary, the City should be careful before placing additional requirements on businesses. Denise Schwind, Edmonds, said she has been a resident of the City for 26 years and owns PUR Skin Clinic in downtown Edmonds. She commented that she has actually learned about many of the businesses in the downtown because of the pedestrian signs on the street. She said that when new patients come in, she asks how they learned about the clinic. Most were referred by existing patients, but 35% came in after seeing the A -frame sign on the street. Prohibiting pedestrian signs would impact her business and the ability for it to grow in Edmonds. She said her business is located in front of a bus stop, which inhibits visibility of her building sign. She has a small pedestrian sign on the sidewalk, and people walking by see the sign and come into her business. The sign does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked why kind of pedestrian sign Ms. Schwind uses, and she replied that it is an A -frame sign that is only out during business hours. Randy Hutchens, Edmonds, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 68 years. He lives and works in downtown Edmonds, and is the owner of SnoKing Signs. He commented that numerous good ideas have been put forward by the business owners. He said he reviewed the sign code and found it to confusing. He suggested that it should be written as bullet points that identify exactly what is and is not allowed. He suggested that perhaps the preferred option could be a combination of Options 2 and 3, which would require a low-cost permit, but consider the pedestrian signs permanent. He felt this approach could be enforced by using a sticker that obtained via the permit and placed on the actual sign. He said tehr are variety of pedestrian sign types, and the code language should not specifically out any one type. A combination of Options 2 and 3 would eliminate the 60-day limitation so people would no longer need to stress over how many days a sign is out, and the low-cost permit would make enforcement easy. He said he likes Option 2 because it specifically identifies where the signs can be located. He felt that pedestrian signs should be allowed, but only during business hours. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented that the proliferation of temporary commercial signs on streets of the bowl is recent and began four years ago when spots of signs began to appear her and there. Edmonds now looks as though it has an advancing case of the measles. The owners of the "spots" claim that they are necessary because, for some reason or another, their businesses aren't visible enough. However, none of these owenrs claim that their visibility problem developed after they purchased or leased their properties. The potential problem already existed. Business, itself cautions that the first rulers for a successful business is location, location, location. If local merchants chose the wrong location, that is their responsibility. Adjusting the sign code to accommodate private misjudgments is not the role of a city council. If an owner is certain that he is being wronged, his remedy is the Hearing Examiner, not the ADB as has been suggested. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 345 6.1.c Ms. Shippen said that, so far, no one argues that temporary commercial signs embellish the appearance of Edmonds. Reducing the attractiveness of a pleasing residential community on a gamble that ugly commercial signs will attract more customers to a business would be a poor decision. It sacrifices a public value and the public gets nothing in return. The acceptance of more and permanent commercial street signs, as recommended in Options 2 and 3, would be a step backwards in Edmonds' history. The Planning Board should choose Option 1. She encouraged them to keep the existing code, with amendments that prohibit all temporary commercial signs through Edmonds except for 60 consecutive days one-time only for grand opening events. Prohibited signs would include A -frames, sandwich boards, stanchions, banners, streamers, posters, clusters of lights, flags, pennants, and balloons. The simplest and best way to regulate temporary commercial signs is to not allow them except for one business opening period. Ms. Shippen suggested that Edmonds examine the purpose of the sign code. The City's current sign code is dishonest for those who oppose signs, as well as those who use them for business purposes. As an example, she read from the City of Carmel, California's sign code, which states that, "This chapter establishes standards and guidelines to preserve and enhance the appearance of the community as a place in which to live and work. These standards and guidelines ensure that signage is used as identification and not as advertisement or a notice -attracting device. Furthermore, these standards prevent an excessive number of signs, avoid visual clutter and eliminate hazards to pedestrians and motorists brought about by distracting signs. " Don Hall, Edmonds, said he and his wife have been merchants in downtown Edmonds for 20 years, and they have used A - frame signs to advertise their business. They used to have two, and now use just one because they did not feel it was appropriate to have one at the corner, too. Their current A -frame sign is next to the store and is used as part of the front display. He commented that A -frame signs can be very attractive, and if businesses use imagination, the signs can excite those who see them. He pointed out that prohibiting pedestrian signs has not worked well in other areas of Edmonds because, as mentioned, they are all over the City when they are really only allowed in the downtown. He also questioned how Options 2 and 3 would be enforced. The City only has one Code Enforcement Officer, and he is not available on weekends. He noted that on weekends, particularly during the summer months, there are numerous signs around the fountain advertising special events. He suggested that blight is more of an issue with these signs than the signs that are placed on the sidewalk by local merchants. He agreed that the pedestrian signs should be located in front of the businesses and should only be out during business hours. However, A -frame signs are very visible to people driving down thte street. He said he has a blade sign, but it is not highly visible to passing cars because it is blocked by the awning. Without the A -frame sign, drivers would have to look up to identify his business, but A -frame signs can be placed at eye level so they are easier for people to see. Mr. Hall said he would like the Board to figure out a way to make the sign code enforceable. He suggested that the existing code, if enforced properly, would work well with just a few small tweaks. He recommended that pedestrian signs should be considered permanent rather than limited to 60 days. He commented that most business owners do not have a clear understanding of the City's current sign code requirements and how they are applied. He suggested that Option 3 would be a good approach, along with education and enforcement. Chair Lovell asked if there was anyone in the audience who has a business outside of the downtown business district, and none raised their hands. Chair Lovell asked if all those present had reviewed the three options currently on the table, and all indicated affirmatively. Chair Lovell summarized that a few citizens comment on the pros and cons and indicated which option he/she preferred, but he is perplexed that few alternative solutions were presented. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Lovell announced that the Board would continue its discussion about the sign code at their next meeting. At that time, they will consider the public input and formulate a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave explained that code amendments are legislative actions, which do not have as stringent of requirements as quasi-judicial actions. He invited Board members and citizens to continue to submit their comments and suggestions to the City. Those that are received by Thursday, June 2nd will be included in the Board's June 8th meeting packet for consideration. He emphasized that the Board's continued discussion on June 8th is not scheduled as a public hearing, but members of the public would have the opportunity to provide oral comments during the "General Public Comment" portion of the meeting. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 346 6.1.c F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Mr. Clugston said that rezoning the subject parcel would bring it into agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and make the existing development on the site conforming. Based on the findings of fact, analysis, conclusions and attachments to the Staff Report, Mr. Clugston recommended the Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezone request as presented. Chair Lovell invited members of the audience to participate in the public hearing, but none came forward. As there were no further questions from the Board, Chair Lovell closed the testimony portion of the hearing and invited the Board to begin its deliberations. Chair Lovell asked if the property owner is aware of and understands the proposed rezone. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell noted that there is an easement on the subject parcel that serves as access to the single-family residential home located behind it. He asked if the owner of the subject parcel has jurisdiction over the access driveway. Mr. Clugston said the owner of the subject parcel must have granted an easement to the owner of the rear parcel, but the easement would not have any bearing on the proposed rezone. Board Member Crank asked if there is documentation that affirms the fact that the property owner has been appraised of the rezone application and agrees with it. Mr. Clugston said a letter was sent to the property owner and was included as an attachment in the Staff Report. He also spoke to the property owner by phone. Board Member Cheung asked if the owner of property behind the subject parcel was also notified of the change. Mr. Clugston answered that all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel were notified by mail, and a sign was posted on the site, as well. In addition, the rezone was advertised on the City's website and in THE EVERETT HERALD. The rezone would not have any impact to the access easement. The intent is to simply make what is already developed on the site conform to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that, typically, jurisdictions handle rezones on a once -a -year basis. She asked if this is the City's general policy, as well. Mr. Clugston answered that area -wide rezones and those that require a Comprehensive Plan amendment are usually scheduled once a year, but site -specific rezones that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are moved forward when the application is received. Board Member Stewart asked about the size of the subject parcel, and Chair Lovell answered that it is 10,016 square feet. Board Member Stewart pointed out that lots in the RS-8 zone must be a minimum of 8,000 square feet, and the portion of the property that is identified as access easement would not be counted as part of the lot area. Mr. Clugston affirmed that the subject parcel has sufficient lot area to meet the requirements of the RS-8 zone. Board Member Stewart asked if the owner of the subject parcel has been paying property taxes based on the OS zoning. If so, will the tax amount change when the property is rezoned? Mr. Clugston answered that he is fairly certain the property has been taxed as a single-family residence for the past 45 years and only the zoning map is incorrect. VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 21805 — 98Tn AVENUE WEST FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8). BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DELIBERATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS SIGN CODE REGARDING THREE POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH TEMPORARY SIGNS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF MINOR CLARIFICATIONS AND CODE LANGUAGE UPDATES/ISSUES Mr. Lien referred the Board to the staff report, and recalled that the following three options were presented at the public hearing on May 25tn: Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 347 6.1.c Option 1 would no longer permit portable or temporary signs in the downtown. Option 2 would be essentially the existing code. Portable signs would be permitted as temporary signs, but a permit would be required. Option 3 would permit portable signs (pedestrian signs) as permanent signage and the 60-day limit would no longer apply. It would also include specific conditions on duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the building or curb and only in front of the store), and how many (only one per store front). Mr. Lien said a few changes have since been made to Option 3. First, ADA compliance was changed from four feet to five feet based on direction from the Engineering Department. Second, a Street Use Permit would no longer be required, but the signs would still have to comply with the Street Use Section of the code. Third, as opposed to allowing one pedestrian sign per store front, the language was changed to allow one pedestrian sign per street level entry. Mr. Lien reviewed that a number of suggestions were made during the hearing, which the Board could consider incorporating into their final recommendation: Allow changeable projecting signs. This option could be accommodated on a hanging bracket within the size limitations allowed in the current code. Allow blade signs for second story businesses. The current code allows second -story businesses to have pedestrian or blade signs. Allowing permanent directional signage. A number of business owners spoke about the need for off -premise signs to direct people to their places of business. The current code does not allow off -premise signs, and having directional signs in strategic locations that point to the businesses was suggested as a way to address this need. While this option is doable, there may be some restrictions. The directional signs could become a City project, with the Arts Commission coming up with the overall design, but the City Attorney has cautioned that using City signage to advertise specific businesses could be problematic. The City Attorney suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for the directional signs to be more general, simply pointing out the location of additional restaurants, retail stores, etc., without naming specific businesses. Another option would be to auction off the sign space to local businesses. Depending on where the Board decides to go with directional signage, the City Attorney has requested an opportunity to research the legalities and report back. In addition to the proposed changes relative to temporary signs in the downtown, Mr. Lien said staff is proposing other changes to the sign code to address a number of minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. Chair Lovell referred to an email he sent to the Board Members earlier in the day summarizing their most recent written comments regarding the three options currently being considered for temporary signs in downtown Edmonds. He summarized the comments as follows: • Temporary/moveable/pedestrian signs are important to the City for businesses, for logistical purposes and for atmosphere. • Controls are needed as to the quantity of such signs, locations of such signs, and enforcement of the code and guidelines. • Uniformity is desirable. • Fairness could become an issue if pedestrian signs are allowed in the downtown, but not in other commercial areas or if the sign code is strictly enforced in the downtown but not in other commercial areas of the City. • There are costs associated with implementation, achieving uniformity, enforcement, permitting, etc. • The Green Dot concept has valid points, but the cost and logistics of setting up and maintaining it are highly questionable, particularly given the previous "universals" sited above. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 348 6.1.c Chair Lovell provided a satellite view of the City of Carmel, California, which was previously put forth as an example for the City to follow. He pointed out that Carmel is significantly different than Edmonds. Although their current sign code prohibits "temporary" or "pedestrian" signs, he provided several pictures to illustrate that they are being used extensively by businesses anyway. He cautioned the Board that when making a recommendation to the City Council, they should consider guidelines and regulations that are realistic and achievable. Board Member Crank said she also provided photographs along with her written comments. She shared her experience while visiting South Center earlier in the day for lunch. She said she almost didn't notice that the businesses were using the same type of temporary signs, and the signs were placed in the same location in front of each business. She spoke with the owner of one of the businesses and learned that businesses on the block got together to come up with a common design for signs. The signs were so uniform that they blended in with the scenery, and this made her like the idea of having a uniform sign design more. The fact that the businesses sought out each other says that they care enough to make signage look nice. Even if the City does not promote uniformity, the concept is out there and businesses may choose to do it anyway. Board Member Stewart agreed that uniformity would help solve the issue of clutter, and the Arts Commission could participate and come up with something that is artistically pleasing. Placing the signs on the sidewalk close to the buildings they are serving is also important to provide sufficient pedestrian access. That means that some signs will have to be placed closer to the buildings than others given that sidewalk widths vary. Chair Lovell said he recently discussed the matter with Randy Hutchins, owner of Sno-King Signs, to obtain more of his thoughts on signage. Mr. Hutchins indicated that he has made a number of the A -frame signs that are used by businesses in the downtown. He commented that changeable signs can be problematic because the information can be difficult for people to read. He expressed that some uniformity would be helpful and easy to achieve. Most merchants are concerned about cost, but he felt that a sign design that is artistic and durable could be produced for a reasonable cost. Chair Lovell said he also spoke with Francis Chapin, Cultural Services Director, to learn her thoughts about the concept of directional signs. She agreed that something amenable to the businesses and the City could be worked out, but she cautioned that maintenance and administrative costs could be an issue. She noted that signs would have to be updated each time a business changes, and the space on each of the signs would be limited and not all businesses would have an opportunity to participate. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the plumb line she used to review the sign code options for pedestrian signage is answering, "how much signage is too much?" She noted that there has been no request to reduce the amount of signage available to each business in Edmonds, and there has been no protest to the revisions to the definitions in the sign code. Generally, what exists appears to be somewhat acceptable to the public and the downtown commercial community. Where there is discord is the presence of pedestrian signage on the sidewalks in the downtown business core. The arguments have centered on elimination of temporary/pedestrian signage, the fairness of appropriating part of the sidewalk for cafe seating yet restricting the sidewalks' use for a six-foot square pedestrian sign, and concern for the random appearance of the pedestrian signs. Vice Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the City has a comprehensive sign package for businesses. Wall -mounted signs, wall graphics, and blade signage is available. But wall graphics that meet certain criteria, blade signs that are less than 4 square feet, and window signs do not count against the sign package quota. Currently, it appears that temporary or pedestrian signage can be utilized, as well, and would not go against the sign package total. Given the concern of the commercial businesses to market appropriately, the provision of temporary/pedestrian signage could be proposed as being part of the overall sign package quota for each building. However, there is a tipping point of too much signage and too much clutter. This approach allows each business their proportionate amount of signage to use as they prioritize. However, the businesses would not get additional signage as they currently do with the use of temporary/pedestrian signage. Vice Chair Rubenkonig felt that Option 3 would be a step in the right direction. The Board heard at the public hearing that there are known businesses who abuse the sign ordinance and that out of town businesses in town for the weekend litter the downtown streets with their signs. A biannual enforcement effort and/or enforcement campaign could be a joint Citylbusiness event, but it does not need to be included in the ordinance. Wayfinding signage for businesses off Main, 5"' and Dayton appears to be acceptable in the current sign code and no revision was proposed. Again, this effort is beyond the Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 349 6.1.c Planning Board's purview. She expressed her belief that the issue of how much signage is allowed needs to be easy to understand and easy for the viewers (pedestrian) to perceive. The current formula for signage can remain and now include the option of incorporating a temporary/pedestrian sign less than six square feet. The limitation of three signs per business — present in the current code and not proposed for revision —would remain. Chair Lovell asked staff to clarify Vice Chair Rubenkonig's comments relative to window signs, blade signs, and wall graphics not counting against the overall sign area allowed for each business. Mr. Lien responded that, generally speaking, each business is appropriated one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage. The overall sign area can be divided up amongst a maximum of three signs per business. However, wall graphics, window signs and blade signs that meet specific criteria do not count against the overall sign area. With Option 3, pedestrian signs would count as one of the three signs that a business is allowed to have. Board Member Robles said he did not expect that his "Green Dot" concept would receive immediate rejection by the Board Chair. He was hoping it could be discussed further. He said there are a lot of things the Board cannot solve. They do not understand what sign density is unless they know how many signs there are. The City is allocating a public good to private enterprise, and then they are externalizing the cost of interpreting those rules on the public. It would take some work to put together a map, but it would only need to be done once. The work would all be done up front and the map would hold the City to task over its responsibilities related to signs (ADA access, safety, health and welfare of citizens, etc.). He felt this approach would be extremely easy to enforce and would be a single point of compromise. The concept would push the sign code in one spot, but expand it someplace else. This would allow the City to have a discussion about a single sign in a single location, taking into account the specific needs of the business. Board Member Robles commented that if the City is not going to enforce the law, there ought not be one. Or they could look at how people are already behaving and try to accommodate that. To him, that seems to be the more productive way of regulating signs. If there is an update to a map, the notification only has to go to the individuals affected by the update. Whereas, if the code is updated, it has to go through everyone, making it tremendously inefficient. It is possible to imbed all the excellent research that has been put into the sign code discussion into the City's graphic interface. This would be a form that business owners could immediately see prior to making a decision about moving into or investing in property in the downtown. They would be able to immediately see where they stand in relation to the law or to the allocation of a public good. Board Member Robles suggested that the City could constrain a corner to one dot, and ask the people to collaborate around the dot and share the space with each other. This would give them the opportunity to innovate around a constraint, which is a very typical way of introducing innovation. This approach would meet and exceed the spirit and intent of the existing sign code. While there are some persistent members who complain about the existence of signs, there should be a way to compromise on the number of signs that are allowed. The City cannot know how many signs there should be if it doesn't know how many signs there are. He said he does not believe the sign code is ready to move forward. It is too complicated, and it is hard to interpret. He recommended Option 3 with a graphic interface that people can understand using a computer, internet and modern technology. This approach would require the City to do work up front, but they would only have to do it once and it would be easy to change and modify and imbed the public innovation into the code rather than just inducing it on everyone. He said he would like hear the opinions of other Board Members and City staff before shooting the idea down entirely. Chair Lovell asked who would be responsible for updating the map each time redevelopment occurs or a business is changed. Board Member Robles answered that this could be the responsibility of the Architectural Design Board or the City staff. There is already an individual who is responsible for implementing and managing the sign code. Mr. Lien explained that the intent is to tackle the issue of temporary signs in the downtown as a hot -button item and Mr. Chave has taken the lead. With the larger sign code update, the City's consultant has proposed various amendments that have not been included in the code amendments currently before the Board for consideration. Apart from that, there is no other group looking at the sign code besides the Planning Board, and the Planning Division staff implements the sign code through review and enforcement. Chair Lovell advised that the City Council has asked the Planning Board to review and share their thoughts and recommendations relative to temporary signs in the downtown. If the Board chooses to coalesce around the concept of creating a signage map for the City, he would not veto the option, but he might not support it, either. He asked if Board Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 350 6.1.c Member Robles is suggesting that all of the signs in the City should be counted and identified on a map. Board Member Robles said that is his intent. They know how many businesses there are in the downtown and how many signs there should be. Mr. Lien cautioned that it would take serious work to survey all of the signs in the City. This approach would limit the total signage in the City rather than just per building. Before implementing the concept, he felt it would be appropriate to solicit considerable input from the business community. Board Member Robles voiced concern that all of the work the City does not want to do forces other people to interpret the sign code and limit their business accordingly. Board Member Robles suggested that his concept could be developed over time. There are big questions with the existing sign code that have not been answered. They are making assumptions that have no objective value assigned to them. If the City does not want to go look for those values, they are stuck with the existing sign code. He has listened to the public and their different needs and it would be hard to accommodate everyone unless you let them have some control over signage. Part of this plan should be about allowing the artistic community to standardize signs and allowing people to allocate signs as they see fit. The City should only be talking about certain components of signs, such as American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) access and the health, safety and welfare of citizens. He sees instances where the sign code is applied, but it is not practical given the specifics of the location. He summarized that the City should decide where signs can and cannot go and place the information in a graphic interface that is easy to understand. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized the Board Member Robles' concept would allow perspective businesses to look up the location of the building they are considering on a website and see how much signage would be allowed. This would help them determine whether or not the site would suit how they tend to market their company. Board Member Robles would like this information to be embedded in the sign code and available visually rather than just verbally. Board Member Crank asked if Board Member Robles concept would be a determining factor in the Board's recommendation relative to Options 1, 2 or 3 or if it should be considered as a second level of discussion after the Board selects its preferred option. Board Member Robles suggested that his concept is actually consistent with Option 3, but presented differently. Board Member Stewart said there is some merit to Board Member Robles' concept, as it would reduce the language in the code and the visual information could cater to the need for businesses to figure out what is and is not allowed relative to signage. She asked if the concept has been implemented anywhere else in the United States. Board Member Robles said he is not certain. The concept would more or less result in a shared database, which today's technology allows. There are databases available, but that's not where the City is at now. He is looking at it in terms of LEAD methodology, which provides a lot of visuals, pre -thinking, and simplification, and you gain the efficiencies later in the process from doing the work in the beginning. There are precedents for this type of work. Board Member Stewart summarized that, conceptually this type of work is being done in green building. Board Member Stewart asked if Board Member Robles is referring to "green dots" for pedestrian signs only. Board Member Robles answered that is his intent. Board Member Stewart suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for a block in the City to serve as a pilot program for the concept. While it is too much to take on for the entire City at one time, she is intrigued by the idea. Chair Lovell suggested that the Board consider a type of Option 3 for temporary signs, but create some mechanisms and guidelines that enable staff to work with business owners to establish workable plan for their signs within the parameters of the code. Board Member Robles agreed that this approach would go a long way towards accommodating individual needs. Chair Lovell expressed his belief that there should be some way to verify that signs have been permitted by using a sticker system, etc. Board Member Robles said there are other ways to simulate permitting. For example, businesses could lease artistic signs from artists, and the lease agreements would effectively become the permit. Business owners would pay money directly to the artists rather than the City. However, he cautioned that if the City is going to accommodate individual businesses, they must have a way to keep track of the accommodations such as a database or map. Mr. Lien commented that although the technology to implement Board Member Robles concept may be available, the City is not there yet. However, the City is moving in that direction by incorporating more graphics as part of the code update that is currently in progress. He said Option 3, as currently written, allows some flexibility for the City to accommodate the needs of individual businesses. It simply states that the signs must be located within 10 feet of the ground floor entrance and within Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 351 6.1.c two feet of the building or two feet of the curb. The intent is to ensure pedestrian access. As far as businesses being able to look at the code and determine the types of signs allowed, staff often speaks with prospective business owners to inform them of the sign code requirements. He reminded the Board that the intent of this sign code update is to address the specific issue of temporary signs in the downtown, as well as a number of minor clarifications and code language updates and issues. Board Member Cheung commented that the number, size and design of signs is subjective. Some people may feel that no signs would be better, and others may think that prohibiting signs would result in a desolate downtown. With regard to sign location, he emphasized that the signs must not block ADA accessibility, which is a federal law. He summarized his belief that pedestrian signs have a huge impact on businesses, and they are used to attract customers. If the City makes the sign code too restrictive or prohibits pedestrian signs altogether, businesses may actually leave the downtown. Businesses are in competition with each other. While it could be mutually beneficial to limit the number of signs, they need to work together with the business owners before any final decisions are made. He voiced support for Board Member Crank's comment about businesses voluntarily coming together to create uniformity of signs that benefit them all. Those businesses didn't need anyone to step in and make it happen; they did it on their own. He said he would prefer to collect as much input as possible from the business owners. Instead of forcing a sign code upon them, they should be allowed to work together and provide recommendations that help improve the downtown business community. He said he is leaning towards allowing the most freedom and flexibility for pedestrian signs, and letting the business owners figure out their own limitations and restrictions. Board Member Monroe recalled that, at the public hearing, there were several comments about the need for off -premise signs to direct pedestrian to the businesses that are located on the side streets. He asked the Board to share their thoughts on how these businesses could be best served in a way that does not put more clutter and signage on the street. He suggested that Board Member Robles' idea may work well for these situations. The City could provide directional signs and auction off the space to businesses. Board Member Robles cautioned that there is real peril when the City starts allocating public good to a private enterprise. However, they are ways of having exchanges that are not necessarily financial and there are ways to share the spots without bidding for property. Having a social agreement in place with the business owners would address the legal concerns. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she supports Option 3, which counts pedestrian signs as part of the overall sign area and number of signs allowed for each business. As per Option 3, pedestrian signs would become one of the several options a business owner can choose for signage. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized that staff has had some discussion with the City Attorney about the legality of the City providing wayfinding signs. The current code allows them, but whether or not they can be used to advertise specific businesses is in question and must be reviewed by the City Attorney. The intent of the signs would be to help businesses that are located off the main roads. Board Member Monroe referred to a picture of a directional sign that allows the individual signs to be changed as needed. The City could construct the sign to a certain standard, and then businesses could purchase the individual plaques that are attached to the sign. Board Member Cheung asked if the directional sign would be in addition to allowing one pedestrian sign per storefront, and Board Member Monroe agreed that was his intent. Board Member Robles expressed his belief that commercial property in the downtown would become more valuable if there was a way to have off -site signage. Board Member Cheung agreed it would be helpful to provide off -premise directional signs to direct customers to the businesses located on side street, but he does not believe the directional signs would completely solve the desire of businesses to use pedestrian signs. The code must still be updated to address pedestrian signs, but directional signs would have value to businesses and auctioning off the space could help pay for the signs, themselves. Chair Lovell agreed that directional signage could be done with the concept of uniformity, along with elements of flexibility to add or change the signs as needed. However, it is important to realize that there would be cost to the City. He suggested the Board could recommend that the City Council direct staff to investigate the feasibility of establishing a directional sign program. Vice Chair Rubenkonig emphasized that the sign code already allows directional signs. The Board's comments can be noted that they think this is a private concern and the City Attorney will need to set some language for how wayfinding signs could be used. But as far as the Board's current review of the sign code, no changes need to be made to implement a directional sign program. Mr. Lien said the City Attorney has affirmed that no changes would be needed to the Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 352 6.1.c existing code to allow directional signs, but the Board could also include this in its recommendation to the City Council as something they want the City Council to pursue. Board Member Cheung agreed that directional signs might reduce the need for businesses to use off -site pedestrian signs to attract customers to their businesses, but the Board still needs to address on - premise pedestrian signs. Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the changes that were made to Option 3 since the public hearing. Pedestrian signs would become a type of permanent sign that must be brought in at night when the business is closed. In addition, staff is proposing that the language be changed to allow one pedestrian sign per ground floor entrance rather than one sign per ground floor storefront. He provided examples to illustrate why this change was made. Chair Lovell pointed out that, with the exception of downtown, the current code does not allow temporary signs in any other commercial zone. He voiced concern that the regulations are not currently being enforced, and business owners in the downtown may feel that they are being discriminated against if they are required to comply with strict enforcement of the code when other commercial areas are not. Board Member Robles shared a story about an architect who designed a university campus without any sidewalks. The owner decided not to pay the architect until the sidewalks had been installed. Six months later, there were clear paths through the grass, and the architect knew exactly where the sidewalks should go. The moral to the story is to observe what people are doing, memorialize it, and then adapt to what is needed. If the City knows how many signs there are currently, they will have a better idea of whether there is not enough or too many. Chair Lovell asked if Board Member Robles is inferring that all of the existing signs in the downtown should be memorialized and accepted. Board Member Robles said that seems to be what the City has allowed up to this point. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the downtown is supposed to be walkable. While pedestrian signs near the curb are more visible to drivers passing by, they are not conducive to a pedestrian environment. Mr. Lien emphasized that, as currently proposed, the signs must be located within two feet of the entry or within two feet of the curb. They would not be allowed to block pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. Chair Lovell summarized that Option 3 allows pedestrian signs, but it could be further improved to provide flexibility and guidelines for staff to utilize when working with business owners to fit what is best for each individual site. He felt that would be the best option. The City could not only work with business owners to limit pedestrian signs, but they could encourage them to create solutions for their businesses. The "green dot" concept may be an option to consider in the future as the City moves towards a more sophisticated GIS system. Board Member Crank said she appreciates the change from one pedestrian sign per storefront to one pedestrian sign per entrance. She recalled that at the last meeting she voiced concern about how the regulations would impact businesses that are located in buildings with multiple tenants. In an effort to move the discussion forward, she reminded the Board that the focus of their discussion is supposed to be on identifying a preferred option (1, 2 or 3). She noted that most of the Board's discussion has been relative to Option 3, with some tweaks. If that is the direction the Board wants to go, she suggested that they affirm this and then move the discussion forward. Chair Lovell summarized that the Board is generally in support of Option 3, which requires a permit, limits the number of pedestrian signs allowed and provides guidelines. However, there are certain accompanying provisions and guidelines the Board would like the City Council to consider. He summarized that the Board is in favor of: • Creating the ability to work with a specific business given the conditions. • Limiting pedestrian signs to one per storefront entrance. • Counting pedestrian signs as one of the three signs that a business is allowed to have and also part of the overall sign area allowed. • Giving City staff the opportunity to work with odd architectural situations in order to accommodate a necessary business signage opportunity. • Developing criteria or a program that provides hard -to -find -business locations with a type of directional sign, recognizing that there may be legal ramifications. The City has a vibrant downtown with thriving businesses, and signage is an important part of that. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 353 6.1.c • Considering what can be done to increase enforcement of the regulations and guidelines. • Allowing and even encouraging blade signs that accommodate changing information. • Encouraging some level of uniformity for pedestrian signs. While the Board was not interested in forcing uniformity on businesses, nothing in the proposed amendments would prevent businesses from creating a uniform sign program that meets the code requirements. Mr. Lien agreed to prepare draft code language for Option 3 based on direction provided by the Board. He could also prepare a memorandum to the City Council outlining the Board's additional recommendations in conjunction with the proposed sign code amendments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was prepared by the Development Services Director. He noted that there is some work being done with respect to housing affordability, and the Housing Affordability Alliance of Snohomish County provided a presentation on the topic to the City Council on May 25`'. Council Member Tibbott is particularly in tune with affordable housing issues. It was pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the goal of creating housing that is affordable, and he anticipates the issue will come before the Board for further discussion at some point in the future. Chair Lovell reported that the City recently entered into a Sustainable Cities Partnership with Western Washington University with respect to elements of sustainability that the City is trying to achieve. This will be an ongoing project, and a number of the elements will likely pass through the Board in the next few months. Board Member Crank referred to the announcement in the report that the City would no longer allow people to line chairs up along the street in anticipation of the 4th of July Parade. She said she informed the Chamber of this change, since they are the event sponsor. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Lien advised that the Board would continue its discussion on the sign code amendments on June 22nd. The land division update would be postponed to a future agenda. He reminded the Chair and Vice Chair that they are scheduled to present a Planning Board Update to the City Council on June 28th. Chair Lovell said the City Council has requested that the Board also have a discussion about redevelopment opportunities at Five corners, similar to what was done for Westgate. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that work done by Green Lab from the University of Washington included both Five Corners and Westgate. In the near future, Mr. Chave will revisit the work that was done relative to Five Corners with the City Council. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart acknowledged Sam Kleven's service to the Planning Board as the Student Representative. He has spent the past academic year getting to know what the Board does and sharing his thoughts. He plans to attend Washington State University in the fall and will pursue student government there. Board Member Stewart announced that the Students Saving Salmon Streams Team from Edmonds Woodway High School will present the results of their water quality monitoring program to the City Council on June 14'h. She encouraged Board Members to either attend the meeting or watch the audio recording. Board Member Crank reported that she served as a volunteer at the Edmonds Waterfront Festival this past weekend. It was a great event that was well attended. The most popular attraction at the event was a large 2,500-pound fiberglass salmon that people were allowed to climb inside. There was a mural inside that provided educational information. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 354 6.1.c the Development Services Director have met on several occasions with property owners along the corridor, and many have attended the open house events as active participants. The public appears to be excited about Highway 99 finally getting some attention. Many have indicated they would like to see changes, and they are optimistic about what can happen. He summarized that there has been good engagement so far via on-line surveys and public open houses, and the opportunities for public involvement will continue throughout the process. Chair Lovell said he was pleased to see that there is a strong desire for increased housing opportunities along the corridor, At this time, there is significant economic diversity as far as the quality of the existing residential and commercial stock. He asked if this factor has been considered, as well. Mr. Shipley said that a lot of diverse interests have emerged amongst the business and residential property owners, but they all agree that it is important to improve the safety and overall feel of the corridor. Board Member Monroe asked if the numbers provided for property tax revenue take into account expected tax breaks that will be given to developers in coming years. Mr. Shipley said he did not prepare the information, so he is not sure what it includes in terms of affordable housing tax breaks. Board Member Monroe asked him to find out and address the issue in the next iteration. Mr. Chave pointed out that tax breaks would not be permanent. They are intended to get development in place and then the break would disappear over time. Chair Lovell summarized that, going forward, he is primarily interested in what can realistically be done on the corridor and when. He observed that without support from the residential and commercial property owners along the corridor, nothing will happen. Mr. Shipley said the property owners he has talked to are very supportive and interested in moving forward. Mr. Chave added that, overall, the consultant and staff have been very pleased with the degree of interest. A diverse group of people are participating in the process. RECOMMENDATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) REGARDING TEMPORARY (E.G. A -FRAME) SIGNS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF MINOR CLARIFICATIONS AND CODE LANGUAGE UPDATES/ISSUES Chair Lovell referred the Board to the introductory memorandum with respect to the sign code amendments, which outlines the Board's previous discussions related to the amendments. He reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Board came fairly close to agreement in terms of a recommendation to the City Council. This direction is reflected in the draft Sign Code and the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations that were attached to the Staff Report. Chair Lovell reviewed that, in addition to the proposed amendments relative to pedestrian signs in the downtown, the proposal also includes a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. He asked if these other proposed amendments were brought forward by the consultant. Mr. Chave answered that a few definition changes were suggested by the consultant, but most of the proposed amendments address problems staff has run into over the years with things that were not clearly defined in the code or things that get in the way of what is reasonable. For example, an applicant approached the City with a request to place a sign on the mansard roof a building, and staff agreed that it was the only logical place for the sign. However, a provision in the sign code did not technically allow staff to approve the sign, as proposed. He clarified that the changes suggested by staff are intended to be clarifications or updates rather than wholesale changes to how signs are regulated. The overall signage allowed would remain unchanged. Mr. Chave said one issue that repeatedly came up in the public hearing was the need for businesses that are not located on the main streets to get attention to let people know they exist. These types of signs are not necessarily permanent, but mostly used during an initial period when businesses first open. If the proposed changes are forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, the Board's recommendation could call attention to this issue and recommend that the City partner with the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID to develop a signage system that provides an avenue for these businesses to get attention in certain ways. If a program of this type were instituted, businesses may be less likely to feel a need for pedestrian signs. He summarized that the initial changes could be made now to address pedestrian signs in the downtown, and then the City could pursue other options. The Board could revisit pedestrian signs again in three to five years when the situation may be different. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 355 6.1.c Chair Lovell referred to ECDC 20.60.080(2)(a), which allows attached signs to be used for temporary signage. Mr. Chave said the intent is to allow retailers to put up temporary signs for 60 days to advertise business openings or other special events. This is allowed in the current code, and no change has been proposed. The proposed amendment clarifies where attached signs can be located. Board Member Robles observed that the means and methods by which people can accommodate their specific interests are spread throughout the sign code. Although they may not be obvious, they are there. Mr. Chave said the intent is to provide more flexibility to respond to what people want and need to do, but not change the overall character of signage in the downtown. Chair Lovell commented that the proposed amendment outlines how pedestrian signs would be managed in the downtown area, but it does not recognize that there are other areas in Edmonds where pedestrian signs are, in theory, prohibited. The question still exists in his mind to what degree will the sign code be enforced in other commercial zones in the City. If it is enforced in all commercial areas, will business owners in other commercial areas complain because downtown business owners are allowed to have pedestrian signs and they are not? Or if it is not enforced in all commercial areas, downtown business owners may complain that they are being discriminated against. Mr. Chave explained that code enforcement is generally complaint driven. To the extent there are more pedestrians in the downtown, it is likely that more complaints will be filed for that area. Chair Lovell recalled that, as requested by the Board, the proposed language provides flexibility that allows property owners and business owners to work with staff or the Architectural Design Board to reach agreement on how to handle signage in difficult situations. Board Member Robles asked if the agreement would be transferrable to future occupants or owners of a building. If it is transferrable, he questioned if the City has a database to memorialize the special agreements for future reference. Mr. Chave responded that once a sign structure has been approved and placed on a building, the agreement would be valid for any future business or property owner as long as no structural changes are proposed. Any structural changes would require the property owner or business owner to obtain a new permit. If the sign does not comply with the current sign code, a new exception agreement would be required. Mr. Chave reviewed that most of the special situations that the code previously talked about were related to site conditions. The proposed amendment expands the language to acknowledge that, in addition to site conditions, the sign code provisions may not quite fit for some buildings due to unique architectural features. Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that incorporating additional pictures into the code would make the provisions easier for people to understand. For example, it would be helpful to provide examples of the types of pole signs that would be considered monument signs. Otherwise, the written language is a bit difficult to digest. Mr. Chave explained that the existing code considers signs that are located on one or more exposed poles to be pole signs rather than monument signs, and pole signs are not allowed. The additional sentence was added to clarify that pole signs with two poles that are not more than six feet in height would be considered monument signs and should be allowed. He agreed that pictures would be helpful in this section, as well as others, and staff plans to added them before the amendments are forwarded to the City Council for review. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested, and the remainder of the Board concurred, that the last sentence in the definition of "Pole Sign" should be changed to remove the word "pole" before "signs." Board Member Stewart suggested that pictures would be particularly helpful to clarify the difference between a stanchion sign and a pole sign, as well as the difference between changeable message signs and reader board signs. She suggested that perhaps there should be separate categories for reader board and changeable message signs. Mr. Chave explained that it is very difficult to distinguish between reader board and changeable signs. For example, you could make the case that gas station price signs are changeable rather than reader board signs, but the City hasn't prohibited them because they are necessary. The intent was to write the language in such a way that allows a distinction to be made. The proposed language is not ideal, but it is the best staff has come up with thus far. Again, Board Member Stewart suggested it might be helpful to have separate categories for the two sign types. Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 20.60.020(A)(2), and requested clarification about why individual letters that are applied directly to a wall or structure are calculated individually instead of as a whole. Mr. Chave said that many sign codes calculate sign area by drawing a box around the individual letters, but the City calculates the area of the individual letters if Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 356 6.1.c they are applied individually to a building. This provision offers a powerful incentive for people to do this type of signage because it allows for larger letters. This type of signage is considered more aesthetically attractive because the letters are flush with the building rather than in a large cabinet sign. Board Member Stewart said she would like the draft code to provide an illustration of a monument sign. Mr. Chave that this example has already been provided in ECDC 20.60.020. Board Member Stewart said she was amused to read about the signs that are prohibited because she anticipates someone will come up with a clever sign that is not on the list. This will require an expensive process to get special approval to deviate from the sign code. Mr. Chave explained that staff often has to issue interpretations when these situations come up. For example, halo signs did not exist when the current code was written. Staff determined that the existing code provision related to indirect lighting would apply to this sign type, as well. He summarized that when someone proposes a sign, staff tries to identify the closest provisions that apply. Just because a sign is a different type does not mean it would be automatically ruled out. The intent is for the code to be descriptive rather than rigid in its definitions, and that is why sign codes are so difficult to write. Chair Lovell reviewed that one of the desires expressed in the recommendation memorandum is that some exploration be done as to the feasibility of directional signage on the street corners. He asked if this is something the City's sign shop could help with. Mr. Chave agreed that is a possibility, depending on the style, design, materials, etc. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the Board previously discussed the idea of having a GIS-imbedded mechanism that business owners could use to determine what type of sign package he/she would be allowed. However, this concept was not included in the draft recommendation that was prepared by staff. While this may be more of an administrative issue as the City becomes more technologically advanced, perhaps the Board should be more clear that they heartily support the concept. Board Member Robles commented that the matrix tells what signs can go in what areas, and the information could also be served on a map. Adding pictures would also provide helpful information. However, this approach is archaic given current technology. He asked about the timeline for reviewing the sign code again in the future. Mr. Chave explained that the current sign code amendments were put forward at the request of the City Council to specifically address pedestrian signs in the downtown. In addition, staff has included some minor amendments to clean up and clarify the existing sign code. He said he is not sure that GIS would be the best solution so he would be hesitant to include it in the Board's recommendation. However, it could be a subject that his considered as part of a future discussion of trying to make the code easier to understand. Board Member Robles suggested that if updating the sign code is an ongoing process, it should be articulated in the recommendation. He said he would support the proposed changes as long as there remains an avenue by which the sign code could be improved upon in the future. Board Member Robles asked if all enforcement of the sign code is done on a complaint basis. Mr. Chave answered that all code enforcement is done on a complaint basis. Board Member Robles suggested that this should be noted in the sign code. Mr. Chave cautioned against adding language relative to enforcement in the sign code. Otherwise, the sign code would have to be updated every time the enforcement provisions are changed and vice versa. Board Member Robles expressed concern that citizens should have a clear understanding of how they are being judged. Mr. Chave advised that, in addition to complaint -based enforcement, there are general compliance requirements on how the overall code is administered. Staff ensures that code provisions are being met whenever someone applies for a permit. Board Member Stewart said she understands the concerns that have been raised about the proliferation of pedestrian signs in the downtown. Because there are a lot of pedestrians in the downtown area, it is likely that more people will speak up about illegal signs. On the other hand, Highway 99 is mostly a drive -by situation so there will not be as many complaints. She said she is not sure how the fairness issue can be resolved except with additional enforcement that will require more manpower. Mr. Chave advised that the City only has one Enforcement Officer, and he does an amazing job of enforcing the Development Code provisions. It would be an entirely different thing to start patrolling the commercial areas to enforce the sign code provisions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that another bullet point should be added to the Board's recommendation to read, "Employ technology measures, when available, to assist in sign code application. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 357 6.1.c VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE REVISION OF ECDC 20.60 (SIGN CODE), INCLUDING THE SCOPE OF THE SIGN CODE UPDATE, PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS, AND PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOUND IN THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF ON JUNE 22, 2016, TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS WRITTEN, AND WITH ONE ADDITIONAL BULLET POINT TO READ, "EMPLOY TECHNOLOGY MEASURES, WHEN AVAILABLE, TO ASSIST IN SIGN CODE APPLICATION." BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell announced that the Board is scheduled to present a report to the City Council on June 28th. He asked that this date be incorporated into the extended agenda. Chair Lovell asked when the Board can expect to hear from the City Council regarding a subarea plan for Five Corners. Mr. Chave answered that he is scheduled to provide an update to the City Council on July 12th. Chair Lovell suggested that the topic be added to the Board's extended agenda for August as a placeholder. Chair Lovell left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Cloutier said he attended the first part of a meeting at the Senior Center regarding the Edmonds Waterfront Center Proposal, which was formerly known as the South County Senior Center Proposal. The name change is intended to ensure that the new facility is placed on the water. Board Member Stewart announced that an open house regarding the Civic Park Master Plan is scheduled for June 23`d from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library Building. She said she plans to attend the meeting as a committee member, and she encouraged other Board Members to attend, as well. Board Member Robles referred to an article in the May 3 1 " Seattle Times regarding Airbnb regulations in the City of Seattle. He recalled that he raised this issue earlier, and some provisions were added to the City's code to address the use. The use is quickly expanding, and he felt it would be appropriate for the Board to give further consideration to potential regulations that need to be in place. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Pictures of signs from Phil Lovell (1386 : Public Hearing to receive citizens' comments on Proposed Sign Code ei .n�V • , �, r �a• j4 a "� ,�Sd� _, �• ," _ v - ;tier.+ F'a •, ., r►- :�'• `i � � � {ILA r IL J— .� V o� 4fe erj r lit LL JEW •�-,0, 1 rLL J •, �.•tiF z � _ r I � L � T �r I.• i i � rl — , •— i ' — 1 6.1.e From: Natlie Shippen Received Email: June 7, 2016 Planning Board Members: If Option 3 is adopted, signs that are currently listed as "temporary' in the Edmonds sign code would become "permanent". The Code now says a "temporary sign" is an "allowed portable sign not to exceed 60 calendar days in any calendar year." The "portable" definition lists those signs as: 1. signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; 2. menu and "sandwich" board signs, 3. "A" and "T" frame signs, 4. wooden, metal or plastic "stake" or "yard" signs, 5. posters or banners affixed ... 7. searchlights. 8. inflatables. If Option 3 is adopted, there will be no 60-day time limit on the signs listed above. They could be out all day (currently, brought in at night for practical reasons), all month, all year for the length of their business life. Options 2 and 3 together are "simply" word games to turn temporary signs into permanent signs. If you doubt that, read the "Narrative" section of the packet closely and note the transition in terminology from temporary, to pedestrian to permanent. The City Council has two choices. Adopt Option 3 which turns temporary signs into permanent ones; that's easy to enforce. Or, adopt Option 1 which prohibits temporary signs. To explain the PURPOSE of Option 1, adopt the language of the carmel code with its emphasis on community quality and explicitly denying the use of public streets for advertising. I suggest that no action be taken on the rest of the proposed amendments (red -lined) "not tied to the pedestrian signs " but based on "staff's working knowledge." (the correct word is "temporary" not "pedestrian" I think blanket approvals should be avoided especially on detailed subjects that lend themselves to doctoring for a specific benefit. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 361 6.1.e MeDoftgldP,,,,CGa 630 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 May 23, 2016 Edmonds Planning Board 250 51h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Pedestrian Sign Code Revisions Dear Board Members: I am submitting this written comment as I cannot attend the Public Hearing. However, I did attend the Planning Board Meeting on May 11, 2016 and have also read the Agenda Packet regarding the three options for the sign code, so I am familiar with the general nature of the options. My wife, Sandy, and I own the property at 630 Main St. which houses our Insurance Agency, McDonald McGarry. We have been there since 1996 and have used pedestrian signs for most all of that time. At the May 11 meeting, a citizen asked "What is the public benefit of pedestrian signs?" The signs themselves do not directly benefit the public, however the signs benefit the businesses that utilize them and in turn those businesses benefit the public by creating a vibrant downtown core. While on a different scale, the theory is no different than allowing sidewalk dining. The dining may not benefit the public, but the increase in the economic health of the business in the downtown core does. Most likely all of you have all been here long enough to remember when downtown Edmonds was pretty dreary and oftentimes, it was where businesses went to die. Cleary these signs are helpful to sustaining some businesses. One concern that is common to all three proposals is that we do not want the sidewalks to be overly cluttered and in turn pose a burden on pedestrians with mobility issues or any pedestrians at all. I acknowledge this as a valid concern, however sidewalk encroachment is not a problem that is unique to the downtown core. We live in the Seaview neighborhood. Not every street has a sidewalk and those that do are not always easily passable. Most often the cause is a neighbor that does not keep shrubbery trimmed back, so a 4 foot wide sidewalk can easily be reduced to half that width. In addition, on garbage collection days garbage, recycling and yard waste cans pose an obstacle to easy and safe passage along the sidewalk. So while we need to keep the downtown sidewalks open, please do not be misled to believe that this is only a problem caused by pedestrian signage in the downtown core. Option one is basically an outright ban on pedestrian signs. I feel that this is an overly harsh response to the problem. The common sense elements of the other two proposals, such as having the signage allowed only in front of the sign owner's business, should reduce the clutter and allow easy passage for all pedestrians. Second, I believe it is punitive. The problems with excessive signs is probably created by a handful of businesses and as a result all of the businesses in the area would be punished. This situation is much like the neighbor (425)774-3200 www.mcdonaldmggaLU.com (800)466-4700 Fax (425)774-3 Packet Pg. 362 6.1.e that does not keep their bushes off of the sidewalk, they may be either unaware or simply ignore the applicable rules. Unfortunately, developing personal responsibility and morality is something that no planning code can accomplish. In our office, we use pedestrian signs to promote our business. In addition, we use them to promote a number of community events which we sponsor throughout the year. Please see the next page for a sample of those signs. The purpose of these events is of course to build our business, however they are open to all members of the community, not just our clients or prospective clients. For example, our annual document shredding event has well over 100 total participants. (We were down a bit this last Saturday due to the rain.) By our estimate, less than one fourth of these are our clients. So the pedestrian signboards do have a community benefit. Option two is basically a continuation of the current code. Adopting this without any consistent corresponding enforcement mechanism does not make any sense either. In all likelihood the problems which are trying to be corrected by revising the code would most likely reoccur. Without an excessive monetary burden on the city, I am unaware of any way to regulate the signs to a 60 day annual display period. In addition, I'm not sure how the 60 day term was determined and that time period itself could be a discussion point (or argument) long into the future. Option three seems to me to make the most sense. It has the potential to eliminate sign clutter and it removes the necessity of creating an elaborate process to ensure that businesses are not exceeding the 60 day time limit that has been proposed in option two. This seems to be a reasonable compromise that would keep the sidewalks accessible to all, while at the same time allowing businesses to use pedestrian signage to promote their establishment. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Sincerely, McDONALD McGARRY Jo A. McDonald il: john(ibracdonaldmcgarry.com losure M/hs Packet Pg. 363 I 6.1.e I McDonald McGarry Insurance School Supply ..'� Drive! ab Drop off new sup PECO rr�s�rtian*,� lies here. CELL PHONES FOR LDI ER Now Collecting Gently Used to Help Troops Call Home 425-774-3200 vrrww.m donaIdmcgarry.ccrn iCDOUN IG" 7 1 mrAncr 425�74 ,an btLLI mr-dei 1 MIflFftr. naa FIV -Nei ll Packet Pg. 364 1 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Laura Zeck <laura@zincartinteriors.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 9:43 AM To: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane; Nelson, Michael Subject: Re: Public Hearing on Signs Wed. May 25 Hi - I am a business owner and would love to attend this meeting, however I have a conflict as my 5th grader is performing in her school orchestra that night at the same time. Please feel free to pass the information below on at the hearing. As the owner of Zinc Art + Interiors at the corner of 3rd and Main in Edmonds, WA. I would like to state that use of A -Boards has been essential to my business, it's visibility and it's viability. As many of you know the circle/fountain is the hub of Edmonds. This is reinforced by the location of the Saturday Market, Chamber Events, and traffic patterns. ZINC has now been open for 28 months and it is still a daily struggle to get the general population and visitors to understand that Edmonds does exist beyond the circle, and A -Boards have played a huge role. I can actually look at days where we have neglected to put out our A -Board and see a dramatic difference in that days sales. At the time that we leased our space, sign code would not allow for a sign that actually made sense for the length of our street front. We are now stuck with a sign that is incredibly small above our front door. It is low to the ground and at times completely disappears behind vehicles parked in front of the building. I have asked the parking division to either make the space in front of the building a 15 minute zone or to clearly mark the space as the 3 hour parking that space that they say it is because on many days the space is occupied by one car for the entire duration of our business hours 10-7pm. I have mentioned this to many police as they pick up their uniforms next door at Corry's Dry Cleaning, but their response is that the space is not marked clearly and therefore they can not ticket the vehicle parked there all day. Many days these vehicles are very large and tall and completely block our building. Without the use of an A -Board on the corner of 3rd and Main, many people would not even see we exist. As a tax paying business of Edmonds, I feel it is essential that you take these frustrations and issues with the sign code into account. One citizen with complaints does not make up for the amount of revenue that our business brings to the city, let alone the culture, community and service we provide on a daily basis. In addition I have attached the current street view of our building that is available on Google. As you can see our business doesn't "exist", and the pole in front of our building has no sign indicating parking regulations. ZINC needs all the help it can get as a new business struggling to become part of the community Please help us by improving the sign code and making it friendlier for businesses within the business district where signage is and should be visible and helpful. Thanks so much for your time! Please contact me if you have any questions at all. Best! Laura On May 11, 2016, at 8:37 AM, Cunningham, Diane<Diane.Cunningham@edmondswa.gov> wrote: Packet Pg. 365 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 8:05 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Chave, Rob Subject: FW: Edmonds sign code FYR From: Monillas, Adrienne Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 10:37 PM To: Hope, Shane Subject: Fwd: Edmonds sign code FYI Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Date: May 5, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM PDT To: <council&dmonds_wa.gov> Cc: <diane.cunnin hama dmondswa.com> Subject: Edmonds sign code Council Members: What public purpose is served by allowing a 4-foot high advertising structure i.e. a mini - billboard, in front of every business in the Bowl? Or, anywhere in Edmonds since the Westgate Plan suggests city-wide walkability is now a city goal? Instead of posting daily message changes ON that billboard structure, why not provide a decorative box near the business entrance and place daily new advertising IN it? The Downtown Business Alliance could design it, have it produced and sell it to those who want a location for periodic advertising material. The Box might be introduced with a campaign to Visit Edmonds and Check the Box. Adding the Box would allow business three (3) permanent means of reaching the public: A wall sign, a blade sign and the Box, plus one short-term temporary sign could be added for a business opening event and/or a special event organized by the Downtown Business Alliance. Many businesses already use a permanent, red, small, non -flashing "OPEN" sign. Isn"t that enough signage? I noted in the April 26, 2016 minutes that an instant poll at a public workshop re Hwy. 99 asked residents what their top priority would be if just one thing could be done for the corridor. Their answer was "public space improvements and beautification-42%". Edmonds residents, regardless of their home's location, know they live in a town that has a reputation for attractiveness and they want their area to share that reputation. No one has ever argued that big signs on public sidewalks are a public space improvement or that they contribute to the beautification of Edmonds. Sandwich boards, stanchions and other Packet Pg. 366 6.1.e From: Brent Malgarin [mailto:elegantaems@amx.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 7:30 AM To: Hope, Shane Subject: sign code Dear Shane, I have been reading the proposal for changes to the sign code. I find it rather amazing that the City acts, after one person complains about "A -boards", yet the BID wants to add significant sign clutter by putting ED! badges all over town. If a person does not know they are shopping in Downtown Edmonds, then they should not be out walking around. Alley signage--- what a joke. Seattle has it because there are businesses located in those locations with no other point of entry or egress. Pathetic. I am filing a complaint about pole and Ed! sign pollution in Edmonds. I have spent 17 years selling in resort towns, and this City does not have the slightest idea what it is doing. Although-- the corrupt BID Directors figured out how to personally benefit from their positions.... Only goes to show the integrity of the people--- who want other peoples money. Brent Malgarin. Packet Pg. 367 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:46 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Chave, Rob Subject: FW: sign code update Attachments: color_logo_pantone_REV2.pdf From: Pam Stuller[mailto:parm_@walnutstreetcoffee.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:12 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Hope, Shane Subject: sign code update Hi Diane, As requested, here is my feedback for consideration during your sign code update process. My building is uniquely squat and sits slightly into the public right of way. When going through the permitting process to create my sign, current code would not allow my sign to be above my roof line - regardless of the height of my building. With the required minimum height from the sidewalk for pedestrians and the maximum height allowed by my roof line, I ended up with about 2' of workable height to create my blade sign. I ended up modifying my logo so my sign would have enough visual impact from up the street. I've attached an image of my sign, my building and my logo - so you can see the circle version I would ultimately like to replace my current sign with. I am not encouraging allowing enormous signs that are out of scale with their building/neighbors, but if there is a way to accommodate some variances in the sign code for unique site situations - allowing signs to go a certain amount above a roof line or exceed the size restrictions in some cases - I'd support it. Please let me know if you have quesitons or if I can provide any additional info. Packet Pg. 368 6.1.e 611 -green -big circle 7459 - blue - inner circle 1535 - brown - cup handle, cup, and cup rim 497 - dark brown -STREET and oval area attached to S 7401 - tan -WALNUT and part of S and inner cup 716 - orange - OFFEE white - foundation base coat Packet Pg. 369 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:49 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Chave, Rob Subject: FW: Signage From: Clayton Moss [mailto:cmoss@formaseattle.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:23 PM To: Hope, Shane Subject: Signage Hello, Well, over the past month I believe we have manage to gather enough feedback from people regarding the different sign types that we discussed at our last meeting to feel confident that we are moving in the right direction. I was just wondering if looking at it from your perspective, is there is any kind of timeline that I should be aware of? I would like to get some schematics over to you that illustrates our proposed recommendations. Clayton Moss Designer 206.920.5912 FORMA 114 4th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 370 6.1.e From: D Talmadge [justme56@me.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:53 AM To: Council Subject: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board Council/ Planning Board Members, Firstly, please note there is no email address listed on the City website to direct emails to the planning board. About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the downtown area so that the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways particularly when the sidewalks are so narrow to begin with. It is difficult to get around the tables and chairs if there is more than one person trying to pass by ( with the signs and posts) but for persons who have mobility issues it is nearly impossible. I have wondered often if it is ADA compliant, and I can't see how it would be. When it is busy down there, just strolling on the street is not a pleasant experience at all Those of us who can walk easily are merely inconvenienced with all the signs and sidewalks taken up by outdoor seating and abundant signage. But for anyone with any difficult at all, it is truly daunting and I don't believe it should be. Most of those sidewalks are simply too narrow to accommodate outdoor seating, sandwich board signs and much foot traffic at all. In your considerations of sign boards, please take into account those folks who have mobility issues first and foremost. Those are public sidewalks not the property of the restaurants who want to expand their space and businesses who put signs in the middle of them. And the signs all over further clutter what should be a public sidewalk for all to use. Thank you. Packet Pg. 371 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: D Talmadge <justme56@me.com> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:15 AM To: Planning Subject: Signs, sidewalks and ADA Planning Board members, About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the downtown area so that the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways particularly when the sidewalks are so narrow to begin with, particularly with the sandwich boards strewn about. It is difficult to get around the tables and chairs if there is more than one person trying to pass by ( with the signs and posts) but for persons who have mobility issues it is nearly impossible. I have wondered often if it is ADA compliant, and I can't see how it would be. When it is busy down there, just strolling on the street is not a pleasant experience at all Those of us who can walk easily are merely inconvenienced with all the signs and sidewalks taken up by outdoor seating and abundant signage. But for anyone with any difficult at all, it is truly daunting and I don't believe it should be. Most of those sidewalks are simply too narrow to accommodate outdoor seating, sandwich board signs and much foot traffic at all. In your considerations of sign boards, please take into account those folks who have mobility issues first and foremost. Those are public sidewalks not the property of the restaurants who want to expand their space and businesses who put signs in the middle of them. And the signs all over further clutter what should be a public sidewalk for all to use. Thank you. Diane Talmadge Sent from Cloud 9 Packet Pg. 372 6.1.e Below Councilmember Buckshnis's message is one from Diane Talmadge. -----Original Message ----- From: Buckshnis, Diane Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:07 AM To: D Talmadge Cc: Hope, Shane Subject: RE: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board Good Morning Diane, Here is the planning boards' email and you can watch what various Council Members said in the Council Meeting last week and Ms. Fraley Monillas also brought up the ADA issue as well as the street dining. The outdoor dining was a HUGE council discussion issue four or five years back and I can't recall it all but it was only for the spring/summer months, I think. You can email Shane Hope and ask. Personally, I think we should try a 30 day temp ban and see if business are affected. It would be similar to going on a specific diet - you don't know if you like it or not because you have never tried it! Why not try it to see if business really need those signs. I noticed that I mentioned Zinc and that I see the bright orange and who needs that a -frame and they didn't have it out yesterday (which I am sure they don't watch City Council) with the orange balloons. But, it looked so nice on that corner. Snap Fitness is another sign always out .... you either work out or you don't and folks either get it or they don't - so why clutter? So, much for my ranting. planning@edmondswa.gov is the address that will get to everyone. Have a great day, Diane Diane Buckshnis City Council Position #4 206-228-3462 From: D Talmadge [justme56@me.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:53 AM To: Council Subject: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board Council/ Planning Board Members, Firstly, please note there is no email address listed on the City website to direct emails to the planning board. About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the downtown area so that the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways Packet Pg. 373 6.1.e Date: April 27, 2016 From: Ashley Systsma (for Rick Steves who is currently out of the Country) Ashley@ricksteves.com Even though my company puts one out, I'm opposed to sandwich boards in Edmonds. I'd be happy to see our town rid of these completely, including my own. -Rick Steves Packet Pg. 374 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:52 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Council Subject: Edmonds sign code Planning Board Members: As I listen to the Planning Board and read its minutes, I get the strong impression that the Planning Board accepts temporary commercial on Edmonds streets as needed, desirable and even inevitable. The only questions Board members discuss is how many and where. I think its unfortunate that a small, but well -organized downtown group, feels it must soil its own nest to make a living but I don't believe that others should have to pay to solve their problem. Those others are the 40,000 people who share that nest. They are called residents and THEIR home is a flourishing, attractive residential community. Those residents have spent thousands of dollars in over 50 years to make residential and commercial Edmonds look the way it does today. Their efforts deserve more consideration than they are now receiving from the Planning Board. Temporary commercial signs are a blight. About four years ago a consultant, Roger Brooks, was retained to explore ways make edmonds more inviting. He had a long list; the theme of one of the items was "First Impressions Are Lasting". Applying that old adage, he suggested that the entering "Edmonds" sign NOT be placed at Westgate but further along where SR104 enters the Bowl.lt's easy to see why. Entering Westgate one is met with a flashing car -wash sign on the right and, on the left, a collection of drab, low commercial buildings with a row of sandwich board signs, strung along SR 104, identifying each business. (The car wash sign no longer flashes but the board signs are still there). It is the perfect poor first impression. Edmonds residents don't deserve more blight and more poor impressions on Main and on Fifth streets. Temporary commercial signs are a stigma. They send a far more significant message than the actual words on the sign. They convey a state of mind, they cry economic distress, even panic; they cry cheap.None of these attitudes reflect the reality of a prosperous, attractive RESIDENTIAL community. Locating temporary commercial signs (sandwich boa rds,stanchions, banners etc) in the public right-of-way creates the picture of a fine home with a seedy front yard. Does the Planning Board believe that is the image residents want their sign code to produce? Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 375 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:47 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Council Subject: Edmonds sign code Planning Board Members: I read the minutes of your last meeting with interest.Mr. Clugston says, "the proliferation of A -frame signs in the downtown is a problem." and, later, temporary signage in the downtown has been identified as an issue and the GOAL of the current effort is to fix the problems.." It's not the message on the temporary A -frame signs that is the PROBLEM. It's the number of those signs on the street. Changing the message doesn't solve the PROLIFERATION problem. It's not the style of the A -frames that is the PROBLEM it's the number of those signs on the street. Substituting another type of temporary sign doesn't solve the PROLIFERATION problem. Currently, those "temporary" signs are, in fact, permanent because they have been out on the street all day, all week, all year for several years. The time limit on temporary signs is 60 cumulative days annually. No owner complies with that time limit and it can't be enforced using a "Request for Code Enforcement Action" because no City record is kept of when the sign was put on the street. Requiring a permit for temporary signs is overkill; requiring notification and the expiration date on the sign itself would partially solve the time limit problem. Changing the word "cumulative" to "consecutive" would complete the solution to the time limit problem. Other cities do not use the word "cumulative" presumably because it's too difficult to track.They use the word "consecutive" which produces a specific date that can be easily checked Other city codes also use number of days to measure the time limit. Shifting A -frame or sandwich board signs from the "temporary" category to a "right of way" category (see "note" on back page) and then allowing them on the street all the time except for non -business hours (at night) isn't a time limit:i it's an absurdity. It doesn't solve the proliferation problem and it doesn't solve the potential for pedestrian/sign conflict. Enforcing the existing code time limit might reduce the number of temporary signs on the street at one time, but whether it would appreciably reduce proliferation hasn't been examined. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 376 __.. '' -,►r - E — a 0 rVI co IL - * O �r Gi Qa 1t�J/�.d�•�.RrC� W'-+'�L.h�t�U'"7��. C N r C l G1 — r t� as i p r- U` u I a 0 c �L d w...,� a tco o N L d - d J � �•ryr� �,,.s-!�.dit��- f2�- I��'il.��--� �-�.c.�rt f.�.��'.. 7 0 co x W a Packet Pg. 377 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Council Subject: sign code revisions Planning Board Member: FACTS: 1. "TEMPORARY" signs (Edmonds sign code) a) definition - "allowed portable signs intended for short-term display,not to exceed 60 calendar days (cumulative) in any calendar year" ; Portable sign - "...any sign that is capable of being moved or removed ... that is typically intended for temporary display.: Portable signs include but are not limited to: 1. signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels (stanchion?), 2. "menu" and SANDWICH BOARD" signs, 3. A and T frame signs, 4. wood, metal or plastics "stake" or "yard" signs, 5. pos tees ters or banners affixed to windows, railings, overhangs, trees etc., 6. searchlights, inflatables etc. b)PROBLEM - No record is kept of when any of the above signs are posted; that allows "temporary" signs to be, in fact, permanent. solution - Rewrite Code to limit temporary commercial signs to "60 CONSECUTIVE days, one-time only" (business opening): business owner must notify Planning Dept. when a temporary sign is placed anywhere so there is a date from which to calculate the time limit on signs, 2. "PREMISES - 'Premises "is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed, except within the boundaries of the BC or BD zone in the downtown activity center as defined in the C.P where "premises shall include any portion of the sidewalk which fronts upon the lot. PROBLEM - Changes what would normally be an off -premise sign (>usually not allowed) into an on -premise sign. Results, for example,in Old Milltown each business in that complex is allowed one sign on 5th AND one sign on Dayton OR one sign at the corner of 5th and Dayton. That's a lot of signs adjacent to a privately - funded, attractive, land-scaped plaza. Here Edmonds sign policy is counter -productive to the desire of a private owner to make Edmond a more attractive town. of solution - remove "premiises" from the "definition"section.;other codes don't bother to define it because it has a common meaning. 3. ADMINISTRATION —"The Community Development director is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter. He or she shall adopt application requirements for sign permits. COMMENTS: I have filed about 20 ""Requests For Enforcement" in the last two+ years in the Bowl, at Westgate and in between on SR104. In the course of following those requests I found that the Edmonds sign code is special interest legislation. In neither wording nor enforcement does the Code emphasize the importance of Packet Pg. 378 6.1.e protecting Edmonds reputation as an attractive, up -scale residential community. Rather, it offers a crutch to those marginal businesses that claim they need cheap advertising signs in the public right-of-way in order to N survive. c The Planning Dept. recommendations regarding "temporary"" signs don't improve the Code; they make it worse.The temporary" sandwich board sign which now litter the Bowl are illegal under two separate chapters of the Code;they don't have street permits ($115)as required by (18.70), and they exceed the time limit on E a� "temporary" signs (20.60). The Planning Dept. recommendations would simply make those signs permanently legal by requiring a permit but eliminating the time limit. o Permanent signs have a valid purpose. They identify and locate a town business. "Temporary signs do not. If Or a walker is close enough to a "temporary" sign to read it, the walker is also close enough to the business to in read its permanent sign. As identification temporary signs are redundant Iitter.They are really just advertising signs in the public right-of-way and should be prohibited except for one commercial event, and closely a monitored, time -limited public events. The following are my suggestions for sign code changes: 1. EMPHASIZE that the Edmonds Sign Code exists to protect the quality of the community a la Carmel. 2,Commercial "temporary" signs are prohibited except for a 60 consecutive day, one-time only business - opening event (some towns allow a limited number of 4-day special events). 3. "Premises" - remove that word from the "definition" section. 4.Permit the use of a temporary sign while a permanent sign is being reviewed by the ADB, and then mounted. 5, Permit permanent directional signs subject to ADB approval. 6. Prohibit pole signs every where; use monument signs instead 7. Have ADB approve permanent signs, and ask it to review the proposed recommendations re calculation, classification and wall -mounted signs. 8. No one shall put any sign in the public right-of-way without first notifying the Planning Dept. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 379 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:55 PM To: Council Cc: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Revision of Edmonds sign code Council Members: Currently, there are no "temporary' signs in Edmonds; they are all "permanent" because sign regulation isn't enforced except by citizen complaint. However, because the Planning Dept. keeps no record of when temporary signs are erected, the time limit can't be calculated and enforced upon citizen Request. In Edmonds the major and most controversial signs, "temporary ones" aren't regulated by time limits or in any other way. REMEDY: Make it clear in the code that "temporary" means temporary by enacting the following ordinance: "Time limit for temporary signs —a new business may install a temporary sign on a one-time basis only. No business shall be allowed to display this type of sign more than once. All temporary signs are to be removed no later than 60 consecutive days from the date of notification to" the Planning Dept.(The words within quotation marks are from another municipal code.)REMEDY:Require that a business owner shall notify the Planning Dept. of the day on which a sign will be placed on a roof, wall, or public right-of-way and the date it will be removed. Require that the Planning Dept. keep a record of the above information. REMEDY —Under the ADMINISTRATION section of the sign code, include a statement that the sign code is enforced only upon citizen request. It's deceptive to let Edmonds residents think that their executive branch enforces the laws enacted by their legislative branch, an age-old assumption. In the "definition" section of the Edmonds sign code, there appears a definition of the word "premises" which is unlike that found in any other municipality. The definition says,"premises is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed EXCEPT within the boundaries of the BC or BD zone in the downtown activity area ... where "premises" shall include any portion of the public sidewalk which fronts upon the lot." What does this exception allow? There was an Old Milltown business that was located on Dayton St. about one-half block East of Fifth St. It had a sign at the Fifth/Dayton intersection which I appealed as an off -premise sign. The City's reply was, "The City's position is that the signs in question (I had appealed sign at Third and Main) are not off -premise, but on - premise DUE to the DEFINITION of "PREMISES (my emphasis), and that their premises extend to the lot of the business, not just the business sidewalk frontage."I was told there are other "lots" in downtown Edmonds where the "premises" definition would apply. I lost the appeal but I learned that every business on the Old Milltown lot is allowed one sign on 5th and one sign on Dayton OR one sign at the corner of Fifth and Dayton. Is that number of signs the desired result of a sign code that seeks to control "visual clutter" in Edmonds, a goal listed four times in the PURPOSE section? REMEDY: Strike all the words that follow EXCEPT in the code definition of "premises". Finally, I suggest that all PERMANENT signs be reviewed and approved by the ADB. The ADB is a quality - control Board, and most of its members are selected for their training in assessing quality; signs and their location quality-sensative issues Packet Pg. 380 6.1.e A few years ago two large permanent signs appeared too high on two facades of Old Milltown. I appealed them and they were removed. The question is, "How did those signs get by Staff? Did they approve them and then not check their final location because they were too busy? I think the ADB has more members and more time to ensure that the conditions of its approval are obeyed. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 381 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:30 AM To: Council Cc: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Edmonds sign code revision Council Members: As of today, I haven't seen a copy of the sign code changes that will be presented to the Council at its Feb. 23, 2016 work meeting. Based upon a Planning Dept. presentation at an earlier public meeting in December, I expect that only two code revisions will be proposed: 1. minor changes to "permanent" sign regulations and, 2. significant changes to the regulation of "sandwich board" signs which are usually classed as "temporary" signs. In this e-mail letter I will describe the current confusion that exists in the regulation of signs; later I will suggest code remedies. Sign code regulations appear in two separate ECDC chapters: 1. Chapt. 20.60 administered by the Planning Dept.; and 2. Chapt. 18.70 Street Use and Encroachment Permits administered by the Engineering Dept. Chapt.18.70 defines sandwich board sign as "temporary objects" which require a street permit. A permit costs $115.; the duration of the permit isn't defined. On 9-2-15 1 appealed three sandwich board signs citing failure to obtain a street permit as the reason for a Request for Code enforcement action. Phil Williams determined that the three businesses I cited did not have street permits; however, no enforcement action was taken because Code revision is in progress. Meantime, all the sandwich board signs that litter the commercial streets of the Bowl (the ONLY location where they're allowed) are illegal, have been for years, and the City of Edmonds is owed thousands of dollars. (Incidentally, in the last couple of years I have appealed signs under Chapt. 20.60. When my requests were upheld, the signs were removed.There was no mention of a code revision in progress.) believe code enforcement is, partly,an issue that is separate from the language of the code itself, but one that should also be addressed.) While the language of Chapt. 18.70 is clear,Chapt. 20.60 is confusing. It defines sandwich boards as "temporary" in one section, and as "permanent" in another. Under the "definitions" section of 20.60, a "temporary" sign is "an allowed portable sign intended for short-term display, not to exceed 60 calendar in any calendar year." ( That's a lax time limit; other municipal codes have a fixed number of CONSECUTIVE days for one-year only. Further along in the code there is a section (20,60.020) titled "General Regulations for PERMANENT signs." In that section there is a chart which "summarizes the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district within the City. On that chart sandwich boards are listed as permitted only in Downtownl. I consider sandwich boards a temporary sign. In mid-2014 I filed a Request for Code Enforcement against three temporary signs including two sandwich boards. The reply was, "The City advises businesses of the 60- day limit, but does not monitor the site or count the days a sign is out. The City could not proceed with enforcement without City verified information and could not progress to a hearing or legal proceeding with third party information." I asked whether the City required that businesses notify the Planning Dept. of the date a sign was placed in the public right-of-way or elsewhere. the answer was "No". It is impossible to Packet Pg. 382 6.1.e calculate the 60-day limit without that knowledge, and very difficult to do even if known, because the 60 days are cumulative rather than consecutive. That method of counting days is peculiar to Edmonds. (To be continued) Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 383 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:47 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Monillas, Adrienne; Hope, Shane Subject: Shippen Requests for Enforcement To the Planning Board Chairman: Will the Planning Board Chairman (Neil Tibbot) please request that the Planning Department include copies (or a list) of my Requests for Enforcement in the Sign Code reform packet, and the enforcement decision(s) that was made for each? Early on, Shane Hope invited me to submit a list to her of any suggested code changes I might have. I couldn't do that as I was learning with each appeal how the code did or didn't address my Requests. Like the Planning Department I didn't keep records; I assume it does now. I believe my Requests demonstrate how the sign code operates. I recall only twelve Requests for Enforcement which involved 26 signs. As you will see, some of my Requests were approved and some were denied. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 384 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: English, Robert Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:27 PM To: 'Natalie Shippen' Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane; Williams, Phil Subject: RE: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs Ms. Shippen —Sections 20.60 and 18.70 of the current City code are not consistent with regard to temporary signs (including A -frames). For this reason, the City will not pursue code enforcement action. The City's Planning Division will be updating the sign code this fall to address this issue. The process will include public meetings at the Planning Board and City Council. -----Original Message ----- From: Natalie Shippen[ma ilto:natalieshippen@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:25 PM To: English, Robert Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs Mr. English. On September 3, 2015 1 submitted three (3) Requests for Enforcement to the Planning Department. I cited Code Chapter 18.70.000.B.1.2.3. which requires a street use permit to place any temporary object in a "public space or City right-of-way..." I said that three sandwich board signs,two on Fifth and one on Main, did not have street use permits. The Planning Dept. flipped my Enforcement Requests to you, the City Engineer and you appear to have flipped them right back to the Planning Dept. I want answers to the following questions. Do the three sandwich board signs that I cited have street use permits? Do any of the sandwich board signs that litter Main St. and Fifth Ave. have street use permits? Chapter 18.70 is clear. "No person SHALL use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit from the development services director or City engineer." It then defines "use", "temporary in nature", and "temporary object" which specifically mentions "sandwich boards." Please explain why the Administration hasn't enforced 18.70.000 b.1.2.3. ? And why Requests for Enforcement don't result in code enforcement? Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 385 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:25 PM To: English, Robert Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs Mr. English. On September 3, 2015 1 submitted three (3) Requests for Enforcement to the Planning Department. I cited Code Chapter 18.70.000.B.1.2.3. which requires a street use permit to place any temporary object in a "public space or City right-of-way..." I said that three sandwich board signs,two on Fifth and one on Main, did not have street use permits. The Planning Dept. flipped my Enforcement Requests to you, the City Engineer and you appear to have flipped them right back to the Planning Dept. I want answers to the following questions. Do the three sandwich board signs that I cited have street use permits? Do any of the sandwich board signs that litter Main St. and Fifth Ave. have street use permits? Chapter 18.70 is clear. "No person SHALL use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit from the development services director or City engineer." It then defines "use", "temporary in nature", and "temporary object" which specifically mentions "sandwich boards." Please explain why the Administration hasn't enforced 18.70.000 b.1.2.3. ? And why Requests for Enforcement don't result in code enforcement? Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 386 6.1.e To: Shane Hope From Ed! Advisory Board: Signage Committee Clayton Moss, Pam Stuller, Jordana Turner, Robert Boehlke RE: Recommendations for Sign Code Revisions Date: September 18, 2015 Recommendations: Amend the code to allow the applicant or the planning manager to refer design review applications to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) in the following unique situations: 1. When the applicants specific building set back (from the public street) is significantly greater than the adjacent buildings or when there are other special physical circumstances or physical conditions, such as topography, sign structures or other physical features on adjacent properties or public right-of-way obstacles that substantial restrict the effectiveness of the proposed sign in question. These special circumstances are peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention to and do not apply generally to other businesses in the area. 2. When there are special physical circumstances or physical conditions of the applicants specific building such as architectural features or details that substantially restrict the placement and effectiveness of the proposed sign in question or which make it impossible to both integrate the sign with the architectural design of the building and at the same time adhere to various code restrictions with regards to sign type, area or height. 3. When certain exceptional design features are included in a proposed sign design which enhances the appearance & quality of the sign but by doing so would exceed code constraints. Examples would be monument sign designs which are designed to be in harmony with the landscape design and/or integrate with the design and scale of a particular building or multi -building complex. 4. When a retail center or multi -tenant building or complex submits a comprehensive master sign program. Section References Definitions of Signs— request for clarification/revision. 1. "Internally illuminated sign" —Add "Halo Lit" 2. "Marquee": add description/definiation 3. "Outline cabinet sign" — Can also be non -illuminated 4. "Portable Sign" — add stanchion sign type to this group. Encourage artistry. 1. Identify who is responsible for the sign — require sticker "license tab". Add Registration requirement, street use, provide application form, submittal requirement check -list. Establish areas for legal portable signs in downtown. Allow for a little bit of character, for instance restaurants to show their happy hour specials, but protect quaint downtown streetscape so that it does not Packet Pg. 387 6.1.e become littered with portable signs. Consider public wayfinding group signs at critical decision points to direct people to businesses off the beaten path, (Main street & 5th Ave). Restrict placement so portable signs are within two of the building. 5. Projecting Sign — is perpendicular to the building fagade, usually double face. Maximum projection from building surface is 4 ft. (Note maximum depth of wall sign is 12") 6. "Sign Area" supporting brackets which are required by engineering and are designed to be integral to the sign & building design will not be included in the calculation of the sign area. 7. "Wall Graphic" - clarify differences between wall graphic and murals. 8. Wall Sign - revise to read affixed to building: wall, surface, or structure — is single faced. Maximum depth of sign is 12" — not to extend further than 12" from surface. 9. Freestanding signs- raise height limit to 5' and sq. ft area of graphic area — do not include base in sq. ft area calculation- especially for monuments 10. Internally illuminated signs may only light letters "and graphic marks or logos" 20.60.025 1. Add zoning map showing commercial areas. 2. Facades at entry do not always lend themselves to signage. Allow signage on facades and or have ADB review the situation. Small Micro -frontage businesses like Daphne's should be allowed the 20'sq. ft area. 20.60.050 This section states there are no restrictions on wall graphics which contradicts the previously stated restrictions. 20.60.070 "Construction Signs" increase area from 32 to 40 sq ft of graphic area. Encourage visual imagery of the project. Staff Review of Murals & Artwork;- designs have been approved by staff that are not in harmony with architecture an neighborhood. Need to include a public notice, so adjacent building owners have opportunity for input. Case in point Edmonds Historical Museum was not informed. Include ADB in review process. New Sign Types to consider: A. Light Standard Graphics — banners B. Portable Sign: "Stanchions" encourage stanchions vs A -Boards, allow ht to 5'. C. Wayfinding/Directionals- purpose to reduce quantity of portable signs C. Alley Gateway: refer to Post Alley Seattle, Bellen Alley in SF. Packet Pg. 388 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:08 PM To: English, Robert Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Spellman, Jana Subject: Code appeal Mr. English, I understand the Planning Dept. has referred my "inquiry" to you. I asked that three sandwich board signs (Waterfront Coffee; State Farm Mutual; Cafe de Louvre) be removed because they didn't have a street use permit as required by ord. 18.70.000. Was that assertion correct? I also asked where I could get a blank copy of a street use permit and an encroachment permit. And how much each of those would cost (to clarify - not the cost to me for the blank permit forms, but to the owners of the sandwich board signs). How much does each permit type cost an applicant? Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 389 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Pam Stuller <pam@edmondsdowntown.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 10:23 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Robert Boehlke Subject: Housewares sign input Robert from Housewares was mentioning that the current sign code did not allow for his sign to be lit. He couldn't remember the code limitations exactly, but as his sign was above 14' it's in the dark once the -sun goes down. Pam Stuller Edmonds Downtown Alliance 206-914-1753 Packet Pg. 390 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:01 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Sign Code Comments Pls add this to your record of sign code comments: I just got off the phone with the owner of Elegant Gyms (on 5th Ave.). He wanted to comment that A -board signs are okay, that they are needed and useful. The only thing is they should be located close to the building, not in other parts of the sidewalk. Shane Hope, AICP Development Services Director City of Edmonds 425.771.0220 x-1216 shone. hope@edmondswo. gov Packet Pg. 391 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Pam Stuller < Pam @walnutstreetcoffee.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:12 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Hope, Shane Subject: sign code update Attachments: color_logo_pantone_REV2.pdf Hi Diane, As requested, here is my feedback for consideration during your sign code update process. My building is uniquely squat and sits slightly into the public right of way. When going through the permitting process to create my sign, current code would not allow my sign to be above my roof line - regardless of the height of my building. With the required minimum height from the sidewalk for pedestrians and the maximum height allowed by my roof line, I ended up with about 2' of workable height to create my blade sign. I ended up modifying my logo so my sign would have enough visual impact from up the street. I've attached an image of my sign, my building and my logo - so you can see the circle version I would ultimately like to replace my current sign with. I am not encouraging allowing enormous signs that are out of scale with their building/neighbors, but if there is a way to accommodate some variances in the sign code for unique site situations - allowing signs to go a certain amount above a roof line or exceed the size restrictions in some cases - I'd support it. Please let me know if you have quesitons or if I can provide any additional info: Packet Pg. 392 6.1.e IJ 611 -green -big circle 7459 - blue - inner circle 1535 - brown - cup handle, cup, and cup rim 497 - dark brown -STREET and oval area attached to S 7401 - tan -WALNUT and part of S and inner cup 716 - orange - OFFEE white - foundation base coat Packet Pg. 393 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:35 AM To: Spellman, Jana Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Edmonds Sign Code revision Council Members: REAL ESTATE There shall be no exceptions from the Code for real estate signs. Real estate signs shall be used only to direct buyers to SPECIFIC properties for sale, rent or lease. Directional signs are permitted as regulated by the current code. Real estate offices may not use temporary signs to advertise their office location (see flocks of little signs at intersections), or to identify their office location with sidewalk signs. The City of Edmonds invites residents to contribute to the maintenance of their corner parks and hanging baskets by making an annual donation. What is the residents incentive to do so when downtown businesses are allowed to plunk their tacky signs on the adjacent public sidewalks? Down town business argues that their business will suffer without signs. How do they prove that? Open their books to justify their signs? Not likely. Should businesses that don't need signs to prosper still be allowed to place junk in the public right -of ways because then they will make still more money? I remind the Council of a long-standing principle of organized business i.e. if you've got a problem, government is not the solution.. Nowhere is that principle more applicable than in your current discussion of the Edmonds Sign Code. Sign codes are about maintaining the quality of a municipality, not private profitability. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 394 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:21 AM To: Spellman, Jana Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Edmonds sign code Council Members: Signs are junk; signs create visual blight on Edmonds landscaped streets. They diminish the results of long-time efforts to improve the appearance of an ugly gritty mill town. The only valid commercial sign is the permanent facade sign that identifies the business below it. New rules should state that each business is allowed one facade sign to identify the business; two, if on a corner a la Star Bucks at the corner of Fifth and Main.A multi -business building may add one landscaped monument -style group sign e.g. the 210 building on Fifth. An area of stores may do the same e.g. the Westgate QFC sign at the corner of Ninth and 104. Commercial pole signs are not permitted. Landscaped monument signs are permitted are permitted. Roof mounted signs are prohibited. Administration —All permanent signs shall be approved by the ADB. If, as alleged, by the Administration, the Planning Dept. doesn't have time to enforce the Code, its responsibility for evaluating new signs should be removed to save time. The ADB is better positioned to judge quality, and maintaining quality is the goal of a good sign code.I think some Edmonds permanent signs have deteriorated. Natalie Shippen 1 Packet Pg. 395 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:02 PM To: Spellman, Jana Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Edmonds sign code Council Members: TEMPORARY signs — In Edmonds "temporary" signs are permanent because the 60 "cumulative" days limitation isn't enforced, indeed, can't be enforced. Businesses aren't required to notify the City when they stick signs on their building or on the sidewalk.The new code should say: a temporary sign is one displayed for a limited time. Commercial temporary signs shall not be allowed except for a one-time, 60 CONSECUTIVE days opening event. Three temporary signs are then allowed only one of which may be place on a public sidewalk. Other temporary signs (besides commercial) shall not be allowed in the public right of way. Temporary include, but are not limited to (in case I omitted to mention one of the pests): signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; menu and sandwich board signs; "A" and "T" frame signs; wooden, metal or plastic "stake" or "yard"; signs; posters or banners affixed to windows, railings overhangs; trees,hedges, or other structures or vegetation; flags; pennants, banners; feather, ribbons and balloons. Banner signs (including real estate signs may not be placed on roofs or walls (e.g. west wall of the Chanterelle Building; roof of the business on the NW corner of Olympic View Dr. and 196th.). Banner signs may not substitute for permanent signs. Administration: Businesses must inform the Planning Dept. where and when they plan to place temporary signs and the date they will remove them (within 60 CONSECUTIVE days). This is not an onerous requirement as an opening event will occur only once. Natalie Shippen 1 Packet Pg. 396 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:40 AM To: Spellman, Jana Cc: Hope, Shane; Cunningham, Diane Subject: Edmonds sign code Council Members: The public meeting on August 3, 2015 to discuss Edmonds sign code changes is a welcome beginning and one that, I hope, is concluded well before the holiday season. I will bring before the Council and Planning Board some of the problems that I have found and their suggested remedies. I' start with the Edmonds Code definition of "premises". I believe the Edmonds code should not include the public sidewalk as part of the definition of "Premises." Other cities don't include a definition of premises, but refer to it indirectly in their on- premise/Off premise definitions as the "property" on which a sign is/isn't to be located. I question the propriety, and possibly the legality of selectively giving use of the public right-of-way to adjacent, private land -owners. The current definition of "premises"also allows other junk to be placed on the public sidewalk e.g. the clothes rack in front of the Savvy Traveler and a small promotional red fire truck in front of Coldwell/Bain reality. These are in addition to their signs and banners. The result is the messiest corner in Edmonds adjacent to the most landscaped area in Edmonds (Fountain, Corner Parks, and Trees). Natalie Sh'ippen Packet Pg. 397 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:01 AM To: 'Natalie Shippen' Cc: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Sign Code Meeting Mrs. Shippen, I know you have been long interested in potential amendments to the city's sign code. That is also on our work program for this year. You are invited to a public meeting about issues and options for our sign code on August 3, 6 pm, in the Council Chambers. I hope you can attend. We will be issuing a press release about this soon and encouraging both residents and businesses to provide their input. We are especially looking at the issue of A -frame signs downtown. After the meeting, we will work on draft amendments to the sign code, so that in the fall, the public can review the draft and provide input. Then the draft will be refined as needed and brought to the Planning Board for at least 2 public meetings (including a public hearing) and recommendation, followed by at least 2 public meetings (including a public hearing) and a decision of the City Council. A more detailed meeting schedule will be identified later. Feel free to share this information with others that you think will be interested. Thanks Note: Interested parties, whether or not they attend the August 3 meeting, are welcome to send comments about sign regulations to the City at: diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov. Regards, Shane Hope Shane Hope, AICP Development Services Director City of Edmonds 425.771.0220 x-1216 shane.hope@edmondswa. gov_ Packet Pg. 398 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: randall@randalijhodges.com Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:20 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Opinion about signs, from Randall J Hodges Photography Gallery Hello To all concerning Signs I am unable to attend the August 3rd meeting but wanted to share my thoughts I own the Randall I Hodges Photography Gallery at 317 Main Street. I do use an A Frame sign and find it Very, Very Helpful and Valuable, especially to announce special features events or lesson in the gallery, like Art Walk My A Frame is not in anyone's way, and I keep it in great condition, and I invested a lot of money into it. I believe it is only fair to let us keep the A Frame Signs, in light of the many restaurant's who get to seat customers outside, taking up way more space than our little A Boards and causing much more congestion, and hazardous situations, which I have witnessed. I am no way saying that they should go away also, but if they get to utilize the side walk for extending there restaurant's seating, I should be able to take up 3 square feet to put out my sign I know the new restaurant The Salt and Iron, gets to use over 150 square feet of sidewalk space taking up over 1/2 of the passible sidewalk If the A board are no longer able to be put out, then the restaurants should also stay inside and not invade the sidewalks. Otherwise I would like to apply to put tables in front of my Gallery space also, then I could place my A Frame Sign on top of it, calling it a table tent .... I think that sounds very fair and reasonable. For me it is a question of what is fair, and if some of the businesses get to use the sidewalk as space, than so should the other merchants.... Many of us shop keepers need all the help we can get to get customers in the door, and the A Frame Signs help me greatly Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments on this important issue Have a great day! Randall Hodges Randall J Hodges Photography www.randalljhodges.com randali@randallihodcies.com cell 425-210-2506 Randall J Hodges Photography Fine Art Photography Gallery 317 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 ph: 425-582-0803 "Take Only Pictures, Leave Only Footprints" "Walks Far" Packet Pg. 399 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:42 AM To: Planning Work Group Cc: McConnell, Jeanie; Zulauf, JoAnne; Lambert, Jennifer; English, Robert; Building Work Group Subject: FW: City meeting on sign code options Just wanted you to know we are starting to get the word out about a public meeting (August 3, 6 pm; see below) to identify issues and options for our sign code —especially regarding A -frame type signs in the ROW downtown. I'd like at least a couple of city staff persons to be at the meeting with me. Let Rob C. or me know if you are interested. More details later. Shane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:55 AM To: 'andy@clinejewelers.com' Cc: Doherty, Patrick Subject: City meeting on sign code options Hello Mr. Kline, As you may know, the City has gotten various complaints about signage, esp. A -frame signs downtown in the public right of way. The City Council has asked my department to look into whether our city's sign code should be amended and, if so, how. We are sensitive to the signage needs of businesses, as well as community preferences. To kick off this effort, we are holding a public meeting August 3, 6 pm, in the Council Chambers (250 5th Ave. N.) and welcome both residents and business representatives. Please feel free to share this invitation with other DEMA members. The intent of the August 3 meeting is to identify sign issues and options. In the fall, the City expects to have a draft of any code changes for further review and input. The draft will then be refined and, as part of more public process, brought to the Planning Board for a recommendation and the City Council for a decision. The existing sign code is available on the City's webpage: http1Jwww.edmondswa.gaY/rules-and- regulations.html. Then click "Community Development Code (ECDC)", then "Title 20", then "20.60 Sign Code" Interested parties, whether or not they attend the meeting, are welcome to send comments about sign regulations to the City at: diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov. Note: We have shared this information with the ED! board, as well. Thanks for your interest, Shane Hope, AICP Development Services Director City of Edmonds 425.771.0220 x-1216 shone. ha a edmondswo. av Packet Pg. 400 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Kurt Mattingly <kurt@dragonfire.gallery> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:33 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Dragonfire Art Gallery sign regulations to the City Statment To whom it may concern: Sadly I will not be able to attend the meeting discussing the "A" boards, but wanted to express my opinion. I thinks it crucial, especial for small businesses not located right on 5tn or main to be able to display "A" boards. A huge of my not so great traffic is due to our board placement on 51h It would most definitely put us in a scary position of survival, and eventually out of business. My boards are placed in areas that do not cause a safety concern for anyone. PLEASE, I beg of you: DO NOT PASS a regulation stating NO "A" board usage in town. Kindest regards, Kurt Mattingly Kurt Mattingly GALLERY DIRECTOR 425-275-7670 10 facebook.com/DragonfireEdmonds Packet Pg. 401 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: Namascandystore@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 9:17 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: the A Board and sign issues Hello: I own Nama's Candy Store and am a 20+ year resident of Edmonds. I have been involved in many aspects of Edmonds retail including President of DEMA and member of the Chamber Board of Directors. I agree with those that think there needs to be more control over signs and A Boards in Edmonds. I do admit to being guilty of signage indiscretion at times and have some suggestions that I believe would solve most of the issues and still be fair to all concerned. A Boards: One A Board per business location, no more than 3' tall and 21/2 ' wide. All A Boards must be within 5 feet of the building housing the business and they must come in at closing. They cannot block any public walkway, curb or ramp. They cannot be placed on property planted by the city or parks dept. This would be a city wide code and include all business including Real estate. An open house sign would be placed within 5' of the home for sale. Event promotion boards would not be allowed. Signage: Two signs per Business, both attached to the business foot print not the building footprint. This pertains to buildings that house multiple business. Hwy 99 signs would be larger than downtown core signs. Windows are at the business owners discretion. These simple changes would put an end to the following: The Restaurant that puts a 5' sign in the handicap ramp at the fountain in front of Starbucks and never brings it in. The store that puts 4 A Boards up on 4 separate corners, 1 block apart, 7 days a week. He does not even own a corner business. The gift store west of the theater that puts an A Board in the corner garden on 5th at the fountain. The 3 businesses closer to 6th that bring signs down to both sides of 5th The Realtor who puts 4 A Boards at each corner of 5th at the fountain for open houses and broker events The store that has draped itself with banners and signs. The solome courses pedestrians must negotiate on may of our sidewalks all over town. The list goes on. The solutions must be all inclusive and fair to commerce. Pat McKee Packet Pg. 402 6.1.e From: David Harb [mailto:dh42674 mail.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:36 PM To: Spellman, Jana Subject: A Boards Council Members: When are you going to restrict A boards that take over the majority of the sidewalks making walking difficult. Our sidewalks are narrow and uneven and almost ever service provides and business owner feels that it's their right to put at least one sign out. Some business even have as many as three signs out. Please do something that would be community friendly and provides for safe walking in Edmonds. Besides it is doubtful that these signs generate any business. Regards, David Harb Packet Pg. 403 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: natalieshippen@comcast.net Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:07 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Enforcement of Edmonds sign code re temoroary signs Planning Board Members: Mr. Clugston's reply to my question about owner notification to the City when signs are placed in the street is, "No, the code does not require that the business inform the City that they are going to put out a temporary sign." My question to the Planning Board is How can the 60-day cumulative period, each year requirement be enforced when the Planning Department has no record of the signs, and third -party (complainant) information isn't accepted at a hearing or legal proceeding? The Edmonds situation is aggravated because its Code requires more monitoring. Other towns forbid temporary signs with two exceptions. a ONE-TIME business opening period of various lengths (none as long as 60 days) and special events periods measured by a few days. My appeal is a good example of a problem that could be corrected quickly. Temporary signs are the worst visual offenders, and, for practical purposes, all temporary signs in Edmonds are permanent. I respectfully suggest that the Board adopt a piece -meal approach to correcting the sign code. One section of the code doesn't hinge upon another. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 404 6.1.e Cunningham, Diane From: natalieshippen@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:52 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Spellman, Jana Subject: Revision of the Edmonds sign code To the Edmonds Planning Board: Since only God knows when and how the City council will, procedurally, exercise its will, I hereby submit some of my sign code concerns to the Planning Board. I shoot my ideas into the air, they'll fall to earth I know not where (the City Council, perhaps? in this century, maybe). PURPOSE of the sign code: To maintain Edmonds reputation as an attractive residential community by protecting it from visual blight. I think the following changes should be made to the Edmonds sign code: TEMPORARY signs shall not be permitted anywhere at any time except: 1. to announce a new business opening - for a 60 CONSECUTIVE day period in the first year of operation only, the 60 day period to begin the day the business license is issued. 2. to promote a special event - for four days prior to the event and a one -day clean-up following the event. 3. Three of the following TYPES of TEMPORARY signs may be used for the opening and the special events: a) sandwich board b. feather (banner on a tall vertical pole) c)banners d)pennants e)small placards on a stick used at intersections There shall be no "indeterminable" lengths of time for "TEMPORARY" signs. There is a stigma attached to signs and their temporary use is a privilege granted to business for a strictly limited time PERMANENT signs that shall not be permitted anywhere: Pole signs; Blinking signs and movable scrawl signs GENERAL: 1. ALL signs require require a permit; the enforcement period begins on the day the permit is issued. 2. No off -premise signs are permitted 3. The word "premise" should be re -defined. The public right-of-way is NOT a part of the premise. 4. All PERMANENT signs must be approved by the ADB. Example of bad sign include but is not limited to: the WALL banners on the Wells Fargo building on 5th; Chanterelle's-west wall'; SNAP Fitness; Claires Pantry -west wall; and the NW corner of 3rd/Dayton. The worst collection of signs are on the: SW corner of Fifth/Main; N. side of Main between 3rd and Forth, and the NE corner of Milltown. WESTGATE Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 405 Ul 1*4 T 0 C7 i 0 CD n CD n 0 Q CD un =3 Cr jo - 0 rD _Ile _ O LEttachment: Exhibit 6: Staff presentation from 2016-07-05 (1386 : Public Hearing to receive Monument Signs '! Planning Board Hearing Options Size Allowed How Many Option 1: No Portables (A -frames) No No Benefits of ? approach? Option 2: Pedestrian Signs as Temporary Signs (Existing Code) 6 sq. ft. r business Option 3: Pedestrian Signs as Permanent Signs with. restrictions 6 sq. ft. r storefront M rvoOO Dim X ZT _ • ram+ ,G ,G n Q �, 3 rD O rD rD 0, — • rD rt N _. rD rD rD z vo o rD ,� 3 o °-O -, o=N :3 O h rD r+ rD:3 rD r+ rD rU Z3 _ -0 ram+ ram+ � Cl CL � � ram+ O � N' Off+ N. Ln rD N, CL 0-q O , � Orq rD O �, rD O r-r = r+ rD rD � rD — rU N —• � �o C� r+ � o 0 O D cn cn = rD r-r 0- rD pQ :3 N O C: orqC:L N �p e-r rn-r �q' m CD � rD 3 3 O M- CD n n �. O rt °� n n r� rt -• o rt w — — rD rt +'o � �' � �, o rD o � �,• � 0- � rD rD c o D o 0 rD 0 e-+ 3 0 0 UQ rD Z3• � -• V' �p ram+ n r-r CAD rD O cn w rD n 0 Q CD 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Edmonds Waterfront Center and Beach Rehab Schematic Design Review (10 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History Previous Council action: City Council Passed Resolution 1313 on March 18, 2014 supporting rebuilding of the Edmonds Senior Center at its current location. City Council unanimously approved having staff negotiate a lease with the Senior Center on October 21, 2014. On December 9th, the City Council had a study session about the Option to Lease and the Ground Lease and gave staff direction. On January 27, 2015 City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Option to Lease and the Ground Lease. In February, 2016, City Council met with the Senior Center staff and board as part of their Council retreat to hear an update on the project, and see the beginnings of the conceptual design. On July 12, 2016, Council forwarded this item for approval at the July 19, 2016 meeting. History: The City has been working with the nonprofit Senior Center over the past several years in the redevelopment of a Community Center and the beach front park adjacent to the current Senior Center. To that extent, the City did sign an Option to lease and a Ground Lease for the Sr. Center to rebuild at its current location. As part of the agreement, the Sr. Center is required to bring forth the schematic design for approval by the Council. Included with this schematic design is also a schematic design of the grounds around the Sr. Center. Because the parking lot is a shared lot, and the parking lot effects the beach front redevelopment, City staff have been working closely with the Sr. Center for the park redevelopment. Staff Recommendation Packet Pg. 413 7.1 City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter, approving the schematic design of the new Waterfront Center being proposed by the Edmonds Senior Center. Narrative Project History - Responding to the unprecedented demographic aging trend and significant structural issues facing the 55-year old current Edmonds Senior Center building (a 2007 geotechnical report found that the building "would not perform at a Life Safety level during a code level seismic event"), the ESC Board voted to embark on a capital campaign to replace the building. Rather than just build a new senior center, the Board decided to use the opportunity to build a modern 26,000 sf community center facility offering programs for residents of all ages. The City of Edmonds Strategic Action Plan adopted in 2013 defines as one of its objectives "Develop a long term solution for maintaining and updating the Senior Center." This objective was ranked in the highest rated category by the citizens in an extensive survey of the community. The Edmonds Senior Center was appointed the lead by the City in accomplishing this objective, with the assistance of the Parks & Recreation Department. During the preliminary design phase and in conversations with the City, the desire to remove the exiting bulkhead and improve beach access was identified as secondary objective. The City is taking the lead on the beach restoration effort. Our plan is that the ESC will raise the necessary funds for the new facility, build the structure, own and maintain the building, governed by a Ground Lease with the City. The terms of that lease have been agreed and an Option to Lease contract has been signed with the City. Once we reach a $7.5M fundraising threshold, we can exercise the option. Public interface / involvement - Facility programming and design work have been underway and progressing for well over a year. Environmental Works, the architectural firm, has done an excellent job in coordinating programmatic desires and needs for now and the future on behalf of both senior and public functions within the facility's Schematic Design. Since the basic program and conceptual design parameters were established at the end of last year Edmonds Senior Center's Building Committee has undertaken ongoing efforts to gain input and feedback from various public representations. The goal was to integrate sustainable building and site design elements contributing to the current Schematic Design being presented here tonight. Such efforts have included in part: Regular and ongoing briefings to the Senior Center Board and membership. Nearly 200 members attended the annual membership meeting on March 30th where plans for the new facility were presented followed by a Q & A. A project 'Visioning' Workshop held last August 12 yielded valuable input by participants from Snohomish County, Edmonds city staff, ESC board and membership, design team members, local tribal representatives, professional design staff, and the general public. The purpose was to collect and prioritize a 'menu' of values and goals from all sources in our efforts to reach common goals and a vision for the project. Project specific briefings have been carried out this year on behalf of Snohomish County officials, the City of Edmonds City Council, the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Edmonds, Service Clubs, the Mayor of Woodway, Boeing Employees Community Fund, Sustainable Edmonds, Edmonds Development Services staff, and selected State level elected governmental representatives. Our first public design workshop/open house co -hosted by ESC and Sustainable Edmonds held on June 22 was well -attended by more than 200 members of the public and netted good feedback from the participants. As design continues to progress and gain refinement we will continue such meetings with the public in an open house format in order to maximize exposure, input, and support for the project. Packet Pg. 414 7.1 A preliminary orientation briefing was held with Edmonds Architectural Design Board on July 6 in order to begin what we hope will be ongoing design feedback and input from this public body. Status of fundraising - Our continuing efforts with the public is intended help gain important familiarity and support from both users and visitors to the new Edmonds Waterfront Center under creation on our beautiful waterfront. Funds Raised to Date: Sector Raised Goal Leadership gifts $ 1,026,000 $ 2,500,000 Board campaign $ 145,426 $ 300,000 Government $ 1,750,000 $ 5,500,000 Foundations $ 30,000 $ 2,000,000 Business and Community $ 22,241 $ 700,000 Total $ 2,973,667 $11,000,000 A capital campaign committee has been formed and meets regularly. The campaign is being led by co-chairs Rose Cantwell and Diane Buckshnis. The diversified fundraising plan will raise the needed funds from 5 sources: Government (50%); Leadership Gifts (23%), Foundations (18%); Business and Community (6%) and Board (3%). We are currently in the silent phase of the campaign where we are focusing on the Board, major gifts, government and large foundations. Once we have reached 75% of goal we will kick off the public phase of the campaign. During this phase we will shift our emphasis to smaller gifts $1K - $10K, business solicitation, events and smaller foundations. Leadership Gifts - We have raised $1,026,000 in major gifts, $1M from Rick Steves. The Steve's gift is being structured as the Rick Steve's Challenge to leverage an additional $1M from local individuals and families. Initial contact has been made with our top 10 prospects. Board - We are currently completing the Board Campaign. Our $300,000 Board goal is significant given that a number are retired and on fixed incomes. In the past 9 months we have also made a concerted effort to expand the Board, electing 10 strategic new Board members. Government - A State Appropriation of $1.25M was received in the 2015 legislative session. On June 30t" we submitted a grant request to the Verdant Health Commission for $1.75M. We are currently preparing a Building Communities Fund application for $2.25M to the State of Washington for the 2017-2019 biennium; this is due on August 5th. In accordance with the ground lease agreement the City is committed to funding half the cost of the parking lot. We are also seeking $500K from Snohomish County from the REET fund. Foundations - We have identified 17 foundations who fund capital and align with our goals for the new Center. There have been initial meetings or introductory conversations with four foundations (Birkenfeld Charitable Trust; Norcliffe Foundation; Hazel Miller Foundation; Boeing Employees Community Fund) where we anticipate raising 80% of our $2M goal. Business and Community - Meetings have taken place with leading local businesses in the area of banking, real estate and auto dealers. All have indicated an interest in supporting the Packet Pg. 415 7.1 campaign. The majority of revenue from business and broader community will come in during the public phase of the campaign after 75 -80% of the campaign funds have been raised. Strategies for the community campaign will include events, house parties, mailings and paver - campaign. Park and waterfront redevelopment - The park redevelopment on the grounds surrounding the Senior Center, and subsequent new Community Center is consistent with both the PROS plan and the Shoreline Master Program. The project design seeks to enhance the waterfront experience by removing the creosote pier, that is both a barrier to access and harmful to the environment, adding wider stairs and seat wall, adding an ADA ramp to the beach, adding a hand boat launch, and reintroducing natural elements to the beachfront to increase habitat. It adds 300 feet of walkway, connecting to the northern walkway leading to Bracketts South and Bracketts North. It will create a user friendly, barrier free access to the beachfront and waterfront views. The removal of the pier has been a priority for many years and adopted in the Edmonds Shoreline Master program. In addition, the connection of the walkway, the rehabilitation of beach habitat area, and the addition of ADA access and a hand boat launch have all been high priorities. This will restore an underutilized site to a site that is welcoming, accessible, enhances circulation and water access, and connects to the larger social opportunities afforded by the complete waterfront walkway and experience. Specifically, this area has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program as being potential habitat and previous spawning areas for two important forage fish; the Sand Lance and Surf Smelt. It is also couched between two coho salmon spawning creeks ( Shell and Shellebarger). The bulkheads removal will enhance ecological conditions to support this habitat similar to the restoration at Bracketts Landing South. In addition, this project seeks to add LID improvements to the parking lot that is adjacent to the beach front by a bioswale and raingarden. This will help mitigate the current condition of runoff from the parking lot directly into the Puget Sound. The City is currently in application for two $500,000 grants to assist in funding support for this redevelopment. The Parks Department also designated $500,000 of Park Impact Fees in the 2017 CIP budget to help support this development. Attachments: 2016-07-12 ESCC Presentation to City Council Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease -Ground Lease Schematic Design Approval Letter Packet Pg. 416 7.1.a Edmonds Waterfront Center connecting & enriching our community l,yyy,Y '.5551� c O L. N C O E W O O M C 3 O U U O c O L Q_ U U U) W N O tD O N C d M V fC Q Packet Pg. 417 7.1.a Vision To build a world class regional facility with a holistic model program that maximizes the full potential of participants of every age - connecting and strengthening our community L._. Packet Pg. 418 7.1.a Goals 1. Construct a new state of the art, sustainable, model community facility that serves citizens of all ages. 2. Offer a range of dynamic & engaging programs emphasizing health and wellness. 3. Protect, preserve and enhance rare waterfront property for community use. Packet Pg. 419 7.1.a Edmonds Waterfront Center -� AIZ4 :- environmental WORKS Community Design Center a Herrera Environmental Consultants- LPD Engineering • Barker Landscape Architects Swenson Say Faget • Glumac • The Greenbusch Group Packet Pg. 420 IR uoa a e s uoua iauno A(i o uol a uasaa uaua oe � }-� � M p p3 � 88£4) I. � �.� � � � d ��S3 Z4-LO-940Z �� 4 ��`d (D r � W J o (2) V 41 _ r 0 3v \ �6 3 /'. o AL "It W U 0 L >0 70 _0 W 7.1.a �i Edmonds Waterfront Center O L d r yJ N R O E W c+ 00 Go T v yyS� 1 3 O O C d E �r IL c� LU c� x N i AM tC .t� r AD O Site Packet Pg. 422 environmental WORKS Community Design Center ZWON 6S A1AM MA AY 8., THEM �"` sursawMmeu'a ncf FM yX.p�r COARFRCVL __�'i7}'T+- �pxp = RiLYEX ♦� 80a Sf SldO� RiAR i LMI/IIfiCR .- �. THRIFT SHOP t1-2,1" _o� I - - - - - - - - - - - - - J L 1 2 s s st e r a s +o a Edmonds Waterfront Center 7.1.a ---- --- ---- -------- A - Y^ soW WTPQQR - 00 EOM]fD51MRNE WALIt1MAY f , OO �p an ®� � I` � IL �pYPF -- [1�, _ �_ 1 fl — 12 13 72 c M 1 - LU W N q to ` 18 17 18 to 20 21 22 23 2� 25 S A 28 31 32 33 37 93 38 `==� c _co 0 M R0.lLROH1ALEINE : ��, -- a Site PI Packet Pg. 423 environmental WORKS Communf y esign en er EDMONDS MARINE WALKWAY STORAGE BANQUET ROO MECHANICAL +I 3 SOO SF THE EBB ROOM STAGE TIDE s Fr p -s ❑THRIPTSHOP BRIDAL/ -- STORAGE & a GREEN _= LAUNDRY ROOM ❑ 1Sx2O' up TELECOM STAIR a CORRIDOR DI spur wAiL THRIFT SHOP +I- 2,100 SF OUTDOOR vesr. � PL�ZA � I it A SEATS 240 AT TABLES� COMMERCIAL KITCHEN 600 SF DISPLAY WALL DISPLAY WALL MEWS TOILET RM. I y� IICOMMUNITY LOUNGE +!- 850SIF II II " � I II =_= ILiiii� —'STORAGEijI /�� sl}ISLIs ,_ 'If Illfl if l'1 iii RECEPTI _ I �l � a ; I } I ; I � _{i ---- STORAGE I r I c o CID LAWN G C w R[gSk r I s � i El I 0 CONFERENCE C 21 J ANITOR VESTIBULE U V P �TOILETRMI. FAMILY I e TOILE` r _ C ------ ENTRY C —--------------------=----- c HIGH WINDOWS a j Edmonds Waterfront Center Fir 11 Packet Pg. 424 environmental WORKS Commune y eslgn en Edmonds Waterfront Center c 0 d c 0 E w w 00 M n Secon I n Packet Pg. 425 environmental WORKS Communi y esign en er m 0- 3 0 Q •CD f CA Zn f v °' Attachment: 2016-07-12 ESCC Presentation to City Council (1388 : Edmonds Waterfront (p N 4 m Attachment: 2016-07-12 ESCC Presentation to City Council (1388 : Edmonds Waterfront Aff Ir Tr) a ■ vii it �1 Vili � _ � m m 0- 3 0 Q v CD 0 C� m CD I m 3 CD v� O CA 3 3 3 4 cDFir 1 it l :3 I Attachment: 2016-07-12 ESCC Presentation to City Council (1388 : Edmonds Waterfront 7.1.a Edmonds Waterfront Center Shoreline Restoration Concept —'Beach v ' Packet Pg. 430 environmental WORKS Community Uesign Center Edmonds Waterfront Center 00 00 M r U C 7 O U r U O c J � A a� N d L IL U U U) W N r O r O N r C d E t V R a+ a+ Q Shoreline Restoration Concept —'Beach Cove' Packet Pg. 431 environmental WORKS Community Design en er 7.1.b OPTION TO LEASE THIS OPTION TO LEASE (this "Option") is made and entered into as of this 281h day of January, 2015, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, ( the "City"), and the EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non- profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, (the "Optionee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Optionee desires to obtain an Option To Lease certain real property from the City, which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the "Property"), and which lease terms and conditions are specified in the Ground Lease attached hereto as Exhibit B the "Ground Lease"); and WHEREAS, Optionee and the City currently have a lease for the Property whereby the Optionee leases the Property and an existing building for a remaining term until 2020 together with two five-year extension periods (the "Current Lease"). WHEREAS, the Current Lease would be superseded by the Ground Lease which is the subject of the Option. WHEREAS, the City is willing to enter into an Option To Lease the Property to Optionee for development and operation of a Senior Center and related uses. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance and observance of the terms, covenants and conditions hereafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF OPTION: Subject to the conditions set forth in this Option, the City hereby grants to Optionee an Option To Lease the Property ("Option") for the Term (as defined in Section 2 below) and in accordance with the covenants and conditions set forth in the Ground Lease. 2. OPTION TERM: Unless otherwise extended by written agreement of the parties, the � 13 term ("Term") of this Option shall commence on February 1, 2015 ("Commencement Date") and shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2019; provided, however, Optionee, in its sole and absolute o discretion, may extend the dates for completion of the conditions in Section 5 below and elsewhere herein and the Term of this Agreement by up to Eighteen (18) Months, if Optionee has reached the fundraising thresholds specified in Section 5 below. Optionee may exercise its right to extend this Option following (i) written request from Optionee to the City requesting such ° r extension(s); and (ii) Optionee documenting in writing that it has reached the fundraising threshold 0 necessary for extension. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Option, Optionee's right to exercise the Option and execute the Lease will terminate and be of no fiu ther force and effect if L the conditions set forth in this Option are not timely satisfied, and the Option is not exercised, Cn before the expiration of the Term. 3. OPTIONEE'S PROJECT: Optionee's development is a non-profit community resource 2 center serving the needs of the local senior citizen population, including, without limitation, a operation of a thrift store and cafe along with programs serving poor, infirm and otherwise . bwa t� I•Iar moo-1 ? C Packet Pg. 432 vulnerable seniors. Optionee also understands that this facility is to be used as a Community Center benefitting the whole community. Optionee and the City will define terms for City use in the Ground Lease Agreement. The Optionee may, from time to time, utilize portions of the property for revenue generating events, including, but not limited to, weddings, dances, class reunions, holiday activities and similar types of festivities. 4. OPTION AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION: Optionee shall pay to the City the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) as consideration for this Option To Lease (the "Option consideration"). The Option consideration shall be paid to the City at the time Optionee executes and delivers the Option To Lease. 5. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: Optionee will have no right to exercise the Option until it has commitments, through private donations, grants and other sources (not including city funds), for $7,462,500 which is 75% of the projected cost of the new center and parking lot. 6. EXERCISE OF OPTION: If, at any time before the expiration of the Term or earlier termination of this Option, all of the conditions precedent to the exercise of the Option set forth in this Option have been satisfied by the dates specified herein, the City shall prepare the Ground Lease negotiated and approved under the terms of this Option for execution, which preparation shall include, but is not limited to, inserting the Commencement Date, Termination Date, among other final details. Optionee may exercise the Option by delivering to the City written notice of its election to do so, accompanied by properly executed copies of the Lease in duplicate, including the Lease Guaranty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease Option as of the date and the year first above written. Approved as to form: CITY ATTORNEY By: Printed Name: ►r EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit co o ati 1`4%d Name: - rye L l -' (57 ►'' Printed Title: Lx e r_r. c t ue r �- Attest: CITY OF EDMONDS CLERK By: Printed e: e� Q Packet Pg. 433 7.1.b EXHIBIT A Property Description Parcel 27032300104200 Property 220 RAILROAD AVE, EDMONDS, WA 198020-4133 Number Address SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT LOT 2 TH NELY ON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 OOW 95.67FT M.L TO MEA LN TH S51 *23 OOW ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51 *23 OOE ALG MEA LN Property 288.33FT THN47*32 OOW 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S45*00 OOW Description ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38 37 OOE 287.94FT TPB TGW FDT - COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOVT LOT 2 TH NLY ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD R/W 300FT TH NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY ALG SD MEA LN TAP AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683-545 2/23/73 a Packet Pg. 434 W Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease -Ground Lease (1388 : Edmonds Waterfront Center and Beach Rehab Schematic Design Review) 7.1.b TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF EXHIBITS..................................................................................................................... ii GROUNDLEASE......................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY .................................................... SECTION2. TERM..................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION3. RENT..................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS ............................................... 5 SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS...................................................... 7 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE............................................................................... 9 SECTION7. DEFAULT........................................................................................................... 12 SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS....................................................................................... 13 SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS................................................................................. 14 Packet Pg. 436 V rAttachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease -Ground Lease (1388 : Edmonds Waterfront Center and Beach Rehab Schematic Design Review) 7.1.b GROUND LEASE CITY OF EDMONDS/EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER THIS GROUND LEASE (this "Lease"), effective the _ day of , 201` ("Effective Date") is between THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the "City") and THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Washington (the "Senior Center"). WHEREAS, the City and the Senior Center entered into a Lease dated December 1, 2008, the Term of which was scheduled to expire in 2020 unless extended by one or both of the two five-year extensions in that Lease (the 2008 Lease). WHEREAS, the 2008 Lease encompasses the same real property as this Lease and the parties intend that this Lease supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this Lease, agree as follows: SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY 1.1 Agreement to Lease and Descriptioli of Property. The City hereby leases to the Senior Center and the Senior Center leases from the City that certain real property described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto together with all improvements located thereon or to be located thereon (the "Property"). The Property consists of 2.63 acres. As used in this Lease, the term "Improvements" shall mean all buildings, driveways, sidewalks, infrastructure improvements, utilities, paved or unpaved parking areas (collectively "Parking Lot"), landscaping and any other enhancements located on the Property or to be located on the Property during the term of this Lease and made to the Property by the Senior Center. 1.2 Use of the Property. 1.2.1 Allowed Uses of the Property by the Senior Center. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Senior Center shall use the Property for the purpose of operating a non- profit community resource center serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors and other members of the community. 1.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Senior Center may from time to time utilize portions of the Property for revenue -generating activities including, but not limited to, rentals, events and the operation of a thrift store and cafe, provided that all revenues generated therefrom are utilized by the Senior Center exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.1, above. 1.2.2 Allowed Uses of the Property, by the City. The City of Edmonds shall be 3 BNO16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 438 given access to the building so it may offer recreational and other programs to the public. The City will be allowed use Monday through Thursday, 4:00 pm — close, and other times as mutually agreed upon with the Lessee. The City and Senior Center agree to meet on a regular on -going basis (at least quarterly) to review their respective program schedules and determine whether there is any unprogrammed (surplus) time after accounting for each party's program needs during that party's first -priority time periods. At these meetings each party shall offer its remaining unprogrammed first -priority time slots to the other party for use by the other party. Senior Center acknowledges that the grounds surrounding the building are a public park and shall remain open to the public subject to the City's reasonable regulations relate to uses, hours, etc. SECTION 2. TERM 2.1 Initial Term. The term of this Lease ("Lease Term") shall extend for a period of Forty (40) years commencing on , 201_, and terminating on , 20_, subject to the right of the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term as provided herein. 2.2 Extension Term. The Lease Term may be extended by the Senior Center for an additional period of Fifteen (15) years 2.2.1 Conditions of Extension. In order for the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term, it shall (i) not be in material default at the time of providing Notice of its Lease Extension and thereafter; (ii) it shall provide written Notice of its Lease Extension at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the Termination of the Lease Term. 2.2.2 Process for Extension. No sooner than three hundred sixty-five (365) days and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Senior Center shall provide written notice of its intention to exercise the Extension Term. The City and Senior Center shall meet no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term to confirm the Extension Term, discuss any matters pertaining thereto and sign a Lease Addendum incorporating the Extension Term and any mutually acceptable matters pertaining to the Extension Term. SECTION 3. RENT 3.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Property as specified in this Lease, the Senior Center shall pay to the City a total payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year, and such sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this Lease and within ten r (10) days following January 1st of each calendar year of each year during the Term of this Lease. p The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center's operation of the Senior Center upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and public benefit such L as to obviate the necessity of additional rental payment compensation. Furthermore, because the Senior Center's mission is to enrich the social, physical, and intellectual wellbeing of seniors, the City is able to lease this property to the Senior Center for less than fair market value under the E poor and infirm exception to the constitutional (Article 8, Section 7) prohibition on gifting or loaning of public funds. Q P BNCU 6830\0002\00764457.V 1 Packet Pg. 439 SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Construction of Improvements. 4.1.1 City Approval and Ownership. Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the intended uses of the Property as described in Section 1.2 as well as the Property's functionality as a park. The consent contemplated in this subsection 4.1.1 is separate and apart from the City's regulatory authority and the discretion to withhold or deny approval under this subsection 4.1.1 is not limited in the same way that the City's regulatory discretion is limited. Any deviation from approved plans must also be approved, in writing, by the City. Improvements constructed by the Senior Center during the term of this Lease shall be considered the Senior Center's property until the date this Lease is terminated. Upon termination of the Lease Term, together with Extension, if applicable, all improvements located on the Property shall become the property of the City, excepting trade fixtures, which may be removed by Senior Center at its option. The Senior Center will bring forth the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, to the City Council for approval. The City Council will consider, and may opt to hold one or more public hearings on the schematic design prior to taking action. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the design development phase of the design process until the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, is approved by the City Council. The Senior Center will also bring forth the design development phase drawings of the facility to the City Council for approval. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the construction document phase of the design process until the drawings from the design development phase have been approved by the City Council. Any proposed substantive design changes that are inconsistent with a previous design approval (schematic or design development), including proposed changes to the facility's footprint on the Property, shall also be subject of City Council approval and shall be returned to the City Council as soon as practicable and not be deferred until the approval of the next phase. In the event there are any disputes that arise concerning decisions made by the City under this Section 4.1.1, those disputes shall be subject to the dispute resolution provisions in Section 9.18. 4.1.2 Permits. Once approvals have been given by the City under 4.1.1, above, no Work may commence until Senior Center obtains and delivers to the City copies of all necessary governmental permits. Senior Center must also supply the City with a copy of any occupancy permit required and any certification required by the fire marshal, prior to Senior Center's occupancy of the Property. 4.1.3 Construction Schedule. Construction Work must be completed within the earlier of two (2) years of the receipt of consent to perform the Work obtained under Section 4.1.1 or three (3) years of the Commencement Date of this Lease. If construction is begun within one (1) year of the receipt of consent and diligently performed thereafter, the City will grant Senior Center a one (1) year extension to complete construction, if needed, so long as Senior Center notifies the City of its need for additional time at least thirty (30) days in advance 5 BNC\ 1 6830\0002\0076445 7. V 1 Packet Pg. 440 of the completion deadline. Failure to complete construction within the specified time shall be an event of Default under Section 7.1 unless any delay in construction occurred as a result of failure by the City to allow Senior Center's construction to commence in a timely manner in which case, the Senior Center shall be given a commensurate amount of time for completion of construction. All Work done on the Property at any time during the term of this Lease must be done in a good workman -like manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and all building, land use, and other permit requirements. All Work shall be done with reasonable dispatch. If requested by the City, within thirty (30) days after the completion of any Work, Senior Center shall deliver to the City complete and fully detailed as -built drawings of the completed Work, in both electronic and paper forms, prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Washington. All landscaping shall be designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington. 4.2 Maintenance. At all times during the Lease Term and any Extension Term, Senior Center shall reasonably keep and maintain the Senior Center Improvements located on the Property in good repair and operating condition and shall make all necessary and appropriate preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacements. On each fifth anniversary of this Lease (meaning every five years), the City and Senior Center shall conduct a thorough inspection of the Senior Center Improvements on the Property and City shall inform Senior Center of any needed repairs, maintenance or clean-up to be done in order to maintain the quality of any Senior Center Improvements to the Property, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Such repairs, maintenance and clean-up shall be done with reasonable dispatch. Prior to entering into any Extension Term of this Lease such an inspection will also be required and all reasonable repairs and maintenance needed to be done must be done to the Improvements before an Extension Term of the Lease commences. 4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery, or equipment which have been provided to the Property. If any lien is filed against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City. Senior Center shall obtain a performance bond in the full amount of the contract it has signed with its contractor to complete the facility and provide such performance bond to the city prior to demolition of the existing facility. The performance bond shall ensure that the construction of the facility is completed and that all workers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers will be paid. 4.4Utilities and Services. Senior Center must make arrangements for all utilities and shall promptly pay all utility charges before they become delinquent. Senior Center is solely responsible for verifying the existence, location, capacity and availability of all utilities it may need for Senior Center's planned use of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for the cost of extending any existing utility lines into the Property; the Property, as made BNC\16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 441 7.1.b available to Senior Center by the City, shall include utility access for water, sewer, electrical power and telephone to the edge (back of curb) of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for meeting and securing all permits and for meeting all requirements necessary to achieve all of the above. 4.5 Ste. Any signs erected by Senior Center must comply with all local sign ordinances. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this Lease and restore the sign location(s) to its (their) former state(s), unless the City elects to retain all or any portion(s) of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change during the term and, to maintain uniformity and continuity, Senior Center will comply with any new sign code requirements within a reasonable time after the adoption of such new requirements. SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Delivery of Property. Senior Center shall have the right to possession of the Property as of the Commencement Date. In the event the City shall permit Senior Center to occupy the Property prior to the Commencement Date, such occupancy shall be subject to all provisions of this Lease. Early or delayed possession shall not advance or defer the Expiration Date of this Lease. 5.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Senior Center performing all of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease and subject to the City's rights under this Lease and its rights of condemnation under Washington law, Senior Center's possession of the Property will otherwise not be disturbed by the City. Any sublease shall be subject to prior approval by the City and if approval is granted this quiet enjoyment provision shall apply to senior center's sub lessees. 5.3 Condition of Property. The City makes no warranties or representations regarding the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, the suitability of the Property for Senior Center's intended uses or, the availability of accessible utilities or roadways needed for Senior Center's intended purposes. Senior Center has inspected the Property, conducted its own feasibility and due diligence analysis, and, as of the date its environmental audit is completed and the report provided to Senior Center or Senior Center's commencement of construction, whichever occurs first, Senior Center accepts the Property in "AS IS" condition, upon taking possession. 5.4 Parking Lot Design, Construction and Repair Obligations. 5.4.1 Parking Lot Design. The City and Senior Center shall work together to design a Parking Lot that meets the requirements for the Senior Center's Building as well as the City's Regional Park facilities. The parties anticipate that the Parking Lot will have one hundred (100) parking spaces but the final number shall be determined by a parking study undertaken, if needed, by the City and Senior Center, jointly. The parking study shall specifically consider the needs of the Senior Center and the City's Regional Park designation for the Property. The total number of parking spaces incorporated into the design for the Parking Lot shall accommodate as closely as possible the anticipated parking demands for the Senior Center Property and the City's Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot design shall incorporate all aspects necessary for 7 BNC\16830\0002\0076445 TV 1 Packet Pg. 442 7.1.b construction including, without limitation, storm drainage, and shall be developed and permitted in coordination with the Senior Center/Community Center facility, including but not limited to the schematic design and design development approval process set forth in Section 4.1, above. 5.4.2 Parkinp, Lot Construction. The City and Senior Center shall share equally in the cost construction of the Parking Lot on the Property according to the design plans as provided to Senior Center in Section 5.4.1, above. The Senior Center's contractor shall build the Parking Lot as part of Senior Center's construction of its Building and related improvements, with the City shall pay its share. The Parking Lot must be constructed in coordination with Senior Center's Building so that it is complete before the Building and related improvements are occupied. Except as specified herein, the City shall have no responsibility for the repair or maintenance of the Property or for construction of any roadways, utilities or any other improvements on or off of the Property. Should the City of its own accord undertake any repair or maintenance work on the Property itself, the City shall take reasonable steps to do so in a manner that does not interfere with Senior Center's use of the Property or create a constructive eviction or other eviction of the Senior Center. Any repair on the Property outside of that described in Section 5.4.3, below, shall be the Senior Center's responsibility and shall be made at the Senior Center's sole expense. 5.4.3 Parking Lot Maintenance and Repair. The City and the Senior Center shall share equal responsibility for repair, maintenance and any capital improvements required for the Parking Lot after its initial construction. The City and Senior Center shall undertake regular inspections of the Parking Lot consistent for a property of that type and implement necessary and appropriate maintenance activities at reasonable intervals to keep the Parking Lot in good condition. When capital renovations are required to restore the Parking Lot to good condition during the Lease Term, the City and Senior Center shall undertake such capital improvements. 5.4.4 Senior Center's Location within Regional Park Grounds and Park Maintenance Responsibility. The Property is owned by the City and has been designated a regional park. The City shall define maintenance standards and intervals for the grounds surrounding the Senior Center, including landscaping, irrigation, and general refuse removal (not inclusive of the garbage utility from the Senior Center facility). This park area will be within the limited control of the City. The Senior Center acknowledges that, as a public park, the grounds surrounding the facility may constitute a public forum for First Amendment purposes and that there may be circumstances in which the City may need to allow constitutionally protected activity to occur on the site. Such circumstances shall not constitute a constructive eviction of the Senior Center and may not be grounds for damages to be paid from the City to the Senior Center. The Senior Center may not exclude the public from the park grounds unless it has obtained the applicable event permit from the City. The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City's allowed use of the Building, the City may be charged for mutually agreed upon costs directly associated with its use of the Building ( i.e. utilities, site monitor, cleaning, etc.). BNO16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 443 7.1.b SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE 6.1 General Indemnity. Upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, the Senior Center agrees to defend (using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold the City harmless from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, suits, actions, or liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, damages, expenses, costs, fees (including, but not limited to, attorney, accountant, paralegal, expert, and escrow fees), fines, and/or penalties, (collectively "Costs"), which may be imposed upon or claimed against the City, and which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, arise from or are in any way connected with Senior Center's use of the Premises, or from the conduct of Senior Center's business, or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by Senior Center in or about the Premises, except only such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the City including: Any act, omission or negligence of the Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or its event space renters; any use, occupation, management or control of the Property by the Senior Center; any condition created in, on or about the Property by Senior Center, an agent, sub lessee, or event space renter, including any accident, injury or damage occurring in, on or about the Property after the Effective Date; any breach, violation, or nonperformance of any of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters; any damage caused by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters on or to the Property. The Senior Center's obligations and liabilities hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date of this Lease, if earlier than the Commencement Date and if caused by the activities of the Senior Center or its agents or invitees on the Property. As used herein, the indemnification provided by the Senior Center is intended to include indemnification for the actions of the Senior Center and its employees and other agents and all of the Senior Center's Sub lessees, event space renters and all of their respective employees and other agents. The Senior Center's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City hereunder include indemnification of the employees, agents and elected officials of the City. 6.2 Insurance Requirements. The Senior Center shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Lease insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the Senior Center's operation and use of the leased Premises. Lessee's maintenance of insurance as required by the Lease shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Lessee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. The amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of insurance coverage the City is willing to accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of this Lease. All insurance required by Senior Center under this Lease shall meet the following minimum requirements: 6.2.1 Certificates: Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Commencement Date, Senior Center shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the existence of all insurance required under Section 6.3. Thereafter, the City must receive notice of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy, PROVIDED THAT the Senior Center shall provide the City with written notice of any policy expiration or cancellation, within two business days of its receipt of such notice. No insurance policy may be canceled, revised, 0J BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 444 7.1.b terminated or allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City. Insurance must be maintained without any lapse in coverage during the entire Lease Term and any Extension Term. Insurance shall not be canceled without City consent. The City shall also be given copies of Senior Center's policies of insurance, upon request. 6.2.2 Additional Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in each required policy using ISO Additional Insured -Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage and, for purposes of damage to the Property, as a loss payee to the extent of its interest therein. Such insurance shall not be invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Senior Center and shall not in any way be construed by the carrier to make the City liable for payment of any of Senior Center's insurance premiums. 6.2.3 Primary Coverage. The required policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Senior Center's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 6.2.4 Company Ratings. All policies of insurance must be written by companies having an A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. The City may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Senior Center, require Senior Center to change any carrier whose rating drops below such rating. 6.3 Required Insurance. At all times during this Lease, Senior Center shall provide and maintain the following types of coverage: 6.3.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain an occurrence form commercial general liability policy (including coverage for broad form contractual liability; and personal injury liability) for the protection of Senior Center and the City, insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring on or in any way related to the Property or occasioned by reason of the operations of Senior Center. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured using ISO Additional Insured -Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover premises and contractual liability. 6.3.2 Property Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during the Lease Term, "All Risk" property insurance covering all buildings, fixtures, equipment, and all other Improvements located on the Property. Coverage shall be in an amount equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the new replacement value thereof with no coinsurance provisions. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and loss payee as to its full interest in the insured property and shall include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in accordance with Section 6.4. 10 BNC\ 16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 445 7.1.b 6.3.3 Automobile Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property an occurrence form automobile liability policy insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damage because of bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring in any way related to the use, loading or unloading of Senior Center's owned, hired, leased and non -owned vehicles on and around the Property. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence. 6.3.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain in force Workers' Compensation insurance for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property, including coverage for Employer's Liability. In lieu of such insurance, Senior Center may maintain a self-insurance program meeting the requirements of the State of Washington and a policy of Excess Workers' Compensation with a limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident above the self -insured retention. Senior Center has indicated that none of its employees will be on the Property since Senior Center intends to hire a management company to oversee the Property. In that case, Senior Center shall be responsible to require that its management company provides workers' compensation insurance for its employees on the Property and Senior Center shall fully defend and indemnify the City against any workers' compensation claim. 6.3.5 Builder's Risk. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during construction of Senior Center's facility described in this Lease, Builders Risk insurance covering interests of the Senior Center, the City, the Contractor, Subcontractors, and Sub - subcontractors in the work. Builders Risk insurance shall be on a all-risk policy form and shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage and physical loss or damage including flood, earthquake, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, temporary buildings and debris removal. Coverage shall include: 1) formwork in place; 2) all materials and equipment on the Property; 3) all structures including temporary structures; and 4) all supplies related to the Work being performed. The insurance required hereunder shall have a deductible of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), which will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Higher deductibles for flood and earthquake perils may be accepted by the City upon written request by the Contractor and written acceptance by the City. Any increased deductibles accepted by the City will remain the responsibility of the Contractor. The Builders Risk insurance shall be maintained until final acceptance of the work. 6.4 Waiver of Subrogation. Senior Center and City hereby release and discharge each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by property insurance on or in connection with the premises or said facility. This release shall apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered by insurance. 6.5 Periodic Review. The City shall have the right to periodically review the limits and terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such limits, and/or terms should be changed, the City will give Senior Center a minimum of thirty (30) days' notice of such determination and Senior Center shall modify its coverage to comply with the new insurance requirements of the City. The City agrees that it shall be reasonable in any coverage 11 BNC\l 6830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 446 7.1.b change required, and that such change will be in accordance with standard market requirements for senior center facilities or similar activity centers. Senior Center shall also provide the City with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance within thirty (30) days. 6.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Senior Center to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of lease, upon which the City may, after giving five business days' notice to the Senior Center to correct the breach, terminate the Lease 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. SECTION 7. DEFAULT 7.1 Senior Center Default. 7.1.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by the Senior Center: 7.1.1.1 Vacating the Property. The vacating or abandonment of the Property by the Senior Center for more than thirty (30) days. 7.1.1.2 Failure to Pay Rent. The failure by the Senior Center to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by the Senior Center under this Lease, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by the City to the Senior Center. 7.1.1.3 Unpermitted Use of the Property. The use of the Property for any purpose not authorized by Section 1.2.1 of this Lease where such unpermitted use of the Property shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof shall be grounds for default. 7.1.1.4 Failure to Perform. Failure by the Senior Center to observe or perform any of the covenants or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the Senior Center, specifically including, without limitation, the Senior Center's utilization of the Property for purposes materially inconsistent with those set forth in this Lease where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City to the Senior Center. Provided, that if the nature of the Senior Center's default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then the Senior Center shall not be deemed to be in default if the Senior Center shall commence such cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligent prosecute such cure to completion. 7.1.2 Remedies in Default. In the event of any default or breach by the Senior Center under this Lease, in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity, the City may: 7.1.2.1 Terminate the Lease. Terminate the Senior Center's right to possession of the Property by providing written notice of at least thirty (30) days; 12 BNC\ 16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 447 7.1.b 7.1.2.2 Continue the Lease. Maintain the Senior Center's right to possession in which case the Lease shall continue in effect whether or not the Senior Center shall have abandoned the Lease Premises. In such event, the City shall be entitled to enforce all Landlord's right and remedies under this Lease; and/or 7.1.2.3 Other remedies. Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to a Landlord under the laws of the State of Washington. The City expressly reserves the right to recover from the Senior Center any and all actual expenses, costs and damages caused in any manner by reason of the Senior Center's default or breach. 7.1.3 Legal Expenses. If either party is required to bring or maintain any action (including insertion of any counterclaim or cross claim or claim in a proceeding in bankruptcy, receivership or other proceeding instituted by a party hereto or by others) or otherwise refers this Lease to any attorney for the enforcement of any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party in such action shall, in addition to all other payments required herein, receive from the other party all costs incurred by prevailing party, including reasonable attorney's fees. 7.2 Default by the City. The City shall not be in default unless the City fails to perform obligations required of the City under this Lease within a reasonable time, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after written notice by the Senior Center to the City provided, that if the nature of the City's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for performance then the City shall not be in default if the City commences performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. The notice shall specify the portion of the Lease that the City has failed to perform and the action that the Senior Center seeks to be taken by the City to prevent the default. The Senior Center further agrees not to invoke any remedies until such thirty (30) days have elapsed. SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Representations of Senior Center. 8.1.1 Senior Center is a duly organized and legally existing corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. 8.1.2 Senior Center's execution, delivery and performance of all of the terms and conditions of this Lease have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action on the part of Senior Center. This Lease constitutes Senior Center's legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable against Senior Center in accordance with its terms subject to the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws affecting creditor's rights and to equitable principles. Execution of the Lease does not conflict with any provision of Senior Center's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws or other corporate documents. 8.1.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of Senior Center, threatened in writing, nor is there any legal 13 BNC\16830\0002\00764457.V 1 Packet Pg. 448 determination or injunction that calls into question Senior Center's authority or right to enter into this Lease or perform the obligations specified in the Lease. 8.1.4 Senior Center has not employed any broker, finder, consultant or other intermediary in connection with the Lease who might be entitled to a fee or commission in connection with Senior Center and the City entering into the Lease. 8.2 Representations of the City. 8.2.1 The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, with full power and authority to own and lease the Property. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant to this Lease. 8.2.2 The City's execution, delivery and performance of this Lease have been duly authorized consistent with its requirements under Washington law. 8.2.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened in writing, nor is there any outstanding judicial determination or injunction that calls into question the City's authority or right to enter into this Lease. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.1 No Partnership. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. The City assumes no liability hereunder or otherwise for the operation of the business of Senior Center. The provisions of this Lease with reference to rents are for the sole purpose of fixing and determining the total rents to be paid by Senior Center to the City. 9.2 Governing. This Lease shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its choice of law provisions. Venue shall be in Snohomish County. 9.3 No Benefit to Third Parties. The City and Senior Center are the only parties to this Lease and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Lease gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as intending to create a special relationship with any third party; neither the City not the Senior Center intend to create benefits in favor of any third parties as a result of this Lease. 9.4 Notices. All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City at: 14 BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.V Packet Pg. 449 7.1.b And to Senior Center at: The City of Edmonds 121 5t" Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: City Clerk Edmonds Senior Center P.O. Box 717 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Executive Director Any notice delivered by hand delivery shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee upon actual delivery; any notice delivered by certified mail as set forth herein shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee on the third Business Day after deposit. The addresses to which notices are to be delivered may be changed by giving notice of such change in accordance with this notice provision. 9.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of and adherence to each and every covenant and condition of this Lease. 9.6 Non -waiver. Waiver by the City or Senior Center of strict performance of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of or prejudice the City's or Senior Center's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 9.7 Survival. Any covenant or condition (including, but not limited to, indemnification agreements), set forth in this Lease, the full performance of which is not specifically required prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and any covenant or condition which by their terms are to survive, shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and shall remain fully enforceable thereafter. 9.8 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to in this Lease shall include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day of any period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. "Legal Holiday" shall mean any holiday observed by the Federal Government. As used in this Lease, "Business Days" shall exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and the week between December 25 and January 1. 15 BNC\ 1 6830\0002\0076445 7. V 1 Packet Pg. 450 7.1.b 9.10 Headings. The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience in reference and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions of this Lease. 9.11 Exhibits Incorporated by Reference. All Exhibits attached to this Lease are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 9.12 Modification. This Lease may not be modified except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. 9.13 Engagement of Brokers. Senior Center and the City each represent to one another that if a broker's commission is claimed, the party who engaged the broker shall pay any commission owed and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any such claim. 9.14 Right of Parties and Successors in Interest. The rights, liabilities and remedies provided for herein shall extend to the heirs, legal representatives, successors and, so far as the terms of this Lease permit, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The words "City" and "Senior Center" and their accompanying verbs or pronouns, wherever used in this Lease, shall apply equally to all persons, firms, or corporations which may be or become such parties hereto. 9.15 Execution of Multi le Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. 9.16 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the text of this Lease. 9.17 No Limit on Cit 's Powers. Nothing in this Lease shall limit, in any way, the power and right of the City to exercise its governmental rights and powers, including its powers of eminent domain. 9.18 Non -Binding Mediation. Should any dispute arise between the parties to this N Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. The mediation fee shall be shared equally by the City and Senior Center. Mediation shall be ° non -binding and will be conducted in Edmonds, Washington. Both parties agree to exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes covered by this section through this mediation process. If a party requests mediation and the other party fails to respond within ten (10) days, or if the parties c fail to agree on a mediator within ten (10) days, a mediator shall be appointed by the presiding n judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court upon the request of either party. The finding of C? L the mediator shall only become binding upon the parties if both parties so agree and thereafter 0 execute a settlement agreement based on the mediator's findings or recommendation. Cn c 9.19 This Lease Supersedes. This Lease shall replace and supersede the 2008 Lease. E The parties hereby terminate the 2008 Lease in its entirety. a 16 BNO16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 451 9.20 Recording. A Memorandum of this Lease may be recorded after execution by the parties. 9.21 Entire Agreement. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the City and Senior Center relating to Senior Center's leasing of the Property. It is understood and agreed by both parties that neither party nor an official or employee of a party has made any representations or promises with respect to this Lease or the making or entry into this Lease, except as expressly set forth in this Lease. No claim for liability or cause for termination shall be asserted by either party against the other for, and neither party shall be liable by reason of, any claimed breach of any representations or promises not expressly set forth in this Lease; all oral agreements with the parties are expressly waived by both parties. This Lease has been extensively negotiated between the parties. Therefore, no alleged ambiguity or other drafting issues of the terms of this Lease shall be construed, by nature of the drafting, against either party. Q 17 BN C\ 16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 452 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names hereto effective as of the day, month and year first written above. LESSEE: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER. Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM Counsel for the City of Edmonds STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) LESSOR: THE CITY OF EDMONDS By: David Earling As Its Mayor APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: ATTEST: City Clerk I certify that I have evidence that David Earling is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: PRINTED NAME: NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: i9:3 BNC\16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 453 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of the Edmonds Senior Center, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: PRINTED NAME: NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: 19 Q BNC\ 16830\0002\00764457. V ] Packet Pg. 454 EXHIBIT A Property Description Parcel Property 220 RAILROAD AVE, EDMONDS, WA Number 27032300104200 Address �98020-4133 SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT LOT 2 'TH NELY ON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 OOW 95.67FT M.L TO MEA LN TH S51 *23 OOW ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51 *23 OOE ALG MEA LN Property 288.33FT THN47*32 OOW 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S45*00 OOW Description ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38 37 OOE 287.94FT TPB TGW FDT - COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOVT LOT 2 TH NLY ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD R/W 300FT TH NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY ALG SD MEA LN TAP AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683-545 2/23/73 Q 20 BNC\ 16830\0002\00764457. V 1 Packet Pg. 455 CITY OF EDMOND S 700 MAIN ST.. EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425)771-0230 • FAX (425)771-0253 DAVE EARLING PARKS, RECREATION AND Mayor CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 4)7o. 189v July 20, 2016 Farrell Fleming, Executive Director Edmonds Senior Center 220 Railroad Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Fleming: I would like to thank you for bringing forward the schematic design for the new Waterfront Center to be located in the location of the current Senior Center at 220 Railroad Avenue. According to your lease agreement with the City, the Senior Center is required to bring forth the schematic design for approval, which you did on July 12, 2016. This is to confirm that the City Council has authorized the Mayor to sign this letter on July 19, 2016, approving the schematic design of the new Waterfront Center. The lease agreement also requires you to bring forth the design development phase drawings of the facility for approval. On behalf of the City, I look forward to hearing back from you with the design development drawings. Thank you for all your efforts in the community to bring this to fruition. Sincerely, Mayor David O. Earling 7.1.c • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City / Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 456 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Authorizing Mayor to execute Interlocal Agreement with Western Washington University on Sustainable Cities Partnership (10 min.) Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History Presentations on the Partnership were made to the Council on April 12, 2016 and again on April 26, 2016. The Council approved Resolution #1359 supporting the City's application to the program on May 3, 2016 (see Exhibit 2). Staff Recommendation Council to approve the draft Interlocal Agreement finalizing Edmonds' participation in the Sustainable Cities Partnership for 2016-2017 (Exhibit 1). Narrative As presented during the Council's April 12 and April 26, 2016, meetings, the Sustainable Cities Partnership (SCP) is a yearlong partnership between Western Washington University's Office of Sustainability, AWC, and one partner city chosen through a competitive application process. The program engages Western's students and faculty on sustainability and livability projects chosen in collaboration with the partner city. The SCP faculty and students work through a variety of studio and service learning courses, thus providing students with experience tackling the city's real -world projects. City Staff acted on Resolution #1359 adopted by the City Council on May 3, 2016, and applied to participate in the inaugural year of the program. As previously announced, after a competitive selection process, the City was selected for the 2016-2017 program year. The letter transmitting the City's application is attached for reference as Exhibit 4. The attached interlocal agreement and scope of work (Exhibit 1) contains the final list of projects that will be the subject of the partnership collaboration in the upcoming academic year. The list contains a total of 11 projects supported by 17 classes of work and represents a range of projects that will provide real value to both Western and the City. The City will obtain progress on projects that meet a variety of comprehensive and strategic planning goals (these were identified in the April 26, 2016 Council packet) and all target different aspects of sustainability within the community. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and City staff, as well as by the appropriate people at Western. As specified in the interlocal, the program has a not -to -exceed amount of $77,500; this is within the initial range of costs which was presented to Council (estimated at between $65,000 and $85,000) prior to applying for the program. The primary impact on the City's budget will be Packet Pg. 457 7.2 in 2017. Western Washington University (WWU) and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) are each intending to issue press releases on Wednesday following the City Council's approval of the interlocal agreement. The City will also issue a release announcing its participation. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Interlocal Agreement and Scope of Work Exhibit 2: Resolution 1359 Exhibit 3: City Council Minutes from April 2016 Exhibit 4: Edmonds' Sustainable Cities Program application letter Packet Pg. 458 7.2.a INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Between the City of Edmonds and Western Washington University THIS Agreement is by and between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation ("Edmonds"), and Western Washington University, a higher education institution of the State of Washington ("WWU"), known collectively as "the Parties." I. RECITALS WHEREAS, there are numerous pending municipal projects in Edmonds, the completion of which would result in sustainable ecological, economic and social benefits; and WHEREAS, WWU's Sustainable Cities Partnership ("SCP") works with a single city each academic year, arranging to use the resources of WWU to undertake projects of benefit to said city; and WHEREAS, Edmonds wishes to contract with WWU to be SCP's partner city for the 2016 — 2017 academic year; and WHEREAS, RCW 39.34 (Interlocal Cooperation Act) provides for cooperation between governmental entities on the basis of mutual advantage and authorizes interlocal agreements to accomplish mutually beneficial purposes in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows: IL AGREEMENT PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the scope of work that WWU's SCP will perform for Edmonds, as well as the terms and conditions of the relationship between the Parties. Packet Pg. 459 7.2.a 2. SERVICE WWU SCP agrees to provide those services and deliverable products set forth in attached Exhibit "A," Scope of Work and Budget, incorporated herein by reference. Edmonds agrees to provide the staff collaboration and background data set forth in Exhibit "A." 3. ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 3.1 The Parties are not creating any new or separate organization or entity to administer the provisions of this agreement. WWU shall administer the planning and implementation of the Scope of Work. 3.2 The Edmonds Planning Manager, Rob Chave, shall have primary responsibility for administering and approving services to be performed by WWU, and shall coordinate all communications between WWU and Edmonds. 3.3 The WWU SCP Program Coordinator, David Davidson, shall have primary responsibility for administering and approving services to be performed by WWU, and shall coordinate all communications between WWU and Edmonds 4. INVOICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES 4.1 Edmonds shall reimburse WWU for incurred project expenses and program overhead expenses, as specified in attached Exhibit "A." 4.2 At the end of each academic quarter (i.e., on approximately December 31, 2016, March 31, 2017, and June 30, 2017) WWU shall submit to Edmonds an invoice for work performed in the prior quarter. Edmonds shall initiate authorization for payment after receipt of said invoice and shall make payment to WWU within approximately 45 days of initial receipt. 5. PROPERTY 5.1 Real: No real property shall be acquired or held under this Agreement. 5.2 Intellectual: Any and all reports, electronic databases and datasets, plans, drawings, videos, photographs, or other creation of the mind created by WWU SCP pursuant to completion of the Scope of Work shall be shared jointly among the Parties and may be used by Edmonds and WWU for any purpose. WWU retains intellectual property rights in documents and intangible property created by WWU prior to engagement with Edmonds, or not created by WWU for its performance of this Agreement. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WWU — Edmonds Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 460 7.2.a 6. MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION. 6.1 Modification. Any change, addition or other modification to this Agreement shall not be valid or binding upon any party hereto unless such change, addition or modification is in writing and executed by an authorized representative of the Parties hereto. 6.2 Termination. Termination of this Agreement may be initiated by either party hereto with or without cause. Such termination shall be memorialized by written agreement of all Parties hereto, which shall be executed by an authorized representative of each party. In the event of termination, Edmonds shall reimburse WWU pursuant to the terms of paragraph (7) below. 7. ADJUSTMENT OF BUDGET AND SCOPE OF WORK 7.1 Paragraph (4) of Exhibit "A" governs instances in which either party seeks to delete one or more specific projects from the Scope of Work. 7.2 In the event that WWU initiates termination of the Agreement, Edmonds shall reimburse WWU for only the cost of completed projects (i.e., projects for which deliverables have already been received by Edmonds) and for the cost of program overhead incurred as of the date of termination. 7.3 In the event that Edmonds initiates termination of the Agreement, WWU will complete projects that are underway and Edmonds shall reimburse WWU the actual costs incurred for said projects. WWU will not commence projects not yet underway (i.e., projects with scheduled start dates that fall after the date of termination of the Agreement) and will not invoice Edmonds for said projects. WWU will make its best effort (consistent with union contracts and labor laws) to minimize program overhead costs incurred after the date of termination of the Agreement, and Edmonds shall reimburse WWU for program overhead costs that are unavoidably incurred by WWU. 8. TERM This Agreement shall become effective on the date upon which it has been executed by both Parties and posted on the website of Edmonds or WWU in accordance with RCW 39.34.040. The Agreement shall remain in effect until September 30, 2017. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WWU — Edmonds Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 461 7.2.a 9. LEGAL RELATIONS AND INDEMNIFICATION The Parties agree to the following distribution and allocation of legal responsibility and indemnification: 9.1 Neither party to this Agreement will be considered the agent of the other nor does either party assume any responsibility to the other party for the consequences of any act or omission of any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. 9.2 The Parties shall separately maintain their own liability and casualty insurance policies as they, in their sole discretion, deem appropriate. The Parties further agree that no indemnification shall be provided for, except as specifically set forth below, and that the respective liability of the Parties to each other and to third persons shall be deemed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 9.3 WWU will protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, employees, volunteers or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, the acts or omissions of WWU, its officers, employees or agents. Edmonds will protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless WWU, its officers, employees or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, the acts or omissions of Edmonds, its officers, employees volunteers or agents. In the event of concurrent liability, the parties shall have the right of contribution in proportion to the respective liability of each party. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to waive immunities established pursuant to state statutes or to create third party rights or immunities. 9.4 Notwithstanding the provisions set forth above, Edmonds understands and supports the project's academic and experiential learning benefits for WWU students. Edmonds acknowledges that many aspects of the project will be completed by WWU students under the supervision of WWU faculty, and that neither the faculty nor students are licensed professionals. Neither WWU, nor anyone acting on behalf of WWU, makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information provided pursuant to this agreement, whether or not contained in any written report; or that use of any data, information, method or process disclosed in any report may not infringe privately owned rights. Edmonds hereby releases WWU from liability for damages which may result to the City from the negligent acts or omissions of WWU students in the performance of work under this Agreement. 9.5 The terms of this section (9) shall survive the termination of the Agreement. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WWU—Edmonds Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 462 7.2.a 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Entire Agreement. This document is the complete and exclusive agreement among the Parties with respect to the SCP program. It supersedes all oral or written proposals and/or other communications among the Parties regarding the SCP. 10.2 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for whatever reason, that shall not affect or impair, in any manner, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement. 10.3 Waivers. A waiver or failure by either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a continuing waiver of such provisions, nor shall the same constitute a waiver of any other provision of this Agreement 10.4 Status of Employees. This Agreement shall not create any employment or worker's compensation rights, duties or obligations. No agent, employee or other representative of the Parties shall be deemed an employee of any other party hereto for any reason. 10.5 Status of Agreement. This Agreement is in addition to, and is not intended to replace, substitute, modify or otherwise amend any other agreement between the Parties. Those other agreements continue in effect according to the terms of those agreements. 10.6 Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies provided in this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies that may be provided by law. 10.7 Third Parties. The Parties do not intend to create any rights or benefits in any entity, organization or person that is not a party hereto. 10.8 Venue. Washington law shall govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Whatcom County shall be the venue of any arbitration or lawsuit arising out of this Agreement. 10.8 Compliance with Laws. WWU shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 10.9 Assignment. The Parties hereto shall not assign or delegate any or all duty, obligation, right or interest in this Agreement. 10.10 Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the parties shall comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination laws and regulations and INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WWU — Edmonds Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 463 7.2.a policies. In the event of a party's noncompliance or refusal to comply with any nondiscrimination law or regulation, this Agreement may be rescinded, canceled, or terminated in whole or in part. The party shall, however, be given a reasonable time in which to cure this noncompliance. 10.11 Force Majeure. The obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall be suspended and excused if the performance of either is prevented or delayed by acts of nature, earthquakes, fire, flood, or the elements, malicious mischief, insurrection, riots, strikes, lockouts, boycotts, picketing, labor disturbances, war, compliances with any directive, order or regulation of any governmental authority or representative thereof made under claim or color of authority or for any reason beyond the control of either party whether or not similar to the foregoing. 10.12 Records. The Parties shall each maintain records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles of the funds expended pursuant to this Agreement. Such records shall be available during normal working hours for the review of the other party, their accounting representatives or the State Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year last below written. City of Edmonds Western Washington University David Earling, Mayor Title Date: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: Title Date: Title Sharon Cates Office of the City Attorney Date INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WWU — Edmonds Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 464 7.2.a Exhibit "A" Scope of Work and Budget 1. Preamble. This Exhibit contains the best available information regarding the scope of work (SOW) and associated budget, as of the date of execution of the Agreement. For each identified project, a WWU faculty member has confirmed that he/she will undertake the project and has also provided a best estimate of the associated logistics (e.g., the enrollment cap and the number and timing of anticipated visits to Edmonds). The Parties understand that the actual logistics will likely differ from the estimates provided here, based upon actual enrollment and upon the professor's final decision regarding number of visits to Edmonds. 2. Scope%ost of individual projects. The Parties agree that the actual cost of an individual project might exceed or might fall short of the estimate provided in this Exhibit. The Parties agree that for each individual project, a refined project definition and cost estimate (in written form and signed by the Parties' representatives identified in paragraph (3) of the Agreement) shall be established a minimum of two weeks prior to the scheduled start date (see section (8) below) of the project. The refined definitions shall contain information such as: identification of personnel at Edmonds and WWU that will collaborate on the project; resources to be provided by Edmonds (e.g., data, reports, visits to WWU campus by Edmonds staff); deliverables to be produced by WWU; logistics of travel. 3. Firm overall SOW and cost. The Parties agree that the projects listed below shall comprise the SOW, and that the total amount due WWU from Edmonds in completion of the SOW shall not exceed $77,500, EXCEPT that pursuant to section (7.c) below, said total amount may be increased to account for excess laboratory analytical costs. The quarterly invoices described in paragraph (4.2) of the Agreement shall be based upon actual expenses, so overall cost might fall short of the "not to exceed" value established here. 4. Reduction in SOW. With written notice at least 30 days prior to the scheduled start date of a project (see section (8) below), either party may delete a project from the SOW. In that event, the overall cost identified in paragraph (3) above shall be reduced by an amount equal to the estimated project cost as identified in this Exhibit. 5. Augmentation of SOW. An augmentation of the SOW shall be in the form of a written addendum to this Exhibit, ratified pursuant to paragraph (6.1) of the Agreement. 6. Program overhead. Edmonds acknowledges that the overall cost identified in paragraph (3) above includes overhead costs incurred by WWU in operation of the SCP program in the period July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017. SCP overhead costs amount to $44,800 and include: a. Project Coordinator. A part-time position averaging 0.6 FTE. b. Incidental travel. Travel necessary for generic support of the SCP program. c. Office expense. The costs of I.T., telecom, copying, supplies, etc. d. Events. SCP will host a program -launch event in September 2016 and a finale event in May 2017. Edmonds officials will participate in these events, which will be held at WWU. Packet Pg. 465 7.2.a 7. Suite ofprojects. Following are brief descriptions of the manner in which WWU's academic capacity will be used upon specific Edmonds projects. The estimated cost directly assignable to each project is identified. That cost includes course -specific travel, faculty support, Intern salary (if any), field crew salaries (if any), laboratory analytical costs (if any), and report production (editorial/ design/ duplication). a. Sea -level Rise Mitigation Planning. $2,150. At the current sea level elevation, Edmonds experiences occasional flooding in the waterfront area when high tides combine with storm events. As sea level rises in response to climate change, extreme weather events and flooding in the waterfront area are likely to become more frequent and potentially more damaging. The City has a Hazard Mitigation Plan, but it doesn't address specific risks related to climate change. In addition, the City doesn't have a current specific strategy on how to approach the issue in the coming years. This project would assist the City in evaluating risks associated with climate change and sea level rise and identifying scenarios and options to address prospective impacts. The course will be the focus of the Disaster Reduction and Emergency Planning Studio course (ENVS 476, 25 students) taught in spring 2017 by Dr. Rebekah Paci-Green. The course provides students with an opportunity to apply their knowledge and skills in disaster reduction and emergency planning, with an emphasis on community -based approaches. Students work in groups with a client on a quarter -long project of practical significance. Students are exposed to best practices through case studies across disaster reduction and emergency planning. Project management, client interactions, report writing, and communicating technical information to diverse audiences are emphasized. Dr. Green anticipates three field trips to Edmonds. A single report will be delivered. b. Edmonds Memorial Cemetery. $7,000. Since 1982, when the City acquired the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, the City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or accurate electronic mapping. It is essential that the City procure an accurate digital map of the cemetery, linked to their existing MS Access database that identifies occupants, and also linked to digital photos (not yet in existence) of headstones. The digital map can then be used for management of the cemetery, as well as public -access research. The GIS/cartographic component of the course will be the focus of a student team in the Advanced Spatial Analytics course (ENVS 422, 25 students) taught in spring 2017 by Dr. Aquila Flower. The course focuses upon computer tools for identifying spatial patterns and processes, effective communication of results (including web -based display via tools such as StoryMaps), and professional development for geospatial analysts. While making predominate use of ESRI software, it includes an introduction to open source analytical and cartographic software options. Packet Pg. 466 7.2.a Some of the necessary tasks (e.g., digital photos of gravestones) are not suited to any course's curriculum and must be completed before the Spatial Analytics course begins. Following are such tasks: • Edmonds will deploy survey -grade GPS to determine the coordinates of existing capped rebars placed throughout the cemetery. • A GIS-track 4th-year Intern will use existing survey records and paper maps, together with the GPS points delivered by Edmonds, to build a shapefile of the grid of graves. • The Intern will link the existing MS Access database to the shapefile by way of a grave -addressing scheme developed in cooperation with city staff. • The Intern and a field team will take photos of all gravestones and assess the condition of each. The Intern will incorporate the photos/data into the GIS application, correlated to matching polygons. The team will also map other features in the cemetery, such as benches, flagpoles, light standards, etc., and such features will be incorporated into the GIS application. The Spatial Analytics course will use all of the above material to develop the administrative and public -display (web -based) GIS applications that will be provided to Edmonds c. Stella's Landing Site Assessment. $4,950. The project relates to Stella's Landing, a parcel of private property adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh, east of SR 104, which may soon be donated to the City. Edmonds needs to identify restoration options and complete a Phase 1 environmental assessment. Public participation and ongoing community stewardship are key aspects. The course will be the focus of a two -course sequence, Science and Management of Contaminated Sites (ESCI 453 winter 2017 & ESCI 454 spring 2017, 25 students), taught by Dr. Ruth Sofield. The winter quarter discusses methods, but with reference to the specific site. Students develop a proposal for work to be completed in the subsequent course. The spring quarter involves completion of the cleanup design, including technical components and with emphasis upon communication of technical information to a general audience. Students will visit the site once in winter quarter and four times in spring quarter. A single report will be delivered at the conclusion of each quarter. The exact cost of necessary laboratory analyses is not yet known and will be subject to discussion and confirmation with Edmonds. The estimated budget includes an allowance of $1,000 for lab work. Should Edmonds opt for extensive lab analyses (e.g., pesticides), costs in excess of the $1,000 allowance will be added to the "not to exceed" amount identified in paragraph (3) above. d. Promotion of 0' Ave. Cultural Corridor. $1,575. The City wants to promote planning and development for a three to four block arts/culture corridor, just off the main downtown street (Main Street), which links to the performing arts center (Edmonds Center for the Arts) to the north. The corridor was designated as an Arts Corridor with unique zoning in 2006 and initial concept planning for the corridor was completed in 2009. Since then the project has languished, and a Packet Pg. 467 7.2.a promotion campaign is needed in order to reengage the community and foster support for the project. The target audience includes citizen stakeholders, as well as elected officials and staff within city government. The project will be the focus of the Public Relations Research and Campaigns course (JOUR 440, 14 students) taught in fall 2016 by Dr. Jennifer Keller. The class will be organized as three competing independent teams. City staff will visit the class to discuss the project goals, describe the geographic scope and the prior concept planning, etc. Each of the teams will thereafter proceed independently, scheduling at least one (and possibly as many as three) trips to Edmonds, in order to conduct interviews with citizens and staff. The three competing P.R. campaigns will be presented, and Edmonds will then select a "winner." Edmonds will receive all three reports, allowing the city to opt for preferred items gleaned from any of the three teams. e. Zero -Waste Program and Food -Waste Program. $1,500. Zero -Waste: Research an approach to increase diversion (from landfill) of recyclable construction and demolitions materials generated by commercial development in the City. This should include an examination of resources and companies that are doing this type of recycling and what is, or could be, available to the Edmonds community. Are incentives or requirements the way to go? How can we be assured that materials are actually being recycled? Food -Waste: The City is interested in introducing a food waste reduction program, focusing initially on public events that take place at City facilities. We need a policy or ordinance with procedures that specifies the added collection of organic discards at organized public events taking place on City property. Both projects will be the focus of the Campus Sustainability Planning Studio course (ENVS 471, 10 students) taught in fall 2016 by Seth Vidaiia. While typically focused upon projects on the WWU campus, the course can readily focus upon projects in Edmonds. In the past, the course has worked on topics such as reduction of food waste and solid waste. Student teams will determine relevant parameters and conditions in Edmonds, research programs in existence elsewhere, and provide recommendations appropriate to Edmonds. One team will address each waste stream. The students will visit Edmonds twice, and two reports will be delivered. f. Edmonds Marsh Enhancement. $2,475 The estuarine marsh ("Edmonds Marsh"), which is greatly loved but impacted by past and present urban uses, including adjacent development and stormwater runoff, could benefit from creation of "buffer" areas that feature new low impact stormwater management (raingardens or other techniques) while still allowing adjacent development. What conceptual designs should be considered? How would we know the approach would work? This project needs to be coordinated with the City, the Port of Edmonds, and environmental and business interests. Packet Pg. 468 7.2.a This project will be the focus of the Ecological Restoration course (ESCI 470, 20 students) taught in fall 2016 by Dr. James Helfield and Dr. John Tuxill. Through the lens of an actual restoration project, the course investigates the theory and practice of ecological restoration, including methods for evaluating success. Physical, ecological, economic, and cultural considerations are all incorporated in analyses. A single report will be delivered, including a set of detailed recommendations for restoration work (e.g., schemes for plantings, stormwater management bioswales) and plans for monitoring and assessment and public education. The students will visit Edmonds twice, and Edmonds staff will visit campus once, near the start of the quarter, to describe the site and the objectives of the restoration. g. Wastewater Treatment Plant Educational Material. $4,675. Edmonds seeks a new brochure pertaining to the wastewater treatment process, describing what's been done to improve the plant and what might be next for energy efficiency. A 4th-year Intern in the Environmental Education track will be recruited by faculty member Wendy Walker, who is a specialist in environmental interpretation and education. This paid Intern will work closely with city staff to develop the brochure, as well as signs and content for WWTP tours (both adult and youth). The Intern will make four visits to Edmonds and will deliver the brochure and other described content. h. Downtown Business/Tourism Mobile App. $125. The City and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance have created websites, brochures, ads, and other materials both to attract visitors to Edmonds as well as to inform and orient them to businesses, attractions and events in Edmonds. Greater information about the type and locations of various businesses, as well as the various attractions and events, helps bring visitors to town and keeps them there longer, thereby enhancing economic activity through their expenditures. Edmonds has not yet developed a mobile -device app or apps that could help guide the more tech -savvy visitor who does not necessarily rely on brochures or printed maps. In addition, apps can convey greater and more updated information than printed materials. Key to this project is to understand the true potential for app usage among Edmonds visitors, make the app extremely accessible, as well as a sustainable tool that staff of both the City and the Downtown Alliance can access and update easily. The course will be the focus of a three- or four -person team of computer science students, completing a full -year senior capstone project (CSCI 491, 492, & 493). In the first week of fall quarter 2016, an Edmonds staff member will visit campus to describe the project to the cohort of senior C.S. majors. Students will self-select onto a team. The team is likely to visit Edmonds no more than three times over the course of the year. There will be extensive interaction with Edmonds staff (to identify content, select a software platform, discuss application aestheticsibranding, etc.), which primarily would occur via Skype, but which also will involve visits to Western by Edmonds staff. The application is the main Packet Pg. 469 7.2.a deliverable, but it will be accompanied by a specifications document and other documentation related to internal structure, software maintenance, etc. i. "Playful City" Recreation Program. $3,350. Playful City USA is a national recognition program that honors cities and towns across the country for taking bold steps that make it easy for all kids to get the balanced and active play they need to thrive. These communities are recognized for their efforts to create more playable, family -friendly cities. Through policy changes, programs, and infrastructure investments, Playful City USA communities are driving a deeper understanding of the importance of play and engaging their citizens to reimagine cities with kids in mind. The City seeks to explore the possibility of achieving designation as a Playful City USA. This project will be the focus of two courses in winter 2017: Management of Recreation and Leisure Services (RECR 372, 60 students) taught by Dr. Randy Burtz, and Recreation Programming (RECR 373, identical 60 students) taught by Dr. Jasmine Goodnow. The students will visit Edmonds twice —first for a discussion with city staff and a parks/facilities tour, and later for a workshop reviewing deliverables. City staff will visit the course once, soon after the parks/facilities tour, to discuss expectations and specifics. A single report will be delivered. j. Green Business Program. $2,400. The City established a Green Business Pledge in the spring of 2014. The purpose of the pledge was to raise awareness amongst the City's business community and encourage local businesses to employ green business practices in their daily operations. To date, approximately 35 businesses have taken the pledge. Due to limited staff time, the City has not been able to provide as much follow-up with the businesses who have taken the pledge, nor further get the word out to encourage additional businesses to take the pledge. Additionally, the intention when creating the pledge was for it to be converted into a full Green Business Program where additional resources and benefits would be available to participants. The City would like assistance in fleshing out and marketing the Green Business Program. The project will be the focus of the Greening Business Applications course (MGMT 466, 30 students) taught in spring 2017 by Dr. Craig Dunn. The course is an experiential capstone that draws upon both the business school and the environmental studies department. The students will visit Edmonds three times and will deliver a single report. k. Walkability Assessment. $2,500 Like many other cities, Edmonds' pedestrian infrastructure is lacking, outside the downtown core. The City is interested in identifying gaps and obstacles in the pedestrian network that impede walkability. The study area lies just outside the downtown core and contains important route between key destinations (two schools, a medical campus, parks, and three shopping nodes). The goal of the project is to analyze the relationship between the perception of the urban street environment and how it affects walking behavior. Packet Pg. 470 7.2.a The project will be the focus of the Participatory Action Research course (ANTH 454, 25 students) taught in spring 2017 by Dr. Sean Bruna. The course teaches a methodology of researching, analyzing, and carrying out actions that directly benefits members of a community. Aside from cataloguing the state of pedestrian assets in the target area, the course will interact with citizens to understand the human factors that influence people's decisions regarding walking. The students will visit Edmonds four times and will deliver a single report 8. Summary of projects, courses, timetable and costs. Project Course (or other WWU resource) Scheduled start Cost 7.d. 4th Avenue Promotion JOUR 440 fall `16 9/21/16 $1,575 Te. Zero Waste & Food Waste ENVS 471 fall `16 9/21/16 $1,500 71. Edmonds Marsh ESCI 470 fall `16 9/21/16 $2,475 7.g. WWTP Ed. Material Intern, all 3 quarters 9/21/16 $4,675 Th. Mobile app. C.S. capstone team, all 3 quarters CSCI 491, 492, 493 9/21/16 $125 7.c. Stella's Landing ESCI453 winter `17 ESCI454 spring `17 1/4/17 $4,950 Ti. Playful City RECR 372 winter `17 RECR 373 winter `17 1/4/17 $3,350 7.b. Cemetery GIS intern, field crew, & ENVS 422 spring `17 1/4/17 $7,000 Ta. Sea -level Rise ENVS 476 spring `17 3/28/17 $2,150 7.j. Green Business MGMT 466 spring `17 3/28/17 $2,400 71. Walkability Assessment ANTH 454 spring `17 3/28/17 $2,500 6. Program Overhead Program Coordinator, etc. 7/1/16 — 6/30/17 $44,800 Total Cost $77,500 Packet Pg. 471 7.2.b RESOLUTION NO. 1359 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DIRECTING STAFF TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Sustainable Cities Partnership (SCP) is a yearlong partnership between Western Washington University's Office of Sustainability, AWC, and one partner city chosen through a competitive application process; and WHEREAS, the program engages Western's students and faculty on sustainability and livability projects chosen in collaboration with the partner city; and WHEREAS, the SCP faculty and students work through a variety of studio and service learning courses, thus providing students with experience tackling the city's real -world projects; and WHEREAS, SCP's primary value derives from collaborations resulting in on -the -ground impact and forward movement for a community ready to transition to a more sustainable and livable future; and WHEREAS, applications for the SCP are due at the end of April; and WHEREAS, if selected, Edmonds would need to enter into a contract for services (within the Mayor's contracting authority) and would need to allocate funds through a 2016 budget amendment, which could be carried forward for an actual expenditure in 2017; and WHEREAS, the allocation would likely be in the range of $65,000-$85,000, depending on how many projects were included in the contract; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Staff should prepare and submit an application for participation in the Sustainable Cities Partnership. RESOLVED this 3rd day of May, 2016. CITY OF EDMONDS C MAYOR, DAVE EARLING Packet Pg. 472 e� IM V N Attachment: Exhibit 2: Resolution 1359 (1390 : Authorizing Mayor to execute Interlocal Agreement with Western Washington on Sustainable 7.2.c day and commit themselves going forward to fight against racism whenever and wherever it may appear. He presented the proclamation to Mary Anne Dillon, Regional Director, YWCA Snohomish County. Ms. Dillon expressed her appreciation for the City's Stand Against Racism again this year. The initiative began in 2008 by the YWCA in Trenton, New Jersey. This campaign is designed to build community among those who work for racial justice and to raise awareness about the negative impact of institutional and structural racism. The Stand Against Racism campaign is one part of the YWCA's larger national strategy to fulfill their mission of eliminating racism, empowering women and opening doors to opportunity for women and families facing poverty, violence and discrimination. The Stand Against Racism reminds there is still work to be done in the community and that together we can make a difference. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS A. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled a previous presentation to Council, advising this was an update and decision point whether to proceed. The Council packet includes a draft resolution supporting the Sustainable Cities Partnership. Staff is ready to submit an application; the City's application along with other applications will be considered by Western Washington University (WWU). If WWU's program is successful there will be opportunities to apply in succeeding years. Staff is excited about the opportunity to pursue a number of smaller, well-defined projects, things that would not otherwise happen anytime soon. The project is a way to jumpstart these projects for a small investment of time and money. He did not view this as detracting from other projects because the projects fit within ongoing priorities. The list of possible projects identifies connections to the Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan as well as the Zero Waste Resolution. WWU is still reviewing projects; if Council is interested in adding a project for WWU to consider, that can be done. The projects on the list are ones the WWU has expressed interest in. Mayor Earling explained if Council approved the resolution, the City will still compete and if successful, will eventually enter into an interlocal agreement. Mr. Chave advised according to City Attorney Jeff Taraday and David Davidson, Sustainable Cities Partnership, the City would sign a contract for services with WWU. If the Council approves the resolution, it is a commitment to include funds in the 2017 budget. The intent is to keep the Council in the loop regarding projects and funding, etc., understanding if the budget is approved, it is potentially within the Mayor's authority to sign the contract. If the Council approves the resolution and the City is selected by WWU, the list and contract will be presented to Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed a citizen's question about the cost per item that WWU would work on. David Davidson, Sustainable Cities Partnership, answered as this is launch year for WWU, they do not have a track record. For the University of Oregon, who has 6 years of experience and 100+ projects, the average cost to have one university course work on one city project cost is about $7,000. Two other cities are applying; WWU will review the projects to determine what the faculty wants to work on. For example, if Edmonds were WWU's first choice, WWU would provide a budget and a list of projects that could be done for that budget before the final agreement is executed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed projects that could be done locally for less than $7,000 would not be included on the list. Mr. Chave responded the projects that are rising to the top are not ones that it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 474 7.2.c would be affordable for the City to hire a consultant to accomplish. He was fairly confident the projects that are the most attractive are the ones that make the most sense. Councilmember Buckshnis asked when this would begin as it would be funded in the 2017 budget. Mr. Chave answered the academic year that begins fall 2016. WWU is flexible; if it is included in the City's 2017 budget, funds would not be due to WWU until 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the cost in the resolution was a range from $65,000 to $85,000, basically 9-12 courses. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said relayed comments she received from two citizens that they could do some of the items for less. Mr. Chave answered the scope is key. In additional conversation with Mr. Davidson and WWU, there may be things City staff can do such as going to WWU, remote meetings etc. Councilmember Buckshnis noted some of the items, such as the Green Resource Room, staff is already working on. She observed some items would not be an entire course activity and asked whether some could be combined, noting some items had already been combined. Mr. Chave answered the combinations were based on feedback from WWU with regard to doing both in one course. That will be addressed in the detailed scope and budget. Council President Johnson expressed interest in using WWU's GIS students to do the cemetery inventory. She recalled the Cemetery Board estimated it would cost $100,000 to have a consultant map the existing burial plots. She requested that be added to the list of possible projects as well as any other GIS mapping projects such as Urban Forestry mapping. Mr. Chave agreed those could be added. Mr. Davidson agreed a team of students in a GIS lab could accomplish the cemetery mapping. Councilmember Teitzel commented this is an intriguing program and he was anxious to hear more about it. However, he was concern about shifting focus. The City is preparing to embark on a National Citizens Survey (NCS) at a cost of approximately $20,000 to help inform the City what citizens want to see accomplished which may also refine the projects the City is interested in having WWU pursue. The City has a lot of very talent people on its boards and commissions and he suggested in the near term asking them to address these projects which could be done at virtually at no cost. He preferred to do that and wait for the results of the NCS before engaging WWU. He would be happy to consider this idea next year once the survey information is available. In addition, the City is still catching up on roads and sidewalk maintenance; if there are discretionary funds available, in the near term he preferred to apply those funds to street and sidewalk maintenance. For those reasons, he will not support the proposal. It was the consensus of Council to forward this for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. B. AWARD OF TOURISM GRANTS TO EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS AND EDMONDS WATERFRONT FESTIVAL Councilmember Nelson, Chair of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC), advised the LTAC reviewed the two grants and voted to recommend to Council approval of the two grant requests: 1. $2,500 for Edmonds Center for the Arts 10t' year anniversary birthday bash. Similar to KidStock with free performances inside and outside. 2. $1,000 for Community Transit bus wrap advertising for the Edmonds Noon Rotary Club's Waterfront Festival. It was the consensus of Council to forward this for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. C. 2016 1ST QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Scott James presented: • 19 Decision Packages Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 475 7.2.c Council President Johnson commented Mayor Earling was the former President Snohomish County Cities Association; Ms. Ziegler has attended those meetings to discuss legislation. She asked how Snohomish County Cities did as a group to advance their legislative agenda. Ms. Ziegler answered well but it was hard to compare to the success of the last session; the success of Snohomish County Cities on the Connecting Washington package was a tribute to that effort. Cities did pull together to find common areas and advocate together on issues. She anticipated 2017 will be a very long and challenging legislative session and it will be important to be as united as possible on issues of concern. Council President Johnson express concern no progress would be made in 2017 due to the McCleary decision and the funds that need to be dedicated to that. She was very pleased with the progress made on transportation last year and looked forward to work closely with Ms. Ziegler regarding the approach to 2017 with regard to expectations and incremental improvements for the future. Ms. Ziegler commented it will be worthwhile thinking through some of the straight up policy issues such as public records; identifying some purely policy issue that are priorities is also an opportunity. D. PRESENTATION ON SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP (SCP) Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced David Davidson, Sustainable Cities Partnership, explaining SCP is a new WWU program, modeled after program in Oregon, where the university partners with a city during in a year to develop a program of mutual benefit whereby the resources of the university work together with city staff to develop a list of projects that benefit both. Mr. Davidson reviewed: Premise — Cities are at the crux of the effort to transition to a more sustainable future o City issues C* WWU courses o Students and faculty want to (and can!) make a difference A year of partnership: o Match city's needs to service -learning courses o Engage faculty/students on city's issues ■ On site, in field, and in classroom/studio/lab ■ Thousands of person -hours ■ Cutting edge, "outside the box" o Produce deliverables (reports, videos, software, GIS datasets) o Advance city's sustainability goals What SCP can do: o Urban planning / Environmental science o Spatial Analysis — GIS/GPS o Marketing / Financial analysis o Communications / Journalism / Design o Computer Science o Sociology / Anthropology o Community Health / Recreation Cost to Partner City o Fee ■ Solely direct cost — no overhead/indirect - Transportation, supplies, SCP coordinator ■ Avg. $7K per course, at other programs Staff time o Champion o Overall coordinator —Per -project liaison Partnership schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 12, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 476 7.2.c o March & April, discussions & match -making o April 29 application due date o May 16 partner announcement o By end of July, master contract & SOW appendices o By mid -September, liaison & data provision o Sep 4 June work! o May 2017 event in town Mr. Chave clarified staff was not requesting formal action tonight. This is a very compressed timeframe; staff learned about this last month and has been brainstorming a wide range of projects and forwarding them to WWU for reaction. The City needs to decide by the end of the month whether to pursue an application. He requested the Council indicate whether they wanted staff to continue working with WWU to formulate an application. Following that effort, staff would return to Council in a couple weeks to request a final decision. Once the City's application is submitted, WWU will select one city. Assuming the program continues, there may be an opportunity in a future year. Mayor Earling explained when this opportunity was provided to the directors, over 40 potential projects were identified. Staff is excited about the potential and eager to move forward. If the City submitted an application, staff wants to win. Councilmember Nelson asked how may projects the City can apply for. Mr. Davidson answered WWU has asked for a minimum of nine to make it work financially for WWU. Edmonds has identified 20+ projects and 14 faculty members are considering those; each faculty member will select a preferred project and inform the City. Councilmember Nelson asked how one city could be more competitive than another. Mr. Davidson answered partly finances; for instance, one city he is working with likely will only be able to identify seven projects instead of nine. Another factor is the driving distance, the driving distance to Edmonds is 1.5 hours; faculty members have to consider how to accommodate that with a class that schedules field work once a week for 4 hours. That time period would work fine for Mt. Vernon but was not enough time to come to Edmonds. He summarized distance and budget are factors. Councilmember Nelson asked for an example of a successful project. Mr. Davidson responded although WWU is new to the attempt for multiple classes to work with a city, their winter -spring Urban Transition Studio has worked with Bellingham for the past 5-6 years on a neighborhood subarea plan. That effort includes citizen engagement, visioning, developing language for subarea plan, etc. Councilmember Nelson expressed support for moving forward. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is a great idea, recalling the City's previous work with the UW Green Futures Lab had great results. She asked how the number of projects would be reduced, commenting the list is wonderful and wished some Council items could be added. Mr. Davidson explained he is forwarding all the projects he views as a possibility to faculty members. The original 46 projects have been reduced to 20, the ones eliminated were ones no facility member was interested in. Faculty are now in direct contact with City staff members such as the treatment plant operator, public works director, and a person in the building department so both understand what the project is, what the class could do, etc. He anticipated ultimately returning with a list of professors' preferred projects and a second choice if that project was a bigger preference for the City. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Davidson advised there would be a mixture of undergraduate and graduate students. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the distance would be handled if Edmonds were chosen, whether some of the work could be done via skype. Mr. Davidson answered they have considered skype, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 12, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 477 7.2.c teleconferencing, having City staff come to a WWU class to describe a project, or changing the class schedule. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about compensation for travel. Mr. Davidson receives compensation for travel but he will not be doing work. Transportation costs such as rental vans to transport students would be charged to the City and included in the cost. Mr. Chave said that was factored into the average $7,000 cost of each course. Council President Johnson commented she learned all about sustainability from Mr. Chave when she was on the Planning Board, he authored the Sustainability chapter of the City Comprehensive Plan, he is an advocate for sustainability and no one better could be selected to with application process. She supported Edmonds being a strong candidate for this program. She pointed out Edmonds is accessible by train from Fairhaven as well as by bus. Edmonds has been known as the friendliest city in Western Washington for so many years that the category was retired. Edmonds was the first city in the State to ban plastic bags, is a strong advocate for environmentally sensitive areas and sustainability. She would be honored and happy to work with Mr. Davidson and WWU. She observed there are a number of satellite WWU branches including Seattle, Everett and Mt. Vernon, and asked if those students and faculty would be involved. Mr. Davidson answered he is in discussion with them. Council President Johnson summarized if the directors can develop 46 proposals, WWU can be sure Edmonds is serious. Councilmember Teitzel commented the City has a lot of time and money on the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) and the Comprehensive Plan and feared this might be a distraction from pursuing those items, some of which include sustainability. He needed more time to think about the proposal before he was ready to make a decision but could see the merits of such a program. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented many of the items on the list are part of the SAP. With regard to concern about there being enough staff time, she assured the directors' interest in this program indicates they are willing to allocate the necessary staff time to assist in this endeavor. Mr. Davidson relayed he worked with Andy Meyer, AWC Special Projects Coordinator, earlier this year to develop a group of cities to target this program; Edmonds was at the top of the list. Mr. Meyer was well aware Edmonds has been a leader in sustainability for decades. Mr. Meyer and WWU are thrilled that Edmonds is interested. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, relayed he and Phil Lovell have spoken previously and made several relevant points with regard to the CAO and the new Edmonds Waterfront Center, which is what the new senior/community center will called. With regard to Amendment 6 related to frequently flooded areas, he pointed out the importance of considering when to deal with this, now or later. Now seems like a good time to start as the City and the Center as both will be dealing with the same issues in the coming years. The waterfront is already a frequently flooded area; if sea level rises, it is highly likely it will become an even more frequently flooded area. The Ebbtide has sump pumps and the senior center has sandbags which the City provides to protect its building. In the Thanksgiving 2014 storm, the sandbags worked well, the sump pumps did not. He encouraged the Council to think of the CAO not as specific portion of code but as a process for addressing all the issues defined as critical area. When the Planning Board considered the issue last year, they recommended two changes, 1) change 19.00.025 requiring structures to be built 2 feet above base flood elevation, and 2) change the definition of height in 21.40.030 to allow for the height of structure within the coastal high hazard areas to be measured from 2 feet above the base flood elevation, thus compensating for the impact of new requirement. He assumed this definition of height was causing the Council concern; however, as often pointed out, frequently flooded areas are critical areas by definition. Further, with the growing attention Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 12, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 478 7.2.d CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.zov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION May 4, 2016 Mr. David Davidson Sustainable Cities Partnership Western Washington University Bellingham, WA Sent via email to: SCP@wwu.edu Dear Mr. Davidson: The City of Edmonds is pleased to submit an application for the Sustainable Cities Partnership program for 2016-2017. Both our Mayor and City Council are in full support of the program as evidenced by the letter from Mayor Dave Earling and Resolution #1359 adopted by the Edmonds City Council on May 3, 2016. The Council resolution is particularly important since it commits the City to funding the City's share of the program cost. The City's approach in developing this application has been to draw on the expertise and ideas of many of the City's departments. As a result, we have proposed projects from a number of operational departments and spanning a variety of disciplines. Having done projects with University students in the past (primarily classes from the University of Washington), staff is very enthusiastic about the opportunity to work with Western Washington University and AWC on a number of projects that would benefit us all. Our "program champion" is Development Services Director Shane Hope, AICP, who reports directly to Mayor Dave Earling and is a member of the Mayor's senior management team. Our program coordinator is Rob Chave, AICP, who is the Planning Manager for the City and works for Ms. Hope. Mr. Chave wrote the City's Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan and has been heavily involved in sustainability initiatives within the City. Packet Pg. 479 7.2.d In addition to these two individuals, we are identifying primary staff contacts for each of our projects; these will be the people who will help each project connect with needed staff assistance and resources and assure a successful outcome for each project. Organization Information Robert Chave, AICP Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Washington 1215th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 e. Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov p. 425-771-0220 The City of Edmonds has embraced sustainability for a number of years. Edmonds' mayor signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005, and the City Council followed with a series of resolutions supporting a variety of principles around sustainability and the environment, including addressing global warming and climate change. The City adopted its first Sustainability Element in its Comprehensive Plan in 2009, providing a set of guiding policies and principles for the entire Comprehensive Plan. As you will see in the Sustainability Element, the City is committed to sustainability as an overall framework in its plans and operations, and this is borne out in the projects we are suggesting for partnering. The City was particularly pleased to be recognized in 2012 with an AWC Municipal Excellence Award for its Sustaining Edmonds program; you can find information on the initiatives that lead to the award here: http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-05-27-04-43-33/sustainability-initiatives.htmi. A final word about the projects we have proposed. As already noted, these include a wide range of projects. Many City departments are committed to participating and supporting the program. We understand that the scope and deliverables for each of the projects could evolve as a result of further, more detailed discussions with faculty. You can look forward to partnering with an engaged and supportive staff of highly professional people here at the City of Edmonds. Sincerely, Robert Chave, AICP Planning Manager City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 480 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Long-range Financial Plan Introduction (30 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead}Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History Introduction of Long-range Financial Planning Staff Recommendation Informational presentation with time for questions and answers Narrative Staff will share a PowerPoint presentation introducing the concepts for how a long-range financial for the City of Edmonds can be instituted. Additionally, Council Member Buckshnis drafted the attached memo outlining her take-aways from a book titled: Elected Official's Guide to Long -Term Financial Planning for Local Governments. Attachments: Long-range Financial Plan Introduction Presentation Buckshnis LRFP memo to Earling Packet Pg. 481 8.1.a Long-range Financial Plan Introduction0 'Ile. 1 009V ➢What is a "Long-range" Financial Plan? ➢Why do "We" need a Financial Plan? ➢How is a plan put together? ➢What are the elements of a Financial Plan ➢Who benefits from having a plan? ➢ Where do we go next? ➢What are the timelines for building a plan? ➢Roles & Responsibilities tM O J Packet Pg. 482 8.1.a What is a "Long-range" Financial Plan? J 'Ile. 1gJ" ➢ Combines financial forecasting with financial strategizing ➢ Does not simply project the status quo "x" numbers of years into the future ➢ A technical tool to identify problems and opportunities ➢ Provide an avenue for Council, citizens & staff to discuss policy ➢ Provides a road map for where the City wants to go ➢ Can help build consensus for making financial decisions Packet Pg. 483 'Ile. 1 009V 8.1.a What is a "Long-range" Financial Plan? Continued i 0 J Fundamental Elements of Long-range financial plans v include: ➢Multi -year planning horizon ➢List range of funds to be included in plan ➢Schedule frequency for updates ➢Identify important policies Packet Pg. 484 8.i.a Why do Council Members & Council as a whole need a Financial Plan? 'Ile. 1 009V ➢ They enable City's financial management to identify emerging problems &communicate them to elected officials and the public ➢ They help the City to plan for a consistent level of essential services over amulti-year period ➢ They stimulate long-term thinking ➢ Stimulate "big -picture" thinking ➢ Raise specific issues ➢ Clarify the City's strategic intent Packet Pg. 485 8.1.a Why do "We" need a Financial Plan? Continued 'Ile. ] 009V ➢ Integrate discipline ➢ Communicate to citizens ➢ Demonstrate good management to bond rating agencies and subsequent lower interest costs Packet Pg. 486 'Ile. 1 009V 8.1.a How is a plan put together? 0) C J Long-term financial planning is a multi -step process v with four major phases 1) Mobilization 2) Analysis 3) Decision 4) Execution Packet Pg. 487 8.1.a Mobilization Phase 'Ile. 1 009V Mobilization is the first step of getting ready to plan ➢ Identify the leader of the planning process ➢ Identify Planning Committee participants ➢ Define the purpose of the long-range financial planning process itself ➢ Design the process that the plan will follow ➢ Conduct a preliminary fiscal analysis ➢ Look at service level preferences and related policies ➢ Look at financial policies ➢ The committee and Council need to reach a consensus on these points Packet Pg. 488 8.1.a Analysis Phase "Ile. 1 009V Dedicated to producing information that supports the planning and strategizing of the decision phase. This phase covers: ➢ Information gathering ➢ Trend projections ➢ Fund balance analysis Packet Pg. 489 8.1.a Decision Phase 'Ile. 1 009V After the analysis phase is completed, the Committee presents the results to Council so you can use the information to decide how you will respond to the information ➢ These decisions will result in a set of financial strategies for bettering the financial position of the City ➢The strategies can be used to address an actual weakness or potential weakness in the City's financial structure ➢During this phase, the Team helps identify methods for developing financial strategies that encourages participation from all levels ➢ The plan ultimately is brought before Council for adoption Packet Pg. 490 8.1.a Execution Phase 'Ile. 1 009V After the plan has been developed and adopted by Council, it is time to put the plan into action ➢ The budget is the primary tool for executing the plan Other tools are: ➢ Policy statements ➢ Council resolutions & ordinances ➢ Performance measures ➢ Action plans After the plan is put into place, progress must be monitored. This involves determining how status reporting and timing of reporting will take place Packet Pg. 491 8.1.a Who benefits from having a plan? 0 'Ile. ] 009V ➢ Citizens ➢ Council ➢ Businesses looking to locate in the City ➢ Department heads & staff Packet Pg. 492 8.1.a What are the timelines for building a plar When July August September October November 2017 Who Council & Staff Council & Staff Council & Staff Council & Staff Council & Staff Council & Staff What Staff Introduction of Update on LRFP Review of Preliminary This item is not This item is not Look at City's Long-range Financial purpose & progress to Fiscal Analysis & directly related to plan directly related to plan Financial Policies, Planning to Council date. Purpose of the Long- development but development but Long-range Financial range Financial requires Council & requires Council & Planning Committee Solicit Council input Planning Process, and staff: staff: share their consensus on LRFP process & begin discussion with on topics discussed to General Discussion of Council on Service Mayor's 2017 Council review of the this point. Plan Level Preferences Preliminary Budget proposed 2017 Budget Next steps are Delivered to Council & adoption of 2017 completing Analysis, Budget Decision & Execution Phases of Plan Product Introduce concepts and List of Council's Preliminary Fiscal 2017 Preliminary 2017 Budget Complete all four process for creating a elements to include Analysis & Purpose of Budget phases of Long-range long-range financial Long-range Financial the Long-range Financial Plan. plan for Edmonds Plan Financial Planning Council adoption of Process Plan Venue Council Study Session Council Study Session Council Study Session Council Meeting October - November Council Study July 13, 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 11, 2016 Council Meetings Sessions & Council Meetings W Packet Pg. 493 m c"r � O PO 71 Imo-+ Attachment: Long-range Financial Plan Introduction Presentation (1393 : Long-range Date: July 8, 2016 To: Mayor Earling From: Council Member Diane Buckshnis First off, I congratulate you and the Administration for the great job being done for our City. This memo is to help you understand my issues with the current ad hoc Long Range Financial Planning (LRFP) Committee. I have attached the Executive Summary of the Top #10 LRFP concepts given in the Elected Official's Guide to Long -Term Financial Planning for Local Governments guide for your reading pleasure. Here are some of concepts: 1) PROCESS: I have significant concern about the structure and more importantly, the composition of this ad hoc committee. This process is more complex than the budget process and lacks ALL council members. Without Council's "ownership" of this process, there could be flaws next year after a change in Council leadership which could lead to a repeat of the process. Ownership, inclusiveness, transparency, educational opportunities, teamwork are all buzz words that I will use in this document. 2) VISION: The Administration and Council should work together on a financial vision. It is truly a team concept. This process requires Council Members to really understand municipal finance which then leads to discussing and developing policy or guidelines to provide fiscal discipline to support goals. 3) TRANSPARENCY and UPDATING: This is crucial in today's climate of media exposure. Without transparent variables such as good notes, agendas, media to track content, it will become difficult to justifying and/or understand the LRFP committee's logic and thinking as they work further through the process. In the end, ALL of us we will be duplicating effort and this is certainly ineffective and inefficient. With the current "Study Sessions" platform, rather than retain the committee, I would suggest an hour or less every month specified for the LRFP process all can partake. This process will engage, educate and create ownership. 4) WHOLE -OF -GOVERNMENT LOOK: All Council Members need to be involved to help us understand the complex (and fun) issues the City faces daily. It allows Council Members Packet Pg. 495 8.1.b to better understand the financial implications within each division and the financial values and non -value contributions made daily to run this City. The Council could and should provide better vision and leadership. These tasks, guidelines, or policies can't be created in a vacuum (we are back to the PROCESS and VISION). 5) LEADERSHIP and EDUCATION: The end goal is that everyone should be part of the team and some Council Members may need to be educated. As you and I have seen in the past, if some Council Members don't understand they tend to say no or start being stubbornly positioned for their own agenda items. So, policy, budgeting and financial forecasting becomes difficult, frustrating and confusing - which we want to avoid. 6) LEADERSHIP, STRATEGY and FINANCIAL DISCLIPLINE: The planning, strategizing, and financial forecasting needs to be a team effort for the composition, formulation and timeframes of policies, guidelines or projects. This process is really no different than the budget you go through with your Directors. So why burden three citizens with this tremendous goal. 7) FINANCIAL PLANNING AND BUDGET: Council controls the budget and most aspects that financially feed into administering the City. Therefore, LRFP should be made part of Council's goals. The added benefit is transparency for all citizens. Mr. Mayor, my principle concern continues to be helping you and the Administration run this $106 MM Corporation known as the City of Edmonds more effectively and efficiently. It is still early enough in the process to be proactive for this extremely important topic and process and vision. I think the entire Council would welcome this gesture of your inclusiveness of all of us in the process. Thank you for your time. Packet Pg. 496 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/19/2016 Shoreline Master Program Update (45 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History See the narrative section below for the background/history of the Shoreline Master Program update. Staff Recommendation (1) Provide an initial response to the Department of Ecology acknowledging receipt of the conditional approval and note additional time is necessary to sufficient evaluate the proposed changes. A draft response has been provided as Exhibit 10. (2) Begin discussion of key policy issues and, as time allows, next process steps. NARRATIVE The City of Edmonds received a conditional approval from the Department of Ecology on its Shoreline Master Program update on June 27, 2016. The conditional approval included eight required changes and one recommended change. See a summary of Ecology's conditional approval below as well as the background/history of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. City of Edmonds Response City of Edmonds Response Timing The City of Edmonds is required to respond to Ecology within 30 days after Ecology has issued its written findings and conclusions. Since Ecology issued its conditional approval on June 27, 2016, the City must respond by July 27, 2016. Ecology recognizes these are complex issues and it will likely take the City more than 30 days to evaluate and fully respond to Ecology's recommendation. At a minimum, the City needs to respond by July 27, 2016 to request additional time to consider and evaluate Ecology's recommended changes. A draft response letter has been provided for Council's consideration (See Exhibit 10). City of Edmonds Considerations - Critical Area Required Changes As noted below, five of the eight required changes from Ecology deal with incorporating the recently updated critical area regulations into the SMP. This is a technical change that will simplify the regulatory environment within shoreline jurisdiction. Staff recommends the City Council agree to the proposed changes to incorporate the updated critical area regulations into the SMP. City of Edmonds Considerations - Urban Mixed Use IV Packet Pg. 497 8.2 The required changes for the UMU IV environment fall into two categories: the appropriate setback/buffer for the marsh in this area and whether to maintain the interim designation. Policy Considerations - Marsh Setback/Buffer What is the goal for the Edmonds Marsh? What is the goal for the UMU IV shoreline environment? What is the most effective way (within the SMP) to achieve these goals? The Edmonds Marsh is an important feature (ecologically and socially) of the Edmonds Waterfront area. That being said, it exists in a degraded condition. The Edmonds Marsh once extended up to Main Street. Over the years, the marsh has been filled, bisected by State Route 104 and surrounded by development. As noted in Ecology's presentation last week, there is little intact buffer left around the marsh. What the council must grapple with is how to balance the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (not being able to require restoration and no net loss standard) with the desire to protect and enhance the marsh. Does a large setback/buffer in a developed area largely devoid of vegetation add protection to the marsh? Or does a smaller setback provide incentive to restore some of the degraded buffer and offer opportunities for stormwater management improvements? Policy Considerations - Interim Designation The stated rationale in the SMP for adopting the UMU IV interim designation is: Establishing the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an interim designation will allow the City, in cooperation with property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested agencies/organizations, and members of the public, to carefully review effects of establishing a new shoreline jurisdiction for the area around the marsh on existing and planned development as well as the ecological role the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds. (SMP pg. 31) Ecology noted in its conditional approval that the interim designation is no longer necessary, stating that the 65/50 setback/buffer is consistent with the guidelines to base master programs on available science and technical information and does not prevent further marsh studies. The Council should consider the purpose for an interim designation and whether it provides any benefits. As was noted when the interim designation was first discussed by Council, it may require a specific budget item to evaluate issues surround an interim designation. Process Options Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090(2)(e), the City of Edmonds has two options for responding to Ecology's conditional approval: 1. Agree to the proposed changes, or 2. Submit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted for consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by Ecology with the Shoreline Management Act. There has been much discussion of the official designation of the Edmonds Marsh as Category II Packet Pg. 498 8.2 estuarine wetland. The marsh's wetland category has been use in part by Ecology for justification of the recommend 65/50 setback buffer. The City of Edmonds could have an independent wetland determination conducted regarding the wetland category. Department of Ecology Conditional Approval Department of Ecology has granted Conditional Approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program. Ecology's June 27, 2016 conditional approval letter is provided as Exhibit 8 along with 6 attachments: A) Ecology's Findings and Conclusions regarding Edmonds' SMP, B) Required Changes, C) Recommended Changes, D) A comment summary and responses, E) Water Quality Financial Assistance Guidance Document Appendix L, and F) Department of Ecology Water Quality Program August 19, 2015 letter. The Conditional Approval includes eight required changes to the City's SMP and one recommended change. Five of the required changes relate to incorporating the recently adopted critical area ordinance into the SMP. The three remaining required changes and the one recommended change are in regards to the Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Environment around the Edmonds Marsh. Critical Area Reauired Chan The shoreline regulatory jurisdiction can be complicated, particularly with the overlap of the SMP regulations and the City's critical area regulations. Generally speaking with regard to critical areas: Within shoreline jurisdiction the SMP rules; outside of shoreline jurisdiction, the critical area regulations apply. Local jurisdictions can integrate CAO standards into the SMP if the CAO meets the requirements of the SMP Guidelines and Shoreline Management Act procedural rules. If proposed SMP provisions are designed to rely on other local ordinances such as the CAO to meet shoreline management requirements, those local ordinances must be a part of the SMP that is ultimately approved by Ecology. There are several options to integrate CAO provisions into an SMP: 1. Copy specific sections from the CAO and embed them into the body of the SMP. 2. Reference a "specific, dated edition" of the CAO in the SMP, noting in detail either the CAO provisions that will not apply to the SMP, or the CAO provisions that will apply. 3. Include the relevant portions of the CAO as an appendix and explain in the SMP that the appendix is specifically approved as a part of the SMP. Incorporation by reference (the last two bullets, above) makes the referenced provisions part of the approved SMP. Incorporating by reference was the option chosen for Edmonds' updated SMP. Since the City sent the SMP to Ecology for review, Edmonds has adopted updated critical area regulations. Five of the required changes from Ecology's conditional approval involve incorporating the updated critical area regulations into the SMP. These required changes are summarized below: Update the reference to the ordinance number of the critical area regulations being incorporated into the SMP to reflect the recently adopted critical area regulations. 2. Replace Appendix B (SMP version of the critical area regulations) with the updated critical area Packet Pg. 499 8.2 regulations. 3. Remove the section that required a shoreline variance for certain critical area provisions. With the updated critical regulations, the provisions that were of concern to Ecology have been updated and strengthened and thus would no longer need to have certain provisions trigger a shoreline variance. 4. Revise the exceptions section. This section includes provisions of the City's critical area regulations that do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction. With the updated critical area regulations, only two provisions would not apply in shoreline jurisdiction, which include allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas and critical area variances (shorelines have its own variance procedures). 5. Remove the wetland section from the SMP. The Council -adopted SMP contained Ecology's wetland guidance for small jurisdictions. This was incorporated into the City's critical area regulations with the CAO update so the wetland section in the critical area regulations would now just be adopted by reference. Urban Mixed Use IV Reauired and Recommended Cha The Urban Mixed Use IV (UMU IV) shoreline environment is a new shoreline designation that would apply to the Harbor Square Property and the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh. The City Council adopted the UMU IV environment as an interim designation (to be reviewed and finalized within two years after the SMP becomes effective) and established a 100-foot setback from the edge of the marsh with the requirement to establish a 50-foot buffer within the setback with any development within shoreline jurisdiction. The three required changes from Ecology related to the UMU IV Environment are (following the numbers from Ecology's document): 6. Remove the "interim" designation for the UMU IV shoreline environment. 7. Change the setback/buffer around the marsh from 100/50 to 65/50 (essentially a 50-foot vegetated buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback from the buffer). 8. Changes to a footnote related to the setback/buffer that notes the buffer established will be required if more than 50% of the Harbor Square property within shoreline designation is redeveloped The one recommended change for the UMU IV shoreline environment relates to residential uses. The City Council -adopted version of the UMU IV shoreline environment did not allow for residential. Ecology is recommending that the City consider allowing multi -family residential development in the UMU IV shoreline environment. Ecology's reasoning behind this recommended change is that including residential development as a permitted use in the UMU IV environment could eliminate the need for a future SMP amendment should the City of Edmonds consider a rezone of properties that would allow residential development subject to the UMU IV shoreline environment. Background/History The City of Edmonds is required to update its Shoreline Master Programs to be consistent with the state guidelines (WAC 173-26) and with the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58). The general goals of the Packet Pg. 500 8.2 Shoreline Management Act are: 0 Protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." 0 Promote public access: "the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally." • Encourage water -dependent uses: "uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the states' shorelines..." The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applies to shorelines within the City and establishes development standards for shoreline development. The shoreline areas within the City of Edmonds jurisdiction include Puget Sound, Lake Ballinger, and the tidally influenced portions of the Edmonds Marsh. Shoreline Jurisdiction also applies to upland areas within 200 feet of the shoreline edge (ordinary high water mark) and associated wetlands. A major change in the shoreline jurisdiction with this update is that the tidally influenced portions of Edmonds Marsh are being considered a shoreline as opposed to an associated wetland, which means that shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond the marsh boundary into Harbor Square and the old UNOCAL site south of the marsh. The City of Edmonds spent several years (2006 - 2014) updating its SMP consistent with the state guidelines. The City's review of the SMP update included ten meetings before the Planning Board from October 2011 - November 2012 and eleven meetings before the City Council from December 2012 through November 2014 (Council minute excerpts included as Exhibit 7), culminating in the adoption of Resolution 1326 expressing intent to adopt an update to the Shoreline Master Program (Exhibit 1). The Shoreline Master Program consists of a number of elements including the Policies and Regulations contained in Title 24 (Exhibit 2), Shoreline Environmental Designation Maps (Exhibit3), Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Exhibit 4), Restoration Plan (Exhibit 5), and the Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Exhibit 6). The Department of Ecology is responsible for ensuring statewide policies are upheld and implemented when local SMPs are adopted and must approve local SMPs before they become effective. Following the adoption of Resolution 1326, the City's updated SMP and supporting documentation was sent to Ecology for review in December 2014. Ecology issued a conditional approval of the City's SMP on June 27, 2016 (Exhibit 8). Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Resolution No. 1326 Intent to adopt Shoreline Master Program Exhibit 2 - Council SMP Approved November 18, 2014 Exhibit 3 - Shoreline Environmental Designation Maps Exhibit 4 - Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Exhibit 5 - Shoreline Restoration Plan Exhibit 6 - Cummulative Impacts Analysis Exhibit 7 - Council SMP Minutes Excerpts Exhibit 8 - Department of Ecology's Conditional Approval with Attachments Exhibit 9 - Department of Ecology July 12, 2016 Power Point Presentation Exhbit 10 - Draft Initial Response to Ecology Packet Pg. 501 8.2 Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation Packet Pg. 502 8.2.a RESOLUTION NO. 1326 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO ADOPT AN UPDATE TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AS ATTACHED HERTO. WHEREAS, the City Council heard a brief introduction to the Shoreline Master Program at the December 4, 2012 council meeting; and WHEREAS, the December 4, 2012 introduction focused on how the Shoreline Master Program applied to the Harbor Square property; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued review of the SMP at the February 26, 2013 meeting with a broader overview of the SMP update; and WHEREAS, at the March 26, 2013 meeting, staff provided an in depth review of the three Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments (ECDC 24.30.070) as well as brief discussion of the allowed uses in the different shoreline environments and setbacks for various uses and shoreline environments; and WHEREAS, at the April 23, 2013 Council meeting, staff reviewed how proposed changes to the City's SMP may impact property owners around Lake Ballinger as well as other single family property owners within the City's shoreline jurisdiction as well as changes to the Meadowdale Marina area; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the SMP update on June 6, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued discussion at the October 8, 2013 Council meeting and directed staff to bring back options for a new shoreline environment and setbacks/buffers for the Harbor Square property; and WHEREAS, at the December 17, 2013 Council meeting, Council directed staff to draft an Urban Mixed Use IV interim shoreline designation for Harbor Square and the Unocal/Chevron property on the south side of Edmonds marsh; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a briefing on the SMP update at the September 2, 2014 Council meeting, including discussion of the new Interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the attached proposed update to the Shoreline Master Program on September 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.090 requires that proposed Shoreline Master Programs be reviewed and approved by the state prior to taking effect, now therefore, Packet Pg. 503 8.2.a THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. INTENT TO ADOPT NEW SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. The city council hereby expresses intent to adopt the following attached documents: 1. A new Shoreline Master Program to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 2. Updated Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environmental Designation Maps, to read as shown in Attachment B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 3. An updated Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, to read as shown in Attachment C, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 4. An updated Shoreline Restoration Plan, to read as shown in Attachment D, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 5. A cumulative Impacts Analysis, to read as shown in Attachment E, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. RESOLVED this 18th day of November, 2014. CITY OF EDMONDS A-CCL' P 0. &Q—� %"' MAYOR, DAVT EARLING ATTEST: CI" CLERK, SCOT ASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: November 14, 2014 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: November 18, 2014 RESOLUTION NO. 1326 4851-5533-3898, v. 1 Packet Pg. 504 8.2.b Edmonds Shoreline Master Program PartI. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................3 24.10.000 Purpose and Intent.............................................................................................................................3 24.10.010 Authority...........................................................................................................................................4 24.10.020 Applicability.....................................................................................................................................4 24.10.030 Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations......................................................................................4 24.10.040 Liberal Construction.........................................................................................................................5 24.10.050 Administrative Procedures................................................................................................................5 24.10.060 Document Organization....................................................................................................................6 Part II. Master Program Elements: Goals & Policies for the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program.............6 24.20.000 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 6 24.20.010 Economic Development Element......................................................................................................7 24.20.020 Public Access Element......................................................................................................................8 24.20.030 Recreational Element......................................................................................................................10 24.20.040 Circulation Element........................................................................................................................11 24.20.050 Shoreline Use Element....................................................................................................................12 24.20.060 Conservation Element.....................................................................................................................16 24.20.070 Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Element...................................................................17 24.20.080 Flood Damage Prevention Element................................................................................................18 24.20.090 Views and Aesthetics Element........................................................................................................19 24.20.100 Urban Design Element....................................................................................................................19 24.20.110 Restoration Element........................................................................................................................20 PartIII. Shoreline Environments.........................................................................................................................22 24.30.000 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 22 24.30.010 Adoption Criteria............................................................................................................................22 24.30.020 Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environments Designation Maps..........................................................22 24.30.030 Aquatic Environment......................................................................................................................23 24.30.040 Natural Environment.......................................................................................................................25 24.30.050 Urban Conservancy Environment...................................................................................................27 24.30.060 Shoreline Residential......................................................................................................................28 24.30.070 Urban Mixed Use............................................................................................................................30 24.30.080 Urban Railroad................................................................................................................................33 Part IV General Policies & Regulations............................................................................................................34 24.40.000 Applicability...................................................................................................................................34 City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 1 of 160 Packet Pg. 505 8.2.b 24.40.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources..........................................................................................34 24.40.020 Critical Areas..................................................................................................................................35 24.40.030 Flood Hazard Reduction.................................................................................................................43 24.40.040 Public Access and Views................................................................................................................44 24.40.050 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.................................................................................................47 24.40.060 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint pollution......................................................................49 24.40.070 Shoreline Development Table: User Guide.................................................................................51 24.40.080 Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation �...... 51 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards...............................................................................54 Part V Specific Modification Policies & Regulations......................................................................................57 24.50.000 Applicability...................................................................................................................................57 24.50.010 General Modification Policies and Regulations..............................................................................57 24.50.020 Shoreline stabilization.....................................................................................................................58 24.50.030 Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats..................................................................................................66 24.50.040 Landfill............................................................................................................................................74 24.50.050 Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs............................................................................................77 24.50.060 Dredging and dredge material disposal...........................................................................................80 24.50.070 Shoreline habitat and natural systems restoration and enhancement projects.................................86 Part VI Specific Use Policies & Regulations.....................................................................................................87 24.60.000 Applicability...................................................................................................................................87 24.60.010 Aquaculture.....................................................................................................................................88 24.60.020 Boating Facilities............................................................................................................................94 24.60.030 Commercial Development and Light Industrial............................................................................101 24.60.040 Forest Practices.............................................................................................................................104 24.60.050 In -stream Structures......................................................................................................................105 24.60.060 Recreational Development............................................................................................................105 24.60.070 Residential Development..............................................................................................................109 24.60.080 Transportation and Parking...........................................................................................................112 24.60.090 Utilities..........................................................................................................................................119 PartVII Nonconforming Development.........................................................................................................123 24.70.000 Purpose..........................................................................................................................................123 24.70.010 Nonconforming Uses....................................................................................................................123 24.70.020 Nonconforming development, building and/or structure..............................................................124 24.70.030 Nonconforming Lots............................................................................................................................127 24.70.040 Nonconforming Signs..........................................................................................................................128 24.70.050 Nonconforming local public facilities..................................................................................................129 City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 2 of 160 Packet Pg. 506 8.2.b Part VIII Administration — Shoreline Permits...............................................................................................129 24.80.000 Purpose..........................................................................................................................................129 24.80.010 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Process.........................................129 24.80.020 Letter of Exemption......................................................................................................................133 24.80.030 Review Criteria for All Development...........................................................................................134 24.80.040 Substantial Development Permit Criteria......................................................................................134 24.80.050 Conditional Use Permit Criteria....................................................................................................134 24.80.060 Variance Permit Criteria...............................................................................................................135 24.80.070 Minimum Application Requirements............................................................................................136 24.80.080 Notice of Application....................................................................................................................138 24.80.090 Special Procedures for Limited Utility Extensions and Bulkheads...............................................140 24.80.100 Public Hearings.............................................................................................................................140 24.80.110 Notice of Decision, Reconsideration, and Appeals.......................................................................141 24.80.120 Initiation of Development.............................................................................................................142 24.80.130 Revisions.......................................................................................................................................142 24.80.140 Time requirements of Shoreline Permits.......................................................................................144 24.80.150 Administrative Authority and Responsibility...............................................................................145 24.80.160 Compliance...................................................................................................................................146 24.80.170 Enforcement..................................................................................................................................146 PartIX Definitions............................................................................................................................................147 24.90.000 General Information......................................................................................................................147 24.90.010 Definitions: A to B.......................................................................................................................147 24.90.020 Definitions: C to F........................................................................................................................149 24.90.030 Definitions: G to 0.......................................................................................................................152 24.90.040 Definitions: P to R........................................................................................................................155 24.90.050 Definitions: S to T........................................................................................................................157 24.90.060 Definitions: U to Z.......................................................................................................................158 PartX Appendices...........................................................................................................................................160 24.100.000 Appendix A - Maps of Shoreline Environments and Jurisdictions...............................................160 Part I. Introduction 24.10.000 Purpose and Intent This master program, in harmony with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of the state and our city are among the most valuable and fragile City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 3 of 160 Packet Pg. 507 8.2.b resources that we possess. The Shoreline Management Act made clear that there is a great public concern regarding the use, protection, restoration, and preservation of these shorelines, which concern is the premise of this master program. In recognition of private property rights, local public opinion, existing realities, and the necessary coordination between several levels of government, this program represents an approach toward the enhancement of shorelines rather than the restriction of their use. The purposes of this Master Program are: A. To carry out the responsibilities imposed the City of Edmonds by Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58). B. To promote uses and development of the City of Edmonds shoreline consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan while protecting and restoring environmental resources. C. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a guide and regulation for future development of the shoreline resources of the City of Edmonds 24.10.010 Authority Authority for enactment and administration of the program is the shoreline Management Act of 1971, chapter 90.58 RCW, as now or hereafter amended 24.10.020 Applicability All proposed uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds must conform to the Shoreline Management Act and this Chapter. All uses, even those not meeting the definition of development, are subject to the provisions and development regulations of this chapter, even though a permit may not be required. 24.10.030 Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations A. Uses, developments and activities regulated by this Chapter may also be subject to the provisions of the city of Edmonds comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Edmonds City Code, and various other provisions of local, state, and federal law, as may be amended. Project proponents shall comply with all applicable laws prior to commencing any use, development or activity. B. The shoreline master program has been developed as a both a policy and a regulatory program. As such, the shoreline master program is a part of and was developed to be consistent with the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and its component elements. C. The Edmonds Community Development Code establishes specific and detailed regulations for most of the uses, development, and activities regulated in this chapter. The Edmonds Community Development Code and this chapter are intended to operate together to produce City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 4 of 160 Packet Pg. 508 8.2.b coherent and thorough shoreline regulations. Uses, developments and activities must comply with both the Edmonds Community Development Code and the shoreline master program in all cases. If there is a conflict between the two, the shoreline master program shall prevail. 24.10.040 Liberal Construction As provided for in RCW 90.58.900, the Shoreline Management Act is exempted from the rule of strict construction; the Act and this Master Program shall, therefore, be liberally construed to give full effect to the purposes, goals, policies, and standards for which the Act and this master Program were enacted. 24.10.050 Administrative Procedures The general administrative procedures for this Title 24 (Edmonds Shoreline Master Program) are not part of this program. They are included with the text of Title 24 for consistency and ease of use. The Department of Ecology will be notified of any changes to the administrative chapters listed below. The use of separate local administrative and enforcement procedures is consistent with the 2003 Washington State Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(C)), Administrative Provisions. "Local governments may include administrative, enforcement, and permit review procedures in the master program or the procedures may be defined by a local government ordinance separate from the master program. In either case, these procedures shall conform to the Shoreline Management Act, specifically RCW 90.58.140, 90.58.143, 90.58.210 and 90.58.220 and to chapter 173-27 WAC." This allows the city of Edmonds to revise local administrative procedures (fees, application meetings, authority of Administrator, etc) without another formal state amendment process. ECDC 24.80 must still be consistent and remain consistent with the related provisions in the Shoreline Management Act and sate shoreline rules (WACs). In the event of a conflict, the state RCW or WAC, as amended, will prevail over the local ordinance. The following sections are administrative procedures separate from Title 24: ECDC 24.80.070 Minimum Application Requirements ECDC 24.80.080 Notice of Application ECDC 24.80.100 Public Hearings ECDC 24.80.110 Notice of Decision, Reconsiderations, and Appeals ECDC 24.80.130 Initiation of Development ECDC 24.80.160 Administrative Authority and Responsibility ECDC 24.80.170 Compliance ECDC 24.80.180 Enforcement City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 5 of 160 Packet Pg. 509 8.2.b 24.10.060 Document Organization This Master Program is divided into the following ten parts, consistent with the material to be included within a master program as established in Chapter 173-26 WAC: A. Part I, ECDC 24.10.000 through 24.10.000, contains basic and general information regarding the shoreline master program. B. Part II, ECDC 24.20.000 through 24.20.110, contains the city's goals and policies with respect to the program elements established in Chapter 173-26 WAC. C. Part III, ECDC 24.30.000 through 24.30.080, contains information regarding the different shoreline environments to be found within the city including goals, policies and regulations specific to each of the shoreline environments. D. Part IV, ECDC 24.40.000 through 24.40.060, contains policies and regulations with respect to general master program provisions identified in Chapter 173-26 WAC. E. Part V, ECDC 24.50.000 through 24.50.070, contains policies and regulations that apply to specific modifications that are regulated under the shoreline master program. F. Part VI, ECDC 24.60.000 through 24.60.090, contains policies and regulations that apply to specific uses that are regulated under the shoreline master program. G. Part VII, ECDC 24.70.000 through 24.70.050, contains policies and regulations that apply to nonconforming development with the shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds. H. Part VIII, ECDC 24.80.000 through 24.80.180, contains administrative procedures for shoreline permitting I. Part IX, ECDC 24.90.000 through 24.90.060, contains definitions applicable to the shoreline master program Part X, ECDC 24.100.000 through 24.100.010, contains appendices pertaining to this chapter. Part II. Master Program Elements: Goals & Policies for the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program 24.20.000 Introduction This section contains goals and policies that form the foundation of Edmonds' Shoreline Master Program which are implemented through the regulations in ECDC chapters 24.40 through 24.60, and apply to all areas of the City of Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction, regardless of the designated City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 6 of 160 Packet Pg. 510 8.2.b shore environment. The Shoreline Management Act requires cities to adopt goals, or "elements," to guide and support major shoreline management issues. 24.20.010 Economic Development Element A. Purpose. The economic development element provides for the location and design of industries, industrial projects of statewide significance, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(a). B. Economic Development Goal. It is a goal of the city to encourage port facilities, tourist facilities, mixed use, commercial and light industrial development in specific and limited shoreline areas which enhance the public's access to the shoreline. Water dependent, oriented and water enjoyment development are preferred in shoreline areas. The nature of this economic development should attract, and be open to, the general public and should not unduly interfere with the character of the shoreline area or with nearby shoreline and upland uses. C. Economic Development Policies. 1. Mixed -use commercial and light industrial uses in the shoreline area should be permitted only where compatible with existing or planned shoreline and upland development, or where legal parcels of land can be aggregated to minimize the impacts from the mixed - use commercial or light industrial use. 2. Mixed -use commercial and light industrial uses should be permitted only where infrastructure, particularly the roadway system, is presently adequate or is made adequate to accommodate the demands generated by commercial or light industrial development. 3. New shoreline light industrial and commercial development should be limited to that which is classified as water -dependent, water -related, or water -enjoyment uses and non - water -oriented uses which are not accessory to a water -oriented use should be discouraged and/or prohibited. 4. Permitted mixed -use commercial and light industrial development in shoreline areas should enhance opportunity for the public to take advantage of shoreline amenities. Uses that support or enhance the opportunity for public access and compliment the cultural arts related to the shoreline should be encouraged. This might include uses wherein the public can view and enjoy the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and vista beyond. 5. New development or redevelopment should avoid or mitigate additional loss of shoreline ecological functions. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 7 of 160 Packet Pg. 511 8.2.b 6. Development should be discouraged in any critical area and only allowed where impacts to these areas can be mitigated. 7. In shoreline areas where large tracts of land can be aggregated, some degree of flexibility is appropriate to allow for innovative and planned site design within parameters established by the city. 8. Economic benefits derived from wildlife, marine and fish habitats, public access, recreational scuba diving and tourism should be recognized and retained. 9. Priority should be given to those mixed -use commercial or light industrial uses which are water -dependent. 10. The potential adverse effects of mixed -use commercial and light industrial development on other activities should be minimized through local performance standards. 11. The recreational opportunities along the shoreline should be developed as an economic asset in a manner that will enhance the public enjoyment of the shorelines and in -water - related activities. 12. Commercial activities in shoreline areas should be operated with minimum adverse impact on the quality of the environment of the shoreline and adjacent areas. 24.20.020 Public Access Element A. Purpose The public access element provides for public access to publicly owned or privately owned shoreline areas where the public is granted a right of use or access in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(b). B. Public Access Element Goal 1 It is a goal of the city to provide the maximum reasonable opportunity for the public to view and enjoy the amenities of the shoreline area from public viewpoints, while assuring that such access does not contribute to intrusions upon private property, nuisance, personal danger, or over -burdening of fragile natural resources. C. Public Access Policies 1 1. The city should use street ends and other publicly owned or controlled land within the shoreline area as a means of providing additional safe public access to shoreline areas. When these types of areas are developed, the city should also provide for some associated City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 8 of 160 Packet Pg. 512 8.2.b limited off-street parking or public transportation connection in order to minimize impacts to surrounding properties. 2. The city should develop signage, public information brochures and publications for distribution which identify all locations for public access to the shorelines, and underwater activities with information about each site location. 3. The city should maintain public shorelines, waterways and tidelands in public ownership for continued public access and use. 4. With principal access to tidelands existing at public beaches to the north and south, the city, where practicable, should acquire and develop safe convenient public access for pedestrian access and water access to and use of public tidelands and beaches. 5. Public pedestrian access for neighborhood use should be encouraged. 6. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights -of -way should be preserved, maintained and enhanced. D. Public Access Goal 2 Incorporate public access into new shoreline development and unify individual public access elements into an organized system. E. Public Access Policies 2 1. Public access will be considered in the review of all private and public developments (including land division) with the exception of one- and two-family dwelling units when necessary to mitigate significant environmental impacts or through provisions designed to exchange access rights for development bonuses. 2. Developments, uses and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair or detract from the public's access to the water. 3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge without adversely affecting a sensitive environment and, if feasible, should be designed with provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons. 4. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and to minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy. 5. Assure that public access improvement result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 6. No public access shall be acquired through a taking without just compensation. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 9 of 160 Packet Pg. 513 8.2.b 24.20.030 Recreational Element A. Purpose The recreation element provide for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(c). B. Recreational Goal It is the goal of the city to provide substantial recreational opportunities for the public in shoreline areas through the preservation and expansion of these opportunities through programs such as acquisition, development and maintenance. C. Recreational Policies The city should continue to acquire and develop park land within shoreline areas. The city should also, where feasible, develop street ends within the shoreline area to provide for public recreation. The nature and extent of recreational opportunities provided within the various lands in the shoreline area owned or controlled by the city depends on the nature of the area involved, the amenities and natural resources to be found in that area, the location of the area and the needs of the community. 2. When mitigation requirements or bonus programsl permit, large or intensive private developments within the shoreline area should provide some public recreation amenities, in addition to public pedestrian access along the water's edge. 3. The city should consider both active and passive in -water, shoreline and upland recreational needs in development of recreational areas to meet local and regional needs. 4. The city should acquire, develop, expand and maintain public recreation facilities to meet public demand for recreation use and enjoyment of the water and shoreline. 5. Recreation facilities in the shoreline area should be restricted to those dependent upon a shoreline location, or those benefiting from a shoreline or in -water location that are in the public interest. 6. Public recreation facilities should be designed, developed, and maintained to respect the shoreline environment and minimize the degradation of the shoreline and its natural systems. 7. Public information and education programs, and attendant enforcement procedures, should be developed and implemented to help ensure that the public is aware of park regulations and private property rights, and to prevent the abuse of the shoreline and its natural ecological system. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 10 of 160 Packet Pg. 514 8.2.b 8. Recreational boating facilities including waterway trails and trailheads, terminals, moorage, and service facilities should be provided for on publicly owned land. 9. Recreational boating facilities including waterway trails and trailheads, terminals, moorage, and service facilities should be allowed on private property, except in the Natural Environment. 24.20.040 Circulation Element A. Purpose The circulation element provides for the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(d). B. Circulation Goal It is the goal of the city to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and emergency services within the shoreline area while recognizing and enhancing the unique, fragile and scenic character of the shoreline area with minimum disruption to the shoreline environment and minimum conflict between different users. C. Circulation Policies Railroad Avenue, Dayton Street, Main Street, Admiral Way, and Sunset Avenue, which provide access to and through the city's accessible downtown shoreline area, should be designed and regulated to safely accommodate the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic using these corridors, as well as to facilitate egress and ingress from adjacent properties and to enhance the scenic character and recreational use of this corridor, while recognizing that shoreline uses should have primary access to Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way. 2. Whenever practicable, safe pedestrian and bicycle movement on and off roadways in the shoreline area should be encouraged as a means of personal transportation and recreation. 3. Where new streets are needed to serve uses in the shoreline area, these streets should be the minimum size necessary to provide safe and efficient vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access, including access for emergency vehicles, to the properties to be served. 4. Public waterborne transportation linked to public and private forms of ground transportation should be encouraged to minimize auto usage, and to eliminate barriers between public waterborne transportation and ground transportation in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 11 of 160 Packet Pg. 515 8.2.b 5. All transportation planning should be coordinated to provide efficient use and transfer between modes while minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of such facilities. 6. Circulation and transportation systems should be located, designed and developed with respect to existing and/or planned rail, highway and ferry facilities. 7. Public transit systems should be linked to the urban waterfront. 8. Pedestrian walkways, trails and bicycle linkages should be provided between the historic downtown and the waterfront, including the train station and ferry terminal. 9. New or expanded non -water oriented transportation facilities should be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction whenever feasible. 24.20.050 Shoreline Use Element A. Purpose The shoreline use element considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(d). B. Shoreline Use Goals The goals of the city are to: Allow for a diversity of uses within the shoreline area consistent with the dramatically different character of the various shorelines within the city, and to preserve and enhance the natural and aesthetic quality of important shoreline areas while allowing for reasonable development which meet the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act. 2. Provide performance and development standards for shoreline uses which achieve compatibility among activities. 3. Reserve shoreline and water areas particularly suited for specific and appropriate uses, especially water -oriented and water -dependent uses, for such uses whether they are existing or potential. 4. Establish and implement policies and regulations for shoreline use consistent with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. These policies and regulations should insure that the overall land use patterns in shoreline areas are compatible with existing shoreline City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 12 of 160 Packet Pg. 516 8.2.b environment designations and will be sensitive to and not degrade habitat and ecological systems and other shoreline resources. 5. Ensure that proposed shoreline uses are distributed, located and developed in a manner that will maintain or improve the health, safety and welfare of the public. 6. Ensure that proposed shoreline uses do not minimize the rights of others or infringe upon the rights of private ownership. 7. Encourage restoration of shoreline areas that have been degraded or diminished in ecological value and functions as a result of past activities or catastrophic events. 8. Ensure that planning, zoning and other regulatory and non -regulatory programs governing lands adjacent to shoreline jurisdictions are consistent with SMA policies and regulations and the provisions of this SMP. 9. Encourage increased accessibility to the shoreline for a variety of users and activities. 10. Develop adaptive management strategies to increase capacity to respond to future possible impacts on the Edmonds shoreline from climate change in the Puget Sound region. 11. Ensure that residential development in the shoreline area is compatible with adjacent uses and minimizes impacts to shoreline processes and functions. 12. Ensure future shoreline development will achieve no net loss of ecological functions and values. C. Shoreline Use Policies "Environmentally critical areas" are to be protected and regulated consistent with the city's environmental review and critical areas regulations contained in Chapters 20.15A and 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.C. 2. New uses and developments in shoreline areas that have established desirable development patterns should be designed to be compatible with those areas; provided the existing uses are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the City's comprehensive plan and shoreline master program. 3. In shoreline areas without established development patterns and which are not unique or fragile, the city should allow for a wide range of development options consistent with the Edmonds Community Development Code within established limits to protect the public interest. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 13 of 160 Packet Pg. 517 8.2.b 4. Over -water structures other than ferry terminal passenger shelters, docks, piers, walkways, breakwaters and other similar structures should be prohibited with the exception of minor appurtenant buildings, buoys, divers resting floats, and art sculpture. 5. Water -dependent uses should have priority over non -water -dependent uses in the shoreline area. Nonetheless, uses such as dry-docks, boat yards, and similar marine enterprises are incompatible with the character of the majority of the shoreline area and should be limited to specific designated areas. 6. Uses in shoreline areas should not degrade water quality and land disturbances (land covered by water and the land area adjacent to the ordinary high water mark) should be the minimum necessary. 7. The pattern and distribution of land and water uses should be controlled and encouraged in order to enhance the shoreline natural systems, protect against their damage, and provide for their public use and enjoyment. 8. Multiple uses of shorelines should be encouraged. Shoreline uses which allow large numbers of people to enjoy the marine environment should be given a higher priority than uses that lead to the usurpation of the limited urban waterfront by any single use activity. 9. Shoreline use should be compatible with its site, in harmony with adjacent uses, and consistent with long-range comprehensive planning for waterfront use. 10. Uses which adversely alter or degrade the defined shoreline "natural systems" should be prohibited. 11. The City of Edmonds shall stay abreast of scientific information regarding climate change and sea level rise and reevaluate the Shoreline Master Program development standards as soon as adequate scientific information is available. 12. The Edmonds Marsh study identified in the City of Edmonds Capital Improvement Plan is an important study for determining the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise on the City of Edmonds and should be considered a high priority for completion. 13. All use and development should use low impact development (LID) techniques where appropriate and feasible. 14. The rehabilitation of "natural systems" (e.g., the improvement in water quality, removal of beach obstructions, etc.) should be encouraged. 15. Shoreline Use and Development Review. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 14 of 160 Packet Pg. 518 8.2.b a. Shoreline use and development should be provided for through a process of review and analysis that gives priority to: i. The protection and enhancement of the shoreline natural system; ii. The provision for shoreline -dependent uses; iii. The provision for shoreline -oriented uses; and iv. The accommodation of necessary uses that are neither shoreline -dependent nor shoreline -oriented. b. The priority system will recognize, but not be limited to, the following systems and uses: i. Protect and enhance natural systems: A. Biological: 1. Critical areas for fish spawning, rearing, feeding, and migration, including beaches, marshland, aquatic vegetation and nearshore subtidal area; 2. Waterfowl and water associate bird nesting, resting, feeding and nursery areas; 3. Shellfish life — supporting areas; 4. Upland mammal breeding, rearing and feeding areas; 5. Upland plant growth areas (greenbelts, etc.); 6. aquatic (non -fish and non -shell fish) marine organisms life supporting areas; and 7. Other. B. Geological: 1. Bluff and landslide areas; 2. Beaches and tidelands — shoals and coves; 3. Marshland and slough area; 4. Streams and ravines; 5. Below low water submerged lands — canyons, cliffs, rock reefs, sand or mud flat, etc.; and 6. Other. ii. Provide for shoreline -dependent uses, such as: A. Ferry and passenger terminals; B. Terminal and transfer facilities for marine commerce and industry; C. Marine and fresh water construction, dismantling and repair; D. Marinas — boats; E. Intakes and outfalls; F. Boat launch facilities; G. Shoreline recreation — including parks, bike and walking trails, beaches, etc. H. Water -related recreation — including scuba diving, waterway trail system, fishing and small craft boating; I. Marine and limnological research, interpretation and education; J. Piers and related facilities for the loading and unloading of petroleum products; and K. Other uses of like intensity and dependency. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 15 of 160 Packet Pg. 519 8.2.b 24.20.060 Conservation Element A. Purpose The shoreline conservation element provides for protection of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(f). B. Conservation Goal It is the goal of the city to preserve, protect, and enhance unique and fragile areas of flora and fauna and scenic vistas to help assure the continued availability of these resources for future generations and to protect the ecological functions of the shoreline to ensure no net loss of functions. This element is concerned with the preservation of the natural shoreline resources, considering such characteristics as scenic vistas, linear park systems, waterway trail systems, estuarine areas for fish and wildlife protection, critical habitat, beaches and other valuable natural or aesthetic features. Assure preservation of the unique, fragile and scenic shoreline resources by carefully preserving the non-renewable resources and managing for the continued utilization of renewable resources. C. Conservation Policies 1. The City should work to maintain environmentally sensitive and critical areas for present and future generations, such as the Edmonds Marsh, the historically contiguous wetland east of SR-104, the Edmonds Underwater Park and the shoreline sanctuary. 2. Development in shoreline areas should be managed so that any adverse impacts on aquatic and land plants and animals are avoided or mitigated to result in no net loss of ecological function. 3. Where practicable, steps should be taken to enhance the shoreline area as a spawning ground for salmon, forage fish, and other species of fish and aquatic marine life. 4. Irreplaceable shoreline resources should be preserved for their intrinsic value and continued public enjoyment. 5. Beneficial use of shoreline resources should be provided for while respecting the natural shoreline environment. 6. Where practicable, restoration of damaged shoreline features and systems should be encouraged. 7. Limited improvements in public recreation areas should be permitted where such improvements would enhance public access to and public education and understanding of City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 16 of 160 Packet Pg. 520 8.2.b the value of the shoreline resource (an example of which is the Edmonds Underwater Park). 8. Provide for the preservation of the natural shoreline resources through the protection of existing and the designation of potential public recreational areas. 9. Provide for the preservation of the natural shoreline resources through the continuation and expansion of interpretive and environmental education programs, and public outreach and involvement in stewardship. 10. The city, where practicable, should acquire key shoreline parcels that become available; such parcels are those integral to necessary expansion of existing prime beach areas. 24.20.070 Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Element A. Purpose The historic, cultural, scientific and educational element provides for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(g). B. Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Goal Identify, protect, preserve and restore important archaeological, historical, art and cultural sites located within the shoreline jurisdiction area for educational and scientific uses and enjoyment of the natural amenities by the general public. C. Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies 1. Wherever practicable, shoreline development should recognize the former and current use of much of the city's shoreline area for such uses as boatyards, railroads, ferry landings, logging, and industrial sites, and recognize the earlier uses of the shoreline by Native American cultures. 2. The large, relatively undisturbed area known as the Edmonds Marsh should be preserved for, among other reasons, its educational and scientific value as well as its role in stormwater management. 3. Educational projects and programs including signage should be encouraged that foster a greater appreciation of the importance of shoreline management, maritime activities, environmental conservation, cultural and maritime history. 4. The city should develop signage and informational programs which identify and explain unique scenic and cultural opportunities. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 17 of 160 Packet Pg. 521 8.2.b 5. Important archaeological, historical and cultural sites located within the shoreline jurisdiction area should be identified, protected, preserved or restored for educational and scientific uses and enjoyment of the natural amenities by the general public. 6. Historical/cultural sites should be acquired through purchase or gift, so as to insure their protection and preservation. 7. Where practicable, buildings, sites and areas having historic, cultural, educational, or scientific value to the community should be protected and restored. 8. Where practicable, all buildings, sites, and areas which are placed on the State or Federal Historic Register should be preserved, protected and restored. 9. Where practicable, significant archeological features and data should be protected for scientific study and public observation. 24.20.080 Flood Damage Prevention Element A. Purpose The flood damage prevention element provides for protection against flood damage and the preservation and restoration of ecosystem wide ecological functions in accordance with RCW 9038.100. B. Flood Damage Prevention Element Goal It is a goal of the city to reduce the likelihood of flood damage by locating development away from flood -prone areas and by protecting and restoring shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. C. Flood Damage Prevention Policies Structural flood control devices should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions are not feasible to reduce the hazard. 2. Participate in watershed -wide programs to reduce flood hazards and improve the shoreline ecology. 3. Discourage new development in shoreline areas that are reasonably likely to be harmed by flood conditions, or which would create or intensify flood hazard impacts on other properties. 4. Ensure that flood hazard reduction measures do not result in a net loss of ecological functions in shoreline areas. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 18 of 160 Packet Pg. 522 8.2.b 24.20.090 Views and Aesthetics Element A. Purpose The views and aesthetics element provides for preservation and/or protection of public scenic vistas, public views of the water, and other aesthetic qualities of shorelines for enjoyment by the general public. B. Views and Aesthetics Goal It is the goal of the city to assure that the public's ability and opportunity to enjoy shoreline views and aesthetics is protected. C. Views and Aesthetics Policies 1. The scenic and aesthetic qualities of shorelines and public vistas should be preserved through development standards. 2. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive removal of vegetation which partially impairs views. 3. Public visual access should be maintained, enhanced and preserved on shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights -of -way and within public "view corridors" as designated by the city. 24.20.100 Urban Design Element A. Purpose The urban design element provides for the development between the shoreline and adjacent areas in manner that provides linkages that will enhance the beauty and visual identity of Edmonds. B. Urban Design Goal It is a goal of the city to encourage development within the shoreline area that is visually coherent, provides visual and physical linkage to the shoreline, enhances the waterfront, and is consistent with the Streetscape Plan. C. Urban Design Policies. The shoreline area within and south of the north boundary of the Brackett's Landing North Park, to the south city limits (generally the urban mixed -use shoreline environment) is one of the most scenic areas of the city. It also, to a large extent, City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 19 of 160 Packet Pg. 523 8.2.b establishes the visual identity of Edmonds. As such, both public and private development in these areas should be controlled and regulated to provide an urban environment which preserves or enhances the opportunity for the public to enjoy the scenic quality of the shoreline. 2. Projects should be encouraged to provide "street furniture," public art, related interpretative signage, landscaping and other amenities within or adjacent to the right-of- way of Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way to complement a pedestrian promenade along the shoreline consistent with the streetscape plan. 3. Where possible, the owner of uplands abutting pedestrian waterfront activities should be encouraged to incorporate public art elements, public art and cultural amenities that promote aesthetic considerations consistent with the City of Edmonds Arts Commission goals. 4. New and remodeled developments should provide public view corridors adjacent to either the north or south property line to enhance public visual access to the Puget Sound and to provide for a visual link between the downtown and its waterfront roots. The location of the view corridor should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties in order to maximize public visual access to the Puget Sound. Properties with significant frontage on the shoreline should consider providing view corridors in multiple locations so as to maximize public visual access to the shoreline. In the application of design standards, the preservation of public views shall be given priority over landscaping and fencing requirements. 5. Projects should minimize the amount of vehicular parking in the Urban Mixed -Use I and II shoreline environments through use of joint use parking agreements (where permitted), and by locating employee parking off -site and outside the Urban Mixed -Use I and II shoreline environments. 6. Projects should be designed to locate vehicular parking away from the shoreline, bulkhead, or areas of pedestrian circulation. 7. Developments should provide conveniently situated bicycle parking on site. 8. Projects should be designed to minimize impacts to existing shoreline ecological functions. 24.20.110 Restoration Element A. Purpose The restoration element provides for the timely restoration and enhancement of ecologically impaired areas within available economic resources in a manner that achieves a net gain in City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 20 of 160 Packet Pg. 524 8.2.b shoreline ecological functions and processes above baseline conditions as of the adoption of the city's shoreline master programs. B. Restoration Goal It is the goal of the city to improve water quality, restore degraded and lost habitat corridors, and improve connectivity of the shoreline environments though voluntary and incentive - based public and private programs and actions consistent with the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan. C. Restoration Policies 1. Protect and/or restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat and habitat -forming processes. 2. Protect and restore wetland and restore salt marsh habitat to improve shoreline ecological functions. 3. Remove intertidal fill; restore beach deposits and processes and ecological functions. 4. Remove/replace creosote -treated logs, pilings, and debris. 5. Increase availability of large woody debris and opportunities for recruitment in the nearshore zone. 6. Protect and restore native species of vegetation, fish, and wildlife. 7. Remove or improve fish- and wildlife -passage barriers. 8. Manage and treat stormwater to improve water quality, decrease peak flow events, and increase implementation of low impact development (LID) practices. 9. Protect naturally eroding bluffs and associated ecological functions. 10. Protect and restore wildlife corridors. 11. Ensure that shoreline restoration projects do not degrade critical areas and water quality 12. Establish incentives that could provide opportunities for new development to restore impaired shoreline ecological functions. 13. Work with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to encourage nearshore restoration projects on the railroad right-of-way. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 21 of 160 Packet Pg. 525 8.2.b Part III. Shoreline Environments 24.30.000 Introduction Local governments are required, under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 through WAC 173-26, to develop and assign a land use categorization system of shoreline areas as a basis for effective Shoreline Master Programs. The intent of designating shoreline environment is to encourage development that will enhance the present or desired character of the shoreline. To accomplish this, segments of shoreline are given an environment designation based on existing development patterns, natural capabilities and limitations, and the aspiration of the local community. 24.30.010 Adoption Criteria Shoreline Designations have been determined after consideration of - A. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration; and B. Existing development patterns together with ECDC Title 16 Zoning designations, the City Comprehensive Plan designations and other officially adopted plans; and C. The goals of the City of Edmonds citizens for their shorelines; and D. Other state policies in the Act and the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (RCW 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26, respectively). 24.30.020 Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environments Designation Maps A. The location and extent of areas under the jurisdiction of the Master Program, and the boundaries of the various shoreline environments affecting the lands and waters of the City are shown in Appendix A of this Master Program. (ECDC 24.100.000) B. The purpose of the official shoreline maps in Appendix A is to identify Shoreline area designations. The map does not necessarily identify or depict the lateral extent of shoreline jurisdiction. Where uncertainty or conflict may occur in the exact location of jurisdictional or shoreline designation boundary line, the shoreline Administrator shall rely up the criteria contained in RCW 90.58.030(2) and chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to determinations of shorelands, as amended, rather that the incorrect or outdated map. C. In the event that new shoreline areas are discovered (e.g. associated wetlands) that are not mapped and/designated on the official shoreline map, these areas will be designated in the following manner. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 22 of 160 Packet Pg. 526 8.2.b If a newly discovered shoreline area is adjacent to a single shoreline area environment, then the newly discovered shoreline area will be assigned the same shoreline designation as the adjacent shoreline area. 2. If a newly discovered shoreline area abuts more than one shoreline area environment, the shoreline area environment that is most restrictive shall be assigned to the newly discovered shoreline area. 24.30.030 Aquatic Environment A. Purpose The purpose of the aquatic low -intensity environment (Aquatic I) is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The purpose of the aquatic high -intensity environment (Aquatic II) is to protect the unique characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing water -dependent use activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation, and commerce, and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses B. Classification Criteria 1. General. These are lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark for both saltwater and freshwater bodies of water, including any submerged or inter -tidal areas. The Aquatic I and II environment designations include the water surface together with the underlying lands and the water column. Information from the shoreline inventory and characterization report was used in conjunction with the comprehensive plan and zoning information to determine the appropriate environment designation. 2. Aquatic I (Low Intensity). These areas are mostly characterized by aquatic ecosystems that have been modified by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad bed fill that covers the intertidal and transitional upland zones along the beach. The beach has been altered by seawalls or large -rock riprap. These shoreline areas generally exhibit low -intensity development and few over -water structures. In freshwater areas, there may be a significant number of docks and piers serving residential areas. 3. Aquatic II (High Intensity). These areas are more intensely developed areas with water - dependent uses. The marine nearshore has been significantly modified by commercial waterfront development, including the Port of Edmonds Marina and the Washington State Ferries pier. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 23 of 160 Packet Pg. 527 8.2.b C. Area Designated Aquatic I (Low Intensity): Applicable to all marine aquatic environments waterward of the ordinary high water mark between the southern boundary of the City and the old Union Oil dock, between the northern edge of the Edmonds fishing pier and the southern edge of the Main Street ferry terminal, between the northern edge of the Main Street ferry terminal and the northern boundary of the City, and Lake Ballinger. 2. Aquatic II (High Intensity): Applicable to those marine aquatic environments waterward of the ordinary high water mark between the old Union Oil dock and the northern edge of the Edmonds fishing pier, and between the southern and northern edges of the Main Street ferry terminal. D. Management Policies New over -water structures should be limited and allowed only for water -dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration. 2. The size of new over -water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support a structure's intended use. 3. Uses and activities within the Aquatic I and II environments should be compatible with the adjoining shoreline environments. 4. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple uses of over -water facilities should be encouraged, provided that use conflicts can be avoided. 5. All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds should be located and designed to minimize interference with surface navigation and moorage. 6. Uses and activities within Aquatic I shoreline environments should be limited to public access, boat moorage, and necessary utility and transportation facilities. 7. All developments and uses should consider impacts to public views. 8. All developments and uses should allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration. 9. Restoration opportunities associated with project impacts should be encouraged in the aquatic environment. 10. Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater habitats should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 24 of 160 Packet Pg. 528 8.2.b described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) necessary to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. 11. Dredging and dredge material disposal should be limited to the minimum amount necessary. Dredging operations should minimize impacts to other shoreline uses and functions. 12. Filling should be avoided if practicable and limited to the minimum amount necessary. Filling operations should minimize impacts to other shoreline uses and functions. 13. Ensure that piers and docks are compatible with the shoreline area where they are located and are designed and maintained to minimize adverse impacts to the environment. 14. Ensure that marinas are located, designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that will minimize damage to shoreline processes and functions, be compatible with adjacent uses, and protect the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline environment. 15. All developments and uses on navigable waters should be located and designed to minimize interference to navigation. 24.30.040 Natural Environment A. Purpose The purpose of the Natural environment designation is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low -intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. B. Designation Criteria A Natural designation should be considered for shoreline areas if any of the following criteria apply: 1. The shoreline is ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem -wide process that would be damaged by human activity; 2. The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific and educational interest; or 3. The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety; City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 25 of 160 Packet Pg. 529 8.2.b Such shoreline areas include largely undisturbed portions of shoreline areas such as wetlands, estuaries, unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact shoreline habitats. Ecologically intact shorelines, as used here, means those shoreline areas that retain the majority of their natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of shoreline structural modifications, structures, and intensive human uses In forested areas, they generally include native vegetation with diverse plant communities, multiple canopy layers, and the presence of large woody debris available for recruitment to adjacent water bodies. Recognizing that there is a continuum of ecological conditions ranging from near natural conditions to totally degraded and contaminated sites, this term is intended to delineate those shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger aquatic and terrestrial environments which could be lost or significantly reduced by human development. Whether or not a shoreline is ecologically intact is determined on a case -by - case basis. The term "ecologically intact shorelines" applies to all shoreline areas meeting the above criteria ranging from larger reaches that may include multiple properties to small areas located within a single property. C. Area Designated The Natural Designation includes all natural diverse wetland and riparian habitat areas within shoreline management jurisdiction. These include, but are not limited to: The Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route 104. 2. The Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone, and the wetlands which are now isolated on the east side of the railroad tracks, which are partially or entirely within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound. D. Management Policies 1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the Natural shoreline area should not be allowed. 2. The following new uses should not be allowed in areas designated Natural: a. Residential b. Commercial uses, c. Industrial uses, d. Non -water -oriented recreation, City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 26 of 160 Packet Pg. 530 8.2.b e. Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside Natural - designated shorelines. 3. Scientific, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low -intensity, water - oriented recreational access uses may be allowed, provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result. 4. New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Subdivision of property in a configuration that would, to achieve its intended purpose, require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions should not be allowed. 5. Critical areas within shorelines designated as Natural should be protected pursuant to the Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.C. 6. Restoration opportunities should be encouraged in areas with a Natural designation. 24.30.050 Urban Conservancy Environment A. Purpose The purpose of the Conservancy designation is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. B. Designation Criteria The Urban Conservancy environment is applied to shoreline areas within the City where any of the following characteristics apply: 1. They are suitable for water -related or water -enjoyment uses; 2. They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be more intensively developed; 3. They have potential for ecological restoration; 4. The retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or 5. They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration. C. Area Designated Areas generally lying upland of the ordinary high water mark and in between the southern boundary of the City and the south side of the old Union Oil dock, the Willow Creek outlet City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 27 of 160 Packet Pg. 531 8.2.b of the Edmonds Marsh, between the southern edge of the area known as Brackett's Landing South and the southern edge of the Main Street ferry terminal, and from the northern edge of the Main Street ferry terminal to the northern boundary of the area known as Brackett's Landing North, including the spit, and to the east as far as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way. D. Management Policies Uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term should be the primary allowed uses in Conservancy areas. 2. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the Conservancy designation and the setting. 3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented in Conservancy areas whenever feasible. 4. Water -oriented uses should be given priority over non -water -oriented uses. For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water -dependent uses should be given highest priority. 5. New development should be designed and located to preclude the need for shoreline armoring, vegetation removal, flood control, and other shoreline modifications. 6. Restoration opportunities should be encouraged in Conservancy areas. 7. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within Conservancy areas. These standards shall ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values. 24.30.060 Shoreline Residential A. Purpose The purpose of the shoreline residential environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses. B. Designation Criteria General. These are areas typified by residential development in areas where topography, transportation systems, and development patterns make it extremely unlikely that more intensive use would be appropriate. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 28 of 160 Packet Pg. 532 8.2.b 2. Shoreline Residential L• This designation is appropriate for shoreline areas with larger -lot residential development along the marine shoreline. 3. Shoreline Residential II: This designation is appropriate for shoreline areas with smaller - lot residential development along the marine shoreline. 4. Shoreline Residential III: Designation for single-family residential development adjacent to freshwater (e.g., Lake Ballinger). C. Area Designated General. A shoreline residential environment designation has been assigned to shoreline areas that are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential development. There are three levels of shoreline residential environment designations corresponding to the Edmonds zoning and comprehensive plan designations. The areas which are appropriate for this classification are as follows: 2. Shoreline Residential I: The upland area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Urban Railroad environment designation which is zoned RS-12 and RS-20. 3. Shoreline Residential II: The upland area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Urban Railroad environment designation which is zoned RS-6. 4. Shoreline Residential III: The upland area adjacent to the shoreline of Lake Ballinger which is zoned RSW-12. D. Management Policies 1. Multi -lot residential and recreational developments should provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities when consistent with statutory and constitutional limitations on development exactions. 2. Commercial development within the shoreline residential environment should be limited to water -oriented uses. Commercial development does not include lawful home occupations. 3. Structurally engineered shoreline modifications and stabilization should be prohibited except in cases of emergency as defined. 4. Steep slopes shall be protected per the requirements of ECDC 23.80, the building code, and this SMP. 5. Any new development or redevelopment should utilize low impact development techniques where feasible and appropriate. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 29 of 160 Packet Pg. 533 8.2.b 6. Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations. 7. Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and/or planned future development. 24.30.070 Urban Mixed Use A. Purpose The purpose of the urban mixed -use environment is to provide for high -intensity, water - oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. B. Designation Criteria General. These areas have been intensely developed with a mix of commercial uses, port facilities, multimodal transit facilities, railroad facilities, and limited light industrial uses. Two very distinct areas make up the three Urban Mixed -Use environments. The Edmonds waterfront area west of the railroad tracks which has the ability to provide direct access to the navigable waters of the Puget Sound and the near waterfront area east of the railroad tracks with no direct access to Puget Sound. A policy of the Shoreline Management Act is to plan for and foster all reasonable and appropriate uses and the shoreline master program rules generally prohibit nonwater-oriented development unless navigability is severely limited. Given these two distinct areas, the Urban Mixed -Use environments west of the railroad tracks is appropriate for water -oriented development, while the area east of the railroad tracks may be appropriate for nonwater-oriented development given its separation from Puget Sound. The environmental differences between the Urban Mixed -Use environments are further emphasized by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning applied to these areas. West of the railroad tracks the comprehensive plan designation and zoning encourage water -oriented type development and uses, while east of the railroad tracks the comprehensive plan designation and zoning encourage mixed -use type development, including mixed commercial -residential development. 2. Urban Mixed -Use I: This designation is appropriate to water -related and water - enjoyment commercial and recreational uses. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 30 of 160 Packet Pg. 534 8.2.b 3. Urban Mixed -Use II: This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high -intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation. 4. Urban Mixed -Use III: The designation is appropriate for those areas that have been intensely developed and that have no direct access to navigable waters. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for mixed -use development including high -intensity, commerce, transportation, recreation and residential development. 5. Urban Mixed -Use IV: The Urban Mixed -Use IV designation is being established as an interim shoreline designation. The Edmonds Marsh being identified as a shoreline of the state is new to this SMP update and was identified as a shoreline of the state late in the planning process. With properties within 200-feet of the salt influenced portions of the marsh now under shoreline jurisdiction (where they had not previously been so designated) specific review of the effects of establishing a shoreline environment on existing and proposed uses around the marsh must be studied. The south side of the marsh has been identified as the future site of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal which underwent significant environment review with a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in 2004. On the north side of the Marsh is the Harbor Square commercial development owned by the Port of Edmonds. The SMP update process was delayed to allow the Port of Edmonds time to submit a long planned Harbor Square Master Plan for concurrent review by the City of Edmonds. The Port's proposed Harbor Square Master Plan was ultimately not adopted by the City. The Edmonds Marsh is also being studied for potential restoration projects including the daylighting of the Willow Creek outlet as well as the marshes role in the flooding problem at the Dayton Street/State Route 104 intersection and the role the marsh and play in a solution to the flooding problem. Establishing the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an interim designation will allow the City, in cooperation with property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested agencies/organizations, and members of the public, to carefully review effects of establishing a new shoreline jurisdiction for the area around the marsh on existing and planned development as well as the ecological role the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds. The City intends to study the issues surrounding the Edmonds Marsh and related Urban Mixed -Use IV designation for two years from the effective date of this SMP. At the end of the study period, the City will adopt appropriate shoreline environment designation(s) for the area surrounding the Edmonds Marsh including evaluating whether a new designation is needed and whether the entire area should have the same designation. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 31 of 160 Packet Pg. 535 8.2.b C. Area Designated Urban Mixed -Use I: The upland area above ordinary high water north of the northern border of the Edmonds fishing pier to the southern edge of the area known as Brackett's Landing South. This area would include the waterfront commercial area. 2. Urban Mixed -Use II: The upland area above ordinary high water between the old Union Oil dock and the northern border of the Edmonds fishing pier and between the southern and northern edges of the Main Street ferry terminal. This area would include the Edmonds Marina and associated facilities, as well as the Main Street ferry terminal. 3. Urban Mixed -Use III: The six parcels near the existing ferry terminal bounded by the railroad right-of-way to the west, Main Street, Sunset Avenue North, Bell Street. 4. Urban Mixed -Use IV: The upland areas beyond the tidally influenced portions of Edmonds Marsh including portions of Harbor Square on the north side of the marsh and portions of the former UNOCAL oil storage facility on the south side of the marsh. D. Management Policies In regulating uses in the Urban Mixed -Use environments, first priority should be given to water dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water -related and water - enjoyment uses. Non -water oriented uses maybe allowed as part of mixed use developments. Non -water oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline. 2. Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive development is allowed. 3. Reasonable long-range projections of regional economic need should guide the amount of shoreline designated Urban Mixed -Use However, consideration should be given to the potential for displacement of non -water -oriented uses with water -oriented uses when analyzing full utilization of urban waterfronts and before considering expansion of such areas. 4. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be provided. 5. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. 6. Any new development or redevelopment should utilize low impact development techniques where feasible and appropriate. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 32 of 160 Packet Pg. 536 8.2.b 7. Any new development shall include environmental cleanup, restoration of shoreline or other development techniques where feasible and appropriate to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, and shall comply with any relevant state and federal law. 24.30.080 Urban Railroad A. Purpose The purpose of the Urban Railroad environment designation is to identify the 100-foot right- of-way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad along the Edmonds shoreline. This designation will provide for high -intensity transportation uses while protecting ecological functions. B. Designation Criteria This area has been historically developed and used as a dedicated railroad right-of-way and contains limited improvements which are designed to aid in the transportation of goods and passengers by rail. This shoreline environment area generally contains very few areas of undisturbed natural shoreline. With the exceptions of Lund's Creek estuary, Edmonds Underwater Park, Brackett's landing and part of Marina Beach Park, the entire Edmonds shoreline (more than 90 percent) is armored by the BNSF railroad bed and bulkheads. Most of the BNSF rail bed along the Edmonds shoreline consists of an armored berm with two sets of parallel tracks on top, comprising a top width of at least 24 feet or more and a wider base width. The waterward side of the berm is typically armored with large rock or granite blocks, placed vertically or on a 2:1 slope. C. Area Designated The area is defined as that area within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of- way as established on the date of the adoption of this master program, from the northern right-of-way line of Main Street to the northern city limits, and from the southern city limits north approximately 300 feet. D. Management Policies 1. Restoration opportunities associated with project impacts should be encouraged in areas designated Urban Railroad. 2. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 33 of 160 Packet Pg. 537 8.2.b Part IV General Policies & Regulations 24.40.000 Applicability The provisions of this chapter shall be applied either generally to all shoreline areas or to shoreline areas that meet the specified criteria of the provision without regard to environment designation. 24.40.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources A. Applicability. The following provision apply to archaeological and historic resources whose presence are either recorded at the State Historic Preservation Office and/or by the City of Edmonds or such resources that are uncovered during development activities. Archaeological sites located both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to chapter 27.44 RCW (Indian graves and records) and chapter 27.53 RCW (Archaeological sites and records) and development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with chapter 25-48 WAC as well as the provisions of this section. B. Regulations: Where practicable, consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations, public or private developments shall be prevented from destroying or destructively altering potential or recognizable sites having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by appropriate authorities. 2. The city may require that a site be redesigned or that development be postponed for a definite or indefinite period if this is reasonably necessary to protect a historic site or items of historic, archeological or cultural significance 3. Upon receipt of application for a shoreline permit or request for a statement of exemption for development on properties with 500 feet of a site known to contain an historic, cultural or archaeological resource(s), the City shall require a cultural resource site assessment; provided that, this requirement may be waived if the Administrator determines that the proposed development activities do not include any ground disturbing activities and will not impact a known historic cultural or archaeological site. The site assessment shall be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional, as applicable, to determine the presence of significant historic or archaeological resources. The fee for the services of the professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional shall be paid by the landowner or responsible party. 4. Whenever historic, cultural or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development on shorelines, work on that portion of the development site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured and the find reported as soon as a possible to the Administrator. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and appropriate Native American Tribes. In such cases, the developer shall allow site inspection and City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 34 of 160 Packet Pg. 538 8.2.b evaluation by a professional archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data are properly salvaged. Work should not resume until approval is obtained from the Shoreline Administrator. 24.40.020 Critical Areas A. Applicability. Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: 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. B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated November 23, 2004, Ord. 3527), are herein adopted as a part of this Program, except for the specific subsections list below in ECDC 24.40.020.D. All references to the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance in this Program are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.D, shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B) of this Master Program), the regulations identified in this section also apply to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance and this Shoreline Master Program, provisions of the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. C. The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below may only be implemented within shoreline jurisdiction through the shoreline variance process; 1. Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50.040.F.3. Any shoreline project that proposes going beyond a 25% buffer reduction through the mechanisms described in ECDC 24.40.020.E.3 would require a shoreline variance. No variance is required for wetland buffer reductions consistent with ECDC 24.40.020.E.3. 2. Geologically Hazardous Areas: a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.I & 2: Allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas b. ECDC 23.80.070.A. Lb & A.2: Buffer reduction and alterations 3. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas a. ECDC 23.90.040.D.2: Reduced buffer widths b. ECDC 23.90.040.D.4: Additions to structures existing within stream buffers City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 35 of 160 Packet Pg. 539 8.2.b D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction. 1. General Provisions: a. Provisions of chapter 23.40 ECDC relating to reasonable economic use of property do not apply to property with shoreline jurisdiction; specifically ECDC 23.40.000 and ECDC 23.40.210(2). b. ECDC 23.40.130.D: Monitoring Program c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance d. ECDC 23.40.220.C.8: Minor Site Investigation Work e. ECDC 23.40.230: Exemptions 2. Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.4: Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. d. ECDC 23.50.040.F.8.b: Passive Recreation e. ECDC 23.50.040.L• Exemptions f. ECDC 23.50.050.F: Mitigation Ratios g. ECDC 23.50.050.G: Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation E. Development limitations. 1. All uses, modifications and activities on sites containing marine shorelines, environmentally sensitive areas and/or critical areas must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in these areas unless in conflict with the provisions of this Master Program. 2. The site must be specifically designed so that hazards from or impact on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical areas will be mitigated. 3. Mitigation sequencing. In order to comply with ECDC 24.40.020.E.2 above, a shoreline permit applicant or project proponent shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not have significant adverse impacts. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 36 of 160 Packet Pg. 540 8.2.b a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts. c. Rectifying the impact 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. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 4. Monitoring Program. Mitigation plans 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 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 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 ten years. 5. Long-term Protection of Mitigation Sites. The City shall require documentation that a mitigation site has been permanently preserved from future development or alteration that would be inconsistent with the functions of the mitigation. The documentation may include, but is not limited to, a conservation easement, deed restriction or other agreement between the applicant and the owner of a mitigation site. Such documentation shall be recorded with the Snohomish County auditor. F. Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with 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. 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 to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington (Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 37 of 160 Packet Pg. 541 8.2.b — Revised, Ecology Publication #04-06-025) or as revised by Ecology. This document contains the definitions and methods for determining the criteria and parameters defining the following wetland rating categories: a. Category L Category I wetlands are: 1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; 2) wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as high quality wetlands; 3) bogs; 4) mature and old - growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; 5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; or 6) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 70 points or more). b. Category II. Category II wetlands are: 1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; 2) interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acres; 3) disturbed coastal lagoons or 4) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 51-69 points). Category III. Category III wetlands are: 1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 30 and 50 points); or 2) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre in size. d. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 30 points) and are often heavily disturbed. 2. Development in designated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction shall be regulated in accordance with the following: a. Buffer Requirements. The standard buffer widths in ECDC 24.40.020.F.2.b 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. i. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in ECDC 24.40.020.F.2.c, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. ii. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in ECDC 24.40.020.F.2.c, than a 33% increase in the width of all buffer is required. iii. The standard buffer widths assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. iv. Additional buffer widths are added to the standard buffer widths. For example, a Category I wetland scoring 32 points for habitat function would require a buffer of 225 feet (75 + 150). City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 38 of 160 Packet Pg. 542 8.2.b b. Wetland Buffer requirements for wetlands within City of Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction. Wetland Category Standard Buffer Additional Additional Additional Width buffer width if buffer width if buffer width if wetland scares wetland scares wetland scares 21-25 habitat 26-29 habitat 30-36 habitat points Points points Category L• Based on 75 ft Add 30 ft Add 90 ft Add 150 ft total score Category L• Bogs 190 ft NA NA Add 35 ft Category I: Forested 75 ft Add 30 ft Add 90 ft Add 150 ft Category I: Estuarine 150 ft NA NA NA Category II (all) 75 ft Add 30 ft Add 90 ft Add 150 ft Category III (all) 60 ft Add 45 ft Add 105 ft NA Category IV (all) 40 ft NA NA NA c. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required, where applicable to a specific proposal. Disturbance Required measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10' heavily vegetated buffer strip 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 wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low 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 City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 39 of 160 Packet Pg. 543 8.2.b 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 connections undisturbed • Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting d. 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. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided according to Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Appendix 8-C, Table 8-C11, Ecology Publication #05-06-008, or as revised by Ecology. e. Buffer width Reductions Though Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmonds development services director, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category III and IV wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer with reduction to no less than 25 percent of the standard width; provided, that: i. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be increased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level provided by a standard buffer or through additional mitigation; ii. 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; iii. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 24.40.020.E.4; and iv. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in wetland buffer functioning as related to: 1. Water quality protection; 2. Provision of wildlife habitat; 3. Maintenance of wetland hydrology; and City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 40 of 160 Packet Pg. 544 8.2.b 4. Restricting wetland intrusion and disturbance. f. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The director may allow modification of a standard 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. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing with the project area or subject parcel shall be considered for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that: i. It will not reduce the function and value of wetlands or associated buffers; ii. 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 by adversely impacted by narrower buffer in other places; iii. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetland extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard buffer; and iv. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 25 percent of the standard buffer width. g. Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers. i. Areas which are both physically separated and functionally isolated from a wetland and do not protect the wetland from adverse impacts due to preexisting public roads, structures, or similar circumstances, shall be excluded from the buffers otherwise required by this subsection. ii. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated. h. Passive Recreation. The following passive recreation facilities may be permitted within a wetland buffer provided the facilities are designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report: i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are limited to minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the wetland buffer area, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing non -treated piling may be acceptable; ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 41 of 160 Packet Pg. 545 8.2.b Additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers may be permitted pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.H. Additions to structures within wetlands will also require state and federal approval. G. Geologically hazardous areas. Development in designated geologically hazardous areas shall be regulated in accordance with the following: New development or the creation of lots should not be allowed that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of the development. 2. New development should not be allowed that would require structural shoreline stabilization over the normal, useful life of the development. Exception may be made for instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result. The stabilization measures shall conform to ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline stabilization. 3. Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are found to be feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure, stabilization structures or measures to protect existing primary residential structures may be all in conformance with ECDC 24.50.020 requirements and then only if no net loss of ecological functions will result. H. Critical Saltwater Habitats. 1. Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when all of the conditions below are met: a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020; b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to accomplish the same general purpose. c. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat. d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery. 2. Private, non-commercial docks for individual residential or community use may be allowed provided that: a. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible; City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 42 of 160 Packet Pg. 546 8.2.b b. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in not net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat. 3. Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, all over water and near -shore developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to conduct an a habitat assessment of the site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions. I. Critical Freshwater Habitats. Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as streams and wetlands, shall be maintained. Obstructed channels shall be reestablished as a condition of nonwater-dependent uses, where feasible. Additional authority. In addition to any other authority the city may have, the city is hereby authorized to condition or deny a proposed use, modification or activity or to require site redesign because of hazards associated with the use, modification or activity on or near an environmentally sensitive and/or critical area, and/or the effect of the proposal on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area. 24.40.030 Flood Hazard Reduction A. Applicability. The following provisions apply to actions taken to reduce flood damage or hazard and to uses, development, and shoreline modification that may increase flood hazards B. Regulations. 1. Development and redevelopment shall be located and designed to prevent the need for structural flood hazard reduction measures. 2. Nonstructural flood reduction measures shall be given preference over structural measures. 3. Flood control works shall be permitted when it is demonstrated by engineering and scientific evaluations that: a. They are necessary to protect health/safety and or existing development; b. Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and c. The flood control work will not result in a net loss of ecological function in the shoreline area. 4. New structural flood control works shall be placed landward of associated wetlands, and designated habitat conservation areas, except for works that improve ecological functions, such as wetland restoration. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 43 of 160 Packet Pg. 547 8.2.b 5. Development within the shoreline environment shall meet the standards and provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas as provided to areas of special flood hazard in the current edition of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. 24.40.040 Public Access and Views A. Applicability. Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. The public access provisions below apply to all shorelines within the City of Edmonds. B. Regulations 1. Except as provided in subsections 2 through 4 of this section, shoreline substantial developments or conditional uses shall provide public access where any of the following conditions are present: a. Where the use or modification will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. b. Where the use or modification will interfere with an existing public access way, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. Where a use which is not a priority shoreline use under the Shoreline Management Act will locate on a shoreline of the state, the use or modification shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. d. Within the Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction, where a use or modification will interfere with a public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust doctrine, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. e. New multifamily residential development. f. Where there is a subdivision of land into more than four parcels. 2. An applicant need not provide public access where one or more the following conditions apply: a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist which cannot be prevent by any practical means; b. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions; City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 44 of 160 Packet Pg. 548 8.2.b c. The cost of providing the access, easement or an alternative amenity is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development; d. Unacceptable environmental harm will result from the public access which cannot be mitigated; e. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the proposed use/modification and adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated; or, 6. Statutory or constitutional requirements would prohibit the mandatory dedication of access without just compensation or compliance with statutory criteria. 3. In order to meet any of the conditions in subsection 2.a through 2.e of this section, the applicant must first demonstrate and the city determine in its finds that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, including but not limited to: a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use; b. Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g., fences, terracing, use of one-way glazings, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and Developing provisions for access at a site geographically separated from the proposal such as street end, vista or trail system. 4. Exceptions. The following uses, developments, modifications and activities are exempt form providing public pedestrian access under this section: a. The construction, repair, remodeling and use of one detached single-family dwelling unit, as well as the construction, remodeling, repair, and use of bulkheads, docks and other uses, modification and activities incidental to the use of the subject property as a detached single-family residence. b. All shoreline uses, modifications and activities in conservancy environments, or environmentally sensitive areas where the city determines that access would create distinct and unavoidable hazards to human safety or be contrary to city policies regarding the protection of unique and fragile environments. 5. Shoreline development by public entities, such as local governments, port districts, state agencies, and public utility districts, should provide public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline. 6. Public Use Facilities. a. In addition to the public pedestrian areas required by subsection 1 of this section, the applicant may propose and/or the city may require that benches, picnic tables, a public City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 45 of 160 Packet Pg. 549 8.2.b access pier or boardwalk, or other public use facilities be constructed on the subject property. b. If public use facilities are required or proposed, the city will determine the size, location and other regulations (design considerations) on a case -by -case basis. 7. Timing. The public pedestrian access required by this section must be completed and available at the time of occupancy or completion of work; provided, however, that the city may on a case -by -case basis defer the physical availability of public access in the following cases: a. If shoreline development without public pedestrian access exists on both sides of the subject property and the city determines that the size, location and topography or the subject property does not warrant making public waterfront access available until additional adjacent waterfront access can be obtained. b. If pre-existing legal or nonconforming improvements on the subject property physically preclude the provisions of public waterfront access within a reasonable period of time. 8. Easements recorded. In each case where public pedestrian access is required, whether it is physically available at the end of development or deferred until a later date, all owners of the subject property must record a public pedestrian easement, in a form approved by the city attorney, establishing the right of the public to access, use and traverse that portion of the subject property. 9. Signs. The city shall require the posting of signs, obtained from the city at the city's cost, designating public pedestrian access. The planning manager or his/her designee is authorized to establish reasonable rules and regulations governing the public's use of public pedestrian access and use areas under this chapter. Where appropriate, these rules and regulations shall be included within the document recorded under subsection 8 of this section. 10. Shoreline uses, modifications and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing or adversely interfering with the public's existing physical and visual access to the water and shorelines. 11. View Protection Regulations. a. Within the Urban Mixed Use I, Urban Mixed Use II and adjacent Aquatic I and Aquatic II shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the following required view corridors: i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained across 30 percent of the average parcel width. The view corridor must be in one continuous piece. Within the view corridor, structures, parking areas, and landscaping will be allowed; provided, that they do not obscure the view from adjacent public right-of- way to and beyond the Puget Sound. This view corridor must be adjacent to either City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 46 of 160 Packet Pg. 550 8.2.b the north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor given development on adjacent properties. If the subject property has shoreline frontage in excess of 1,000 feet, the city may require a maximum of one-third of the required view corridor to be placed in a location between the north and south property lines, in a location which will provide for the greatest unobstructed view of the Puget Sound. ii. Waterward of the ordinary high water, view corridors which are required pursuant to this section must be maintained starting at a width equal to the adjacent upland view corridor and expanding in a conical fashion 30 degrees from the prolongation of the view corridor water of the ordinary high water mark. b. Within the Urban Mixed Use IV designation i. Uses and activities must be designed and operated to avoid blocking or adversely interfering with visual access from public areas to the water and shorelines. 12. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights -of -way shall not be diminished (RCW 35.79.035 and 36.87.130). 13. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public street and shall include provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons, where feasible. 14. Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition running contemporaneous with the authorized land use, at a minimum. Said recording with the county auditor's office shall occur at the time of permit approval (RCW 58.17.110). 15. The minimum width of public access easements shall be 25 feet, unless the administrator determines that undue hardship would result. In such cases, easement width may be reduced only to the minimum extent necessary, as determined by the administrator, to relieve the hardship. Provided the larger easement is not needed for emergency access. 16. Future actions by the applicant successors in interest or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided. 17. Visual access shall be maintained, enhanced and preserved on shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights -of -way and within public view corridors as designated by the city. 24.40.050 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation A. Applicability. 1. Vegetation conservation includes activities to protect and restore vegetation along or near marine and freshwater shorelines that contribute to the ecological functions of shoreline City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 47 of 160 Packet Pg. 551 8.2.b areas. Vegetation conservation provisions include the prevention or restriction of plant clearing and earth grading, vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species. 2. Unless otherwise stated, vegetation conservation does not include those activities covered under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, except for conversion to other uses and those other forest practice activities over which local governments have authority. Vegetation conservation provisions apply even to those shoreline uses and developments that are exempt from the requirement to obtain permit. 3. Where new developments and/or uses are proposed, native shoreline vegetation should be conserved to maintain shoreline ecological functions and/or processes and mitigate the direct, indirect and/or cumulative impacts of shoreline development, where feasible. Important functions of shoreline vegetation include, but are not limited to: a. Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures required by salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota. b. Providing organic inputs critical for aquatic life. c. Providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macroinvertebrates. d. Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion, and reducing the occurrence of landslides. Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment through stormwater best management practices. f. Filtering and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants from ground water and surface runoff. g. Providing a source of large woody debris into the aquatic system. h. Regulation of microclimate in the stream -riparian and intertidal corridors. i. Providing habitat for wildlife, including connectivity for travel and migration corridors. B. Regulations. 1. Alteration of native shoreline vegetation shall only be allowed as set forth below: a. Landscaping or maintenance associated with an existing legal use or new permitted shoreline use or development. The use of native plant species shall be encouraged. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 48 of 160 Packet Pg. 552 8.2.b b. Removal of noxious weeds as listed by the state in WAC 16-750, provided such activity shall be conducted in a manner consistent with best management practices and native vegetation is promptly reestablish in the disturbed area. Modification of vegetation in association with a legal, nonconforming use provided that said modification is conducted in a manner consistent with this Master Program and results in no net loss to ecological functions or critical fish and wildlife conservation areas. d. Restoration activities conducted in accordance with an approved plan designed to improve ecological functions and values. 2. The removal or disturbance of existing vegetation and the alteration of topography shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved shoreline development. 3. Exposed soils shall be immediately developed or revegetated to prevent erosion. 4. Revegetation must be planted such that complete coverage of exposed soils is attained within one growing season. 5. In all cases where clearing is followed by revegetation, native plants shall be preferred 24.40.060 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint pollution A. Applicability. The following provisions applies to all development and uses within shoreline jurisdiction that may affect water quality. B. Regulations. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be submitted with a permit application for activities that involve the removal of vegetation, stockpiling of earth or other materials, or any activity that could result in shoreline erosion or siltation. Said program shall conform to the City of Edmonds' stormwater code requirements, Engineering Design Standards and shall at a minimum, utilize Best management Practices (BMPs) to prevent shoreline erosion and siltation. 2. The bulk storage of oil, fuel, chemicals, or hazardous materials, on either a temporary or permanent basis, shall not occur in shoreline without adequate secondary containment and an emergency spill response plan in place. 3. All development approved under this Shoreline Master Program shall be designed and maintained consistent with the City's Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, all codes related to stormwater, and Engineering Design Standards. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 49 of 160 Packet Pg. 553 8.2.b 4. New development is encouraged to employ Low Impact Development principles and practices such as setbacks, retaining land cover, and reducing impervious areas, and use special caution to avoid infiltration of stormwater in shoreline areas along marine bluffs. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 50 of 160 Packet Pg. 554 8.2.b 24.40.070 Shoreline Development Table: User Guide SDP Listed shoreline development permitted as a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-040 and ECDC 24.80.010, certain shoreline uses and modifications may be exempt from the requirements of the substantial development permit process. These exemptions shall be construed narrowly and only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process. Developments meeting the exemption from the requirements of the substantial development permit process are still subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. SCUP Listed shoreline development may be permitted as Shoreline Conditional Use Permit subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Shoreline developments requiring Shoreline Conditional Use Permits are not subject to the exemptions in WAC 173-27-040 or ECDC 24.80.010. X Listed shoreline development is prohibited. * Prohibited shoreline development is subject to specific exceptions. See Shoreline Area Regulations section for the listed shoreline development. + Permitted shoreline development is subject to specific limitations on where and/or when development may be permitted. See Shoreline Area Regulations for the listed shoreline development. 24.40.080 Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation' Shoreline Development Shoreline Area Designation Urban Railroad Urban Mixed Use I Urban Mixed Use II Urban Mixed Use III Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Residential I Shoreline Residential II Shoreline Residential III Aquatic I Aquatic 11 Conservancy Natural A uaculture X SCUP SCUP X SCUP X X X SCUP SCUP SCUP SCUP Artwork SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP X X SDP SDP Boating Facilities Launch Ramps X SDP SDP X X X X X X X X X Marinas X SDP SDP X X X X X X X X X Covered Over -water structures X X X X X X X X X X X X City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 51 of 160 Packet Pg. 555 8.2.b Shoreline Shoreline Area Designation Development Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Mixed Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Aquatic I Aquatic II Conservancy Natural Railroad Mixed Mixed Use Mixed Use IV Residential I Residential II Residential III Use I II Use III Commercial and Light Industrial Water -oriented X SDP SDP SDP SDP X X X X X X X Nonwater- X SDP+ SDP+ SDP± SDP X X X X X X X oriented Dredging SCUP SCUP SCUP X X X X SCUP SCUP SCUP SCUP X Landfill SCUP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SCUP SCUP SCUP SCUP' Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats Commercial X SDP SDP X X X X X X SDP X X Private, Public, and Shared X SDP SDP X X SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP X Aircraft X X X X X XR XR X X X XR Xx Recreation X SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP Residential Detached Residential X X X SDP X SDP SDP SDP X X X X (Single-family) Attached or stacked Residential X X X SDP X X X X X X X X (Multi -family) Shoreline Stabilization Groins SDP SDP SDP X X X X X SCUP SCUP SCUP X Breakwaters SDP SDP SDP X X X X X SCUP SCUP SCUP X and jetties Bulkheads and similar SDP SDP SDP X SCUP X X SDP X X SCUP X structures Bioengineering SDP SDP SDP X SDP X X SDP SDP+ SDP+ SDP X Gabions X X X X X X X X X X X X City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 52 of 160 Packet Pg. 556 8.2.b Shoreline Shoreline Area Designation Development Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Mixed Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Aquatic I Aquatic II Conservancy Natural Railroad Mixed Mixed Use Mixed Use IV Residential I Residential II Residential III Use I II Use III Signs SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP Transportation Railroads SDP SDP SDP X X X X X X X X X Ferry Terminals SCUP SDP SDP SDP SDP X X X SCUP SCUP X X Parking — supporting associated SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP X X X X X SCUP+ X water- dependentuse Parking — not supporting an associated SDP SCUP+ SCUP+ SDP SDP X X X X X SCUP+ X water - dependent use Other SCUP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SCUP+ SCUP+ Utilities SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SCUP In the event that there is a conflict between the development(s) identified in this Table 24.40.080 and the policies and/or regulations with the text of this Master Program, the policies and regulations within the text shall apply. 2: Artwork associate with a permitted use in the Aquatic I or Aquatic II designation may by permitted; otherwise it is a prohibited use. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 53 of 160 Packet Pg. 557 8.2.b 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards The following table establishes shoreline -specific development standards in the different shoreline environment designations. Setbacks represent minimum distances and may be larger if a critical area is present consistent with ECDC 24.40.020 and Title 23 ECDC. Shoreline Shoreline Area Designation Development Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Mixed Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Aquatic I Aquatic II Conservancy Natural Railroad Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Use IV Residential I Residential II Residential III I II III A uaculture — Over Water Structures Shore Setback (waterward N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ordinary high) Maximum Height above deck of 3ft 3ft 3ft 3ft 3ft N/A N/A N/A 3ft 3 ft. N/A 3ft overwater structure Commercial and Light Industrial Development Water Depend nt Commercial Use Shore Setback N/A 0' 0' 0' 0' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Side Setback15 N/A 0' 2 0' 2 Varies 0' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Height16 N/A 30' 30' 25' 35' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum N/A None None None None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Coverage All Other Commercial and Li ht Industrial Develo ment Shore Setback N/A 15' 15' 50' 100150 " N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Side Setback (commercial/ N/A 0'/15' 2, 3 0'/15' 2,3 Varies 0' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A residential) 15 Maximum 16 N/A 30' 30' 25' 35' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Height Maximum N/A None None None Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Coverage City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 54 of 160 Packet Pg. 558 8.2.b Shoreline Shoreline Area Designation Development Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Mixed Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Aquatic I Aquatic II Conservancy Natural Railroad Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Use IV Residential I Residential II Residential III I II III Recreation Shore Setback N/A 15' 15' 15' 15'17 N/A N/A 35' N/A N/A 50' N/A14 Maximum N/A 30' 30' 25' 35' 25' 25' 25' 15 15 15'4 25' 25' Height16 Maximum N/A None None None None 35% 35% 35% N/A N/A 10% or 4,000 N/A Coverage square feet 20% or Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,000 N/A impervious square feet Residential Develo went Shore Setback N/A N/A N/A 50'17 100150 N/A N/A 35' N/A N/A N/A N/A Bluff Setback N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50'13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum 16 N/A N/A N/A 25' 35' 25' 25' 25' N/A N/A N/A N/A Height Minimum Lot N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Varies11 6,000 sq ft 12,000 sq ft N/A N/A N/A N/A Area (Sq. Ft. Maximum Density6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Varies 12 7.3 3.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35% 35% 35% N/A N/A N/A N/A Coverage Transportation and Parkin Parkin Uncovered Parking Shore Setback 1 60' 60' 60' 50"1 100150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60' N/A Structured Parking Shore Setback N/A N/A N/A 50' 100150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Height16 N/A N/A N/A 25' 35' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ferry Terminals Maximum 8 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' N/A N/A N/A 35' 35' N/A N/A Height Railroads Maximum 25' 9 30'') 30' 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Height Property line 5' 5 5' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 55 of 160 Packet Pg. 559 8.2.b Shoreline Shoreline Area Designation Development Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Mixed Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Aquatic I Aquatic II Conservancy Natural railroad Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Use IV Residential I Residential II Residential III I II III All Other Develo ment Shore Setback N/A 15' 15' 50' 17 100150 N/A N/A 35' N/A N/A 50' N/A 14 Maximum 16 25' 30' 30' 25' 35' 25' 25' 25' 25' 35'/15' 10 25' 25' Height Minimum Lot N/A None None None None Varies" 6,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Varies12 7.3 3.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Density Maximum None None None None Varies19 35% 35% 35% N/A N/A 10% 10% Coverage 1 ' Aquaculture pens shall be no closer to the shoreline than the identified distance. Z ' See ECDC 24.40.040.13.11 for view corridor requirements. 3 : No side setback is required from adjacent commercial property. A minimum 15-foot setback is required from lot line adjacent to shoreline residential environments. The area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum six-foot high fence or hedge. 4 ' Above ordinary high water mark. 5 ' Thirty-five feet total of both sides, 10 feet minimum on either side. 6 ' Density means "dwelling units per acre" determined by dividing the total lot area by the density allowed by the underlying zoning; the number of lots or units permitted shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number. 7 ' In the Urban Mixed Use I and II environment, the 60-foot setback for parking may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet. See ECDC 24.60.080.D.2.c. and 24.60.080.D.3.c 8 ' Subject to exceptions, see ECDC 24.60.070.C.10. 9 ' Subject to exceptions, see ECDC 24.60.080.D. l.b.xiii. I through ECDC 24.60.080.D.l.b.xiii.4. 10 . Accessory structures for the sale of gas, oil and live bait, shall not exceed 15 feet above the height of the dock or pier. 11 . Varies between 12,000 and 20,000 square feet per site depending on the underlying zoning. 12 : Varies between 3.7 and 2.2 dwellingunits per acre depending on the underlying zoning. Density means "dwelling units per acre" determined b dividing the total lot area b the density allowed b the underlying zoning; the P P g Yi g g Y g P Y g Y tY Y Y� g g number of lots or units permitted shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number. 13 . May be reduced through the shoreline variance process pursuant to ECDC 24.40.020.C.3. 14 : Three areas within the City of Edmonds have the natural environment designation: Edmonds Marsh, Shell Creek Wetland, and Perrinville Creek Wetland. All three areas are separated from the Puget Sound by the railroad right-of-way. 15 ' Side setback determined by the underlying zoning. No required side setback in the BD2, CG, or MP2 zones. Five foot side setback in the OR zone, 16 : The maximum height limit shall be determined b the underlying comprehensive planning document and zoning designation. Height limits eater than 35 feet shall be su orted b view analysis and structures designed to Sh Y Y� g P P g g g g greater pP Y Y Sn minimize impacts on public views. 17 ' Fences within the shore setback of the Urban Mixed Use 11-1-IV zone that create separate areas for public and private uses should not be allowed. 18 : Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 100 feet. New development activities within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment require the establishment of a 50-foot vegetation buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent. 19 : Varies between 75% and no maximum coverage requirement per site depending on the underlying zoning. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 56 of 160 Packet Pg. 560 8.2.b Part V Specific Modification Policies & Regulations. 24.50.000 Applicability. Shoreline modification activities are structures or actions that permanently change the physical configuration or quality of the shoreline, particularly at the point where land and water meet. Shoreline modifications include but are not limited to structures such as bulkheads and piers and actions such as clearing, grading and removing vegetation. Generally, shoreline modifications are undertaken to prepare for a shoreline use, to support and upland use, or to provide shoreline stabilization or defense from erosion. 24.50.010 General Modification Policies and Regulations A. General Modification Policies. Locate and design all new development in a manner that prevents or minimizes the need for shoreline modifications. 2. Ensure that shoreline modification, where permitted, are as compatible as possible with natural shoreline processes and character. 3. Regulate shoreline modifications to assure that modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation may be required to meet the no net loss standard. 4. Give preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a less impact on ecological functions and require mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications. 5. Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem - wide processes in the placement and design of shoreline modifications. To avoid and reduce ecological impacts, the mitigation sequence in ECDC 24.40.020.E.3 shall be utilized. B. General Shoreline Modification Regulations 1. Shoreline modification activities that do not support a permitted shoreline use are considered "speculative" and are prohibited by this Master Program, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Shoreline Administrator that such activities are in the public interest and necessary and for the maintenance of shoreline environmental resource values. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 57 of 160 Packet Pg. 561 8.2.b 2. Structural shoreline modification measures shall be permitted only if nonstructural measures are unable to achieve the same purpose. Nonstructural measures considered shall include alternative site designs, increased setbacks, relocation, and bioengineering. 3. Shoreline modification activities, with the exception of restoration or enhancement efforts, are prohibited in wetlands, and undeveloped spits, hooks, bars, barrier beaches, or similar accretion terminals or accretion shore forms. 4. Proponents of shoreline modification projects shall obtain all applicable federal and state permits and shall meet all permit requirements. 5. Best Available Science. All reports prepared in support of a shoreline modification shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of shoreline environment and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. 24.50.020 Shoreline stabilization A. Applicability. Shoreline stabilization includes actions taken to address erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, or structures cause by natural processes, such as current, flood, tides, wind, or wave action. These actions include structural and nonstructural methods. Nonstructural methods include building setbacks, relocation of the structure to be protected, ground water management, planning and regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization. Structural methods can be "hard" or "soft". "Hard" structural stabilization measures structural stabilization measures refer to those with solid, hard surfaces, such as concrete bulkheads. These are static structures traditionally constructed of rock, concrete, wood, metal, or other materials that deflect, rather than absorb, wave energy. "Soft" structural measures rely on softer materials, such as vegetation, drift logs, and gravel. They are intended to absorb wave energy, mimicking the function of a natural beach. The following methods of shoreline stabilization are organized from "soft" to "hard": "Soft" • Vegetation enhancement; • Upland drainage control; • Biotechnical measures; • Beach enhancement; • Anchor tree; and • Gravel placement; "Hard" • Rock revetments; • Gabions; City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 58 of 160 Packet Pg. 562 8.2.b • Groins; • Retaining walls and bluff walls; • Bulkheads; and • Seawalls. The following policies and regulations apply to all actions and developments that modify the shoreline for the purposes of preventing shore erosion. B. Shoreline Stabilization Policies 1. Discourage new development requiring structural shoreline defense works. 2. Relocating existing structures out of harm's way is preferable to construction of structural defense works. 3. Allow structural stabilization methods only: a. After it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions would not be able to reduce the potential damage sufficiently, and b. Where it has been demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect a new use consistent with this Master program, a legally established, inhabited structure or ongoing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage or when necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for hazardous substance remediation or restoration of ecological functions. Structural stabilization will not be permitted for the indirect purpose of creating land by filling. 4. Encourage "soft" stabilization and protection works over "hard" structural means. Furthermore, designs that do not interrupt net drift or migration of anadromous fish are preferred (for example, open poling construction is preferable to sold walls, and floating breakwaters are preferable to solid landfills.) 5. Consider the effect that proposed shore defense works have on ecosystem -wide processes (e.g. sand movement) and functions (e.g. habitat). Make provisions to avoid and minimize impacts where feasible. Mitigation must be provided to achieve no net loss. 6. Give special attention to the effect these structures will have on aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, public access, and use of the water. C. Shoreline Stabilization Regulations 1. For the purposes of this section, standards on shoreline stabilization, "replacement" means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of an existing structure which can no longer adequately service its purpose. Addition to or City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 59 of 160 Packet Pg. 563 8.2.b increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. 2. Structural stabilization methods shall be permitted when necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement purposes. 3. New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant negative impacts to adjacent or down -current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. 4. New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the normal, useful life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. 5. New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner: a. To protect existing primary structures: i. New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, should not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by tidal action, currents, or waves. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on -site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization. ii. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. b. In support of new nonwater-dependent development, including single-family residences, when all of the conditions below apply: i. The erosion is not being cause by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. ii. Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural processes, such as tidal action, currents, and waves. iv. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 60 of 160 Packet Pg. 564 8.2.b c. In support of water -dependent development when all of the conditions below apply: i. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. ii. Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. iv. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. d. To protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW when all of the conditions below apply: i. Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. ii. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 6. Geotechnical reports pursuant to this section that address the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions should not be authorized except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure will be damaged within three years as a result of shoreline erosion in the absence of such hard armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate, would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as the three years, that report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures. D. Shoreline Stabilization Siting and Design Regulations. 1. When any structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, pursuant to above provisions. a. Limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum necessary. Use measures designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 61 of 160 Packet Pg. 565 8.2.b be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses. b. Ensure that publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures do not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to ecological functions. Where feasible, incorporate ecological restoration and public access improvements into the project. c. Mitigate new erosion control measures, including replacement structures, on feeder bluffs or other actions that affect beach sediment -producing areas to avoid and, if that is not possible, to minimize adverse impacts to sediment conveyance systems. 2. Bulkheads and other shoreline protective structures may not be constructed within a marsh, bog, or swamp or between a marsh, bog or swamp and the primary body of water (Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger). 3. Bulkheads and other shoreline protective structures may not be placed waterward of the ordinary height water mark, unless: a. It is to stabilize a fill approved under ECDC 24.50.040; or b. There has been severe and unusual erosion within one year immediately preceding the application for the bulkhead or other similar protective structure. In this event, the city may allow the placement of the bulkhead or other similar protective structure to recover the dry land area lost by this erosion. 4. Bulkheads and other shoreline protect structures shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and generally parallel to the natural shoreline unless geotechnical evaluation demonstrates the necessity for alternative design. In addition: a. Where no other bulkheads are adjacent, the construction of a bulkhead shall be as close to the eroding bank as possible and in no case shall it be more than six (6) feet from the toe of the bank. b. A bulkhead for a permitted landfill shall be located at the toe of the fill. c. Where permitted, a bulkhead must tie in flush with existing bulkheads on adjoining properties, except where the adjoining bulkheads extend waterward of the ordinary high water mark. 5. An existing bulkhead or other shoreline stabilization structure may be replaced with a similar structure if there is a demonstrated need to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents, tidal action, or waves. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 62 of 160 Packet Pg. 566 8.2.b a. The replacement structure should be designed, located, sized, and constructed to assure no net loss of ecological functions. b. Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high- water mark or existing structure unless the residential structure to which it is appurtenant was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure may abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure. c. Where a net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitats would occur by leaving the existing structure, remove it as part of the replacement measure. d. Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. e. For purposes of this section standards on shoreline stabilization measures, "replacement" means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of an existing structure which can no longer adequately serve its purpose. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. 6. Materials used in bulkhead construction shall meet the following standards: a. Bulkheads shall utilize stable, non-erodable materials such as concrete, wood, and rock that are consistent with the preservation and protection of the ecological habitat b. Shore materials shall not be used for fill behind bulkheads, except clean dredge spoil from a permitted off -site dredge and fill operation. c. The extent and nature of any backfill proposed landward of a bulkhead or other shoreline protective structure shall comply with adopted City standards. 7. If hard stabilization methods are employed the following design criteria shall be meet: a. The size and quantity of the material shall be limited to that the minimum necessary to withstand the estimated energy intensity of the hydraulic system; b. Filter cloth must be used to aid drainage and help prevent settling; The toe reinforcement or protection must be adequate to prevent a collapse of the system wave action; and d. Fish habitat components shall be considered in the design subject to Hydraulic Project Approval by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 63 of 160 Packet Pg. 567 8.2.b 8. When hard stabilization measures are required at a public access site, provision for safe pedestrian access to the water shall be incorporated into bulkhead design. 9. Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into a hard stabilization structure but shall not extend waterward of it. E. Geotechnical Reports. Geotechnical reports required pursuant to this section shall address the need for shoreline stabilization and shall include the following. 1. A scaled site plan showing: a. The location of existing and proposed shore stabilization, structures, fill, and vegetation, with dimensions indicated distances to the ordinary high water mark. b. Existing site topography with two foot contours. 2. A description of the processes affecting the site, and surrounding areas that influence or could be influenced by the site, including areas in which lake or marine geomorphic processes affect the site, including, but not limited to: a. Soil erosion, deposition, or accretion; b. Evidence of past or potential erosion due to tidal action and/or waves; c. Littoral drift; and d. An estimate of shoreline erosion rates. 3. A description and analysis of the urgency and risk associated with the specific site characteristics. F. Shoreline Stabilization — Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. b. Gabions are prohibited. 2. Urban Mixed Use I a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 64 of 160 Packet Pg. 568 8.2.b b. Gabions are prohibited. 3. Urban Mixed Use 11 a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. b. Gabions are prohibited. 4. Urban Mixed Use III a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. b. Gabions are prohibited. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. b. Gabions are prohibited. 6. Shoreline Residential I a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. b. Gabions are prohibited. 7. Shoreline Residential II a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. b. Gabions are prohibited. 8. Shoreline Residential III a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. b. Gabions are prohibited. 9. Aquatic I as M a E M 0 L a L m 0 as c L0 CD ti M T City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 65 of 160 Packet Pg. 569 8.2.b a. Bioengineering approaches are permitted on tidelands and shorelands when necessary to restore an eroding accretion shoreform or to retard erosion elsewhere subject to policies and regulations of this program. b. Bulkheads or revetments are prohibited except for an approved water -dependent development subject to policies and regulations of this Program. c. Gabions are prohibited. 10. Aquatic II a. Bioengineering approaches are permitted on tidelands and shorelands when necessary to restore an eroding accretion shoreform or to retard erosion elsewhere subject to policies and regulations of this program. b. Bulkheads or revetments are prohibited except for an approved water -dependent development subject to policies and regulations of this Program. c. Gabions are prohibited. 11. Conservancy a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program b. Gabions are prohibited. 12. Natural: Shoreline stabilization is prohibited; except that, bioengineering approaches may be permitted as a conditional use when necessary to restore and eroding accretion shoreform or to retard erosion elsewhere. 24.50.030 Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats A. Applicability Docks are fixed structures floating upon water bodies. Piers are fixed, pile -supported structures. Floats are floating structures that are moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in the water that are not connected to the shoreline. Docks, piers, and floats that serve four or fewer boats regularly moored are reviewed a recreational facilities. Proposals for five or more boats are considered marinas and are regulated under ECDC 24.60.020, Boating Facilities. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 66 of 160 Packet Pg. 570 8.2.b B. Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats Policies 1. A dock associated with a single family residence is considered a water -dependent use provided that it is designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft and otherwise complies with the provisions of this section. 2. New pier or dock construction, excluding docks accessory to single-family residences, should be permitted only when the applicant has demonstrated that a specific need exists to support the intended water -dependent use. 3. Shared pier and dock facilities are preferred over single -user moorage where feasible. New subdivisions of more than two (2) lots should provide joint shared moorage. 4. Piers and docks, including those accessory to single-family residences, shall be designed and constructed to avoid or to minimize and mitigate the impacts to ecological functions, critical areas resources such as eelgrass beds and fish habitats and processes such as currents and littoral drift. C. Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats Regulations 1. The following piers, docks, and floating developments are prohibited in the shoreline jurisdiction: a. Aircraft moorage is prohibited, except that aircraft may be temporarily moored (not to exceed 36 hours) in the event of severe weather conditions. b. Covered moorage. 2. Size of Piers and Docks. Piers and docks may not be larger than is necessary to provide safe and reasonable moorage for the boats which can reasonably be expected to be moored. The city will specifically review the size and configuration or each proposed pier or dock to ensure that: a. The pier or dock does not extend waterward beyond the point necessary to provide reasonable draft for the boats to be moored and shall not extend beyond the outer harbor line; and b. The pier or dock is not larger than is necessary to moor the specified number of boats; and c. The pier or dock will not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation; and d. The pier or dock will not adversely affect nearby uses; and City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 67 of 160 Packet Pg. 571 8.2.b e. The pier or dock will not have a significant long-term adverse effect on aquatic habitats. 3. In order to minimize impacts on nearshore areas and avoid reduction in ambient light level: a. The width of piers, docks and floats shall be the minimum necessary and shall not exceed 4 feet in width, except where specific information on use patterns justifies a greater width. Marine floats shall not exceed 8 feet in width not more than 40 feet in length and freshwater floats shall not exceed 6 feet in width and 20 feet in length unless authorized by a variance. Exceptionally large vessels or vessels that require a relatively deep draft may be required to use a buoy, other alternative mooring scheme, or to moor in a marina. Materials that will allow light to pass through the deck may be required where width exceeds 4 feet. b. Dock surfaces designed to allow maximum light penetration shall be used on walkways or gangplanks in nearshore areas. c. Piers, docks and floats shall be located along a north/south orientation to the maximum extent feasible. d. The surface of new piers, docks and floats shall provide at least 50% functional grating. 4. Waterward of the ordinary high water mark, pier and dock height may not exceed a height of five feet above water level, except that pilings may extend a reasonable amount above dock height to provide for tidal conditions. 5. Prohibited substances. No part of a pier, dock or other components that may come in contact with the water may be treated with or consist, in whole or in part, of creosote, oil based paints, toxic chemicals, or other substances that would be harmful to the aquatic environment, unless specifically permitted and authorized by appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies. 6. If the pier, dock or float will extend waterward of the inner harbor line, the applicant must obtain a lease from the Department of Natural Resources prior to proposing this use. 7. No structure regulated under this section, other than moorage structures and sheds associated with gas and oil sales for boats, may be waterward of the ordinary high water mark. D. Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats - Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad: Moorage structures are prohibited. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 68 of 160 Packet Pg. 572 8.2.b a. Private, shared, public and commercial moorage structures are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. Aircraft moorage is prohibited, except that aircraft may be temporarily moored (not to exceed 36 hours) in the event of severe weather conditions. c. Moorage structures and facilities located may not be located waterward of public parks, public beaches, or public facilities, nor may they be located so as to obstruct waterward view from these public uses. d. Permitted Accessory Uses: i. Boat and motor sales ii. Boat repair and service, including dry docks, boat yards and similar activities iii. Boat motor/engine repair and service; provided, that commercial boat motor/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take place within a building or be screened from public view. iv. Pumping facilities to remove effluent from boat holding tanks v. Dry land boat storage; provided, however, that stacked storage shall not be permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height in the Urban Mixed Use I shoreline environment. vi. Meeting and special event rooms. vii. Gas and oil sales for boats, if; A. All storage tanks are underground and located upland of the ordinary high water mark; and B. The use has facilities to contain and clean up gas and oil spills. C. Gas and oil sales may be conducted with an Overwater shed that is not more than 150 square feet in area and 15 feet in height as measured from the top of the deck. viii. Waste oil storage tanks not to exceed 500 gallons may be located above ground. Hazardous waste may be stored temporarily above ground in not more than nine 55-gallon drums. Such drums shall have secondary containment. Waste oil and hazardous storage tanks for the temporary storage of wastes and hazardous substances which exceed these standards, shall be placed underground. No tank City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 69 of 160 Packet Pg. 573 8.2.b of any kind intended for the permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances shall be permitted. 3. Urban Mixed Use II a. Private, shared, public and commercial moorage structures are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. Aircraft moorage, except that aircraft may be temporarily moored (not to exceed 36 hours) in the event of severe weather conditions. Moorage structures and facilities located may not be located waterward of public parks, public beaches, or public facilities, nor may they be located so as to obstruct waterward view from these public uses. d. Permitted Accessory Uses: i. Boat and motor sales ii. Boat repair and service, including dry docks, boat yards and similar activities iii. Boat motor/engine repair and service; provided, that commercial boat motor/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take place within a building or be screened from public view. iv. Pumping facilities to remove effluent from boat holding tanks v. Dry land boat storage; provided, however, that stacked storage shall not be permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height in the Urban Mixed Use I shoreline environment. vi. Meeting and special event rooms. vii. Gas and oil sales for boats, if; A. All storage tanks are underground and located upland of the ordinary high water mark; and B. The use has facilities to contain and clean up gas and oil spills. C. Gas and oil sales may be conducted with an Overwater shed that is not more than 150 square feet in area and 15 feet in height as measured from the top of the deck. viii. Waste oil storage tanks not to exceed 500 gallons may be located above ground. Hazardous waste may be stored temporarily above ground in not more than nine City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 70 of 160 Packet Pg. 574 8.2.b 55-gallon drums. Such drums shall have secondary containment. Waste oil and hazardous storage tanks for the temporary storage of wastes and hazardous substances which exceed these standards, shall be placed underground. No tank of any kind intended for permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances shall be permitted. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Moorage structures are prohibited. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Moorage structures are prohibited. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Moorage structures are prohibited. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Moorage structures are prohibited. 8. Shoreline Residential III a. Moorage structures and facilities may only be permitted and used accessory to detached dwelling units on waterfront lots. Use of the moorage structure and facilities is limited to the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the moorage is accessory. Moorage space may not be leased, rented, sold, or otherwise made available to other than the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the moorage is accessory. b. Accessory uses are not permitted in conjunction with moorage structure. c. Residential Moorage Structure Development Standards: i. Height. The height of a residential dock or pier shall not exceed five feet above the ordinary high water mark. The height of attendant pilings shall not exceed five feet above the ordinary high water mark or that height necessary to provide for temporary emergency protection of floating docks as determined in accord with generally accepted engineering practices. ii. Length. The length of any residential dock or pier shall not exceed the lesser of 35 feet or the average length of existing docks or piers within 300 feet of the subject dock or pier. iii. Width. The width of any residential dock or pier shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot width when measured parallel to the shoreline. A joint use dock located at the property line with another lot which shares the joint use dock may not exceed 25% the total of both lots. iv. Setbacks. All residential docks or piers shall observe a minimum 10-foot side yard setback from a property line or a storm drainage outfall. Joint use docks or piers may be located on the side property line; provided, that the abutting waterfront property owners shall file a joint use maintenance agreement with the City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 71 of 160 Packet Pg. 575 8.2.b Snohomish County auditor in conjunction with, and as a condition of, the issuance of a building permit. Joint use docks or piers shall observe all other regulations of this subsection. If such joint maintenance agreement is terminated, the dock or pier shall be brought into compliance with the bulk and set back provisions of this Master Program. v. Number. No lot shall have more than one dock or pier or portion thereof located on the lot. vi. Size. No residential dock or pier shall exceed 400 square feet. vii. Floats. Offshore recreational floats are prohibited. viii. Covered Buildings. No covered building shall be allowed on any residential dock or pier. 9. Aquatic I a. Private, shared, and public moorage structures are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. If the subject property provides moorage for not more than two boats, the following setbacks apply: i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 25 feet of a public park. ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet for moorage structures, provided that joint or shared moorage facilities may be located within the setback from the lot with whom the facility is shared. c. If the subject property provides moorage for more than two boats, the following setbacks apply: i. No moorage structure on private property maybe within 100 feet of a public park. ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet. 10. Aquatic II City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 72 of 160 Packet Pg. 576 8.2.b a. Private, shared, public and commercial moorage structures are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. No moorage structure on private property maybe within 100 feet of a public park. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. d. The side property line setback is 10 feet. 11. Conservancy a. Moorage structures and facilities may only be permitted and used accessory to detached dwelling units on waterfront lots. Use of the moorage structure and facilities is limited to the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the moorage is accessory. Moorage space may not be leased, rented, sold, or otherwise made available to other than the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the moorage is accessory. b. Moorage structures and facilities may not provide moorage for more than two boats; provided, however, that waterfront lots are encourage to develop joint or shared moorage facilities. If this occurs, the joint or shared moorage facility may contain up to two moorages for each waterfront lot participating in the joint or shared moorage facility. c. Accessory uses are not permitted in conjunction with moorage structure. d. If the subject property provides moorage for not more than two boats, the following setbacks apply: i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 25 feet of a public park ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet. e. If the subject property provides moorage for more than two boats, the following setbacks apply: i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 100 feet of a public park ii. No moorage structure may be with 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 73 of 160 Packet Pg. 577 8.2.b iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet for moorage structures, provided that joint or shared moorage facilities may be located within the setback from the lot with whom the facility is shared. 12. Natural. Moorage structures are prohibited. 24.50.040 Landfill A. Applicability. Landfill is the creation of or addition to the surface of the land by the filling, placement or depositing of sand, soil, or gravel, or other material on land covered by water, or in a wetland, march, bog, swamp, or similar water detention area. Landfill is normally done for and, in this Master Program, must be associated with a specific purpose or use such as the development of a commercial site, construction of roadways or a jetty. 2. When backfill of bulkhead involves over one cubic yard per lineal foot, such bulkheads shall be evaluated under both this section and ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline stabilization. B. Fill Policies Landfill should only be permitted to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate an approved shoreline use or development and with assurance of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes. Enhancement and voluntary restoration of landforms and habitat are encouraged. 2. Allow landfills waterward of the ordinary high water mark, in those limited circumstances where permitted, only when necessary to facilitate water -dependent uses or ecological restoration projects that are consistent with this program and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plans. Where feasible, public access to the shoreline and the water should be incorporated into the design. C. Landfill Regulations 1. Landfill water ward of the ordinary high water mark may be permitted as a conditional use in limited instances for the following purposes only, with due consideration given to specific site conditions, and only in conjunction with approved shoreline use and development activities that are consistent with this program: a. Water -dependent use permitted under this Master Program. b. To create public use or public recreation areas. c. Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 74 of 160 Packet Pg. 578 8.2.b d. Disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with the dredged material management program of the Department of Natural Resources. Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline and then only upon a demonstration that alternatives to fill are not feasible. f. Mitigation action, environmental restoration, beach nourishment or enhancement projects. 2. Landfills shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that: a. The project has been located, designed, and constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to ecological processes and functions and where impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation is provided to achieve no net loss. b. The fill will not result in erosion of the shoreline or undermine stability of neighboring properties. c. The fill is the minimum necessary to reasonably accomplish the purpose for the fill under subsection C.1 of this section. d. Where existing public access will be reduced, equivalent public access has been provided on or off site as part of the project. e. Fill material consists only of soil, sand, rock, or gravel. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic materials that would be detrimental to water quality or existing habitats. f. Placement of landfill will be timed so as to minimize damage to water quality and aquatic life. 3. The applicant must stabilize exposed fill areas with vegetation. 4. Landfills, beach nourishment and excavation shall be designed to blend physically and visually with existing topography whenever possible, so as not to interfere with long term appropriate use including lawful access and enjoyment of scenery. 5. A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan shall be provided for all proposed landfill and excavation activities. 6. The fill shall be designed and supervised by a civil engineer or similarly qualified professional. The professional shall certify that the fill meets the following requirements: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 75 of 160 Packet Pg. 579 8.2.b a. The fill is designed and executed to minimize adverse impacts on neighboring properties and the environment, and is fully integrated into an otherwise approved facility. b. The fill is designed and executed to provide permanent structural integrity for the fill and surrounding areas. D. Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information: 1. Proposed use of the landfill area. 2. Analysis of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the fill material demonstrating that the fill is of such quality that significant water quality, ecological impacts, and public health problems would not occur from its placement. 3. Fill must meet all state standards. Assessment of water quality impacts shall be included as an attachment. 4. Source of the landfill material. 5. Location of the landfill relating to natural or existing drainage patterns. 6. Location of the perimeter of the landfill relating to the ordinary high water mark and critical areas. The applicant should consult with the Department of Ecology in determining the location of the ordinary high water mark. For development proposals at or water ward of the ordinary high water mark, an OHWM field determination by a qualified professional shall be provided with the application. The field determination shall be consistent with guidance development by the Department of Ecology and is subject to verification by the city of Edmonds and the Department of Ecology. 7. Perimeter erosion control or stabilization means, and schedule for implementation. 8. Type of surfacing and run-off control and treatment devices. E. Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 2. Urban Mixed Use L• Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. 3. Urban Mixed Use I1: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 76 of 160 Packet Pg. 580 8.2.b 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. 8. Shoreline Residential III: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. 9. Aquatic I: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 10. Aquatic II: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 11. Conservancy: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 12. Natural: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use when necessary to protect or restore shoreline ecological functions subject to policies and regulations of this program. 24.50.050 Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs A. Applicability: A breakwater is a protective structure usually built offshore to protect harbor areas, moorage, navigation or beaches from wave action. A jetty, groin or weir is a structure usually built singly or in pairs perpendicular to the shore to prevent shoaling or accretion of sediment drift. Projects the requiring fill must also meet the requirements of ECDC 24.50.040, Landfill. B. Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins, and Weirs Policies 1. Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs located waterward of the ordinary high watermark shall be allowed only where necessary to support water -dependent uses, public access, shoreline stabilization, or other specific public purpose. 2. Open pile or floating breakwater designs are preferred. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 77 of 160 Packet Pg. 581 8.2.b 3. Solid rock or fill -based weirs, groins and jetties should not be constructed unless it can be demonstrated that they are part of a larger system that will reduce the need for overall shoreline modification and that they are intended to prevent damage to existing structures. They should not be proposed to protect new structures. C. Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins, and Weirs Regulations 1. Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins and Weirs may be allowed provided that: a. Jetties and breakwaters are permitted where they are an integral component of a professionally designed harbor, marina, or port. Where permitted, floating portable or submerged breakwater structures, or small discontinuous structures are preferred where physical conditions make such alternatives with less impact feasible. b. Groins are permitted as a component of a professionally designed community or public beach management program that encompasses an entire drift sector or reach for which alternatives are infeasible. Or where installed to protect or restore shoreline ecological functions. c. The breakwater is essential to the safe operation of a moorage facility. d. The city determines that the location, size, design and accessory components of the moorage facility to be protected by the breakwater provide a public benefit and are within the public interest. e. The breakwater, jetty, groin, or weir is designed to protect critical areas and where impacts are unavoidable, mitigation will be provided to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. 2. Public Access: a. Where appropriate projects shall be required to maintain, replace or enhance existing public access opportunities by incorporating physical or visual access areas and/or facilities into the design of the project. b. Publicly financed or subsidized projects shall not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline and shall provide new public access except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to shoreline ecological functions. 3. All breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs must be designed and constructed under the supervision of a civil engineer or similarly qualified professional. As part of the application, the engineer or other professional designing the project must certify that: a. The project is designed to meet the requirements of this Program and accomplish the purpose of the project using the best available science. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 78 of 160 Packet Pg. 582 8.2.b b. The project is designed to be the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed purpose. c. The project is designed to have the minimum feasible adverse impacts upon the environment, nearby waterfront properties, and navigation. d. Any unavoidable impacts have been mitigated to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. D. Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins, and Weirs — Shoreline Area Regulations. 1. Urban Railroad: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are prohibited. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are prohibited. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are prohibited. 8. Shoreline Residential III: a. Bulkheads are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. b. Jetties, groins, and weirs are prohibited. 9. Aquatic I: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 10. Aquatic II: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 11. Conservancy: a. Breakwaters and jetties maybe permitted as a conditional use if accessory to a water - dependent use and littoral sediment transport is not significantly disrupted. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 79 of 160 Packet Pg. 583 8.2.b b. Groins may be permitted as a conditional use when necessary to protect or restore shoreline ecological functions subject to policies and regulations of this program. 12. Natural: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs may be permitted as a conditional use when necessary to protect or restore shoreline ecological functions subject to policies and regulations of this program. 24.50.060 Dredging and dredge material disposal A. Applicability. Dredging is the removal or displacement of earth such as gravel, sand, mud, or silt from lands covered by water. Lands covered by water include tidelands, marinas, and wetlands. Dredging is normally done for, and in this Master Program must be associated with, a specific purpose or use such as maintaining navigation channels, developing/expanding marinas, constructing bridge footings, laying submarine cable and in some cases aquaculture (See Aquaculture Section ECDC 24.60.010). Dredging to restore preexisting contours within a designated and authorized navigation channel, marina or basin is considered normal maintenance and is exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit. Dredging is only maintenance where there is a designated and authorized facility such as a marina, federal navigation channel or berth authorized by permit. If an operation expands an existing the channel or basin, a permit is required even if the marina or similar project has been operation for years. Dredge spoil is the material removed by dredging. Dredge spoil disposal is the depositing of dredge materials on land or into water bodies for the purpose of either creating new or additional lands or for disposing of the dredge material (See also, Landfill Section, ECDC 24.50.040). B. Dredging and dredge material policies 1. Site and design new development to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging. 2. Dredging waterward of the ordinary high water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material shall not be allowed, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of ecological functions. 3. Dredging should be permitted for water -dependent uses of economic importance to the region and/or essential public facilities only when necessary and when alternatives are infeasible or less consistent with this Program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 80 of 160 Packet Pg. 584 8.2.b 4. Plan and conduct dredge and dredge disposal operations in a manner that avoids or minimizes interference with navigation and significant ecological impacts. Impacts which cannot be avoided should be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. S. Minor dredging for fill materials as part of ecological restoration or enhancement, beach nourishment, public access or public recreation should be permitted if consistent with this Program. C. Dredging and dredge material regulations 1. Dredging shall only be permitted for the following activities: a. Development of approved wet moorages, harbors, ports and water -dependent industries of economic importance to the region only when there are no feasible alternatives. b. Maintenance dredging for the purpose of restoring a lawfully established development. c. Establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels where necessary to assure safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins shall be restricted to maintaining previously dredge and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width. d. To remove silt or sediment deposited because of severe and unusual erosion or resulting from the existence of a bulkhead on nearby property. e. To provide sufficient draft for boat moorage. f. Restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and processes benefiting water quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat. g. Dredging waterward of the ordinary high water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material shall not be allowed, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of ecological functions. When allowed, the site where the fill is to be placed must be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The project must be either associated with a MRCA or CERCLA habitat restoration project or, if approved through a shoreline conditional use permit, any other significant habitat enhancement project. 2. The existing physical alignment and ecological function and processes shall be maintained, except to improve hydraulic function, water quality, fish or wildlife habitat, or fish passage. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 81 of 160 Packet Pg. 585 8.2.b 3. New development shall be sited and designed avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and/or maintenance dredging. 4. Dredge Spoils. a. Dredge spoil disposal in open waters may be approved only in accordance with the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) evaluation procedures for managing in -water disposal of dredge material; when approved by applicable agencies, which may include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to section 109Rivers and harbors ActO and Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permits, and Washington State Department of fish and Wildlife hydraulic Project approval (HPA); and when found to meet the following conditions. i. Land disposal is infeasible, less consistent with this Program, or prohibited by law. ii. Nearshore disposal as part of a program to restore or enhance shoreline ecological functions and processes is not feasible. iii. Offshore habitat will be protected, restored, or enhanced. iv. Adverse effects on water quality or biologic resources from contaminated materials will be mitigated. v. Shifting and dispersal of spoil will be minimal. vi. Water quality will not be adversely affected. b. Dredging spoils may be used as fill or landscape material for a development in the shoreline areas that is otherwise approved by the city under this Program (ECDC 24.50.040). The city may permit dredging spoils to be temporarily deposited in the shoreline area for transfer and removal to an approved disposal site. The dredging spoils may not be stored in the shoreline area longer than is reasonably necessary and must be stored in a manner that will protect the environment and neighboring properties from undesirable effect and adverse impacts. d. Dredge spoil disposal is prohibited on marine shorelines between the line of extreme low tide and the ordinary high water mark, and on Lake Ballinger shorelines or beds; except that, dredge spoil may be used in approved projects for the restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and processes, such as beach nourishment. e. The City may impose reasonable limitation on dredge disposal operating periods and hours and may require provision for buffer strips at land disposal sites. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 82 of 160 Packet Pg. 586 8.2.b 5. Proposals for dredging and dredge spoil disposal, when permitted, shall: a. Be kept to the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed use. b. Include all feasible mitigating measures to protect habitats and to minimize adverse impacts such as turbidity, release of nutrients, heavy metals, sulfides, organic materials, or toxic substances, depletion of oxygen, disruption of food chains, loss of benthic productivity, and disturbance of fish runs and important localized biological communities. Be scheduled so as to not materially interfere with the migratory movements of anadromous fish. d. Utilize techniques that cause minimum dispersal and broadcast of bottom material e. Not interfere with geohydraulic processes. f. Be found, through analysis by qualified professional, to be nonpolluting or shall have no significant negative pollution impact. g. Meet all requirements of applicable regulatory agencies. h. Not result in erosion of the shoreline or undermine the stability of neighboring properties. D. Dredging and Dredge Material Application. Applications for shoreline dredging and dredge spoil disposal shall provide, at a minimum, the following information: 1. A description of the purpose of the proposed dredging and an analysis of compliance with the policies and regulations of this Program. 2. A detailed description of the existing physical character, shoreline geomorphology and biological resources provided by the area proposed to be dredged, including: a. A site plan map outlining the perimeter of the proposed dredge area. The map must also include the existing bathymetry depths based on Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and have data points at a minimum of 2-foot depth increments. b. A habitat survey must be conducted and WDFW must be contacted to ensure the survey is conducted according to the most recent WDFW eelgrass/macroalgae survey guidelines. Information on stability of bedlands adjacent to proposed dredging and spoils disposal areas. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 83 of 160 Packet Pg. 587 8.2.b 3. A detailed description of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the dredge spoils to be removed, including: a. Physical analysis of material to be dredged: material composition and amount, grain size, organic materials present, source of material, etc. b. Chemical analysis of material to be dredged: volatile solids, chemical oxygen demand (COD), grease and oil content, mercury, lead and zinc content, etc. c. Biological analysis of material to be dredged. 4. A description of the method of materials removal, including facilities for settlement and movement. a. Dredging procedure: length of time it will take to complete dredging, method of dredging and amount of materials removed. b. Frequency and quantity of project maintenance dredging. 5. Detailed plans for dredge spoil disposal, including specific land disposal sites and relevant information on the disposal site, including but not limited to: a. Spoils disposal area: i. Physical characteristics including location, topography, existing drainage patterns, surface and ground water; ii. Size and capacity of disposal site; iii. Means of transportation to the disposal site; iv. Proposed dewatering and stabilization of spoils; v. Methods of controlling erosion and sedimentation; and vi. Future use of the site and conformance with land use policies and regulations. b. Total initial spoils volume. c. Plan for disposal of maintenance spoils. 6. Hydraulic modeling studies sufficient to identify existing geo-hydraulic patterns and probable effects of dredging. E. Dredging and dredge material disposal — Shoreline Area Regulations City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 84 of 160 Packet Pg. 588 8.2.b 1. Urban Railroad: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 2. Urban Mixed Use L• Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 8. Shoreline Residential III: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 9. Aquatic I: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. Maintenance dredging pursuant to ECDC 24.50.060.C. Lb and .c is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program without a conditional use permit provided the original constructed bottom contours have been established and documented in a prior shoreline permit authorization. 10. Aquatic II: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. Maintenance dredging pursuant to ECDC 24.50.060.C. Lb and .c is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program without a conditional use permit provided the original constructed bottom contours have been established and documented in a prior shoreline permit authorization. 11. Conservancy: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 12. Natural: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 85 of 160 Packet Pg. 589 8.2.b 24.50.070 Shoreline habitat and natural systems restoration and enhancement projects A. Applicability. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects include those activities proposed and conducted specifically for the purpose of establishing, restoring, or enhancing habitat for priority species in shorelines. B. Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Restoration and Enhancement Projects Policies 1. This program recognizes the importance of the restoration of shoreline ecological functions and processes and encourages cooperative restoration efforts and programs between local, state and federal agencies, tribes, non-profit organizations, and landowners to address shorelines with impaired ecological functions and/or processes. 2. Restoration and enhancement actions should restore shoreline ecological functions and processes as well as shoreline features and should be targeted towards meeting the needs of sensitive and/or locally important plant, fish and wildlife species. 3. Priority should be given to restoration and enhancement actions that: a. Create dynamic and sustainable ecosystems. b. Improve water quality. Restore native vegetation and natural hydrologic functions of degraded and former wetlands. d. Restore nearshore ecosystems processes, such as sediment transport and delivery and tidal currents that create and sustain habitat. e. Restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat and habitat -forming processes. f. Mitigate erosive and associated impacts caused by stormwater runoff. g. Protect and restore wildlife corridors. h. Protect and restore native species of vegetation, fish, and wildlife. C. Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Restoration and Enhancement Projects Regulations. Restoration shall be carried out in accordance with the approved shoreline restoration plan and in accordance with the policies and regulation of this Program. D. Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Restoration and Enhancement Projects — Shoreline Area Regulations City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 86 of 160 Packet Pg. 590 8.2.b 1. Urban Railroad: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 8. Shoreline Residential III: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 9. Aquatic I: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 10. Aquatic II: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 11. Conservancy: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 12. Natural: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. Part VI Specific Use Policies & Regulations 24.60.000 Applicability Shoreline use and development shall be classified by the Administrator and regulated under one or more of the following applicable sections of this Chapter. Unless otherwise stated, all use and City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 87 of 160 Packet Pg. 591 8.2.b development shall also comply with all of the General Policy and Regulations in Part IV of this Program and all of the Specific Modification Policies and Regulations in Part V of this Program. 24.60.010 Aquaculture A. Applicability Aquaculture is the farming or culture of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants or animals any may require development such as fish hatcheries, rearing pens and structures, and shellfish rafts, as well as use of natural spawning and rearing areas. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of free-swimming fish or the harvest of shellfish not artificially planted or maintained. B. Aquaculture Policies 1. Aquaculture is a water -dependent use and, when consistent with control of pollution and avoidance of adverse impacts to the environment and preservation of habitat for resident native species, is a preferred use of the shoreline. 2. Potential locations for aquaculture activities are relatively restricted because of specific requirements related to water quality, temperature, oxygen content, currents, adjacent land use, wind protection, commercial navigation, and salinity. The technology associated with some forms of aquaculture is still experimental and in formative states. Therefore, some latitude should be given when implementing the regulations of this section, provided that potential impacts on existing uses and shoreline ecological functions and processes should be given due consideration. 3. Preference should be given to those forms of aquaculture that involve lesser environmental and visual impacts and lesser impacts to native plant and animal species. In general, projects that require no structures, submerged structures or intertidal structures are preferred over those that involve substantial floating structures. Projects the involve little or no substrate modification are preferred over those that involve substantial modification. Projects that involve little or no supplemental food sources, pesticides, herbicides or antibiotic application are preferred over those that involve such practices. 4. Aquaculture activities should be designed, located and operated in a manner that supports long term beneficial use of the shoreline and protects and maintains shoreline ecological functions and processes. 5. Aquaculture should not be permitted where it would resulting a net loss of shoreline ecological functions; adversely affect the quality or extent of habitat of native species including eelgrass, kelp, and other macroalgae; adversely impact other habitat conservation areas; or interfere with navigation or other water -dependent uses. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 88 of 160 Packet Pg. 592 8.2.b 6. Aquaculture facilities should be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, establish new nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. 7. The City should actively seek substantive comment on any shoreline permit application for aquaculture form all appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; affected tribes; and the general public regarding potential adverse impacts. Comments of nearby residents or property owners directly affected by a proposal should be considered and evaluated, especially in regard to use compatibility and aesthetics. C. Aquaculture Regulations Aquaculture that involves little or no substrate modification shall be given preference over those that involve substantial modification. The application/proponent shall demonstrate that the degree of proposed substrate modification is the minimum necessary for feasible aquaculture operations at the site. 2. The installation of submerged structures, intertidal structures, and floating structures shall be allowed only when the applicant/proponent demonstrates that no alternative method of operation is feasible. 3. Aquaculture proposals that involve substantial substrate modification or sedimentation through dredging, trenching, digging, mechanical harvesting, or other similar mechanisms, shall not be permitted in areas where the proposal would adversely impact existing kelp beds or other macroalgae, eelgrass beds or habitat conservation areas. 4. Aquaculture activities, which would have a significant adverse impact on natural dynamic shoreline processes or which would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, shall be prohibited. 5. Aquaculture practices shall be designed to minimize use of artificial substances and shall use chemical compounds that are least persistent and have the least impact on plants and animals. 6. If uncertainty exists regarding potential impacts of a proposed aquaculture activity, and for all experimental aquaculture activities, baseline and periodic operational monitoring by a City -approved consultant (unless otherwise provided for) may be required, at the applicant's/proponent's expense, and shall continue until adequate information is available to determine the success of the project and/or the magnitude of any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Permits for such activities shall include specific performance measures and provisions for adjustment or termination of the project at any time if monitoring indicates significant, adverse environmental impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated. 7. New aquatic species that have not previously been cultivated in Washington State shall not be introduced into City of Edmonds waters without prior written approval of the City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 89 of 160 Packet Pg. 593 8.2.b Director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Director of the Washington Department of Health. 8. For aquaculture projects using over -water structures, storage of necessary tools and apparatus waterward of the ordinary high water mark shall be limited to containers of not more than 3 feet in height, as measured from the surface of the raft or dock. 9. No processing of any aquaculture product, except for the sorting or culling of the cultured organism and the washing or removal of surface materials or organisms after harvest, shall occur in or over the water unless specifically approved by permit. All other processing and processing facilities shall be located on land and shall be subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 10. Aquaculture wastes shall be disposed of in a manner that will ensure strict compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards, including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.480. No garbage, wastes or debris shall be allowed to accumulate at the site of any aquaculture operation. 11. Predator control shall not involve the killing or harassment of birds or mammals. Approved controls include, but are not limited to, double netting for seals, overhead netting for birds, and 3-foot high fencing or netting for otters. The use of other non- lethal, non -abusive predator control measures shall be contingent upon receipt of written approval form the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as required. 12. All floating and submerged aquaculture structures and facilities in navigable waters shall be marked in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard requirements. D. Aquaculture Application Requirements 1. Applications for aquaculture use or development shall include in their applications all information necessary to conduct a thorough evaluation of the proposed aquaculture activity, including but not limited to the following: a. A site plan map including: i. The perimeter of the proposed aquaculture operations area. ii. Existing bathymetry depths based on Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW datum). iii. Adjacent upland use, vegetation, presence of structures, docks, bulkheads and other modifications. If there are shore stabilization structures, provide the beach elevation at the toe of the structure and the top of the structure (MLLW datum). City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 90 of 160 Packet Pg. 594 8.2.b iv. Areas where specific substrate modification will take place or structures will be constructed or installed. v. Access provisions for barges or track equipment. vi. Location of storage or processing structures or facilities. a b. A baseline description of existing conditions, including best available information on; E M L i. Water quality. c L a ii. Tidal variations.; iii. Prevailing storm wind conditions. c L iv. Current flows. c v. Flushing rates. a; ti M T vi. Littoral drift. vii. Areas of differing substrate composition. viii. Areas of aquatic, intertidal, and upland vegetation complexes. ix. Existing shoreline or water uses and structures. x. Aquatic and benthic organisms. xi. A vegetation habitat survey must be conducted. The WDFW must be contacted prior to the survey to ensure it is conducted according to the most current WDFW eelgrass/macroalgae survey guidelines. xii. Further baseline studies including surveys and sampling may be required depending upon the adequacy of available information, existing conditions, and the nature of the proposal. c. A detailed description of the project proposal including: i. Species to be reared. ii. Substrate modification or vegetation removal. iii. Planting, harvest and processing location, method and timing, including work proposal and construction techniques proposed, type of work, frequency, and duration. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 91 of 160 Packet Pg. 595 8.2.b d. Anticipated use of any feed, pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, vaccines, growth stimulants, antifouling agents, or other chemicals, and an assessment of predicted impacts. No such materials shall be used until approval is obtained from all appropriate State and Federal agencies, including but not limited to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Agriculture, as required, and proof thereof is submitted to the City. Compounds with the least persistence shall be used. Number of employees/workers necessary for the project, including average and peak employment. f. Methods of waste disposal and predator control. g. Methods to address pollutant loading, including biological oxygen demand (BOD). h. Assessment of potential impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes addressing the baseline conditions identified, including but not limited to indirect cumulative effects. i. For floating culture facilities or other structures, the City may require a visual impact analysis. Depending on the size and complexity of the proposal, such analysis may be prepared by the applicant/proponent, without professional assistance, provided that it includes an adequate assessment of impacts. Information demonstrating that the site has natural potential for the type(s) of aquaculture proposed, due to necessary substrate or other conditions, as well as water quality suitable for the type(s) of aquaculture proposed. k. Information demonstrating that the proposed aquaculture activities will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes or adversely affect habitat conservation areas. Information demonstrating that the proposed aquaculture activities will not substantially and materially conflict with areas devoted to established uses of the aquatic environment. Such uses include but are not limited to navigation, moorage, sport or commercial fishing, log rafting, underwater utilities, and scientific research. Existing public opportunities for gather wild stock aquatic resources on public lands shall be address in any application for aquaculture on public tidelands or bedlands. Compensation for loss of public access to public aquatic resources may be required. 2. Application for aquaculture activities must demonstrate that the proposed activity will be compatible with surrounding existing and planned uses. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 92 of 160 Packet Pg. 596 8.2.b a. Aquaculture activates shall comply with all applicable noise, air, and water quality standards. All projects shall be designed, operated and maintained to minimize odor and noise. b. Aquaculture activities shall be restricted to reasonable hours and/or days of operation when necessary to minimize substantial, adverse impact from noise, light, and/or glare on nearby residents, other sensitive uses or critical habitat. c. Aquaculture facilities shall not introduce incompatible visual elements or substantially degrade the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Aquaculture structures and equipment, except navigation aids, shall be designed, operated and maintained to blend into their surroundings through the use of appropriate colors and materials. E. Aquaculture — Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad: Aquaculture is prohibited. 2. Urban Mixed Use 1• Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Aquaculture is prohibited. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Aquaculture is prohibited. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Aquaculture is prohibited. 8. Shoreline Residential III: Aquaculture is prohibited. 9. Aquatic I: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 10. Aquatic II• Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 11. Conservancy: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 12. Natural: Aquaculture activities that do not require structures, facilities, or mechanized harvest practices, and that will not result in the alteration of natural systems or features may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 93 of 160 Packet Pg. 597 8.2.b 24.60.020 Boating Facilities A. Applicability The section applies to facilities that provide launching, storage, supplies, moorage, and other services for five or more pleasure and/or commercial watercraft. Commercial development, not accessory to the operation of a marina, shall comply with ECDC 24.60.030, Commercial Development. For the purposes of this section, boating facilities excludes docks serving four or fewer single family residences which are subject to the policies and regulations of ECDC 24.50.030, Piers, Docks and Floats. B. Boating Facilities Policies 1. Boating facilities, including marinas and launch ramps, are water -dependent uses and should be given priority for shoreline location. Boating facilities should contribute to public access and enjoyment of waters of the state. 2. Boating facilities should provide physical and visual public shoreline access and provide for multiple use, including water -related use, to the extent compatible with shoreline ecological functions and processes and adjacent shoreline use. 3. Accessory uses to boating facilities should be limited to water -oriented uses, or uses that provide physical or visual shoreline access for substantial number of the general public. 4. Boating facilities shall be located, designed, constructed and operated in a manner that will minimize damage to shoreline processes and functions. When impacts cannot be avoided, impacts must be mitigated to assure no net loss of ecological function necessary to sustain shoreline resources. 5. Boating facilities should be located, designed and operated so that other appropriate water -dependent uses are not adversely affected. 6. Location and design of boating facilities should not unduly obstruct navigable waters and should avoid adverse effects to recreation opportunities such as fishing, pleasure boating, commercial aquaculture, swimming, beach walking, picnicking and shoreline viewing. 7. Boating facilities should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to avoid adverse proximity impacts such as noise, light and glare; aesthetic impacts to adjacent land uses; impacts to public visual access to the shoreline. C. Boating Facilities Regulations 1. The following moorage structures are prohibited in the shoreline jurisdiction: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 94 of 160 Packet Pg. 598 8.2.b a. Aircraft moorage, except that aircraft may be temporarily moored (not to exceed 36 hours) in the event of severe weather conditions. b. Covered moorage. 2. Marinas or launch ramps shall not be permitted within the following marine shoreline habitats because of their scarcity, biological productivity and sensitivity unless no alternative location is feasible, the project would not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, and the proposal is otherwise consistent with this Program. a. Marshes, estuaries and other wetlands; b. Tidal pools and rock shores; c. Kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish(such as herring, surf smelt and sand lance); d. Subsistence, commercial and recreational shellfish beds; and e. Other critical saltwater habitats 3. Boating facilities and accessory uses shall be designed so that lawfully existing or planned public shoreline access and/or navigation rights are not unnecessarily blocked, obstructed or made dangerous. 4. The boating facility shall be designed to avoid the need for maintenance dredging. 5. Boat Storage: a. Marinas shall provide dry upland boat storage with a launch mechanism to protect shoreline ecological functions and processes, efficient use shoreline space and minimize consumption of public water surface area unless: i. No suitable upland locations exist for such facilities; or ii. It can be demonstrated that wet moorage would result in fewer impacts to ecological functions and processes; or iii. It can be demonstrated that wet moorage would enhance public use of the shoreline. b. Dry moorage and other storage areas should be located away from the shoreline and be landscaped with native vegetation to provide a visual and noise buffer for adjoining uses. 6. Waste Disposal. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 95 of 160 Packet Pg. 599 8.2.b a. Marinas shall provide pump out, holding, and/or treatment facilities for sewage contained on boats or vessels. b. Discharge of solid waste of sewage into a water body is prohibited. Marinas and boat launch ramps shall provide adequate restroom and sewage disposal facilities in compliance with applicable health regulations. c. Garbage or litter receptacles shall be provided and maintained by the operator at several locations convenient to users. d. Marina operators shall post all BMP's pertaining to handling, disposal and reporting of waste, sewage, fuel, oil or toxic materials where all users may easily read them. 7. Oil Product Handling, Spills, and Wastes. Fail safe facilities and procedures for receiving, storing, dispensing, and disposing of oil or hazardous projects, as well as a spill response plan for oil and other products, shall be required of new marinas and expansion or substantial alteration of existing marinas. Compliance with Federal or State law may fulfill this requirement. Handling of fuels, chemicals or other toxic materials must be in compliance with all applicable Federal and State water quality laws as well as health, safety and engineering requirements. Spill prevention and response, including report requirements, follow applicable Federal and State requirements. 8. Public Access. Marinas and boat launches shall provide public access for as many water - dependent recreational uses as possible, commensurate with the scale of the proposal. Features for such access could include but are not limited to docks and piers, pedestrian bridges to offshore structures, fishing platforms, artificial pocket beaches, and underwater diving and viewing platforms. 9. Prohibited substances. No part of a boating facility that may come in contact with the water may be treated with or consist of creosote, oil based paints, toxic chemicals, or other substances that would be harmful to the aquatic environment, unless specifically permitted and authorized by appropriate State and Federal regulatory agencies. 10. If the boating facility will extend waterward of the inner harbor line or extended mooring on waters of the state is proposed, the applicant must obtain a lease from the Department of Natural Resources prior to proposing this use. 11. No structure regulated under this section, other than moorage structures, boat gear storage lockers, and sheds associated with gas and oil sales for boats, may be waterward of the ordinary high water mark. D. Boating Facilities — Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad: Boating facilities are prohibited. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 96 of 160 Packet Pg. 600 8.2.b 2. Urban Mixed Use I a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. Permitted Accessory Uses: i. Boat and motor sales ii. Boat repair and service, including dry docks, boat yards and similar activities iii. Boat motor/engine repair and service; provided, that commercial boat motor/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take place within a building or be screened from public view. iv. Pumping facilities to remove effluent from boat holding tanks v. Dry land boat storage; provided, however, that stacked storage shall not be permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height in the Urban Mixed Use I shoreline environment. vi. Meeting and special event rooms. vii. Gas and oil sales for boats, if; A. All storage tanks are underground and located upland of the ordinary high water mark; and B. The use has facilities to contain and clean up gas and oil spills. C. Gas and oil sales may be conducted with an Overwater shed that is not more than 150 square feet in area and 15 feet in height as measured from the top of the deck. viii. Boat launch ramps that meet the following requirements: A. The ramp is paved with concrete. B. There is sufficient room on the subject property for maneuvering and parking so that traffic impact on the adjacent public right-of-way will not be significant. C. Access to the ramp is not directly from the adjacent public right-of-way. D. The design of the site is specifically approved by the city. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 97 of 160 Packet Pg. 601 8.2.b ix. Waste oil storage tanks not to exceed 500 gallons may be located above ground. Hazardous waste may be stored temporarily above ground in not more than nine 55-gallon drums. Such drums shall have secondary containment. Waste oil and hazardous storage tanks for the temporary storage of waste or hazardous substances which exceed these standards must be place underground. No tank of any kind intended for the permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances shall be permitted 3. Urban Mixed Use II a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. Moorage structures and boating facilities may not be located waterward of public parks, public beaches, or public facilities, nor may they be located so as to obstruct waterward view from these public uses. c. Permitted Accessory Uses: i. Boat and motor sales ii. Boat repair and service, including dry docks, boat yards and similar activities ill. Boat motor/engine repair and service; provided, that commercial boat motor/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take place within a building or be screened from public view. iv. Pumping facilities to remove effluent from boat holding tanks v. Meeting and special event rooms. vi. Gas and oil sales for boats, if; 1. All storage tanks are underground and located upland of the ordinary high water mark; and 2. The use has facilities to contain and clean up gas and oil spills. 3. Gas and oil sales may be conducted with an Overwater shed that is not more than 150 square feet in area and 15 feet in height as measured from the top of the deck. vii. Boat launch ramps that meet the following requirements: 1. The ramp is paved with concrete. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 98 of 160 Packet Pg. 602 8.2.b 2. There is sufficient room on the subject property for maneuvering and parking so that traffic impact on the adjacent public right-of-way will not be significant. 3. Access to the ramp is not directly from the adjacent public right-of-way. 4. The design of the site is specifically approved by the city. viii. Waste oil storage tanks not to exceed 500 gallons may be located above ground. Hazardous waste may be stored temporarily above ground in not more than nine 55-gallon drums. Such drums shall have secondary containment. Waste oil and hazardous storage tanks for the temporary storage of waste or hazardous substances which exceed these standards must be placed underground. No tank of any kind intended for the permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances shall be permitted. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Boating facilities are prohibited. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Boating facilities are prohibited. 6. Shoreline Residential I. Boating facilities are prohibited. 7. Shoreline Residential II. Boating facilities are prohibited. 8. Shoreline Residential III a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. Accessory uses are not permitted in conjunction with moorage structure. c. Moorage structures and boating facilities may only be developed and used accessory to detached dwelling units on waterfront lots. Use of the moorage structure and facilities is limited to the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the moorage is accessory. Moorage space may not be leased, rented, sold, or otherwise made available to other than the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the moorage is accessory. 9. Aquatic I a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. If the subject property provides moorage for not more than two boats, the following setbacks apply: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 99 of 160 Packet Pg. 603 8.2.b i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 25 feet of a public park. ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility. c. If the subject property provides moorage for more than two boats, the following setbacks apply: i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 100 feet of a public park. ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility. d. Boat gear storage lockers shall not exceed 18 square feet in area and three feet in height as measured from the top of the deck. Only one storage locker is permitted per boat slip. 10. Aquatic II a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. No moorage structure on private property maybe within 100 feet of a public park. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. d. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility. e. Boat gear storage lockers shall not exceed 18 square feet in area and three feet in height as measured from the top of the deck. Only one storage locker is permitted per boat slip. This provision does not apply to under covered moorage structures. 11. Conservancy a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. Accessory uses are not permitted in conjunction with boating facilities. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 100 of 160 Packet Pg. 604 8.2.b Moorage structures and boating facilities may only be developed and used accessory to detached dwelling units on waterfront lots. Use of the moorage structure and facilities is limited to the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the moorage is accessory. Moorage space may not be leased, rented, sold, or otherwise made available to other than the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the moorage is accessory. d. Moorage structures and boating facilities may not provide moorage for more than two boats; provided, however, that waterfront lots are encourage to develop joint or shared moorage facilities. If this occurs, the joint or shared moorage facility may contain up to two moorages for each waterfront lot participating in the joint or shared moorage facility. e. If the subject property provides moorage for not more than two boats, the following setbacks apply: i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 25 feet of a public park. ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility. f. If the subject property provides moorage for more than two boats, the following setbacks apply: i. No moorage structure on private property maybe within 100 feet of a public park. ii. No moorage structure may be with 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the subject property. iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility. 12. Natural. Boating facilities are prohibited. 24.60.030 Commercial Development and Light Industrial A. Applicability Commercial development means those uses and facilities that are involved in wholesale or retail trade or business activities. Examples include but are not limited to restaurants, hotels, shops, offices, and recreation facilities. Industry applies to those businesses or uses involved in the production, processing, manufacturing, or fabrication of goods. Warehousing and City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 101 of 160 Packet Pg. 605 8.2.b storage of materials or products is considered part of the industrial process. This is a broad category that mostly applies to the downtown Commercial Waterfront (CW) where development must also comply with ECDC 16.55. Uses and activities associate with commercial development that are identified as separate use activities in this Master Program, such as Boating Facilities, Piers and Docks, Utilities, etc. are subject to the regulations established for those uses in addition to the standards for commercial development. The design, layout and operation of certain commercial uses directly affects their classification with regard to whether or not they qualify as water related or water enjoyment uses. B. Commercial Development and Light Industrial Policies In securing shoreline locations for commercial and light industrial use, preference should be given first to water -dependent commercial uses, then to water -related, water - enjoyment commercial uses. 2. Restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions and processes should be encouraged as part of commercial and light industrial development. 3. Commercial and light industrial development should ensure visual compatibility with adjacent noncommercial properties. 4. Commercial and light industrial uses located in the shoreline should provide public access in accordance with constitutional or other legal limitations unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or present hazards to life and property 5. Commercial and light industrial development should be encouraged to locate where environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline area can be incorporated. C. Commercial Development and Light Industrial Regulations 1. Commercial and light industrial uses are allowed subject to the policies and regulations of ECDC 24.40.020 and the specific criteria below: a. Water -dependent commercial and light industrial uses shall be given preference over water -related and water -enjoyment commercial uses. Prior to approval of water dependent uses, the Administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water - dependent use. b. Water -related commercial and light industrial uses may not be approved if the use displaces existing water -dependent uses. Prior to approval of water -related commercial uses, the Administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water - related use. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 102 of 160 Packet Pg. 606 8.2.b Water -enjoyment commercial uses may not be approved if they displace existing water -dependent or water -related uses. Prior to approval of water -enjoyment uses, the Administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water -enjoyment use. d. Nonwater-oriented commercial and light industrial uses may be permitted where located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another property in separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for water -oriented use is precluded. All other nonwater-oriented uses are prohibited in the shoreline unless the use provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of this Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act and is: i. Part of a mixed use project that includes a water -oriented use; or ii. Proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited. 2. Over -water construction of commercial and light industrial uses is prohibited except as follows: a. Only those portions of water -dependent commercial and light industrial uses that require over -water facilities shall be permitted to locate waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. b. Nonwater-dependent commercial and light industrial uses shall not be allowed over water except in limited instances where they are appurtenant to and necessary in support of water -dependent uses. D. Commercial Development and Light Industrial— Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: a. Water -oriented commercial and light industrial use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater-oriented commercial use and development may be permitted subject to the criteria for such uses in ECDC 24.60.030.C.1.d. b. A minimum of 15-foot setback is required from lot lines adjacent to shoreline residential environments. This area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum six-foot high fence or hedge. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 103 of 160 Packet Pg. 607 8.2.b a. Water -oriented commercial and light industrial use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater-oriented commercial use and development may be permitted subject to the criteria for such uses in ECDC 24.60.030.C.1.d. b. A minimum of 15-foot setback is required from lot lines adjacent to shoreline residential environments. This area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum six-foot high fence or hedge. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Commercial use is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater-oriented commercial use and development shall be permitted. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Commercial and light industrial use is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater-oriented commercial use and development shall be permitted. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited. 8. Shoreline Residential III: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited. 9. Aquatic I: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited, except that water -dependent uses and appurtenant structures may be permitted subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation. 10. Aquatic II: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited, except that water -dependent uses and appurtenant structures may be permitted subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation. 11. Conservancy: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited. 12. Natural: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited. 24.60.040 Forest Practices A. For the purposes of this Master Program, preparatory work associated with the conversion of land to non -forestry uses and/or developments shall not be considered forest practices and shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions for the proposed non -forestry use, the general provisions of this Master Program, including vegetation conservation, and shall be limited to the minimum necessary. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 104 of 160 Packet Pg. 608 8.2.b B. All forest practices undertaken on shorelines shall comply with the applicable policies and provisions of the Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW as amended, and any regulations adopted pursuant thereto (WAC 222), as administered by the Department of Natural Resources and local provisions contained in Title 20 ECDC. 24.60.050 In -stream Structures A. Applicability. "In -Stream structure" means a structure place by humans within a stream or river waterward of the ordinary high water mark that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or the diversion, obstruction, or modification of water flow. B. In -stream Structure Policies In -stream structures should provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem - wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and natural scenic vistas. C. In -stream Structure Regulations. 1. The location and planning of in -stream structures shall give due consideration to the full range of public interests, watershed functions and processes, and environmental concerns. 2. In -stream structures shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that does not degrade the quality of affected waters. 3. In -stream structures shall allow for normal ground water movement and surface runoff. 4. In -stream structures shall preserve valuable recreation resources and aesthetics values. 24.60.060 Recreational Development A. Applicability Recreational development provides opportunities for play, sports, relaxation, amusement, or contemplation. It includes facilities for passive recreational activities, such as hiking, photography, viewing, and fishing. It also includes facilities for active or more intensive uses such as parks, campgrounds, and golf courses. This section applies to both publicly and privately owned shoreline facilities intended for use by the public or a private club, group, association, or individual. Commercial recreational development must be consistent with he provisions of this section and the provisions of ECDC 24.60.030 for commercial uses. This Master Program gives priority to recreational development that is primarily related to access to, enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the state. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 105 of 160 Packet Pg. 609 8.2.b B. Recreational Development Policies 1. Encourage the coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning so as to mutually address recreational needs. Shoreline recreational development should be consistent with all adopted park, recreation, and open space plans. 2. Encourage the linkage of shoreline parks, recreation areas, and public access points in a linear system, such as hiking paths, bicycle paths, and scenic drives. 3. Locate and design recreational developments in a manner that preserves, enhances, or creates scenic views and vistas. 4. Locate and design recreational facilities to minimize adverse impacts including those related to stormwater runoff, water quality, visual qualities, public access, and vegetation and habitat maintenance. 5. Encourage physical and visual access to shorelines and surface waters. 6. Locate golf courses outside of the shoreline area. 7. Prohibit use of recreational off -road vehicles within the shoreline area, except by public agencies for maintenance operations and emergency services. C. Recreational Development Regulations Where significant adverse impacts are adequately mitigated resulting in no net loss of ecological processes or functions, recreational development is a priority use for shoreline location, subject to the following: 1. The following recreational uses and developments are prohibited: a. Golf courses; b. Use of recreational off -road vehicles is prohibited within the shoreline, except by public agencies for maintenance operations and emergency services; c. Campgrounds; and d. Overnight recreational spaces or sites located within the shoreline. 2. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for: a. Vehicular and pedestrian access, both on -site and off -site; City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 106 of 160 Packet Pg. 610 8.2.b b. Vehicular traffic, both inside and outside the facility; c. Vehicular parking; d. Water supply, sewage disposal, and garbage collection; e. The prevention of overflows and trespasses onto adjacent properties; f. Screening, buffer strips, fences, and signs to prevent park overflow and to protect the value and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private or public properties; g. Security; and h. Maintenance. 3. Valuable shoreline resources and fragile or unique areas, such as wetlands and accretion shore forms, shall be used only for non -intensive recreation activities. 4. Encourage recreational facilities to provide signage and enforce regulations that prohibit tree cutting and limit the taking of marine life, driftwood, and the like. 5. Signs associated with recreational facilities shall be kept to a minimum in number and size and shall be erected as informational or directional aids only. 6. Stairways and landings shall be located upland of existing bulkheads, banks, and the ordinary high water mark unless integral to a water -dependent use or Overwater structure permitted by this Master Program. D. Recreational Development — Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad: Recreational development prohibited. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 107 of 160 Packet Pg. 611 8.2.b 7. Shoreline Residential IL• Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 8. Shoreline Residential III: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 9. Aquatic I: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted, subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation; provided that, underwater parks may be permitted as a conditional use. 10. Aquatic II: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted, subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation; provided that, underwater parks may be permitted as a conditional use. 11. Conservancy: Low intensity water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of the Master Program and the following criteria: a. Structures will not result in more than ten percent (10%) building coverage or 4,000 square feet, whichever is greater and total impervious surface will not exceed twenty percent (20%), or 10,000 square feet, whichever is greater. b. Alteration of topography shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate allowed development. c. Use of areas or facilities will not result in use patterns that lead to degradation of shoreline ecological functions and processes. 12. Natural: Low intensity water -oriented recreational use and development consisting of primitive trails may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program and the following criteria: a. Essential minor structures such as trails, boardwalks, piers, stairs, small picnic areas, viewpoints, restrooms, interpretive facilities, or development that will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes are permitted, subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. b. Any necessary landscaping shall use native or similar self -maintaining vegetation. Recreational development requiring extensive structures or substantial alterations to topography or native vegetation is prohibited. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 108 of 160 Packet Pg. 612 8.2.b 24.60.070 Residential Development A. Applicability Residential development refers to one of more buildings, structures, lots, parcels, or portions of parcels that are used or intended to be used to provide a dwelling for human beings. Residential development includes single-family residences, duplexes, other detached dwellings, multifamily residences, apartments, townhouses, mobile home parks, group housing, condominiums, subdivisions, planned unit developments, and short subdivisions. Residential development also includes accessory uses and structures such as garages, sheds, tennis courts, swimming pools, driveways, parking areas, fences, cabanas, saunas, and guest cottages, when allowed by the underlying zoning. Single-family residential development is identified as a priority use the shoreline area when developed in a manner consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment. A Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction of a single-family residence by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser for his own use of the use of his family. However, such construction and all normal appurtenant structures must otherwise conform to this Master Program. In addition, when applicable, all residential development is subject to the variance and conditional use requirements of this Master Program. Uses and facilities associate with residential development, which are identified as separate use activities or modifications in this Master Program, such as clearing, grading and landfill are subject to the regulations established for those uses in this Master Program. B. Residential Development Policies 1. Discourage residential structures or accessory structures in areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark, within nearshore management areas, or within wetlands, habitat conservation areas, flood hazard areas or their respective buffers. 2. Allowable density of new residential development should comply with applicable comprehensive plan goals and policies, zoning restrictions, and shoreline area designation standards. The density of development should be appropriate to the local natural and cultural features. 3. Structures or development for uses accessory to residential use should preserve shoreline open space, be visually and physically compatible with adjacent shoreline features, be reasonable in size and purpose, and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes. 4. New residential development should be planned and built in accordance with the policies and regulations in ECDC 24.50.020 and to minimize the need for shoreline stabilization and flood hazard reduction measures. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 109 of 160 Packet Pg. 613 8.2.b 5. Measures to conserve native vegetation along shorelines should be required for all residential development. Vegetation conservation may include avoidance or minimization of clearing or grading, restoration of areas of native vegetation, and/or control of invasive species. 6. Consider additional design features for new Planned Residential Developments, subdivisions and short subdivisions that: a. Cluster dwelling units in order to preserve natural features, minimize physical impacts, and provide for public access to the shoreline. b. Maintain usable waterfront areas for the common use of all property owners with the development. 7. Encourage joint use of shoreline facilities, including access stairs. C. Residential Development Regulations Clearing and grading associated with a single-family residence may be exempted from the shoreline substantial development permit requirement, provided the following conditions are met: a. The clearing and grading activity is confined to the construction site; and b. Grading does not exceed 250 cubic yards. 2. New over -water residences, including floating homes, are prohibited. 3. Residential development shall be: a. Located and designed to avoid the need for structural shore defense and flood protection works in the foreseeable future. b. Designed to minimize potential conflicts with the use of adjacent public lands and areas of public access. This may include providing a physical separation to reinforce the distinction between public and private space, achieved by providing adequate space, through screening with landscape planting or fences, or other means. 4. Subdivisions: a. Shall comply with local plans, codes, and ordinances. b. Shall be designed to exemplify the definition and policy of the applicable shoreline designation as well as the environmental and physical capabilities of the subject site. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 110 of 160 Packet Pg. 614 8.2.b c. Shall be designed, configured and developed in a manner that assures no net loss of ecological functions results from the plat or subdivision at full build -out of all lots. d. Shall be prohibited if flood control or shoreline protection measures are necessary to create a residential lot or site area. Shall provide a community recreation and/or open space area for the benefit of all residents or property owners in the development; provided that such provisions shall not apply to lot line adjustments or lot consolidation. f. Public access for the subdivision of a property into 4 or more lots shall be considered in accordance with ECDC 24.40.040 Public Access and Views. g. May be required to cluster residential units and structures to avoid wetlands, habitat conservation areas or landslide hazards that are located on the development site. h. Shall be designed to minimize potential conflicts with the use of adjacent public lands and areas of public access. This may include providing a physical separation to reinforce the distinction between public and private space, achieved by providing adequate space, through screening with landscape planting or fences, or other means. Shall comply with the applicable policies and performance standards of this Master Program, with regard to roads, utilities, and other improvements. 5. New multifamily residential development should provide community and/or public access in accordance with ECDC 24.40.040 Public Access and Views. D. Residential Development — Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad: Residential development is prohibited. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: Residential development is prohibited. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Residential development is prohibited. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Single family and multifamily residential development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Residential development is prohibited. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Single family residential development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Single family residential development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page I I I of 160 Packet Pg. 615 8.2.b 8. Shoreline Residential III: Single family residential development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 9. Aquatic I: Residential development is prohibited. 10. Aquatic II: Residential development is prohibited. 11. Conservancy: Residential development is prohibited. 12. Natural: Residential development is prohibited. 24.60.080 Transportation and Parking A. Applicability Transportation facilities are those structures and developments that aid in land and water surface movement of people, goods, and services. They include roads and highways, bridges and causeways, bikeways, trails, railroad facilities, ferry terminals, float plane terminals, airports, heliports, and other related facilities. B. Transportation and Parking Policies 1. New or expanded public transportation facility route selection and development should be coordinated with related local and state government land use and circulation planning. 2. Transportation system plans and transportation projects within shorelines should provide safe travel ways for non -motorized traffic such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Space for such uses should be required along roads on shorelines, where appropriate, and should be considered when rights -of -way are being vacated. 3. Transportation system route planning, acquisition, and design within the shoreline should provide, where possible, for compatible uses such as utility lines, pedestrian shore access or view points, or recreational trails. 4. Avoid unnecessary duplication or roads by making use of existing roads where practicable. 5. Public transportation routes, particularly arterial highways and railways, should be located, designed, and maintained to permit safe enjoyment of adjacent shore areas and properties by other appropriate uses such as recreation or residences. Vegetative screening or other buffering should be considered. 6. Parking is not a preferred use in shorelines and should only be allowed to support authorized uses where no feasible alternatives exist. C. Transportation and Parking Regulations City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 112 of 160 Packet Pg. 616 8.2.b Transportation and parking facilities shall be planned, located, and designed so that routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water -dependent uses. 2. Roads shall be located to avoid critical areas. Landfills for transportation facility development are prohibited in water bodies, wetlands, and on accretion beaches, except when all structural and upland alternatives have been proven infeasible and the transportation facilities are necessary to support uses consistent with this program. Such landfill may be permit as a Conditional Use Permit and must comply with the provisions of ECDC 24.50.040. Where impacts cannot be avoided, impacts must be mitigated to assure no net loss of ecological function necessary to sustain shoreline resources. 3. Culverts, bridges and similar devices shall be designed to pass water, sediment, and debris loads anticipated under appropriate hydraulic analysis. 4. All roads and drainage systems shall be maintained to prevent erosion and/or water quality degradation. 5. Road routes shall make provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, and other non -motorized modes of travel whenever feasible. 6. Parking facilities are not a water -dependent use and shall only be permitted within the shoreline to support an authorized use where it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible alternative locations away from the shoreline. 7. All uses must provide sufficient off-street parking spaces in order to accommodate the reasonably anticipated number of vehicles that will be coming to the subject property. Specific parking standards for uses are identified in the ECDC 17.50, as now or hereafter mended. 8. Parking layouts must be designed efficiently to use the minimum amount of space necessary to provide the required parking and safe and reasonable access. Parking should not be located between the building(s) on the subject property and the shoreline. Exterior parking areas, other than for detached dwelling units, must be attractively landscaped with vegetation that will not obstruct view of the shoreline from adjacent public areas or adjacent public rights -of -way. 9. Transportation facilities shall be constructed of materials that will preclude or minimize adverse affects on water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the long term. Elements within or over water shall be constructed of materials approved by applicable state agencies for use in water for both submerged portions and other components to avoid discharge of pollutants from splash, rain or runoff. No part of a transportation facility that may come in contact with the water may be treated with or consist, in whole or in part, of creosote, oil based paints, toxic chemicals or other substances that would be City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 113 of 160 Packet Pg. 617 8.2.b harmful to the aquatic environment, unless specifically permitted and authorized by appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies. 10. Maintenance activity including vegetation control and erosion control shall be carried out consistent with this Master Program. Necessary minor resurfacing of existing roadways and replacement of culverts that improve shoreline ecological functions may be exempt from substantial development permit requirements as provided by ECDC 24.80.010. 11. Ferry Terminals: a. The maximum permitted height of structures waterward of the ordinary high water mark shall not exceed 35 above the OHWM, except as provided below: i. Structures related to the loading of pedestrian passengers shall be permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height limit when necessary to perform the intended function. ii. Buildings and structures which house pedestrian passengers, employees and equipment storage shall be permitted to be 20 feet above the height of the ferry loading dock. iii. View analysis shall be conducted for ferry structures exceeding 35 feet above the OHWM and structures designed to minimize impacts on view corridors. b. The maximum permitted height of structures landward of the ordinary high water mark shall not exceed 30 feet above the average grade level except that bridge and overpasses may exceed the maximum height limit when necessary to perform their intended function. 12. Railroads: a. Overwater Structures are prohibited. b. Accessory buildings shall be located on the landward side of the railroad tracks and a minimum of five feet from the property line. c. The size and configuration of structures shall conform to this program unless federal safety standards require a different size or configuration. D. Transportation and Parking — Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad a. The principal use permitted in this shoreline area is the use of the subject property by the railroad for its tracks (i.e., single main track, double main tracks and team tracks), yards and buildings. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 114 of 160 Packet Pg. 618 8.2.b b. The following accessory uses structures and facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program: i. Subgrade and road bed; a� ii. Railroad track/road crossing signals; a n iii. Slide fences; M L O iv. Railroad signals; a` L as v. Bridges (i.e. pedestrian overpass bridges, vehicular overpass bridges and pipeline overpass bridges); c vi. Railroad signage (i.e., speed, track, whistle, etc.); c vii. Drainage facilities, including culverts; a; ti M T viii. Railroad crossings; ix. Buildings for housing of maintenance people not to exceed 600 square feet in area; x. Storage of items for maintaining the area; xi. Railway loading platforms; xii. Underpasses; and xiii. Pedestrian safety fencing provided it does not exceed six feet in height above grade and is not constructed of solid sight -obscuring material. If the proposed fence is to exceed either six feet in height, or is constructed of solid sight obscuring material, then a shoreline conditional use permit is required. xiv. The Maximum permitted height of structures is 25 feet above grade level, except as specified below: 1. Accessory buildings shall not exceed 15 feet in height above average grade level. 2. Bridges and overpasses may exceed the maximum height limit when necessary to perform their intended function. 3. Slide fences shall not exceed fix feet in height. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 115 of 160 Packet Pg. 619 8.2.b 4. Signal devices and signage shall be determined on a case -by -case basis according to the goals and policies of this Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act and when required by federal law or regulation. c. Ferry terminals may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: a. Railroads are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program consistent with ECDC 24.60.070.D.1, except that the maximum permitted height of structures is 30 feet, subjects to the same exception listed in ECDC 24.60.070.D.l.b.xiii.I through ECDC 24.60.070.D.I.b.xiii.4. b. Transportation facilities (including ferry terminals and railroads) are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Parking areas not serving a specific approved water dependent use may be permitted as a conditional use, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline. Parking facilities. In the Urban Mixed Use I environment, the 60-foot setback for parking established in ECDC 24.40.090 may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet if a public walkway or publicly accessible open space is provided waterward of the bulkhead. The parking setback may be reduced by one foot for every one foot of public walkway or publicly accessible open space that is provided waterward of the OHWM, to a maximum of 20 feet. The minimum setback for parking facilities shall be no less than 40 feet from the bulkhead. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: a. Railroads are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program consistent with ECDC 24.60.070.D.1, except that the maximum permitted height of structures is 30 feet, subjects to the same exception listed in ECDC 24.60.070.D.l.b.xiii.I through ECDC 24.60.070.D.l.b.xiii.4. b. Transportation facilities (including ferry terminals and railroads) are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Parking areas not serving specific approved water dependent uses may be permitted as a conditional use, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline. c. Parking facilities. In the Urban Mixed Use II environment, the 60-foot setback for parking established in ECDC 24.40.090 may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet if a public walkway or publicly accessible open space is provided waterward of the bulkhead. The parking setback may be reduced by one foot for every one foot of public walkway or publicly accessible open space that is provided waterward of the OHWM, to a maximum of 20 feet. The minimum setback for parking facilities shall be no less than 40 feet from the bulkhead. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 116 of 160 Packet Pg. 620 8.2.b 4. Urban Mixed Use III: a. Unless permitted as an essential public facility, the following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Railroads. b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: a. Unless permitted as an essential public facility, the following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Railroads. b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 6. Shoreline Residential I a. Unless permitted as an essential public facility, the following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Railroads; ii. Ferry Terminals; and iii. Parking. b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 7. Shoreline Residential II a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Railroads; ii. Ferry Terminals; and as M 13 a E 0 L 0 L a L m 0 as c L0 c� ti M T City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 117 of 160 Packet Pg. 621 8.2.b iii. Parking. b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 8. Shoreline Residential III a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Railroads; ii. Ferry Terminals; and iii. Parking. b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 9. Aquatic I a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Parking. b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. c. Ferry terminals may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. d. Transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline may be expanded or altered as a conditional use upon demonstration that alternatives to expanding in or alteration of the Aquatic I environment are not feasible. 10. Aquatic II a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Parking. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 118 of 160 Packet Pg. 622 8.2.b b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. c. Ferry terminals may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. d. Transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline may be expanded or altered as a conditional use upon demonstration that alternatives to expanding in or alteration of the Aquatic II environment are not feasible. 11. Conservancy a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Railroads; and ii. Ferry terminals. b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline. c. Parking facilities may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 12. Natural a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area designation: i. Railroads; ii. Ferry terminals; and iii. Parking. b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline. 24.60.090 Utilities A. Applicability City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 119 of 160 Packet Pg. 623 8.2.b Utilities are services and facilities that produce, convey, store, or process power, gas, sewage, communications, oil, waste, and the like. On -site utility features serving a primary use, such as a water, sewer or gas line to a residence, are "accessory utilities" and shall be considered a part of the primary use. B. Utilities Policies 1. Solid waste disposal activities and facilities are prohibited in shoreline areas. 2. New public or private utilities should be located inland from the land/water interface, preferably out of the shoreline jurisdiction, unless this location is reasonably necessary for the efficient operation of the utility facility or service. 3. Utilities should be located and designed to avoid negative impacts to public recreation and public access areas and significant natural, historic, archaeological or cultural resources. 4. Utilities should be located such that shoreline defense works will not be required for the life of the project. 5. All utility development should be consistent with and coordinated with all local government and state planning, including comprehensive plans and single purpose plans to meet the needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate growth. Site planning and rights -of -way for utility development should provide for compatible multiple uses such as shore access, trails, and recreation or other appropriate use whenever possible; utility right-of-way acquisition should also be coordinated with transportation and recreation planning. 6. Utilities should be located in existing rights -of -way and corridors whenever feasible. 7. Utilities serving new development should be located underground, wherever feasible. 8. Development of pipelines and cables on aquatic lands and tidelands, particularly those running roughly parallel to the shoreline and development of facilities that may require periodic maintenance which would disrupt shoreline ecological functions should be discourage except where no other feasible alternative exists. When permitted, provisions shall assure that the facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or significant impacts to other shoreline resources and values. 9. Utilities should be designed and development to preserve scenic views and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline area. C. Utilities Regulations Prohibited Pipelines. Except for gas or oil pipelines, city -approved sanitary sewer, stormwater outfall lines, or other conveyance systems for on -site drainage collection City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 120 of 160 Packet Pg. 624 8.2.b systems for approved boat wash -down to special on -site treatment facilities otherwise permitted in this section, no pipeline for the transmission of any substance that would be hazardous to the aquatic environment may be constructed within the shoreline area. 2. Except where infeasible, all utility lines, pipes, conduits, meters, vaults and similar infrastructures and appurtenances must be placed underground consistent with the standards of the serving utility. 3. Utilities may not be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark unless no practicable alternative exists and this location is essential to the operation of the utility 4. Utilities shall be located adjacent to or within existing utility or circulation easements or rights -of -way whenever feasible. Joint use of rights -of -way and corridors is encouraged. 5. Utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants and sewage treatment plants, or parts of those facilities, that are not water -dependent shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless alternative locations are demonstrated to be infeasible and it is demonstrated that the facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes or significant adverse impact to other shoreline resources and values such as parks and recreation facilities, public access and aesthetic resources. 6. Outfall pipelines and diffusers are water -dependent, but should be located only where there will be no net loss in shoreline ecological functions and processes or adverse impacts upon shoreline resources and values. 7. Facilities for processing, storage and disposal of solid waste are not normally water - dependent. Components that are not water -dependent shall not be permitted in shoreline jurisdiction. 8. Temporary storage of solid waste in suitable receptacles is permitted as an accessory use to a primary permitted use, or for litter control. 9. When feasible, utility development shall include public access to the shoreline, trail systems, and other forms of recreation, providing such uses will not unduly interfere with utility operations, endanger the public health, safety, and welfare, or create a significant and disproportionate liability for the owner. 10. Utility developments shall be located and designed so as to avoid, to the extent practicable, the need for any structural or artificial shoreline modification works for the life of the project. D. Utilities Application Requirements Applications for new or expanded shall be accompanied by adequate documentation that the proposal meets the policies and regulations of this Master Program, including but not limited to: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 121 of 160 Packet Pg. 625 8.2.b 1. Description of the proposed facilities; 2. Reasons why the utility facility requires a shoreline location; 3. Alternative locations considered and reasons for their elimination; 4. Location of other utility facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project and any plans to include the other types of utilities in the project; 5. Plans for reclamation of areas disturbed both during construction and following decommissioning and/or completion of the useful life of the utility; 6. Plans for control or erosion and turbidity during construction and operation; and 7. Identification of any possibility for locating the proposed facility at another existing utility facility sire or within an existing utility right-of-way. E. Utilities — Shoreline Area Regulations Urban Railroad: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 6. Shoreline Residential I: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 8. Shoreline Residential III: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 9. Aquatic I: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 122 of 160 Packet Pg. 626 8.2.b 10. Aquatic 11: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 11. Conservancy: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 12. Natural: Utility development may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Part VII Nonconforming Development 24.70.000 Purpose The purpose of this section is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots within shoreline jurisdiction to continue while limiting the continuation of certain aspects of nonconformity. Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated. 24.70.010 Nonconforming Uses A. Nonconforming uses are shoreline uses which were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or this Master Program, or amendments thereto, but which do not conform to present regulations or standards of this Master Program or policies of the act. B. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to adoption of this Master Program or any relevant amendment and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to the applicability of this Master Program to the site and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use. C. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (D) of this section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot areas, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 24.70.050. D. Lapse of Time. 1. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 6 consecutive months or for 12 months during any two-year period, any subsequent use shall be conforming. It shall not be necessary to show that the owner of the property intends to abandon such nonconforming use in order for the nonconforming rights to expire. Uses such as agricultural or aquiculture, which City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 123 of 160 Packet Pg. 627 8.2.b vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one full season consistent with the traditional use. 2. If a nonconforming uses ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., is filed within six months of the date such damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one 180-day extension may be granted. 3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection D.2 of this section shall not apply if: a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agent. c. In the event that subsection D.3.a or .b of this section apply, the nonconforming use shall be abated if damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be determined as proved in ECDC 24.70.020. E. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use, regardless of the conforming or nonconforming status of the building or structure in which it is housed. 24.70.020 Nonconforming development, building and/or structure A. Nonconforming development means a shoreline development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or this Master Program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program. B. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation of the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 124 of 160 Packet Pg. 628 8.2.b C. A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming structure and the requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting nonconformities. D. A nonconforming development, building and/or structure which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance with this Master Program. E. Nonconforming development, building and/or structure may be maintained and continued, unless required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section; provided, that it is not enlarged, intensified, increased, or altered in any way which increases its nonconformity except as expressly provided in subsection F though L of this section. F. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by reconstruction of a building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory, or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a council -approved historical survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. "Restoration" means reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly the same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code and consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The reconstruction of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State Building Code. G. If a nonconforming development, building and/or structure is destroyed or damaged to an extent not exceeding 75 percent replacement cost at the time of destruction, it may be restored to its former size, shape and lot location as existing immediately prior to the time the structure was damaged, so long as restoration is either: 1. Completed within one year of the date of damage; or 2. Completed within one year of the date of issuance of all required permits, so long as applications for such permits are vested within six months of the date of damage and are pursued in a timely manner. H. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable as Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. I. The right of restoration described in subsection E of this section shall not apply if: 1. The development, building and/or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or 2. The development, building and/r structure is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agents. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 125 of 160 Packet Pg. 629 8.2.b Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the limitations of subsections D, E and G of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met: The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or structure. "Footprint" shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in which the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar features; and provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded by more than 10 percent and is found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with current codes. 2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or reconstruction. 3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures. 4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure after complying with current codes. "Substantial compliance" shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than the hearing examiner. The decision of the ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006. K. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. L. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing residential structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030.B.5. In the BD5 zone, conforming and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or other uses permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 and this Master Program without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor elevation requirements of ECDC 16.43.030.B. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 126 of 160 Packet Pg. 630 8.2.b 24.70.030 Nonconforming Lots A. A nonconforming lot is one which met applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size, width, depth and other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created but which, due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof or the annexation of property to the city, no longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance. A lot which was not legally created in accordance with the laws of the local governmental entity in which it was located at the date of the creation is an illegal lot and will not be recognized for development. B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for any use allowed by the zoning district in which it is located, so long as such development conforms to other requirements of this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act, and all other applicable site use and development standards are met or a variance from such site use or development standards has been obtained. In order to be developed a nonconforming lot must meet minimum lot size standards established by the provisions of this code, subject to the provisions of subsection D of this section. C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became nonconforming due to its failure to meet minimum lot size or width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot is to be and shall be deemed to have been combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to create a conforming lot and thereafter may only be used in accordance with the provisions of this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act, and the Edmonds Community Development Code, except as specifically provided in subsection D of this section. D. Exception for Single -Family Dwelling Units. An applicant may build on single-family residence consisting of no more than one dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the size of the lot or parcel if, but only if, one of the following exceptions applies: 1. In a Shoreline Residential environment, such nonconforming lot may be sold or otherwise developed as any other nonconforming lot pursuant to the following conditions and standards: a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not less than the minimum lot areas specified in the table below for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; and b. Community facilities, public utilities and roads required to serve the nonconforming lot are available concurrently with the proposed development; and c. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed in order to create a new buildable lot. Lot Area Table % Needed for Lot Size Needed Zone Legal Lot for legal lot (1) RS-20 60% 12,000 City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 127 of 160 Packet Pg. 631 8.2.b (2) RS-12 70% 8,400 (3) RS-10 75% 7,500 (4) RS-8 80% 6,400 (5) RS-6 90% 5,400 2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to construct the unit within five years of the date the lot or parcel was annexed into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully created under provisions of Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws as well as the laws of the state of Washington; or 3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild on residence on a nonconforming lot without regard to the 75 percent destruction requirement of ECDC 24.70.020.G if a fully completed building permit application is vested within six months of the destruction of the residence and all other development requirements of this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act, and the Edmonds Community Development Code are complied with; or 4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were recorded in the Snohomish county recorder's office prior to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been simultaneously owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel which fronts on the same access right-of-way subsequent to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has access to an access right-of-way which meets the minimum requirements established by the Edmonds Community Development Code. 24.70.040 Nonconforming Signs Nonconforming signs are injurious to health, safety and welfare and destructive of the aesthetic and environmental living conditions which this Master Program and zoning ordinances are intended to preserve and enhance. Nonconforming signs shall be brought in to compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC under the following terms and conditions: A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended, rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any way, except as provided below. The following acts are specifically permitted and shall not in and of themselves require conformance with the provisions of this Master Program of Chapter 20.60 ECDC 1. Normal maintenance of the sign; 2. A change in the name of the business designated on the sign; or 3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety in the event of damage to the sign brought about by an accident an act of God. B. Any nonconforming sign shall be brought into immediate compliance with the code in the event that it is expanded in violation of subsection A of this section. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 128 of 160 Packet Pg. 632 8.2.b C. None of the forgoing provisions relating to permitted maintenance, name change or preservation of the sing under subsection A of this section shall be construed so as to permit the continuation or preservation of any nonconforming off -premises sign. 24.70.050 Nonconforming local public facilities Existing legal nonconforming local public facility uses, buildings, and/or signs, owned and/or operated by local, state, or federal governmental entities, public service corporations, or common carriers (including agencies, districts, governmental corporations, public utilities, or similar entities) may be expanded, enlarged, altered, or modified, subject to the policies and provisions of this Master Program and review under Chapter 20.16 ECDC, Essential Public Facilities. Part VIII Administration — Shoreline Permits 24.80.000 Purpose This chapter establishes the permit review procedure for shoreline permits, in accordance with the Shorelines Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-27 WAC. All proposed uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act, and this Master Program, regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit is required. 24.80.010 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Process A. Application and interpretation 1. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process. 2. An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with the Shoreline Management Act or the City of Edmonds' Shoreline Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of this Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. 3. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance standards of the master program, such development or use can only be authorized by approval of a variance. 4. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to this Master Program or is an unlisted use, must obtain a conditional use permit even though the development or use does not require a substantial development permit. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 129 of 160 Packet Pg. 633 8.2.b 5. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant. 6. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project. 7. The City of Edmonds may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program. B. Exemptions Listed. The following developments shall not require substantial development permits: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed five thousand seven hundred eighteen dollars ($5718), if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection must be adjusted for inflation every five years consistent with WAC 173-27-040(2)(a). For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials. 2. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment. 3. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 130 of 160 Packet Pg. 634 8.2.b fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the department of fish and wildlife. 4. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. 5. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. 6. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of twenty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. "Single-family residence" means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance as defined in 24.90.010.F. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark. 7. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single- family and multiple -family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if either: a. In salt waters (Puget Sound), the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; or City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 131 of 160 Packet Pg. 635 8.2.b b. In fresh waters (Lake Ballinger) the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter. 8. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands. 9. The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water. 10. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other similar drainage or utility facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system. 11. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW. 12. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters; b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550. 13. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or the department of ecology jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 132 of 160 Packet Pg. 636 8.2.b 14. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(o). The administrator shall review the projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty- five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section. 15. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: a. The project has been approved in writing by the department of fish and wildlife; ; b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the department of fish and wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and; c. The City has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the local shoreline master program. The City shall make such determination that in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. . 24.80.020 Letter of Exemption A. The Administrator is hereby authorized to grant or deny requests for letters of exemption from the shoreline substantial development permit requirement for uses and developments with shorelines that are specifically listed in ECDC 24.80.010.B. The letter of exemption shall indicate the specific exemption of this Program that is being applied to the development, and shall provide a summary of the Administrator's analysis of the consistency of the project with this Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. As appropriate, such letters of exemption may contain conditions and/or mitigating measures of approval to achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of this Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. A denial of an exemption shall be in writing and shall identify the reason(s) for the denial. The Administrator's actions on the issuance of a letter of exemption or a denial are subject to appeal pursuant to ECDC 24.80.110.C. B. A letter of exemption shall be prepared addressed to the applicant/proponent and the Washington State Department of Ecology, pursuant to the requirement of WAC 173-27-050 when the project is subject to one or more of the following Federal permitting requirements: 1. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; (The provisions of section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act generally apply to any project occurring on or over navigable waters. Specific applicability information should be obtained from the Corps of Engineers.); or 2. A section 404 permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. (The provisions of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act generally apply to any project which may involve discharge of dredge or fill material to any water or City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 133 of 160 Packet Pg. 637 8.2.b wetland area. Specific applicability information should be obtained from the Corps of Engineers.) C. Apart from the activities listed in ECDC 24.80.020.13, no letter of exemption shall be required for other uses or developments exempt pursuant to ECDC 24.80.010 unless the Administrator has cause to believe a substantial question exists as to qualification of the specific use or development for the exemption, an applicant requests a letter of exemption, or the Administrator determines there is a likelihood of adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions. 24.80.030 Review Criteria for All Development No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. 24.80.040 Substantial Development Permit Criteria A. A substantial development permit shall be required for all proposed use and development of shorelines unless the proposal is specifically exempt pursuant to ECDC 24.80.010. B. In order for a substantial development permit to be approved, the decision maker must find that the proposal is consistent with the following criteria: 1. All regulations of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by an approval of a shoreline variance under ECDC 24.80.060. 2. All policies of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. 24.80.050 Conditional Use Permit Criteria A. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide greater flexibility in the administering of use regulations of this Master Program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the City or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 134 of 160 Packet Pg. 638 8.2.b B. Uses specifically classified or set forth in the Master Program as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program; 2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; 3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program; 4. That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and 5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. C. Uses which are not specifically identified as an allowed use or uses which are specifically prohibited by this Master Program may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection B of this section. D. In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. 24.80.060 Variance Permit Criteria A. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this Master Program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of this Master Program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variances from the use regulations of this Master Program are prohibited. B. Variances will be granted in circumstances where the denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and that the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. C. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 135 of 160 Packet Pg. 639 8.2.b That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with lawful, reasonable use of the property; 2. That the hardship described in 1 of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this Master Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions or those of a predecessor in title; 3. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; 4. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; 5. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief, and 6. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. D. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; 2. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection ECDC 24.80.060.C.1 through 6 of this section; and 3. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. E. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. 24.80.070 Minimum Application Requirements A complete application for substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall contain as a minimum, the following information: City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 136 of 160 Packet Pg. 640 8.2.b A. The name, address and phone number of the applicant. The applicant should be the owner of the property or the primary proponent of the project and not the representative of the owner or primary proponent. B. The name, address and phone number of the applicant's representative if other than the applicant. C. The name, address and phone number of the property owner, if other than the applicant. D. Location of the property. This shall, at a minimum, include the property address and identification of the section, township and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. All applications for projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude and latitude location. E. Identification of the name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the proposal is associated with. This should be the water body from which jurisdiction of the act over the project is derived. F. A general description of the proposed project that includes the proposed use or uses and the activities necessary to accomplish the project. G. A general description of the property as it now exists including its physical characteristics and improvements and structures. H. A general description of the vicinity of the proposed project including identification of the adjacent uses, structures and improvements, intensity of development and physical characteristics. I. A site development plan consisting of maps and elevation drawings, drawn to an appropriate scale to depict clearly all required information, photographs and text which shall include: 1. The boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is proposed. 2. The ordinary high water mark of all water bodies located adjacent to or within the boundary of the project. This may be an approximate location provided, that for any development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the ordinary high water mark the mark shall be located precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans shall be included in the development plan. Where the ordinary high water mark is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest ordinary high water mark of a shoreline. The precise location of the ordinary high water mark shall be field verified by the City of Edmonds and/or the Department of Ecology. 3. Existing and proposed land contours. The contours shall be at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing character of the property and the extent of proposed City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 137 of 160 Packet Pg. 641 8.2.b change to the land that is necessary for the development. Areas within the boundary that will not be altered by the development may be indicated as such and contours approximated for that area. 4. Existing critical areas as together with any supporting information consistent with the reporting requirements of ECDC 23.40.090. 5. A general indication of the character of vegetation found on the site. 6. The dimensions and locations of all existing and proposed structures and improvements including but not limited to; buildings, paved or graveled areas, roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields, material stockpiles or surcharge, and stormwater management facilities. 7. Where applicable, a landscaping plan for the project. 8. Where applicable, plans for development of areas on or off the site as mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed project shall be included and contain information consistent with the requirements of this section. 9. Quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site whether temporary or permanent. 10. Quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material. 11. A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use to roads, utilities, existing developments and uses on adjacent properties. 12. Where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses and public areas. 13. On all variance applications the plans shall clearly indicate where development could occur without approval of a variance, the physical features and circumstances on the property that provide a basis for the request, and the location of adjacent structures and uses. 24.80.080 Notice of Application A. Upon receipt of a fully completed shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance application, the City shall issue a Notice of Application in the manner set forth in ECDC 20.90.010.E. B. The public comment period for a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance shall be thirty (30) days following the date of notice of application. Public comments may be submitted at any time prior to the closing of City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 138 of 160 Packet Pg. 642 8.2.b the record of an open record predecision hearing or, if no open record public hearing is required, prior to the decision on the project permit. C. If an open record predecision hearing, as define in RCW 36.7013.020, is required for the requested project permits, the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen (15) days prior to the open record hearing. The public hearing shall not be closed to the receipt of written comments prior to thirty (30) days following the date of the notice. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 139 of 160 Packet Pg. 643 8.2.b 24.80.090 Special Procedures for Limited Utility Extensions and Bulkheads A. An application for a substantial development permit for a limited utility extension or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single-family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be subject to all of the requirements of this chapter except that the following time periods and procedures shall be used: The public comment period shall be twenty days. The notice provided shall state the manner in which the public may obtain a copy of the local government decision on the application no later than two days following its issuance; 2. The local government shall issue its decision to grant or deny the permit within twenty- one days of the last day of the comment period specified in subsection (2)(a) of this section; and 3. If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the local government legislative authority, the appeal shall be finally determined by the legislative authority within thirty days. B. For purposes of this section, a limited utility extension means the extension of a utility service that: 1. Is categorically exempt under chapter 43.21C RCW for one or more of the following Natural gas, electricity, telephone, water, or sewer; 2. Will serve an existing use in compliance with this chapter; and 3. Will not extend more than two thousand five hundred linear feet within the shorelines of the state. 24.80.100 Public Hearings A. The Administrator shall determine whether an application requires a public hearing pursuant to the criteria below no later than fifteen (15) days after the minimum public comment period provided by ECDC 24.80.080.13. An open record public hearing shall be required for all of the following: 1. One or more interested persons has submitted to the administrator, with 15 days of the final publication notice of the application, a written request for such a hearing together with a statement of the reasons for the request; or 2. The proposal is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement is required in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act; or City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 140 of 160 Packet Pg. 644 8.2.b 3. The proposal requires a variance and/or conditional use approval pursuant to this Master Program; or 4. The use or development requires an open record public hearing for other City of Edmonds approvals or permits. 24.80.110 Notice of Decision, Reconsideration, and Appeals A. Notice of Decision 1. Within five days of a decision for action on a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance, the Administrator shall mail or hand deliver a copy of the final decision to the following: a. The applicant/proponent; b. Any person(s) who have filed a written request for a copy of the decision; c. All persons who submitted substantive written comments on the application.; and d. The Department of Ecology. 2. The notice of decision to ECDC 24.80.110.A.1.a through c shall include findings and conclusions, and a statement of the SEPA threshold determination and the procedures for an appeal (if any) of the permit decision or recommendation. 3. Decisions filed with the Department of Ecology shall contain the following information 1. A copy of the complete application; 2. Findings and conclusions that establish the basis for the decision including but not limited to identification of shoreline environment designation(s), applicable Master Program policies and regulations and the consistency of the project with appropriate review criteria for the type of permit(s). 3. The final decision of reached by the City of Edmonds on the proposal; 4. A completed permit data sheet in the form provided in WAC 173-27-990 or hereafter amended. 5. Where applicable, the City of Edmonds shall also file the applicable documents required by SEPA, or in lieu thereof, a statement summarizing the actions and dates of such actions taken under RCW 43.21 C. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 141 of 160 Packet Pg. 645 8.2.b B. Reconsideration. The applicant/proponent or any party of record may request reconsideration of any final action by the decision maker within (10) days of the decision. Grounds for reconsideration must be based upon the content of the written decision. The decision maker is not required to proved a written response or modify his/her original decision. He/she may initiate such action as he/she deems appropriate. The procedure of reconsideration shall not pre-empt or extend the appeal period for a permit or affect the date of filing with the Department of Ecology, unless the applicant/proponent requests the abeyance of said permit appeal period in writing with ten (10) days of a final action. C. Appeals 1. Local appeals of decision by the Shoreline Administrator or the Hearing Examiner shall be pursuant to the procedure and timelines of ECDC 20.01, ECDC 20.06, and ECDC 20.07.. 2. Appeals of a final decision of the City of Edmonds or the Department of Ecology shall be filed within 21 days of the date of filing of the final permit and shall be heard by the Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to the procedures and timelines of RCW 90.58.180. 24.80.120 Initiation of Development A. Development pursuant to a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance shall not begin and shall not be authorized unit twenty-one (2 1) days after the "date of filing" or until all review proceeding before the Shoreline Hearings Board have terminated. B. Date of filing: 1. "Date of filing" of a substantial development permit is the date of actual receipt of the decision by the Department of Ecology. 2. The "date of filing" for a shoreline conditional use permit or a shoreline variance shall mean the date the permit decision rendered by the Department of Ecology is transmitted by the Department to the City of Edmonds and the applicant/proponent. 24.80.130 Revisions A. A revision is required when an applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms, or conditions of an approved permit. Changes are "substantive' if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, this Master Program, or the Shoreline Management Act. Changes, which the Administrator determines are not substantive, do not require approval of a revision. B. When a permit revision is required, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes. If the Administrator determines that the revisions proposed City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 142 of 160 Packet Pg. 646 8.2.b are within the scope and intent of the original permit, the Administrator may approve the revision as a Type II decision. C. "Within the scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following: 1. No additional over water construction is involved except that pier, dock, or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet (500) or ten percent (10%) from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less; 2. Ground area coverage and height maybe increased a maximum often percent (10%) from the provisions of the original permit; 3. The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the applicable master program except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof; 4. Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with the applicable master program; 5. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and 6. No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision. D. If the sum of the proposed revision and any previously approved revisions do not meet the criteria in ECDC 24.80.130.C, an application for a new Shoreline Permit must be submitted. E. If the revision involves a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance, which was conditioned by the Department of Ecology, the revision also must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology. Under the requirements of WAC 173-27-110(6), the Department of Ecology shall render and transmit to the City of Edmonds and the applicant its final decision with fifteen (15) days of the date of the department's receipt of the submittal from the City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds shall notify parties of record of the department's final decision. F. Revision approvals, including the revised site plans, a detailed description of the authorized changes, and the final ruling on consistency with this section shall be filed with the Department of Ecology. In addition, the City of Edmonds shall notify parties of record of the revision. G. Revisions to shoreline permits may be authorized after the original authorization has expired. Revisions made after the expiration of the original permit shall be limited to changes that are consistent with this Master Program and that would not require a permit under this Master Program. If the proposed change is a substantial development as defined by this Master Program, then a new permit is required. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be used to extend the time requirements or to authorize substantial development beyond the time limits or scope of the original permit. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 143 of 160 Packet Pg. 647 8.2.b H. Appeals on revisions shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 and shall be filed within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of the City of Edmonds' action by the Department of Ecology or, when appropriate under subsection E of this section, the date the Department of Ecology's final decision is transmitted to local government and the applicant. Appeals shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the provisions of subsection C of this section. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not authorized under the original permit is at the applicant's own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline. If an appeal is successful in proving that a revision is not within the scope and intent of the original permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit. 24.80.140 Time requirements of Shoreline Permits A. The following time requirements shall apply to all substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a shoreline conditional use permit or shoreline variance: Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a substantial development permit. However, the City of Edmonds may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one (1) year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the substantial development permit and to the Department of Ecology 2. Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five (5) years after the effective date of a substantial development permit. However, the City of Edmonds may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one (1) year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the Department of Ecology. 3. The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of filing as provided in ECDC 24.80.120.13. The permit time periods in subsections 1 and 2 of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. 4. Authorization to conduct development activities pursuant to a shoreline permit issued by the City of Edmonds shall expire five (5) years after the date of issuance provided the activity was not pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal action. However, the City of Edmonds may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one (1) year based on reasonable factors. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 144 of 160 Packet Pg. 648 8.2.b B. Notwithstanding the time limits established in ECDC 24.80.140.A.1 and .2, upon finding of good cause based on the requirements and circumstances of the proposed project and consistent with the policies and provisions of this Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act, the Administrator or Hearing Examiner as appropriate may set different time limits for a particular substantial development permit as part of the action to approve the permit. The Hearing Examiner may also set different time limits on specific conditional use permits or variances with the approval of the Department of Ecology. The different time limits may be longer or shorter than those established in ECDC 24.8 0.140.A. I and .2 but shall be appropriate to the shoreline development or used under review. "Good cause based on the requirements and circumstances of the proposed project" shall mean that the time limits established for the project are reasonably related to the time actually necessary to perform the development on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted, and/or are necessary for the protection of shoreline resources. C. The Administrator or Hearing Examiner as appropriate shall notify the Department of Ecology in writing of any change to the effective date of a permit with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change. Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those authorized ECDC 24.80.150.A and .B shall require a new permit application. 24.80.150 Administrative Authority and Responsibility A. Shoreline Administrator The Shoreline Administrator shall be the planning manager or his/her designee and is vested with the following authority and responsibility to: 1. Have overall administrative responsibility for this Master Program; 2. Determine if a public hearing should be held on a shoreline permit application by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100; 3. Grant or deny written Permit Exemptions from shoreline Substantial Development Permit requirements of this Master Program; 4. Authorize, approve or deny shoreline Substantial Development Permits, except for those for which a public hearing is required pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100; 5. Make written recommendation to the Hearing Examiner or City Council as appropriate and insofar as possible, in order to assure that all relevant information, testimony, and questions regarding a specific matter are made available during their respective reviews of such matter. 6. Review and evaluate the records of project review actions (permits and exemptions) in shoreline areas and report on the cumulative effects of authorized development of shoreline conditions at a minimum every seven years when this Master Program is updated. The administrator shall coordinate such review with the Washington State City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 145 of 160 Packet Pg. 649 8.2.b Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other interested parties. 7. Advise interested citizens and project proponents of the goals, policies, regulations and procedures of this Master Program; and 8. Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this Master Programs and the Shoreline Management Act. B. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner is vested with the following authority: 1. To grant or deny shoreline Substantial Development Permits requiring public hearings pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100; 2. To grant or deny shoreline Conditional Use Permits under this Master Program; 3. To grant or deny variances form this Master Program; and 4. To decide on appeals of administrative decisions issued by the Administrator of this Master Program in accord with procedures set forth in Title 20 of this code. C. City Council 1. The Edmonds City Council is vested with the authority to hear closed record appeals of determinations of the Hearing Examiner and approve any revisions or amendments to this Master Program in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and the Washington Administrative Code. 2. To become effective any amendment to this Master Program must be reviewed and adopted by the Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and Chapter 173-26 WAC. 24.80.160 Compliance Failure to comply with the conditions of approval associated with a shoreline permit shall cause the permit to immediately become void and any continuation of the use activity shall be considered a violation of this Master Program and a public nuisance subject to enforcement proceedings. 24.80.170 Enforcement City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 146 of 160 Packet Pg. 650 8.2.b Procedures for investigation and notice of violation, compliance, and the imposition of penalties for the violation of any requirements of this Master Program shall be consistent with provisions in ECDC 20.110.040, Part II 173-27 WAC, RCW 90.58.210, and RCW 90.58.220. Part IX Definitions 24.90.000 General Information A. For the purpose of this Master Program, certain terms and their derivations shall be construed as specified in this section. Some terms used in this Master Program may have a different definition and application under other City of Edmonds regulations. Words in the singular include the plural, the plural the singular. The words "shall", "will" and "must" are mandatory; the word "may" is permissive. "Should" means that the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program, against taking the action. Additional definitions applicable to this master Program and adopted by reference herein, are found in RCW 90.58 and Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC. The following definitions apply throughout this Program, unless otherwise indicated. B. If a definition is not included here, the city shall rely on definitions found in applicable citations in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), and finally a standard dictionary, in that order. In case of conflict with the ECDC, the definition within the RCW, WAC, and/or this Master Program shall prevail. 24.90.010 Definitions: A to B A. "Abandoned" means knowing relinquishment of right or claim to the subject property or structure on that property. B. "Accessory" means a use, activity, structure or part of a structure which is demonstrably subordinate and incidental to the main activity or structure on the subject property. C. "Accessory building" means one which is subordinate to the main building, and is incidental to the use of the main building on the same lot. D. "Alteration(s)" means a change or rearrangement of the structural parts of existing facilities or an enlargement by extending the sides or increasing the height or depth or the moving from one location to another. E. "Applicant" means a person who applies for any permit or approval to do anything governed by this code and who is either the owner of the subject property, the authorized agent of the owner, or the city. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 147 of 160 Packet Pg. 651 8.2.b F. "Appurtenance" means a structure or development which is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and also of the perimeter of any marsh, bog, or swamp. See also "Normal appurtenances." G. "Aquaculture" means the farming or culture of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants or animals any may require development such as fish hatcheries, rearing pens and structures, and shellfish rafts, as well as use of natural spawning and rearing areas. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of free-swimming fish or the harvest of shellfish not artificially planted or maintained. H. "Aquaculture practices" means any activity directly pertaining to growing, handling, or harvesting or aquaculture produce, including, but not limited to, propagation, stocking, feeding, disease treatment, waste disposal, water use, development of habitat and structures. Excluded from this definition are related commercial or industrial uses such as wholesale and retail sales, or final processing and freezing. "Average grade level" means the average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or structure: In the case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation of the ordinary high water mark. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the ground elevations at the midpoint of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure. J. "Average parcel depth" means the average of the distances from the ordinary high water mark to the street providing direct access to the subject property as measured along the side property lines or the extension of those lines where the water frontage of the subject property ends, the center of the ordinary high water mark of the subject property and the quarter points of the ordinary high water mark of the subject property. K. "Average parcel width" means the average of the distances between side property lines as measured along the ordinary high water mark and the front property line. L. "Backfill" means material placed into an excavated area, pit, trench or behind a constructed retaining wall, rockery or foundation. M. "Boat launch or ramp" means graded slopes, slabs, pads, planks, or rails used for launching boats by means of a trailer, hand, or mechanical device. N. "Buoy" means a floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body. O. "Breakwater" means an offshore structure generally aligned parallel to shore, sometimes shore -connected, that provides protection from waves. P. "Buffer" means the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/or structural stability of the critical area and/or City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 148 of 160 Packet Pg. 652 8.2.b shoreline. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values. Q. "Building" means any structure having a roof, excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. R. `Bulkhead" means a retaining wall whose primary purpose is to hold or prevent the backfill from sliding while providing protection against light -to -moderate wave action. 24.90.020 Definitions: C to F A. "City" means the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation. B. "Commercial use" means an activity with goods, merchandise, or services offered for sale or rent. C. "Comprehensive plan" means the comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds and all elements thereof as amended or, if repealed, its successor document, listing the goals and policies regarding land use within the city. D. "Contour line" means a line on a map or on the earth representing a specific elevation above sea level or an elevation relative to a specific datum point. E. "Coverage" means the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. F. "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 designated through the Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance. G. "Cross-section (drawing)" means a visual representation of a vertical cut through a structure or any other three-dimensional form. H. "Dedication" means the deliberate granting of an interest in land by an owner for public use or purpose, reserving no other rights than those that are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public use or purpose to which the property has been devoted. I. "Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; grading; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the act at any stage of water level. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 149 of 160 Packet Pg. 653 8.2.b J. "Development permit" means any permit or approval under this code or the ECDC that must be issued before initiating a use or development activity. K. "Dock" means a structure designed to protrude overwater or float upon the water, and which is attached to the shoreline and is used for moorage or other water -related activity such as swimming or diving. L. "Dredging" means removal of earth and other materials from the bottom of a body of water or from a wetland. M. "Dredging spoils" means the earth and other materials removed from the floor of a body of water or wetland by the dredging process. N. "Drift cell," "drift sector," or "littoral cell" means a particular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which contains any natural sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms created by such drift. O. "Dry land" means the area of the subject property landward of the ordinary high water mark. P. "Dwelling unit" means a building providing complete housekeeping facilities for one family Dwelling unit does not include recreational vehicles or mobile homes. Q. "Dwelling unit, attached" means a dwelling unit that has one or more vertical walls in common with or attached to one or more other dwelling units or other uses and does not have other dwelling units or uses above or below it, excluding lawfully permitted accessory dwelling units. R. "Dwelling unit, detached" means a dwelling unit that is not attached or physically connected to any other dwelling unit or other use. S. "Dwelling unit, stacked" means a dwelling unit that has one or more horizontal walls in common with or adjacent to one or more other dwelling units or other uses and may have one or more vertical walls in common with or adjacent to one or more other dwelling units or other uses, excluding lawfully permitted accessory dwelling units. T. "ECDC" means the "Edmonds Community Development Code." U. "Easement" means land which has specific air, surface or subsurface rights conveyed for use by an entity other than the owner of the subject property or to benefit some property other than the subject property. V. "Ecological functions" or "shoreline functions" means the work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. See WAC 173-26-200 (2)(c). City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 150 of 160 Packet Pg. 654 8.2.b W. "Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)" means Ordinance 2182 as amended or, if repealed, its successor document. X. "Enhancement" means alteration of an existing resource to improve or increase its characteristics and processes without degrading other existing functions. Enhancements are to be distinguished from resource creation or restoration projects. Y. "Environmentally sensitive areas" means an area designated and mapped by a city under WAC 197-11-908, as now or hereafter amended. Certain categorical exemptions do not apply within environmentally sensitive areas (WAC 197-11-305 and 197-11-908, as now or hereafter amended). Z. "Erosion and deposition" means the removal of soils and the placement of these removed soils elsewhere by natural forces such as wind or water. AA. "Excavate(tion)" means the mechanical removal of soils and/or underlying strata. BB. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, that an action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the following conditions: 1. The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or test have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; 2. The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and 3. The action does not physically preclude achieve the project's primary intended legal use In cases where this Master Program requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's infeasibility, the City of Edmonds may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames. CC. "Ferry terminal" means a combination of waterward and upland improvements providing the interface between public/private waterborne transportation and public/private ground transportation. DD. "Fill" means the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material (excluding solid waste) to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shoreland in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 151 of 160 Packet Pg. 655 8.2.b EE."Fill material" means dirt, structural rock or gravel, broken concrete and similar structural substances customarily used to raise the level of the ground, but excluding topsoil, bark, ornamental rocks or gravel placed on the surface of the ground. FF. "Float, recreational" means an offshore platform/buoy used for water -dependent activities such as, but not limited to, swimming and diving. 24.90.030 Definitions: G to O A. "Gabions" means structures composed of masses of rocks, rubble or masonry held tightly together, usually by wire mesh, so as to form blocks or walls; sometimes used on heavy erosion areas to retard wave action or as foundations for breakwaters or jetties. B. "Geotechnical report" or "geotechnical analysis" means a scientific study or evaluation conducted by a qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, an other geologic hazards or processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential site -specific and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development; including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down -current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards an must be prepared by qualified professional engineers or geologists who have professional expertise in both regional and local shoreline geology and processes. C. "Government facility" means the movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. D. "Grading" means the movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. E. "Haines Wharf' means Lots 7 through 11 in the plat of Meadowdale Tidelands. F. "Hotel" means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are rented out for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory shops and services catering to the general public can be provided. Not included are institutions housing persons under legal restraint or requiring medical attention or care. G. "Improvement" means any structure or manmade feature. H. "Inner harbor line" means the line designated as such by the State Harbor Line Commission pursuant to Article XV, Washington State Constitution. "Land surface modification" means the clearing or removal of trees, shrubs, ground cover and other vegetation, and all grading, excavation and filling of materials. The removal of City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 152 of 160 Packet Pg. 656 8.2.b overhanging vegetation and fire hazards as specified in ECDC 18.45.030(E) shall not be deemed to be land surface modifications. J. "Landscaping" means the planting, removal and maintenance of vegetation along with the movement and displacement of earth, topsoil, rock, bark and similar substances done in conjunction with the planting, removal and maintenance of vegetation. K. "Landward" means upland from the ordinary high water mark. L. "Lot" means a single tract of land legally created as a separate building site with frontage on a street or access easement. For purposes of this code the area of the lot used to calculate lot area shall be the area of the lot which is upland of the OHWM and adjoining lots under common ownership which were created without subdivision or short subdivision approval from applicable city or county governments. This lot area shall be considered as one lot and subject to the regulations contained herein. The terms of this section shall apply regardless of whether the individual adjoining lots meet current zoning requirements. M. "Low Impact Development (LID)" means a stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design. N. "LID Principles" means land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff. O. "Low impact development best management practices" means distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project design, that emphasize pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, vegetated roofs, minimum excavation foundations, and water re -use. P. "Marine launcher" means a mechanical device that can hoist vessels off trailers and transport them into the water and often is associated with dry land moorage facilities. Q. "Master plan" means a complete development plan for the subject property showing placement, dimensions and uses of all structures as well as streets and other areas used for vehicular circulation. R. "Mean sea level" means the level of Puget Sound at zero tide as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. S. "Minor appurtenant building" means minor buildings associated with overwater structures including but not limited to the following: storage buildings less than 150 square feet in area, ferry terminal passenger shelter, covered moorage, etc. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 153 of 160 Packet Pg. 657 8.2.b T. "Mixed -use developments" are shoreline developments which combine more than one separate but related activity into a coordinated package. Activities usually include one or more water -dependent uses with non -water -dependent uses. Drive-in businesses are not permitted. U. "Modification" means an action undertaken in support of or in preparation for a shoreline use that modifies the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area. V. "Moorage" means a place to tie up or to anchor a waterborne craft. W. "Mooring buoy" means a floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body that provides tie up capabilities for waterborne craft. X. "Moorage facility" means a pier, dock, dolphin, buoy or other structure providing docking or moorage space for waterborne craft. Y. "Motel" means a building containing units which are used as individual sleeping units having their own private toilet facilities and sometimes their own kitchen facilities, designed primarily for the accommodation of transient automobile travelers. Accommodations for trailers are not included. This term includes tourist court, motor lodge, auto court, cabin court, motor hotel, motor inn and similar names. Z. "Multimodal terminal (facility)" means a terminal (facility) designed for the co -location of transportation loading and unloading by multiple forms of transportation including land, water or rail. AA. "Nonconformance" means any use, structure, lot, condition, activity, or any other feature or element of private property or the use or utilization of private property that does not conform to any of the provisions of this code or that was not approved by the city through the appropriate decision -making process required under this code and/or was established prior to the original Edmonds shoreline master program. BB. "Normal appurtenances" normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth and regulated within the applicable master program. CC. "Office (use)" means a place of employment in a building or separately defined space within a building providing services other than production, distribution or sale or repair of goods or commodities. The following is a nonexclusive list of office uses: accounting, architectural, engineering, consulting or other similar professional services; management, administrative, secretarial, marketing, advertising, personnel or other similar personnel services; sales offices where no inventories or goods are available on the premises; real City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 154 of 160 Packet Pg. 658 8.2.b estate, insurance, travel agent, brokerage or other similar services. The following uses are specifically excluded from the definition of office: medical, dental, or other health care; veterinary; banks, loan companies and similar financial institutions. DD. "Off-street parking" means motor vehicle parking facilities within the lot area of a private lot or public lot established for that purpose. EE."Official newspaper of the city" means the publication designated by ordinance or resolution to contain official newspaper publications for the city government. FF. "Official notification boards of the city" means the bulletin boards in the public areas of the city of Edmonds Community Services Building, the Edmonds Main Post Office Branch, and the Edmonds Public Library. GG. "OHWM" means ordinary high water mark (see ECDC 24.90.030.FF) HH. "Open space" means land not covered by buildings, roadways, parking areas or other surfaces through which water cannot percolate into the underlying soils. II. "Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition existing on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by the City of Edmonds or the Department of Ecology; PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. JJ. "Oriented" means facing or directed toward. KK. "Outer harbor line" means the line designated as such by the State Harbor Line Commission pursuant to Article XV, Washington State 24.90.040 Definitions: P to R A. "Parking area" means any area designed and/or used for parking of vehicles. B. "Parking space" means an area which is improved, maintained and used for the sole purpose of temporarily accommodating a motor vehicle that is not in use. C. "Pedestrian orientation" pertains to facilities which encourage pedestrian movement and are designed and oriented toward use by pedestrians. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 155 of 160 Packet Pg. 659 8.2.b D. "Pier" means a fixed structure which abuts the shoreline and is used for moorage or other water -related activities such as fishing, swimming and diving. E. "Planning division" means the planning division of the community services department of the City of Edmonds. F. "Planning manager" means the manager of the planning division of the City of Edmonds or the acting manager of that division. G. "Planning official" means the manager of the planning division or his/her designee. H. "Port" means a special purpose unit of local government created for the purpose of managing port -related lands, facilities and activities. For the purposes of this document, "port" refers to the port of Edmonds and its facilities and operation. I. "Property line" means those lines enclosing a lot, its developable area and those lines defining a recorded vehicular access easement. The following are categories of property lines: 1. "Front property line" is any property line that is adjacent to a street or easement more than 20 feet in width, except that the Burlington Northern right-of-way shall not be considered a front property line. 2. "Rear property line" is any property line that is farthest from and essentially parallel to a front property line except on a lot which contains two or more front property lines. 3. "Side property line" is any property line other than a front property line or a rear property line. J. "Public access" is the physical ability of the general public to reach and touch the water's edge and/or the ability to have a view of the water and the shoreline from upland locations. There are a variety of types of public access including picnic areas, pathways and trails (including disabled), floats and docks, promenades, viewing towers, bridges, boat launches, street ends, ingress and egress, parking and other similar facilities or locations. K. "Public access pier or boardwalk" means an elevated structure or floating structure which is constructed waterward of the ordinary high water mark and intended for public use. L. "Public park" means an area provided by a unit of government to meet the active or passive recreational needs of people in the water and on the upland shoreline. M. "Public right-of-way" means land dedicated to the movement of vehicles and pedestrians and providing for primary access to adjacent parcels and or public waterborne transportation. Secondarily, the land provides space for utility lines and appurtenances and other publicly owned devices. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 156 of 160 Packet Pg. 660 8.2.b N. "Public use area" means a portion of private property that is dedicated to public use and which contains one or more of the following elements: benches, tables, lawns, gardens, piers, exercise or play equipment or similar improvements or features. These elements are to provide the public with recreational opportunities in addition to the right to traverse or stand in this area. O. "Public utility" means a private business organization such as a public service corporation, including physical plant facilities, performing some public service and subject to special governmental regulations, or a governmental agency performing similar public services, the services by either of which are paid for directly by the recipients thereof. Such services shall include but are not limited to: water supply, waste water treatment, stormwater treatment, electric power, telephone, cablevision, gas, and transportation for persons and freight. P. "Railroad right-of-way" means the land occupied by a railroad for its tracks, yard, buildings, and related structures. Q. "Restaurant" means a building where food is sold to the public for on -premises consumption or to go. It may include alcoholic beverage service only pursuant to a Class "C," "D," or "H" state liquor license. R. "Restore," restoration" or "ecological restoration" means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal o intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions. S. "Retail establishment" means a commercial enterprise which provides goods or services directly to the consumer and whose goods are available for immediate purchase and removal from the premises by the purchaser or whose services are traditionally not permitted within an office use. 24.90.050 Definitions: S to T A. "Shore setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline ordinary high water mark. B. "Shoreline areas" and "shoreline jurisdiction" means all "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030. C. "Shoreline conditional use" means a use or development which is specifically listed by this master program as a conditional use within a particular shoreline environment or a use which is not addressed by this master program within any shoreline environment. D. "Shoreline Management Act (SMA)" means Chapter 90.58 RCW as now or hereafter amended. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 157 of 160 Packet Pg. 661 8.2.b E. "Shoreline master program (SMP)" means the ordinance of the City of Edmonds adopted under authority of Chapter 90.58 RCW. F. "Shoreline modifications" means those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater, pier, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structure. They can include other actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals. G. "Shoreline variance" means a procedure to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this master program, and not a means to allow a use not otherwise permitted within a shoreline environment. H. "Silt or sediment" means the soil particles mobilized and deposited by the processes of erosion and deposition. I. "Street" means the public or private right-of-way or access easement which provides vehicular access to more than three lots. J. "Structure" means anything which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built-up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. Not included are fences less than six feet in height, retaining wall, rockeries, and similar improvements of a minor character less than three feet in height. K. "Structural alterations" means any change in a supporting member of a building or structure. L. "Subject property" means the entire lot, series of lots or parcels on which a development or use is or will locate and that is otherwise subject to the provisions of this code. For the purposes of this chapter, land leased from the Department of Natural Resources, which is contiguous to the applicant's property, shall also be considered the "subject property." 24.90.060 Definitions: U to Z A. "Use, development and/or activity" means "development" as that term is defined in Chapter 90.58 RCW. "Use" also means the nature of the activities taking place on private property or within structures thereon. B. "Vehicle holding area" means any area designated by the city or state for holding vehicles prior to loading onto a ferry. C. "Water -dependent use" means a use or a portion of a use which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations and can not exist in any other location. Examples of water -dependent uses may include ferry and passenger terminals, marinas and sewer outfalls. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 158 of 160 Packet Pg. 662 8.2.b D. "Water -enjoyment use" means a recreational use, or other use facilitating public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and which through the location, design and operation assures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water -enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline -oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water -enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, parks, piers, scuba diving facilities and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state; and general water -enjoyment uses may include but are not limited to, restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves, resorts and mixed -use commercial; provided, that such uses conform to the above water -enjoyment specifications and the provisions of the master program. E. "Water -oriented use" refers to any combination of water -dependent, water -related, and/or water -enjoyment uses and serves as an all -encompassing definition for priority under the SMA. "Non -water -oriented" serves to describe those uses which have little or no relationship to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the SMA. Examples include professional offices, automobile sales or repair shops, mini -storage facilities, multifamily residential development, department stores and gas stations. F. "Water -related use" means a use or a portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or 2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water -dependent commercial activities and that the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. G. "Waterward" means toward the body of water on the waterside of the ordinary high water mark. H. "Wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater 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 to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 159 of 160 Packet Pg. 663 8.2.b Part X Appendices 24.100.000 Appendix A - Maps of Shoreline Environments and Jurisdictions 24.100.010 Appendix B — Shoreline Master Program Version of Edmonds Critical Area Regulations City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 160 of 160 Packet Pg. 664 Legend Lake Ballinger Inset SMP Designations Aquatic 1 Aquatic 11 Conservancy Natural Shoreline Residential 1 Shoreline Residential 11 Shoreline Residential III Urban Mixed Use I Urban Mixed Use II - Urban Mixed Use III Urban Mixed Use IV Urban Railroad Planning Segement Break OHW Edmonds City Limits Railroad Stream City of Lynwood Sewage Treatment A City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Updat Packet Pg. 665 Legend SMP Designations Aquatic I Aquatic 11 Conservancy dF Natural Shoreline Residential I Shoreline Residential 11 Shoreline Residential III Urban Mixed Use I Urban Mixed Use II - Urban Mixed Use III Z�� Urban Mixed Use IV Urban Railroad - *,L".Wo • Planning Segement Break' OHW City of Edmonds Edmonds City Limits Shoreline Master Program Updat ' Railroad Stream I Packet Pg. 666 Legend SMP Designations Aquatic I q Shoreline Residential III'' Planning Segement Break Aquatic II Urban Mixed Use I City of Edmonds OHW Conservancy 4L Urban Mixed Use II Shoreline Master Program Updat, Edmonds City Limits Natural 40 Urban Mixed Use III Shoreline Residential I ® Urban Mixed Use IV Railroad EnvironmentalDesignations: Shoreline Residential II Urban Railroad �_ Stream Figure 'Awl Packet Pg. 667 Legend SMP Designations Aquatic 1 - Shoreline Residential III - Aquatic 11 Urban Mixed Use I Conservancy - Urban Mixed Use 11 - Natural Urban Mixed Use III Shoreline Residential I ® Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Residential 11 Urban Railroad • Planning Segement Break �i OHW Edmonds City Limits f Railroad Stream a E L 0 a m o ti M City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Updat 08_� Packet Pg. 668 8.2.d S F V1 a `')c. 1 S4V City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Inventory & Characterization SMA Grant Agreement No. 60600108 November 2007 Prepared for: City of Edmonds by: Sea Run Consulting Tetra Tech, Inc. Reid Middleton, Inc. Pentec Packet Pg. 669 8.2.d Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose.................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction and Study Area Boundary .............................................................................. 1 1.3 Methodology...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Shoreline Planning Segments............................................................................................................. 2 2. Current Regulatory Framework Summary ....................................................................................... 5 2.1 City of Edmonds Plans and Regulations............................................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Current Shoreline Management Act Compliance............................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Other City Regulations................................................................................ 6 2.2 State and Federal Shoreline Regulations............................................................................................ 7 2.2.1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits....................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)........................................................................................................ 7 2.2.3 Ecology Section 401 Water Quality Certification............................................................................................... 8 2.2.4 USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10.................................................. 8 2.2.5 NOAA Fisheries and USFWS Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7............................................................ 9 3. Watershed Characterization........................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Ecosystem -wide Processes............................................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Climate............................................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1.2 Topography.......................................................................................................................................................11 3.1.3 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1.4 Surface Water and Groundwater...................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.5 Coastal Processes............................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.6 Historic Land Use Development....................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Shoreline Uses..................................................................................................................................14 3.2.1 Tribal Fisheries................................................................................................................................................ 16 3.2.2 Commercial Fisheries....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.3 Recreational Fisheries...................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Water Quality...................................................................................................................................18 3.3.1 Freshwater Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Marine Water Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Inventory and Land Use Patterns................................................................................................... 22 4.1 Existing Land Use............................................................................................................................ 22 4.2 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Corresponding Zoning Designations ......................................... 23 4.3 Roads and Transportation Facilities................................................................................................. 24 4.4 Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities............................................................................................... 24 4.5 Existing Public Access Sites............................................................................................................ 25 4.6 Historical/Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 26 4.7 Toxic or Hazardous Material Clean-up Sites and Dredge Material Disposal Sites .......................... 27 5. Nearshore Physical Characterization............................................................................................. 34 5.1 Geologic Units.................................................................................................................................. 35 5.2 Soils..................................................................................................................................................35 5.3 Landslide Hazard Areas................................................................................................................... 36 5.4 Seismic Hazards............................................................................................................................... 36 5.5 Shoreline Slope Stability..................................................................................................................37 Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page ii Packet Pg. 670 8.2.d 5.6 Erosion Hazard Areas....................................................................................................................... 37 5.7 Aquifer Recharge Areas...................................................................................................................38 5.8 Lakes and Streams............................................................................................................................ 38 5.9 Flood Hazard Areas.......................................................................................................................... 39 5.10 Nearshore Processes......................................................................................................................... 39 5.11 Shoreline Modifications................................................................................................................... 40 5.11.1 Shoreline Armoring.......................................................................................................................................... 41 5.11.2 Docks, Piers, and Over/In-water Structures..................................................................................................... 42 6. Nearshore Biological Characterization.......................................................................................... 44 6.1 Wetland Habitat................................................................................................................................ 45 6.2 Fish and Wildlife.............................................................................................................................. 46 6.2.1 State Priority Habitats and Species.................................................................................................................. 47 6.2.2 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................................................. 50 6.3 Riparian Zones................................................................................................................................. 51 6.3.1 Freshwater........................................................................................................................................................51 6.3.2 Marine.............................................................................................................................................................. 52 6.4 Beaches and Backshore Flats........................................................................................................... 52 6.5 Sub -Estuaries (Stream Mouths and Deltas)...................................................................................... 53 6.6 Eelgrass Meadows............................................................................................................................ 54 6.7 Kelp Beds......................................................................................................................................... 55 6.8 Habitat Conservation Areas.............................................................................................................. 55 7. Segment Summaries and Assessment............................................................................................ 56 7.1 Segment A—Lund's Gulch to Perrinville Creek.............................................................................. 57 7.1.1 Marine Shoreland............................................................................................................................................. 57 7.1.2 Lund's Gulch Creek.......................................................................................................................................... 58 7.1.3 Meadowdale Creek........................................................................................................................................... 59 7.2 Segment B—Perrinville Creek to Southwest County Park.............................................................. 60 7.2.1 Marine Shoreland............................................................................................................................................. 60 7.2.2 Perrinville Creek.............................................................................................................................................. 60 7.3 Segment C—Southwest County Park to Fruitdale Creek................................................................. 61 7.3.1 Marine Shoreland............................................................................................................................................. 61 7.4 Segment D—Fruitdale Creek to Shell Creek................................................................................... 61 7.4.1 Marine Shoreland............................................................................................................................................. 61 7.4.2 Fruitdale Creek................................................................................................................................................. 62 7.4.3 Northstream Creek............................................................................................................................................ 62 7.4.4 Shell Creek........................................................................................................................................................ 63 7.5 Segment E—Shell Creek to Edmonds Underwater Park.................................................................. 64 7.5.1 Marine Shoreland............................................................................................................................................. 64 7.6 Segment F—Edmonds Underwater Park to Port of Edmonds......................................................... 64 7.6.1 Marine Shoreland............................................................................................................................................. 64 7.7 Segment G—Port of Edmonds Marina............................................................................................ 66 7.7.1 Marine Shoreland............................................................................................................................................. 66 7.7.2 Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger and Willow Creeks.................................................................................... 67 7.8 Segment H—Port of Edmonds Marina to Point Edwards................................................................ 68 7.9 Segment I —Lake Ballinger.............................................................................................................. 69 8. Shoreline Planning Reaches........................................................................................................... 71 8.1 Reach 1............................................................................................................................................. 71 8.2 Reach 2............................................................................................................................................. 72 Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page iii Packet Pg. 671 8.2.d 8.3 Reach 3............................................................................................................................................. 73 8.4 Reach 4............................................................................................................................................. 73 9. References......................................................................................................................................75 Appendix A: Data Gaps Table @ Appendix B: Figures a D E L O Tables a L d Table 1. Shoreline Segments..........................................................................................................3 2 Table 2. Shoreline PlanningReaches 4 d S 5D L Table 3. Waterbodies with Recent Violations of State Water Quality Standards in Edmonds, O CO Washington............................................................................................................................ 21 Table 4. Soil Types and Surficial Geologic Units Present at Each Shoreline Segment ............... 35 Table 5. Common Shellfish Found in the Edmonds Shoreline Jurisdiction.................................47 0 Table 6. Salmonids Found within the Edmonds Shoreline Jurisdiction ....................................... 49 Table 7. Marine Shore Inventory Habitat Features recorded for Snohomish County 2001 ......... 56 Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page iv November 2007 Packet Pg. 672 8.2.d Acronyms and Definitions BA Biological Assessment BEACH Washington's Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication and Health Program BETX Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, or Total Xylenes BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe CAO Critical Areas Ordinance CARAs Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas CWA Clean Water Act DMMP Dredged Material Management Program DNR Department of Natural Resources DOE Department of Ecology ECDC Edmonds Community Development Code Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Inpact Statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FS Feasibility Study GIS Geographic Information Systems GMA Growth Management Act GPS Global Positioning System HDPE High -Density Polyethylene HPA Hydraulic Project Approval JARPA Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application LUST Leaking Underground Storage Unit MHHW Mean Higher High Water MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MSA Magnuson -Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act MSL Mean Sea Level MTCA Model Toxics Control Act MW Monitoring Well NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System () NWSSC Northwest Salmon and Steelheaders Council OHW Ordinary High Water OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page v November 2007 Packet Pg. 673 8.2.d PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls PSAMP Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program PSDDA Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Analysis RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington RI Remedial Investigation SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Plan SQG Small Quantity Generators SQS Sediment Quality Standards SVOCS Semivolatile Organic Compounds SWM Surface Water Management TMDL Total Daily Maximum Load TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geologic Survey UST Underground Storage Tanks VOCS Volatile Organic Compounds WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data) WRIA Water Resources Inventory Area WSF Washington State Ferries Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page vi November 2007 Packet Pg. 674 8.2.d 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose The purpose of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report is to document baseline environmental conditions in the shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds (City), Washington. This inventory and characterization provides a basis for updating the City's Shoreline Master Program to comply with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58, and its implementing guidelines, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26. The inventory and characterization will help the City evaluate ecological functions and values of natural resources in its shoreline jurisdiction, and explore opportunities for conservation and restoration. This report provides a framework of information that will support future updates to the City's shoreline environment designations, shoreline management policies, and regulations. 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction and Study Area Boundary Under the SMA, the shoreline jurisdiction includes areas that are 200 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of waters that have been designated as "shorelines of statewide significance" or "shorelines of the state." These designations were established in 1972 and are described in WAC 173-18. Generally, "shorelines of statewide significance" include portions of Puget Sound and other marine water bodies, rivers west of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, rivers east of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of 200 cfs or greater, and freshwater lakes with a surface area of 1,000 acres or more. "Shorelines of the state" are generally described as all marine shorelines and shorelines of all other streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or greater and lakes with a surface area greater than 20 acres. For this inventory, OHWM was defined as an elevation equivalent to mean higher high water (MHHW), to be consistent with interpretations by state agencies (e.g., Washington Department of Ecology). This characterization focuses on the approximately 5.2 miles of Puget Sound marine shoreline within the city limits of the City of Edmonds (Figure 1). The shoreline of Puget Sound, including the shoreline within the City limits, is defined as a "shoreline of statewide significance" waterward of the line of extreme low tide [RCW 90.58.030(2)(e)(iii)], extending waterward (in Edmonds) to the offshore city limit (see Figure 1). Although there are other areas in Puget Sound with additional characteristics that are designated as "shorelines of statewide significance," none is present in the Edmonds vicinity. Lake Ballinger, with a surface area of about 100 acres, qualifies as a "shoreline of the state" but is too small to be a "shoreline of statewide significance." No streams within the City qualify as either a "shoreline of the state" or a "shoreline of statewide significance." Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 1 Packet Pg. 675 8.2.d Under the SMA, the shoreline area to be regulated under the City's Shoreline Master Program must also include adjacent "shorelands," which are defined as the upland area within 200 feet of OHWM, as well as any associated wetlands (RCW 90.58.030). "Associated wetlands," means those wetlands that are in proximity to and either influence or are influenced by tidal waters or a lake or stream subject to the SMA (WAC 173-22-030 (1)). These are typically identified as wetlands that physically extend into the shoreline jurisdiction, or wetlands that are functionally related to the shoreline jurisdiction through a surface water connection and/or other factors. Specific language from the RCW describes the limits of shoreline jurisdiction as follows: "Those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all associated wetlands and river deltas " (RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)). For this inventory, we included all wetlands and creeks that are directly hydraulically connected to shorelands as part of the Edmonds' shoreline jurisdictional boundary. The approximate area of the shorelands is shown with a dashed line on some of the figures in this document; this line is not a surveyed line. It is a representation of the approximate location of the setback 200 feet from the OHWM jurisdiction. 1.3 Methodology Information collected and reviewed to create this inventory and characterization was obtained from many sources, including the City, Snohomish County, and state and federal agencies. Some of the primary sources of data for the inventory's geographic information systems (GIS) database are: • City of Edmonds Community Development Code (2005); • Snohomish County Marine Shore Inventory and Database (2001); • City of Edmonds records and files; • Washington State ShoreZone Inventory (2001); • Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington (2001); • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species, Priority Resident and Anadromous Fish Presence, Wildlife Heritage Points, Seabird Colonies, and Sea Lion Haulout Site reports (2006); • Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brightwater Regional Wastewater Treatment System (2003). Numerous other data sources, including local and state databases and reports, were reviewed for best available science and information to inventory and characterize the Edmonds shoreline. These sources are cited in the document and References section. Data gaps are identified in Appendix A. 1.4 Shoreline Planning Segments For the shoreline ecological inventory, the City's shoreline jurisdiction was divided into nine segments (A through I), based on biological and physical features and ecological functions described in a recent Shoreline Habitat Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2001). The inventory segmentation focused on the aquatic environment and the adjacent shoreline features that directly Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 2 Packet Pg. 676 8.2.d influence it. The subsequent characterization and analysis required that the segments be considered in conjunction with existing land uses and zoning designations, using a broader -scale assessment of ecological differences and similarities observable along the shoreline to develop four shoreline planning reaches that are consistent with Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan and the Critical Areas Ordinance. Shoreline segments are described in Table 1 and depicted on Figure 2. Detailed segment descriptions are provided in Section 7. Shoreline planning reaches, which combine similar shoreline segments, are described in Table 2 and depicted on Figure 2. Table 1. Shoreline Segments Length .. Approx.Approx. PA :. ..Jurisdiction Lund's Gulch to Perrinville Creek 7,100 23% B Perrinville Creek to Southwest 2,100 7% County Park C Southwest County Park to 5,300 17% Fruitdale Creek D Fruitdale Creek to Shell Creek 3,300 11% E Shell Creek to Edmonds 3,300 11 % Underwater Park F Edmonds Underwater Park to Port 1,850 6% of Edmonds G Port of Edmonds Marina 3,200 10% (including Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Creek) H Port of Edmonds Marina to Point 900 3% Edwards I Lake Ballinger 4000 12% I - Does not include the length of constructed piers, jetties, breakwaters, or piers that extend waterward from shore. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 3 November 2007 Packet Pg. 677 8.2.d Table 2. Shoreline Planning Reaches Approx. .. General :.City's LApprox. Percentage. Shoreline (feet)' Jurisdiction 1 Lund's Gulch to Caspers A, B, C, D, 19,351 64% Street north half of E 2 Caspers Street to Main South half of 2,253 7% Street E, north half of F 3 Main Street to Point South half of 4,716 16% Edwards F, G, H 4 Lake Ballinger I 3,947 13% 1 - Does not include the length of constructed piers, jetties, breakwaters, or piers that extend waterward from shore. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 4 November 2007 Packet Pg. 678 8.2.d 2. Current Regulatory Framework Summary 2.1 City of Edmonds Plans and Regulations 2.1.1 Current Shoreline Management Act Compliance The City of Edmonds first adopted a shoreline master program in the 1970s consistent with the SMA of 1971. Over the years, the City of Edmonds made minor amendments to its Shoreline Master Program (SMP). In 1996, the City began an update of the SMP. This effort resulted in a revised SMP adopted by Edmonds City Council in 2000 in Ordinance 3318, Section 3. The adopted SMP is found in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 23.10. The SMP was adopted as both a policy plan and a regulatory program. It was developed to be consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive plan and its component elements (ECDC 23.10.030.) This chapter is divided into the following five parts, consistent with the material to be included within a master program as established in Chapter 173-26 WAC: Part I, contains basic and general information regarding the shoreline master program. Part II, contains the City's goals and policies with respect to the seven program elements established in Chapter 173-16 WAC. Part III contains information regarding the different shoreline environments to be found within the City. Part IV contains regulations that apply to the various uses, developments, and activities that are regulated under the shoreline master program. Part V contains appendices pertaining to the shoreline master program. Part III of the Edmonds SMP establishes the environmental designations for various shoreline areas of the state. The different environment designations are intended to provide a way to regulate shoreline use developments and activities in the different areas of the City's shoreline. Specific use regulations found in the Edmonds SMP apply to the different environment designations. The current Edmonds SMP contains five different environment designations: Conservancy, Natural, Suburban Residential, Urban Mixed Use, and Urban Railroad. The SMP provides boundary descriptions for each of the environments. The official map of the City designating the various shoreline environments is adopted by reference in ECDC 23.10.110. In December 2003, the state of Washington adopted new guidelines consistent with RCW 90.58.020 for development of local shoreline master programs. The 2003 legislature adopted a schedule for updating local shoreline master programs (SSB 6012). The City of Edmonds is required to adopt an amended SMP consistent with the new Guidelines by 2011. However, all jurisdictions may amend their SMP at any time before the scheduled date. Edmonds has chosen to begin its update in 2006. It applied for and was awarded a grant to complete this work by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 5 November 2007 Packet Pg. 679 8.2.d 2.1.2 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Other City Regulations 2.1.2.1 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan The City of Edmonds amended its comprehensive plan in 2004 in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.) The comprehensive plan has the following purposes: A. To serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations. B. To promote the public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare and values of the community. C. To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the City and its environs and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. D. To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning, and inharmonious subdividing. E. To facilitate adequate provisions for public services (such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks). The comprehensive plan contains land use types and compatible zoning classifications. Along the Edmonds shorelines, land is designated as Single Family, Park and Open Space, and Master o Plan Development. The City designations for land use are important to the shoreline to establish N the general land use pattern and provide the policy guidance for development of shoreline environment designations within the Edmonds SMP. L The Edmonds comprehensive plan contains a land use element specific to the downtown v waterfront area titled Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. This element of the comprehensive 3 plan incorporates a number of other planning efforts for the Edmonds waterfront, including the 1994 Downtown Waterfront Plan. This section of the Edmonds comprehensive plan provides c policy guidance for the shoreline master program. It contains descriptions of the different waterfront areas and waterfront area policies. c 2.1.2.2 City of Edmonds Zoning Code City of Edmonds Community Development Code, Titles 16 and 17, contain the zoning ordinance L C for Edmonds. Title 16 contains the designations and accompanying regulations for the City of co Edmonds. These designations are consistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Title 16 1; contains the designations, their purposes and development standards. Title 17 contains general Z zoning regulations applicable to all zoning districts (Figure 3). x w 2.1.2.3 City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas Code Title 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) contains the m environmentally critical areas code for the City of Edmonds. This title implements the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the comprehensive plan and the Washington State GMA a requirements to protect critical areas of the City. These regulations are intended to protect critical areas through the application of the best available science, as determined by WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172. The regulations were adopted by Ordinance 3527, Section 2 in 2004. The regulations contain a critical area review process, Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 6 Packet Pg. 680 8.2.d including mitigation planning, requirements and sequencing, allowed activities, exemptions, noncompliance penalties, and protective measures. Specific natural resources addressed in the Edmonds Community Development Code are as follow: Wetlands, ECDC 23.50; Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA), ECDC 23.60; Frequently Flooded Areas, ECDC 23.70; Geologically Hazardous Areas, ECDC 23.80; and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, ECDC 23.90. These environmentally critical areas (Figure 4) apply to the City's shoreline jurisdiction. 2.2 State and Federal Shoreline Regulations Development in or above federally or state -designated waters generally requires permits from local, state and federal agencies. Project review and authorization, in the form of permit - applications, are usually required when changes to federally navigable waters, state waters, or fish and wildlife habitat are anticipated. For tidal waters, construction activities are regulated by the local jurisdiction (in this case, Edmonds), Washington Department of Ecology, and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marina Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must concur that any project requiring federal approvals (a USACE permit, for example) is consistent with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These agencies will require that proposed projects avoid or offset project impacts on certain fish and wildlife species through design and/or environmental controls and/or restoration activities. Each agency defines its in -water jurisdiction based on an established water elevation, which extends landward from the water to extreme high water, mean higher high water (MHHW), mean high water, or ordinary high water (OHW), depending on the agency. Permits and approvals that are typically required by agencies with regulatory authority in shoreline/shoreland areas are described below. 2.2.1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits The City of Edmonds is the local permit authority for construction activities waterward of OHW and within 200 feet of the OHWM for uplands. All shoreline permits are processed by the City of Edmonds pursuant to Edmonds Municipal Code, 23.10.035. The City is also responsible for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance of a project. Following the local government decision on all permit applications, applications are sent to Ecology. Ecology must approve, approve with conditions, or deny each conditional use permits and variances. Ecology does not have direct approval authority over the more common Shoreline Substantial Development Permits (SDP) if they are found inconsistent with the local SMP and the SMA, Ecology may file an appeal with the Shorelines Hearings Board. 2.2.2 WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) Any form of work that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural flow or bed of any freshwater or saltwater of the state requires an HPA from WDFW. The purpose of the HPA is to address potential project impacts, through construction and operation, on state -managed fish and wildlife species in fresh and marine waters. Saltwater activities requiring an HPA include construction of bulkheads, fills, boat launches, piers, dry docks, artificial reefs, dock floats, marinas, placement of utility lines, pile driving, and dredging. The state jurisdiction for an HPA Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 7 November 2007 Packet Pg. 681 8.2.d is defined as proposed construction or work waterward of the MHHW line in saltwater and OHW in fresh water (See Chapter 220-110 WAC), for all lakes, streams, and marine waters in Edmonds. A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) is a Washington State -designed project information form and notification document used for preparing a permit application for an HPA. Drawings of the proposed project are submitted along with the JARPA form to WDFW for review and permit issuance. The JARPA form is also submitted to other local, state, and federal agencies for their reviews and approvals. 2.2.3 Ecology Section 401 Water Quality Certification The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) regulates discharges of pollutants into federally designated waters, which include Lake Ballinger, Edmonds Marsh, and the marine waters along the Edmonds shoreline. Under the CWA, Ecology is authorized by USEPA to regulate and administer water quality discharge permits through the Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The Water Quality Certification includes construction - generated water discharges, including site stormwater runoff, into federally/state-designated waters. Water Quality Certification is typically issued in conjunction with the Section 404 permit process administered by USACE and described below. Upland projects outside of the shoreline jurisdiction that affect groundwater or involve discharges of sewage or stormwater, also require water quality permits from Ecology under Section 401 authorization if they discharge into waters of the state. Outfall construction for discharges within the shoreline jurisdiction also requires Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 2.2.4 USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 USACE administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Permit compliance for both acts is triggered by construction in "navigable waters," including rivers, harbors, and marine nearshore areas designated by the federal government; a Section 404 permit is issued for dredging or filling navigable waters, including wetlands. Typical shoreline construction projects in marine waters, such as construction or maintenance of bulkheads, piers, and docks, are subject to both Sections 10 and 404 approvals and typically require individual permit applications and extensive reviews and negotiation to obtain USACE approvals; however, simple repair and maintenance activities of such structures may be allowed under a Nationwide Permit. Nationwide Permits are part of an expedited permit process that allows USACE to authorize work that falls under certain thresholds of disturbance. The project permit application for USACE authorization consists of a JARPA (same as the one submitted for an HPA) and a set of project drawings (same as the one submitted for an HPA). Before USACE can issue permit approvals for a project, it must obtain project review and concurrence under the ESA Section 7 for all federally designated threatened or endangered species in the project area. Section 7 and other relevant sections of the ESA are administered by the USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), referred to as NOAA Fisheries. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 8 Packet Pg. 682 8.2.d 2.2. S NOAA Fisheries and USFWS Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 NOAA Fisheries and USFWS administered the ESA for all federally permitted, funded, or authorized projects located in areas where a federally designated threatened or endangered species is known to occur. All federal agencies, including USACE, must coordinate their construction - related authorizations with NOAA Fisheries and/or USFWS (depending on the species present in the area) to protect threatened and endangered species. Potential project effects on federally designated threatened or endangered species are addressed through a Biological Assessment (BA), following specific analytical guidelines that are described in the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook and subsequent memoranda issued by NMFS (now NOAA Fisheries). In addition, other agencies, including USACE and the Washington Department of Transportation, have interpreted and developed their own guidance requirements for making a biological evaluation. Ultimately, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS are responsible for reviewing the BA and providing a Biological Opinion that describes the conditions under which a project may proceed. They do not issue permits —they provide written authorization, so that other permits may be issued without violating provisions of the ESA. NOAA Fisheries also requires compliance with the Magnuson -Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSA) for federally permitted, funded, or authorized projects in areas with designated habitat for commercial fisheries species. In Washington nearshore areas, habitat for commercial fish species often overlaps with habitat for threatened and endangered fish species protected under the ESA. An analysis of potential project effects, similar to a BA, is required for MSA commercial fisheries and designated habitat. This is called an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment. Often NOAA Fisheries will prepare the EFH assessment and provide it with a letter of concurrence or a Biological Opinion for ESA -listed species. Numerous federally designated threatened and endangered species protected under the ESA may be found within Edmonds shoreline and shoreland areas. As of 2006, some ESA -listed species within Edmonds marine shorelines include Chinook salmon and bull trout. These species must also be evaluated if their habitat extends into fresh water streams and wetlands; however, they have no formally designated presence/habitat in Edmonds Marsh, Lake Ballinger, or other city streams and drainages. Because Chinook salmon is also a commercial fish species protected under the MSA, it would also be considered in an EFH assessment. Bald eagle may be present along freshwater, brackish, or marine shorelines in Edmonds, so a project -specific analysis is necessary to determine if ESA compliance would be triggered. Other species are proposed for listing or added to the list over time, so it is necessary for each proposed project to address the most current listing of all threatened and endangered species. The current status of every federally designated species is recorded in the Federal Register and available online. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 9 November 2007 Packet Pg. 683 8.2.d 3. Watershed Characterization A watershed is naturally determined by topography, rainfall, vegetation, soils, and geologic conditions but is significantly affected by land use activities, including earth moving and filling, vegetation clearing, water extraction and diversion, drainage channelization and impounding, and paving. The City of Edmonds lies within multiple small watersheds and one large one. For purposes of this report, the Edmonds Watershed is defined as the small streams that flow directly to Puget Sound and discharge into the shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds. These include Lund's Gulch Creek, Perrinville Creek, Fruitdale Creek, Northstream Creek, Unnamed Creek, Shell Creek, and Shellabarger/Willow Creek. The southeast corner of Edmonds that drains into Lake Ballinger is part of the Lake Washington watershed, identified by the state as Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8. About 13 percent of the City (808 acres) drains into WRIA 8 via Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek. The Edmonds Watershed consists of a series of relatively short and deeply incised drainages that have cut through the high marine bluff that characterizes much of the Central Sound western shore between Everett and Seattle. Each drainage consists of a narrow ravine, flanked by a narrow corridor of shrubs and mixed coniferous and deciduous trees, surrounded by moderate to dense residential development. The largest drainage area, occupied by the oldest part of the City, includes two convergent creeks (Willow and Shellabarger) and a broad estuarine wetland (Edmonds Marsh) that has been largely filled and channeled by decades of industrial and commercial development. The Lake Washington watershed includes Lake Ballinger, part of which drains the southeast corner of the City. The surrounding subbasin consists of dense residential development surrounding the lake, and a narrow strip of commercial development along the I-5 corridor. 3.1 Ecosystem -wide Processes Puget Sound is a deep, glacially carved ford -like estuary that connects to the Strait of Juan de Fuca through Admiralty Inlet and Deception Pass. It extends approximately 140 miles in a north - south direction, reaches a maximum depth of greater than 850 feet, and is characterized by a series of relatively deep basins separated by shallower sills. The Strait of Juan de Fuca opens into the North Pacific Ocean between Washington State and Vancouver Island in Canada. The tidal pattern of Puget Sound is dominated by a mixed semidiumal tidal cycle, characterized by two unequal high tides and two unequal low tides each day, with a large tidal exchange averaging between 12 and 14 feet. The City of Edmonds lies in the northern portion of Puget Sound's Central Basin. This area of Puget Sound is called the Triple Junction region. In the Triple junction region, Admiralty Inlet and Possession Sound join the Central Basin at the southern end of Whidbey Island (KC DNR WTD 2003). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 10 Packet Pg. 684 8.2.d 3.1.1 Climate The Puget Lowland has a maritime climate with cool winters, dry summers, and a distinct rainy season. The City of Edmonds receives an average of 37.2 inches of precipitation per year, mostly as rain. Temperatures range from a mean of 40.1 degrees in January to a mean of 65.2 degrees in July, with an average high temperature of 75.2 degrees and an average low of 35.2 degrees (City of Edmonds 2005). During the latter half of the summer and early fall, the lower valleys are sometimes filled with fog or low clouds until noon, while at the same time, the higher elevations are sunny. Winds are generally from the southwest during the rainy season (early October through mid -April) and from the northwest during the dry summer months (WRCC 2006). 3.1.2 Topography Edmonds is located in the central part of the Puget Lowland, which is bounded on the east by the Cascade Range and on the west by the Olympic Mountains. The Puget Lowland is characterized by north -south trending valleys and hills in low relief, with intervening elongated saltwater and freshwater bodies. The City itself occupies a gently sculpted upland that ranges from 300 to 500 feet above mean sea level (MSL), with west -facing slopes that descend to Puget Sound. This area has been termed the Intercity Plateau. Creeks drain westward off of the upland into Puget Sound. A small area in the eastern part of the City is drained by heavily dissected south -flowing streams that drain directly or indirectly into Lake Washington (KC DNR WTD 2003). The westward -flowing drainages (e.g., Lund's Gulch Creek) typically consist of narrow, deeply incised V-shaped ravines with steep walls composed largely of glacial soils. Perennial streams drain the basins, each descending approximately 500 vertical feet over horizontal distances ranging from 0.8 to 1.5 miles (Snohomish County SWM 2002). 3.1.3 Geology and Soils Geology and soils determine many physical characteristics of a shoreline and influence the nearshore processes that continually re -shape the shore. A shoreline's substrate and slope are the result of geologic processes that created the underlying landforms and provide the overlying material that weathers into soils and beach substrates. In unstable, steep areas with easily eroded soils, a combination of underlying geology, slope, and soils can create "feeder bluffs", where landslides contribute large quantities of soils to the nearshore to provide new material (sand and gravel) to eroding beaches. Not all eroding bluffs "feed" shoreline beaches—longshore currents and bathymetry may carry eroded material into deeper subtidal areas farther off shore, rather than distributing it along upper beach elevations. No specific studies were found that documented location of feeder bluffs along the city shoreline; for practical purposes, however, no feeder bluffs exist along the Edmonds shoreline because the railroad bed prevents most landslide material from reaching the beach. The inland portions of the City of Edmonds are typically underlain by Vashon till (Qgt), a glacially -deposited, dense, compacted mixture of gravel, sand, and silt that mantles the upland regions of central Puget Sound (Figure 5). In some areas, such as near Lake Ballinger, the till is overlain by discontinuous deposits of more -recent recessional outwash (Qgo) and alluvium (Qa). Along the shore of Puget Sound, and in the stream valleys that drain to the sound, the till has been eroded exposing underlying advance outwash (Qga, Qga(t), Qcg, Qgu) and older pre -Fraser deposits (Qc(w)). A significant wetland deposit (Qa) and an area of artificial fill (Qf) occur at Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 11 Packet Pg. 685 8.2.d Edward's Point and the Edmonds Marina and Washington State Ferry terminal, respectively (WDNR 2005). Most soils in the City of Edmonds belong to the Alderwood-Everett soil map unit (Figure 8). Alderwood soils are formed on the Vashon till. These soils are moderately deep and moderately well drained. The surface layer is gravelly sandy loam, and the subsoil is very gravelly sandy loam. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of about 20 to 40 inches. Everett soils are formed on the advance and recessional outwash deposits. These soils are very deep and somewhat excessively drained. The surface layer is gravelly sandy loam and the subsoil is very gravelly sandy loam. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is very gravelly loamy sand over extremely gravelly sand (MRCS 2006). 3.1.4 Surface Water and Groundwater Within the City jurisdiction, most surface water within the Edmonds Watershed flows directly into Puget Sound through numerous small creeks, all exhibiting similar drainage patterns through the central Puget Sound west shoreline. In general, the headwaters of the main stems are in relatively flat, developed areas. The streams carry runoff from these areas into steep ravines before flowing into Puget Sound. The existing drainage systems in the upper watershed consist of a network of pipes and ditches, built to older design standards, which collect and convey stormwater runoff from paved and other hardened surfaces directly to streams. Over the past several decades, the volume of stormwater flowing into the main stem and tributaries has increased significantly compared to pre -development volumes. Discharge rates have also increased, causing an increase in flooding events and in erosion of the ravine channels as the stream works to adjust its size to accommodate the increased flows (Snohomish County SWM 2002). Lund's Gulch Creek drains an area of approximately 2.3 square miles (1,440 acres), although probably less than 5 percent lies within the City of Edmonds. The upper portion of the basin is flat with drainage systems consisting of older ditch and culvert systems that lack sufficient conveyance capacity. The upper watershed is urbanized with medium to high -density residential development. Commercial development is also located along the Highway 99 corridor. Notable hydrologic features in the basin include a 21-acre forested wetland and a regional detention facility located upstream of 52nd Avenue. Lund's Gulch Creek flows from 52nd Avenue, through a steep forested ravine to Southwest County Park, and then to Puget Sound (Snohomish County SWM 2002). The majority of Lake Ballinger lies within the City of Mountlake Terrace, although approximately 0.75 miles of shoreline (37 acres of surface area) are within the City of Edmonds. The lake drains into McAleer Creek, which flows into Lake Washington. The lake has an average depth of 15 feet and a maximum depth of 35 feet (Bell -McKinnon 2006). It is eutrophic, meaning that it is nutrient -rich. Within the City, the shoreline is dominated by single-family homes, with numerous docks and piers. The lake receives stormwater runoff from the Cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline, and areas of south Snohomish and north King Counties. In addition, it receives stormwater inputs (and accompanying water quality problems) via Hall Creek, which flows into the north end of Lake Ballinger. The groundwater system in western Snohomish County, including the Edmonds area, consists of a sequence of aquifers and confining units within the unconsolidated geologic deposits. From stratigraphically highest to lowest, the principal aquifers in the area occur in the alluvial deposits (e.g., Qa), recessional outwash (Qgo), and advance outwash (Qga, Qga(t), Qcg, Qgu). The Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 12 November 2007 Packet Pg. 686 8.2.d Vashon till (Qgt) and pre -Fraser deposits (Qcw) typically act as confining units in this area (Thomas et al. 1997). Recharge to the groundwater system occurs primarily by infiltration and percolation of precipitation. Recharge occurs throughout upland areas of the City area, except in locations that are covered by impervious materials such as buildings or pavement. Groundwater flows from the upland recharge areas toward plateau edges or stream valleys. Groundwater discharges to surface -water bodies such as streams, lakes, and marshes to springs, and seeps along stream valleys and bluffs directly to Puget Sound (Thomas et al. 1997). CARAs are defined by WAC 365-190-030(2) as those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water. CARAs are protected as critical areas under the Washington State GMA. 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. No areas meeting criteria for CARAs exist in the vicinity of the City of Edmonds (ECDC 23.60.010). 3.1.5 Coastal Processes Steep, gradually receding bluffs commonly back the shoreline along Edmonds. In a natural system, over time, bluffs erode and recede landward, providing sediment to the shore. Prior to vegetation clearing and construction of bulkheads and other structures that protect property from wave and tidal action, natural bluff recession rates were generally quite slow in most of Puget Sound (Adolfson 2004). Vegetation reduces erosion by holding surficial soil layers in place, absorbing water, and dispersing rainfall energy and runoff. Sediment that accumulates at the base of bluffs helps to protect the bluff from further erosion and reduces the recession rate. Under natural conditions, sediment from eroded bluffs may enter the intertidal zone within the nearshore, where it is subject to transport by waves and water currents. Along the west shore of Central Puget Sound, the BNSF railroad bed forms a nearly continuous barrier between the eroding bluffs and the intertidal zone, reducing or preventing natural sediment influx. The waterward side of the railroad bed is armored by either a sloped or vertical seawall, which extends through the commercial area and marina (Figure 6). Prevailing winds and waves cause sediment to drift along the shore, primarily within the intertidal zone. Sediment that is sufficiently small (typically sand), is suspended for short durations by wave action and is transported along the shore parallel to the beach. Gravel is transported by rolling (saltation) as a result of storm waves. The direction of drift transport is generally in the direction of prevailing winds, which may differ in the summer and winter. The predominant, or net, shore -drift direction is the most important consideration for coastal processes (Adolfson 2004). Net shore - drift is determined through geomorphologic analysis of beach sediment patterns and of coastal landforms. Many shorelines can be divided into discrete littoral, or shore, drift cells, which are independent of one another and for which distinct sediment sources and sinks can be identified. Heightened concerns about the adverse impact of shoreline modifications on geologic processes, and consequently, on nearshore biological resources, has created a need for information on longshore sediment transport. The Net Shore -Drift in Washington State program (Ecology 2002) map coverage denotes the extent of individual drift cells and the direction of net shore -drift within the littoral zone for much of Puget Sound (see Figure 5). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 13 November 2007 Packet Pg. 687 8.2.d 3.1.6 Historic Land Use Development According to the 1909 Sanborn map, the present location of the State Ferry terminal had been used for maritime transportation at that time. The property was then called the "City Dock," and it contained a freight warehouse that was used for shipping. Civic improvements continued with construction of a new City wharf in 1911. Puget Sound Navigation, commonly known as the Black Ball line, controlled most of the regional ferry routes, until cross -sound service was taken over in 1951 by the State Ferry System. Seattle -Everett electric interurban trains also served Edmonds for several decades. This service began in 1910 and reduced the market for the steamboat service of the Telegraph and City of Everett, the last two ships on the Seattle -Edmonds -Everett route. By that date the Great Northern Railroad had double -tracked its roadway through Edmonds with eight daily trains at its new depot. Later, increased competition from private vehicles resulted in reduced services (BOLA Architecture + Planning 2005). In the 1920s, a sea dike and a sea gate were built to prevent floods of the tide flat areas southwest of downtown, near Edmonds Marsh. In 1924, a Unocal tank farm facility substation was established east of the railroad tracks near the foot of Dayton Street. Uses of the Edmonds waterfront began to shift from traditional industries to alternate commercial businesses in the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1950s, the Port of Edmonds expanded its breakwater and built a small marina on the site of former mills. Restaurants and shopping mall retailers began constructing new facilities in the marina area (BOLA Architecture + Planning 2005). 3.2 Shoreline Uses Numerous plant and wildlife species depend on shorelines for the variety of conditions and functions that these transitional habitats provide. Competing uses are high in the shoreline jurisdiction, with human activities and structures dominating most of the shoreline jurisdiction uplands and influencing sizable areas of aquatic elevations, from the waters' edge outward to navigable depths. Overall, regional shoreline aquatic habitat is relatively stable, due to the presence of the BNSF railroad. The effect of this significant structure dividing the upper intertidal marine shorelands from upland shorelands is discussed in greater detail in subsequent report sections. The Edmonds shoreline is an indicative example of the majority of marine shoreline in this area. To a great extent, shoreline development in this regional area is limited by the lack of marine -to -upland access due to the BNSF railroad right-of-way. The central Puget Sound marine shoreline in the vicinity of Edmonds, between Seattle and Everett, is dominated by urban structures, including transportation -related, residential, and commercial facilities, and pavement to provide vehicle access and parking. The few areas with pedestrian beach access also feature roads, flanked by paved walkways, which further eliminate habitat in favor of vehicles and people. The railroad bed adds an additional 35- to 75-ft-wide swath of rock pavement in the upper intertidal and adjacent upland shoreland along most of the central Puget Sound west shore. Structures in marine aquatic areas include railroad bed, bulkheads, ferry docks, commercial piers, sewer and stormwater outfalls, and a few residential structures. Freshwater shoreline uses consist largely of non-native landscaping, small residential - related structures, small piers and docks, and paved roadways. There is little "passive" human use of shoreline areas along the metropolitan extent of this area of Puget Sound —even the parks are developed with pavement, roads, structures, stormwater pipes, wastewater treatment facilities, and managed (unnatural or non-native) vegetation. The steep bluffs that abut large segments of Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 14 Packet Pg. 688 8.2.d marine shorelines are also highly influenced by human activities, through vegetation clearing for construction and "views." The remaining small-scale, immature vegetation is inadequate for slope stabilization, contributing to erosion and landslides that regularly destabilize large areas of shoreland that would otherwise be undeveloped and available to wildlife. Within the intertidal and subtidal portions of the central Puget Sound area, aquatic and shoreland habitats are used by fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Common wildlife species that adapt to urbanized areas, such as deer, coyote, raccoon, and opossum, are present along this regional shoreline. Because Puget Sound is a regional flyway for migratory birds, numerous birds, including rare or unusual species, are regularly observed along the shoreline. Many migratory birds congregate in the large Snohomish River estuary to the north, transiting along the Snohomish County shoreline. Port Susan, north of the Snohomish River estuary, provides critical habitat for large numbers of shorebirds during spring and fall migrations and for birds staying during winter. It is one of only four sites in Puget Sound that regularly support more than 20,000 shorebirds in a season (Seattle Audubon Society 2006). Large flocks of wintering ducks use the sloughs and sheltered bays. In winter, trumpeter and tundra swans and large numbers of snow geese forage along the shoreline and in the fields. Short -eared owls are regularly seen, as are other unusual sparrows such as Harris's, American tree, white -throated, vesper, and clay - colored. Many species of wintering raptors, including snowy owl and bald eagle, are attracted to the area. Further south, the Seattle shoreline along Discovery Park attracts abundant and diverse migratory bird species, including western grebe, red -throated and common loons, marbled murrelet, and rhinoceros auklet. Parasitic jaeger, Bonaparte's gull, and common tern are species present in late summer and fall. Five common species of gull use the beach all winter. Brant geese are commonly observed during spring migration foraging on eelgrass. Spring- and fall - migrating shorebirds, such as surfbird and ruddy and black turnstones, use rocky beach areas, while sanderlings use sandy beaches and remain all winter (Seattle Audubon Society 2006). Edmonds lies within the regional shoreline between these two important bird stop -over areas. The City of Edmonds sponsored an International Migratory Bird Day event in 2005 to raise awareness of the value of the shoreline and adjacent areas as migratory bird habitat. Birds protected under the ESA that are frequently observed in this region include bald eagle and marbled murrelet. Marine mammals, such as harbor seals and sea lions, are frequently observed in the nearshore areas. Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise, and killer whale also inhabit the deeper waters of this regional shoreline area. The Southern Resident population of killer whale, consisting of J, K, and L pods, is listed under the ESA as endangered. This protected population, which sometimes appears in central Puget Sound during the height of the fall Chinook and chum salmon migrations, is not present in Puget Sound from early to mid -February through May or June (Wiles 2004). Much of the marine food web is supported by the seasonal concentrated presence of salmon and trout runs, which provide the basis for commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries. Chinook, coho, pink, and chum salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat and bull trout stocks from the Snohomish River and southern Puget Sound rivers likely migrate along the central Puget Sound western shoreline as juveniles. Several adult bull trout, rarely caught in Puget Sound, were tagged and tracked migrating along the Snohomish County shoreline between the Stillaguamish River (north of the Snohomish River) and Seattle (Salmon Bay and Elliott Bay/Green River) in 2003 (Goetz et al. 2004). Salmonid species listed as threatened species under the ESA in Puget Sound include Chinook salmon and bull trout. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 15 Packet Pg. 689 8.2.d The presence of a nearly continuous band of eelgrass along the Snohomish and King County shoreline provides critical habitat for juvenile salmonids, in addition to other fish species. Forage fish (e.g., surf smelt, sand lance, and Pacific herring) forage and spawn intertidally and form the foraging base for salmon and many other species of marine fish and shorebirds. In this central Puget Sound region near Edmonds, human use of the shoreline is primarily for transportation, with the BNSF railroad bed constituting the largest area of use and other regional transportation hubs (e.g., former Unocal pier, WSF terminal, SR-104) comprising smaller areas of use. Residential housing is the other major use of this regional shoreline area. Commercial uses, including marinas, piers and docks, restaurants, and offices, occupy a relatively small area of regional shoreline, clustered in the urban cores of cities. Passive human use, such as picnicking and beachcombing, is concentrated at the city and county parks that provide parking and public access. Small "hobo camps" of transients occur at regular intervals along the BNSF railroad, usually hidden in the lower wooded reaches of the numerous ravines along this shoreline. Recreational, tribal, and commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting constitute a major human use of aquatic resources between Everett and Seattle. 3.2.1 Tribal Fisheries Several tribal nations recognized as "Puget Sound Treaty Tribes" have fishing rights at all "usual and accustomed grounds and stations" in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Tribes have commercial fishing rights for salmon in their usual and accustomed fishing areas and also have the legal right to harvest shellfish and bottom fish from the same areas. Management of tribal and commercial fishing is a joint effort of WDFW and the treaty tribes. Recognized tribes participating in the management of Central Puget Sound fisheries are the Lummi, Suquamish, Swinomish, and Tulalip (CH2M HILL 2004). Other tribes, including the Upper Skagit, Duwamish, and Muckleshoot, have also claimed historic use of this area. Current commercial fisheries near Edmonds include fisheries for salmon, Dungeness crab, spot prawn, and spiny dogfish. There is a tribal shrimp harvest area located on a 200- to 300-foot depth band from Point Edwards to roughly one mile north of Picnic Point (CH2M HILL 2004). WDFW Crustacean Management Region 4, Catch Area 26B and Management Region 2W, Catch Area 26A have tribal fisheries for Dungeness crab that are open year-round. Many treaty tribes are involved in coho salmon fishing in Management Area 10, mostly in the vicinity of Point Edwards (FHWA et al. 1998). In addition to commercial fishing, these tribes also harvest fish in their usual and accustomed areas for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. Fishing quotas and fishing open dates are negotiated from year to year, based on return projections calculated by tribal and WDFW harvest management biologists. During the past decade, because of poor salmon returns in the same years, the number of fishing days has dwindled to as few as three days each for the state and tribal fisheries in Salmon Management Area 10 (CH2M HILL 2004). 3.2.2 Commercial Fisheries The following information was taken primarily from the Brightwater FEIS (KC DNR WTD 2003). Dungeness crab is the only commercially harvested crab species in Puget Sound, with the commercial harvest usually extending from October to April. Occasionally there are commercial harvest openings for short periods during the summer and at other times of the year. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 16 Packet Pg. 690 8.2.d The Edmonds shoreline falls within the WDFW Crustacean Management Region 4, Catch Area 26B and Management Region 2W, Catch Area 26A. Most of the commercial harvest for Dungeness crab occurs north of Everett; however, commercial harvesting does occur near Edmonds in Catch Area 26A. The commercial fishery in Catch Area 26B is currently closed to commercial harvest. There is a commercial spot prawn fishery (both state and tribal) in Puget Sound, including in the vicinity of Edmonds. The management regions and catch areas are the same as those for Dungeness crab. The state commercial fishery remains open for 1 to 2 months, typically from June until the end of July. The quota is typically reached quickly and the fishery lasts approximately two weeks per season. Catch Areas 26A and 26B are two areas that open early to spot prawn fishing if test fishing shows that fewer than 2 percent of the females have eggs. Under these conditions, fishing is allowed in these two areas from approximately April 11 through October 15, or until quotas are reached. There is currently a commercial spiny dogfish fishery in Central Puget Sound. Fishing typically occurs from Possession Bar south to Port Madison. The primary fishing gear used is long line, but set nets may also be used. While the fishery is open year-round, most fishing occurs in the spring and fall. The fishery generally occurs in water depths between -100 to -300 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). 3.2.3 Recreational Fisheries Along the City waterfront are two WDFW management areas: Salmon Management Area 9, located north of the Edmonds Marina; and Salmon Management Area 10, located south of the marina. The coho season extends from roughly mid -September to early October, and the chum season extends from October through November. Salmon Management Area 9 is usually closed to non -treaty tribal commercial salmon fishing; therefore, the northern border of Salmon Management Area 10, located south of the Edmonds Marina, is a popular location for coho salmon fishing. Sport fishers in Puget Sound target a wide range of salmonids, including coho salmon, king (Chinook) salmon), steelhead trout, pink salmon, cutthroat trout, and blackmouth (immature Chinook salmon). Fishing intensity is highest in the fall when salmon return to spawn in tributary streams and rivers. Sport fishing activity in the vicinity of Edmonds is generally concentrated off Point Edwards just south of the ferry terminal (Parametrix 2001a, cited in KC DNR 2003). The Edmonds fishing pier is open year-round for recreational fishing. Several species of fish are caught off the Edmonds fishing pier, including smelt, Chinook and pink salmon, rockfish, and perch (WDFW 2003). Invertebrates collected from the fishing pier include squid, shrimp, and red rock and Dungeness crabs. Clams are also collected in this area. The central Puget Sound bottomfish sport fishery is also active. Historically, the most important fish species were rockfish, flatfish, Pacific cod, sablefish, and walleye pollock. Populations of many of these fish species have significantly declined in recent years, particularly Pacific cod, walleye pollock and Pacific whiting (hake), which have all been rated as "critical" or "depressed" by WDFW. Although not recommended by the Washington State Department of Health, because of water quality concerns, recreational shellfishing occurs along many central Puget Sound shorelines, particularly at public access beaches such as Marina Beach Park, and Meadowdale Beach Park. Harvesting for clams and crabs occurs frequently during low tides at these beaches (Parametrix 2001, cited in KC DNR 2003). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 17 Packet Pg. 691 8.2.d Recreational fishing for spot prawns is an active fishery that typically opens in late April and remains open for about 2 weeks. The area near the Edmonds Marina is a popular area for spot prawn fishers. There is a recreational squid fishery in the Central Basin of Puget Sound that typically occurs from late fall through March. Squid fishing frequently occurs in areas with public fishing piers. 3.3 Water Quality There is little water quality information specific to the surface waters of the creeks and Puget Sound nearshore in the City of Edmonds. A series of studies by Snohomish County (titled Drainage Needs Reports) on similar streams near Edmonds (Report No. 11, Puget Sound Tributaries), available from online websites, offer a close approximation to stream conditions within the City. Other freshwater programs, either conducted by King County or administered by the State (such as Ecology's Rivers and Streams Water Quality Monitoring program), tended to focus on highly urbanized areas with known pollutant sources based on current or past recent industrial activities or densely populated areas with relatively large watershed sub -basins (e.g., Thornton Creek, Lake Washington). These studies were not particularly applicable to Edmonds streams or Lake Ballinger. Groundwater quality in the City of Edmonds is generally good and has no widespread contamination issues, as reported in a U.S. Geologic Services (USGS) study on groundwater systems and quality in western Snohomish County (Thomas et al. 1997). However, the USGS study also notes the potential for chemicals released from various human activities to locally impact groundwater quality. This would include a potential for groundwater contamination at various locations in the area from leaking underground storage tanks, which are listed by Ecology, along with the nature and extent of contamination, the affected medium (e.g., soil, surface water, or groundwater), and the status of cleanup efforts. Contaminated sites are most likely to be present in areas with commercial or industrial development. Ecology's database was reviewed for properties within the Edmonds shoreline area listed as contaminated sites. The former Unocal site and the Chevron Richmond Beach Asphalt Terminal property were the largest industrial properties in the Edmonds area; both properties have documented or suspected soil and groundwater contamination. The Port of Edmonds includes two locations along Admiral Way listed as both groundwater and soil contaminated sites that have been undergoing cleanup actions since 1995, but are not yet de -listed. Other properties within the SMP boundary areas that were listed on Ecology's 2006 database of contaminated sites have been reported as cleaned up. 3.3.1 Freshwater Quality The Edmonds Watershed tributaries flow into Puget Sound, which is classified as Class AA (Extraordinary) by WAC-201A, and thus all tributaries in the study area are designated as Class AA for water quality by the State. The applicable water quality criteria for Class AA freshwater in Washington are summarized in the Snohomish County Drainage Needs Report (2002). The Snohomish County Drainage Needs Report (2002) evaluated nearby Lund's Gulch and Norma Creeks and concluded, "The overall water quality of Norma Creek is poor, and is typical of other well -developed urban residential watersheds. Degradation of water quality can largely be attributed to pollutants associated with the surrounding land uses, and a lack of treatment facilities. Although few water quality data are available for Lund's Gulch Creek or Picnic Point Creek, the water quality of these creeks can be expected to be comparable to that of Norma Creek, based on the general similarities in land use, topography, and observation of stream Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 18 November 2007 Packet Pg. 692 8.2.d conditions. Norma Creek is not meeting Class AA criteria for fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen, and is on the Ecology 1998 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for both parameters." Other water quality problems in adjacent area streams include elevated metals and high sediment loads. The primary sources of these water quality problems are presumed to be urban residential areas, commercial areas, roadways, and excess sediment from eroding stream banks, slopes, and construction sites. Other water quality exceedances in Norma Creek included fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, high sediment bed loads, and excess sedimentation in the lower reaches of both Norma Creek and Lund's Gulch Creek. Copper, lead, and zinc, which are usually the most significant metals in urban runoff, have been detected in water samples from Norma Creek. The levels of total recoverable metals in Norma Creek are comparable to metals concentrations for other built -out urban residential areas, such as in urban King County. Long-term sampling in Norma Creek shows that the stream appears to be meeting Class AA standards for temperature and pH, and these parameters are not a problem. Temperature and pH are often measured to assess stream conditions for fish health. Sampling of benthic invertebrate populations has been used to determine the health of streams in Snohomish County. Results indicate relatively poor biological health due to any number of factors including flow regime, sediment transport, streambed habitat, and water quality. It should be noted, however, that the sample site is in a depositional zone, in which the streambed conditions are often not conducive to a diversity of benthic invertebrates. In summary, the predominant water quality problems likely found in Edmonds and adjacent county streams are heavy sediment loads in the lower reaches, and high bacterial concentrations and low dissolved oxygen in the upper reaches. Ecology maintains a water quality 303(d) list, composed of waterbodies where tested pollutants have exceeded thresholds established by the state surface water quality standards (WAC 173-201A). Streams that do not appear on the 303(d) list may fall short of that pollutant threshold, but may not be free of pollutants as not all streams are tested as part of this process. Therefore, absence from the 303(d) list may not necessarily indicate that the waterbody is not impaired. No streams within Edmonds were found on the 303(d) list. The 1998 303(d) list was the last one submitted to and approved by EPA. Lake Ballinger is on the 303(d) waterbody list for total phosphorus exceedance. Lake Ballinger water quality has been studied for more than 30 years; problems identified in the mid-1970s were partially addressed in the late 1980's, but water quality continues to decline, despite limited efforts to reduce non -point source pollutants entering the lake. In 1977, a Phase I Federal Clean Lakes Restoration Project identified water quality degradation related to surface water and stormwater runoff from the surrounding drainage basin that caused high nutrient loads and fluctuating water levels, resulting in periodic flooding, blue-green algae blooms, hypolimnetic anoxia, high turbidity, low transparency, and sediment phosphorous recycling. In the mid-1980s, the lake was placed on the 303(d) list for failing to meet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) human health criteria for total phosphorous. A decade later, control measures were implemented, using stormwater diversion and structural controls, hypolimnetic injections/withdrawal (to reduce sediment phosphorous), lake level reduction, and public education. Initially, erosion stabilization efforts on Hall Creek (revegetation of streambanks and adjacent slopes) and construction of two regional sedimentation ponds resulted in reduced Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 19 November 2007 Packet Pg. 693 8.2.d phosphorus and sediment inputs into the lake (KCM 1986). Hypolimnetic injection and withdrawal greatly reduced internal phosphorus loading for three years. However, high phosphorus and ammonia loading, primarily from Halls Creek, increased dramatically in the third year due to deterioration of surface water quality throughout the developing Lake Ballinger basin, resulting in increased phosphorus, ammonia, and biological oxygen demand in the lake. This poor -quality surface water was injected into the lake bottom, causing the lake to become anoxic (oxygen -starved) in 1986. A series of recommendations, including more stringent controls on stormwater quality in the basin and improved maintenance of the hypolimnion injection system, have been proposed recently (City of Mountlake Terrace 2005). In 1990, the City of Mountlake Terrace treated Lake Ballinger with alum to reduce the excessive phosphorus concentration in the lake. The clarity of the lake was increased by 40% and the phosphorus levels were reduced by 70% within 48 hours of the treatment. Although the short- term result of the alum treatment was satisfactory, the longevity of the treatment has become limited by continued external phosphorus loading. Currently, the increased external nutrient loading exceeds the internal (phosphorus) sediment component of loading and appears to be directly and indirectly (through recycling of increased productivity) driving the lake ecosystem (Bell -McKinnon 2006). A Total Daily Maximum Load (TDML) for total phosphorous was approved by the EPA for Lake Ballinger in 1993. A TMDL of 30.0 mg/L was recommended by Ecology. In 2006, a study plan was developed by Ecology to monitor the effectiveness of the TMDL and determine if past restoration treatments had been effective in restoring Lake Ballinger to its designated uses. Surface water quality in the Lake Ballinger basin continues to fluctuate seasonally. At times, standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, nitrates and phosphates, and coliform organisms are violated (City of Mountlake Terrace 2003). Residential runoff is a primary pollutant source in the spring and fall due to chemical applications to lawns and gardens. Rapid stormwater runoff from nearby urban development is another cause of seasonal water quality change. For example, stormwater runoff from large parking lots in the industrial district of the City is the major problem for the Halls Creek / Lake Ballinger drainage system (City of Mountlake Terrace 2003). The Washington Department of Health issued a state fish advisory recommending that people limit their consumption of largemouth and smallmouth bass from fresh waterbodies in Washington State, due to various persistent and harmful chemical pollutants, such as mercury and PCBs. A recent national study on mercury deposition (USGS 2000) found mercury (presumably from air -borne deposition from an ASARCO smelter) in Lake Ballinger and Lake Washington sediment. Lake Washington sediment showed mercury concentrations increased above background in the early 20th century, leveled off between 1930 and 1970, and fell steadily through the 1960s. In a different trend, Lake Ballinger sediment data showed increases from the 1960s through the 1990s. The sources causing the increases are not currently known. The outlet of Lake Ballinger is McAleer Creek, which flows into Lake Washington, within the WRIA 8 Cedar-Sammamish watershed. Water quality samples collected by Ecology between 1991 and 1997 were shown to have high levels of fecal coliform violating water quality criteria. High fecal coliform is typical in urbanized areas with large populations of pets and wildlife (e.g., geese, raccoons, etc.). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 20 November 2007 Packet Pg. 694 8.2.d 3.3.2 Marine Water Quality There are few marine water quality data collected along Edmonds or in adjacent marine waters. Although numerous water quality monitoring programs have sampled central Puget Sound shorelines for decades (e.g., Ecology and WDFW's Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program [PSAMP] for water and sediment, Ecology's Beach Environmental Assessment and Communication of Health [BEACH] program, Ecology's South Puget Sound Marine Environmental Modeling program, Ecology's Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program) water quality sampling stations are typically located within major urban centers with known contamination, such as Seattle and Everett, or rural locations, such as Whidbey Island. Thus, few site -specific data were available and the nearest data locations, in urbanized industrial bays several miles away, were not appropriate for comparison. Applicable marine water quality data are reported below. Table 3 shows areas on the 303(d) list for recent violations in marine water quality samples. Fecal coliform and ammonia as nitrogen (ammonia-N) are used as indicators of animal and human waste and fertilizers from landscape runoff. Landscape runoff enters the marine shoreline through creeks and numerous city stormwater drainages that discharge into Puget Sound (see Figure 6). Table 3. Waterbodies with Recent Violations of State Water Quality Standards in Edmonds, Washington Through Ecology's BEACH program, Snohomish County conducts weekly water quality monitoring of recreational areas from May through September, for bacteria that may pose a risk to people using the waterfront. Within Edmonds, water quality is monitored at Marina Beach Park (South Edmonds) and Edmonds Underwater Park. Elevated levels of enterococcus bacteria were found at Marina Beach Park in 2004 and 2005, but not at concentrations triggering an advisory to water users or a beach closure, although the park is closed to shellfish harvesting. The south section of Marina Beach Park is an off -leash dog park, which likely contributes substantial enterococcus bacteria to the area. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 21 November 2007 Packet Pg. 695 8.2.d 4. Inventory and Land Use Patterns 4.1 Existing Land Use The City of Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County. Edmonds has a highly developed and well -established land use pattern (Figure 8). The Edmonds marine shoreline extends 5.2 miles from north to south. The City's northern border is the Meadowdale Beach Park shared by unincorporated Snohomish County and Woodway to the south. Unincorporated Snohomish County, the City of Lynnwood, the City of Mountlake Terrace, and the City of Shoreline bound the rest of the City (see Figure 1). The BNSF Railway borders a majority of the Edmonds marine shoreline. The railroad tracks form a barrier between the natural shoreline and the existing residential neighborhoods for over half the Edmonds marine shoreline. This part of the City's marine shoreline is primarily characterized by a seawall and fill that created the BNSF railroad bed. Approximately 2,000 feet south of the northern marine shoreline border of the City is an old pier structure once used in the fishing industry. This is commonly referred to as Laebugten's Wharf. The pile -supported wharf structure is currently unused, except as a fish pen. Edmonds' southern shoreline is the current location for the Washington State Ferry (WSF) terminal to Kingston, in addition to commercial and residential properties, waterfront parks, walkways, and the Port of Edmonds Marina. On either side of the ferry terminal are two regional parks, Brackett's Landing North and South, respectively. Collectively, these parks include public beach, picnic areas, interpretive information, public restrooms, a parking lot, and showers. Paths lead to a wheelchair -accessible jetty. On the northern side of the ferry is another regional park, Edmonds' Underwater Park. This park was one of the first officially designated underwater parks on the West Coast. The facility includes 27 acres of tide and bottom lands and was established as a marine preserve and sanctuary in 1970. From the ferry terminal to the Port of Edmonds Marina is a public waterfront walkway. This public facility offers wheelchair -accessible access to the waterfront while acting as a breakwater for existing residential and commercial structures within the shoreline area. At the southern portion of this walkway, at the northern edge of the marina, is a city park and public fishing pier. Olympic Beach Park is located just north of the fishing pier. The shoreline jurisdiction extends east to the vicinity of Railroad Avenue from Main Street and south to the vicinity of Dayton Street. Between Railroad Avenue and the City's walkway are a number of commercial offices, a senior center, a parking lot, and private residential condominiums. From Dayton Avenue south to the southern edge of the Edmonds Marina, the upland jurisdiction of the shoreline extends to the vicinity of Admiral Way, including Edmonds Marina. The Port of Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 22 Packet Pg. 696 8.2.d Edmonds owns and operates the marina and adjacent uplands, including the Harbor Square Development and the land adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. The marina includes 676 wet moorage slips and 279 dry storage spaces. More than 50 guest moorage slips are available for overnight and short-term stays. The Port provides two boat haulout facilities, showers, laundry facilities, restrooms, fuel, and boat launch for both tenants and guests. A rubble mound breakwater that extends some 2,400 feet from north to south protects the marina. The marina was originally constructed in 1961 with a major reconstruction in 1998 following destruction by a major winter storm. On Port property upland from the marina and within the shoreline jurisdiction are several businesses and restaurants with associated parking facilities. In addition, the Port Administrative offices are located on the uplands, east of the marina, within the shoreline jurisdiction. The southern -most portion of the Edmonds marine shoreline jurisdiction ends at two beach parks, referred to collectively as Marina Beach Park. North Marina Beach, between the marina and the former Unocal pier, includes a large open grassy area with picnic and playground facilities, as well as car -top boat launch opportunities. South Marina Beach, south of the pier, is a designated off -leash dog park area maintained by volunteers. Edmonds' freshwater shoreline consists of the south and west shores of Lake Ballinger. The eastern half of Lake Ballinger is located in the City of Mountlake Terrace. This shoreline is zoned single family residential. 4.2 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Corresponding Zoning Designations The GMA of Washington requires that local governments must adopt comprehensive plans to provide plans and policies for orderly development of land within the local jurisdiction. The v corresponding zoning (see Figure 3) must be consistent with and implement the goals and policies of the local comprehensive plan. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, adopted in o 2004, contains those goals and policies that are implemented through the local zoning code found c in Titles 16 and 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The two documents are now consistent in that the comprehensive plan and the zoning code support the c same land uses. — a� c The City's comprehensive plan designates the northern portion of the City of Edmonds marine i shoreline for residential use, Single Family — Resource. This corresponds to lower -density single family zoning designations such as RSW-12, RS-12, and RS-20, which allow densities of less y than 4 dwelling units per acre. Due to the railroad tracks and easements located between the uplands and beach areas, there is no upland access to residential properties that would justify the development of waterfront facilities, such as piers and docks. w Between Brackett's Landing North and South, the shoreline is designated park or open space under the City comprehensive plan. From Brackets Landing South, the shoreline jurisdiction is E designated Shoreline Commercial or Master Plan Development. This entire area is part of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The Edmonds comprehensive plan contains a full a description of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, including a vision, goals, transportation issues related to development of the Edmonds Crossing --a multi -modal facility for ferry, bus, and commuter train facilities --and a set of downtown waterfront plan policies. This portion of the 2004 comprehensive plan also contains a detailed description for areas of the downtown waterfront area. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 23 Packet Pg. 697 8.2.d The southern -most portion of the Edmonds shoreline is designated master plan development, which includes the proposed Edmonds Crossing project. Along Lake Ballinger, the comprehensive plan designation is Single Family -Urban 1. This designation corresponds to the zoning designations of RS-6 and RS-8 translating to between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre. The Lake Ballinger shoreline is fully developed with single family residences. Almost all of these homes also have piers or docks. 4.3 Roads and Transportation Facilities Edmonds is served by a series of State and local roads. SR 104 runs from the east at Interstate 5 through the southern part of Edmonds, ending at the State of Washington Ferry Terminal. SR 524 begins in Lynnwood at Interstate 5 and runs west through the center of Edmonds from the crest of the hill and down into the city center. Local roads provide access throughout Edmonds. These roads provide access for Community Transit, the commuter bus service for South Snohomish County. Commuter Park and Ride lots are located throughout Edmonds and are served by Community Transit bus service. The rail lines along the Edmonds' shoreline are primarily used by BNSF for freight service, but also provide Amtrak passenger train service through Edmonds. Sound Transit provides daily commuter service to and from Seattle. Washington State Ferries operates ferry service from Edmonds to Kingston providing access to the Olympic Peninsula. This is one of the busiest commuter ferry terminals in Puget Sound, as well as one of the major access points from the east side of Puget Sound to the west. 4.4 Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities The City of Edmonds operates and maintains a wastewater treatment plant on the corner of SR 104 and Dayton Street that was originally put into service in 1957 to provide primary treatment and was upgraded to secondary treatment by 1991. The current average annual flow rate is approximately 6 MGD. The plant has primary treatment and sedimentation, air -activated sludge secondary processes, and chlorine disinfection for liquid treatment (KC DNR WTD 2003). The City of Edmonds, through agreement with King County, Ronald Wastewater District, Olympic View Water and Sewer District and the Cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace, also provides wastewater service to the Town of Woodway, the Richmond Beach service area, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the Olympic View Water and Sewer District, the Ronald Wastewater District, and areas of the City of Lynnwood (Snohomish County 2002). King County uses its Lake Ballinger pump station to pump wastewater generated in Mountlake Terrace and the Lake Ballinger area of Edmonds to either the Edmonds or West Point Treatment Plants. The Unocal site is currently serviced by a private septic system (FHWA et al. 1998). The City of Edmonds also owns two secondary treated wastewater outfalls and a number of wastewater trunk lines. These trunk lines include two 36-inch-diameter outfalls that enter Puget Sound north of the Port of Edmonds' breakwater. Both outfalls extend approximately 1,200 feet into the sound at a depth of about -60 feet MLLW (FHWA et al. 1998). In addition, the Lynnwood Regional Wastewater Plant, a 7.4-mgd capacity wastewater treatment plant, is located in the City of Edmonds in Segment B. The Lynnwood Treatment Plant's outfall extends Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 24 Packet Pg. 698 approximately 1,000 feet into Puget Sound, near 170th Street SW. The outfall is a 36-inch high - density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe located at a depth of approximately -200 feet MLLW (Davis, personal communication 2002). Stormwater drainage information, including locations and diameters of stormwater outfalls that pass through Edmonds' Shoreline Master Plan jurisdictional area, is shown in Figure 6 (City of Edmonds 2003). The city provides stormwater catchment basins and maintains them by conducting regular clean -out efforts and annual inspections. Solid material is mechanically settled in the catchment basins. The city also administers a program to react and respond to illegal discharges (City of Edmonds 2006a). The area southwest of Edmonds Marsh on the former Unocal property has stormwater system separate from the City. Because it discharges through City shorelands, it is included in this inventory. The stormwater collection and treatment system that was used on the 27-acre Unocal property includes a series of catch basins connected by underground concrete pipes that served the upper and lower yards (EMCON 1994 cited in CH2M HILL 2004). Much of that system remains in place although the Unocal facility is no longer operating and site demolition and clean-up is underway. The Unocal stormwater system operates as follows: During normal precipitation events, all of the catch basins drained into a duplex sump, and the collected stormwater was pumped into an oil/water separator in the lower yard. Any recoverable oil was skimmed from the oil/water separator, and the treated stormwater was pumped into Detention Basin 2. Flows were discharged from Detention Basin 2 into Willow Creek, in the ditch section adjacent to the BNSF tracks, via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-permitted outfall. If this treatment system exceeded capacity, stormwater was routed from Detention Basin 2 into a larger detention basin through a spillway. The large detention basin has no outlet; therefore, after high flows subside, stormwater is pumped back through the oil/water separator and eventually into Willow Creek. During very high tides and heavy rainfall events, stormwater was discharged directly from the oil/water separator into Willow Creek via NPDES-permitted outfall 001 (EMCON 1994 cited in CH2M HILL 2004). This was estimated to occur three to four times a year. 4.5 Existing Public Access Sites Public access to the marine shoreline is available within the City in seven areas: Meadowdale County Park (Lund's Gulch), Southwest County Park (Perrinville Creek), Edmonds Underwater Park, Brackett's Landing Park (north and south units), Olympic Beach Park and Fishing Pier, the Port of Edmonds Marina, and Marina Beach Park (north and south units). The BNSF railroad is privately owned, and pedestrian access across the tracks is prohibited, except at designated locations due to safety concerns. Edmonds Marsh and the adjacent Wildlife Sanctuary are also publicly accessible, with a boardwalk and viewing areas provided. Public access to Lake Ballinger within the City is located at the end of McAleer Way. The City of Edmonds provides public access sites to the marine shoreline primarily along the southern portion of its 5.4 mile shoreline. Waterfront public parks are located along the shoreline on both sides of the Washington State Ferry Terminal at Brackett's Landing North and South. Waterfront access is available at Olympic Beach Park and Fishing Pier where Dayton Street intersects with the water. Another major waterfront park, Marina Beach Park, is located at the southern -most portion of the Edmonds marine shoreline. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 25 Packet Pg. 699 8.2.d The City of Edmonds provides public access (for fishing, swimming, and hand -launching small boats) at the west side of Lake Ballinger off of McAleer Way. Other public access to Lake Ballinger located in the City of Mountlake Terrace. 4.6 Historical/Cultural Resources The Unocal treatment plant site, Point Edwards, and the City are within territory attributed to the Snohomish, Suquamish, and Snoqualmie people. The Snoqualmie may have had a winter village or a permanent fishing camp used on an annual basis at Edmonds. The Suquamish fished for salmon in the waters off Edmonds and gathered cattails at Edmonds. (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930, Turner 1976, Tweddell 1953, Kennedy and Larson 1984, Lane 1974, Miller 1999, Snyder 1988 cited in KC DNR WTD 2003). Edmonds lies within lands and waters once controlled by the Suquamish Tribe. At the time of historic contact, there was a large population in southern Puget Sound consisting of eight closely related tribal groupings: Twana-Skokomish, Nisqually, Puyallup, Duwamish, Suquamish, Skykomish, Snoqualmie, and Muckleshoot—all of whom spoke Coast Salish languages (Wessen and Stilson 1987 cited in CH2M HILL 2004). These peoples were skilled fishermen, hunters, and plant collectors who employed a settlement and subsistence system marked by a central base or winter village and a cycle of movements to smaller, more informal, settlements at different times of the year to exploit locally available resources. The winter village was a focal point of social and ceremonial life. Living along the Sound, the Suquamish had direct access to intertidal and marine resources, and their principal settlements were located adjacent to or on modern saltwater beaches. The Edmonds waterfront area, with its generally flat beach and adjacent intertidal estuary/wetland marsh, is a spot that would have been most favorable for the location of one or more prehistoric or proto-historic Suquamish settlements (CH2M HILL 2004). Suquamish subsistence patterns along the western shores of Puget Sound are similar to those reported for the nearby Duwamish who inhabited the Seattle waterfront area. The Duwamish and their neighbors (Suquamish) practiced a seasonal round that consisted of spring, summer, and fall migrations to fishing grounds, berry and root patches, and shellfishing areas, with retirement to a sedentary lifestyle in the winter longhouses. The fall fisheries were crucial to their subsistence because they provided dried or smoked food for the winter months. In 1841, Lt. Charles Wilkes USN of the U.S. Exploring Expedition named Point Edwards `Point Edmund,' presumably in honor of his son. Early city history recounts the pioneering settlement by George and Etta Brackett in 1870, followed by the City's destination as a Mosquito Fleet stop, a logging community, and the home of 11 shingle mills. The first cedar shingle mill was built near 220 Railroad Avenue about 1890, at the time the City of Edmonds incorporated. Between 1889 and 1891, a seawall and associated backfill were constructed into the upper foreshore by the Seattle & Montana Railroad (later part of the Great Northern) to Edmonds. The fill was constructed to defend the overlying railroad from wave erosion and burial by landslide colluvium from adjacent receding bluffs. By 1910, eight trains stopped daily and a depot was built. The present station was built in 1956. The number of mills grew rapidly because of the availability of quality timber close at hand, unlimited source of water power, and good transportation. At the height of the shingle industry, Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 26 November 2007 Packet Pg. 700 8.2.d mills stretched along the Edmonds waterfront. The remains of a later (1930's-era) mill are still visible in the upper reach of Fruitdale Creek. Brackett's Landing is on the Washington Historical Register as an Exploration/Settlement site in recognition of Etta and William Brackett, the first European -American settlers in the area that would become Edmonds (WDAHP 2006). Early inhabitants, numbering about one thousand, were mostly loggers, shingle sawyers, boom -men, kneebolters, and shingle weavers who were dependent on the mills. Rail spurs served the mills and cargoes were also shipped by coastwise steamers. In 1902, Allen Yost and family formed the Edmonds Spring Water Company, dammed upper Shell Creek, and piped the retained water into the town for consumption. Remnants of these dams and settling tanks are visible along the Shell Creek and Weir park trails (City of Edmonds 2006b). Along the waterfront, a shingle mill in operation in 1907 continued production until the early 1950's. Receding forests and competition eventually forced its closure in 1951. An auto ferry began operating between Edmonds and Kingston in 1923, and later to Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, and Victoria. The Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database was searched for State and National Register listed properties within Edmonds. This comprehensive database provides information available for over 1800 registered historical sites including images of the property, a short summary description about the significance of each resource and a link to the nomination document as a PDF file. Archeological sites that are National Register listed are included. As of 2006, there were no nationally registered historic places within the Edmonds shorelands. The Edmonds Crossing project area (former Unocal site, partially bordering Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh) contains no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites that are currently listed on, nominated to, or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (CH2M HILL 2004). A prehistoric archaeological site was discovered on May 3, 1995, during field reconnaissance along the small access road to the Deer Creek Fish Hatchery. The site was named the Deer Creek Hatchery Shell Scatter and was designated as site 45-SN-310 by OAHP. It is located about 50 feet or more north of the present access road, northwest of the hatchery building and stock pond (CH2M HILL 2004). This site is not within the SMP area. 4.7 Toxic or Hazardous Material Clean-up Sites and Dredge Material Disposal Sites According to the federal and state environmental agency databases reviewed, the WSF terminal is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) small -quantity generator of hazardous waste (less than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste or 220 pounds of other hazardous waste per month) (CH2M HILL 2004). The areas north and south of the ferry terminal have had industrial uses in the past dating back to at least 1909. The primary industries in the immediate vicinity were shingle mills. The shingle mill south of the dock is noted as destroyed by fire in the 1926 Sanborn map. The 1955 aerial photograph and later photographs suggest that the area south of the terminal was used as a boatyard (CH2M HILL 2004). The SR-104/Edmonds Crossing FEIS (CH2M HILL 2004) reviewed numerous databases for hazardous waste information in the downtown Edmonds area, including the EPA National Priority List, Resource Conservation Recovery Information System, Comprehensive Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 27 November 2007 Packet Pg. 701 8.2.d Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, Corrective Action Report, Emergency Response Notification System, Facility Index System, and Toxic Substance Control Act; the USDOT Hazardous Material Information Reporting System; and the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) Leaking Storage Tanks Site List, Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List, Statewide Underground Storage Tank Site Report, and Solid Waste Facilities Handbook. The FEIS documented the locations of historic or potential current hazardous waste. For this report, the locations were screened for their proximity to the shoreline area. The following sites within the shoreline area were associated with known or suspected chemical contaminants, including total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and metals: • WSF ferry terminal (current RCRA Small Quantity Generator (SQG), former freight operations; with SVOCs, metals) • Anderson Marine (former shingle mill, leaking underground storage tank, reported cleaned up in Ecology's LUST database) • Commercial buildings north of marina (former shingle mill, lumber yard, paint warehouse; with TPH, SVOCs, metals) • Boat storage and maintenance area (former general location of Washington Steel and Bolt Company, BNSF railway maintenance facility; with possible dredge spoil fill, with TPH, SVOCs, polychlorinated biphenols or PCBs, metals) Port of Edmonds Furbreeders Building (leaking underground storage tanks) • Port of Edmonds underground storage tanks (new), possible dredged spoils fill, marine fueling facility (with TPH, SVOCs, metals) • Former area of Willow Creek/Unocal/Port of Edmonds Dry Storage discharge (water discharge, possible dredge spoil fill, with SVOCs, metals, and TPH contamination in soil and groundwater) In addition, marine sediment north of the marina was reported to be adversely affected by historic operations and discharges (CH2M HILL 2004); however, sediment investigations in the Edwards Point area did not find evidence of contamination (KC DNR WTD 2003). The largest potential hazardous waste facility in the Edmonds area is the Unocal site. The facility was constructed and operated along the top, side, and base of a hill in an area bordered by Puget Sound marine shorelands, Willow Creek, and Edmonds marsh (partially filled during the many phases of facility construction). Although the site is outside the city of Edmonds and its SMP boundaries, the facility partially drains into Edmonds and adjacent SMP areas. The following detailed description of the facility is taken from the SR-104/Edmonds Crossing FEIS (CH2M HILL 2004). "The Unocal Point Edwards facility was constructed and put in operation in the early 1920s. The site is approximately 44 acres (EMCON 1994; 1995; 1996a). The facility was used as a bulk fuel terminal for storage and distribution of fuel from approximately 1923 until 1991 and would be categorized as a "substantially contaminated site" using FHWA terminology (FHWA 1997). The ... 29-acre lower yard was used for other operations including dock operations, railcar unloading, truck loading, laboratory operations, warehousing, and other facility maintenance and support activities. In Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 28 November 2007 Packet Pg. 702 8.2.d addition, an asphalt refinery, constructed in about 1953 and dismantled around 1980 (EMCON 1995), operated in the lower yard. A total of 10 underground storage tanks (USTs) were located at the facility. According to EMCON (1994, 1995), six of the USTs have been removed... Two detention basins are located in the lower yard along with two oil/water separators. Surface water runoff from the site was once directed to the detention basins and discharged to a tidal basin that empties to Puget Sound. Discharge from this area was easily observed in early aerial photographs. In the 1960s, when the Port of Edmonds Marina was constructed, the discharge stream was covered and rerouted through culverts. A number of petroleum product releases to the environment have been reported for the facility, including nine spills recorded between 1954 and 1990. According to EMCON (1994), the spills ranged from a few gallons to 80,000 gallons and involved fuel oils, heavy fuel oils, gasoline, off -specification emulsified asphalt, and diesel. Other minor releases have occurred on land, but have not entered water. EMCON (1994) reports that periodic product releases have occurred within the tank farm, loading facilities, and piping systems, but complete records of these events are not available. EMCON (1994) also provides information on a diesel release to Puget Sound that occurred from a 1971 derailment on the BNSF tracks immediately south of the Unocal pier approach trestle, and a spill of asphalt cutter stock to the Sound in 1990 from the Chevron facility 1 mile south of Point Edwards. According to the environmental agency databases reviewed, the site is reported to be on EPA and Ecology contaminated sites lists, as an UST and LUST site, and as a RCRA large -quantity generator of hazardous waste. Ecology and Unocal have entered into an Agreed Order for conducting the site RI and FS under MTCA. Before entering into the Agreed Order, a number of voluntary site investigations and environmental clean-ups were conducted at the site. An RI was conducted by Unocal in compliance with the Agreed Order with Ecology. The RI was conducted between October 1994 and August 1996. Additional quarterly and annual groundwater monitoring and product recovery has continued through 2002 (Brearley, pers. comm., 2003). According to the Ecology Site Manager, the current schedule is to finalize the RI and issue a supplemental RI/FS by the fall of 2003. These documents will be released for public comment at that time (South, personal communication, 2003). According to the draft RI report, the primary environmental impacts at the existing Unocal property include free product on the groundwater table, related petroleum hydrocarbon chemicals in subsurface soil and groundwater, and paint/sand blast grit - related metals in the surface soil. Free product has been found in six plumes in the lower yard: the railroad spur plume, truck loading rack plume, asphalt plant plume, RW-2 plume, office plume, and Detention Basin No. 1 plume. These plumes are the result of releases during former Unocal operations. Recovered product results indicate that the free product consists of gasoline -range, diesel -range, and oil -range hydrocarbons. Field observations made during the RI have been interpreted by EMCON (1996a) to indicate that much of the free product may be heavier -end hydrocarbons. Based on product thickness measurements over the last 10 years, product migration rates are estimated by EMCON (1996a) at less than 6 feet per year. Groundwater at the existing Unocal property generally flows to the northwest toward Puget Sound. The groundwater table is present within 4 to 8 feet below the ground Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 29 November 2007 Packet Pg. 703 8.2.d surface in most areas. Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents dissolved in groundwater were primarily found near free product plumes and in areas with freephase product trapped in the vadose zone near the water table. These chemicals were found at or above MTCA clean-up levels for TPH and benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, or total xylenes (BETX) in site shallow wells (EMCON, 1996a). Except for zinc, metals concentrations in groundwater were generally low, with the highest concentrations found in isolated locations around the terminal. Zinc was the most frequently detected metal in groundwater, with the highest concentrations found in wells along the perimeter of the site. Non-BETX volatile organic compounds were not found in groundwater at the terminal (EMCON, 1996a). EMCON reports that high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil were primarily found near free product plumes and in areas with free -phase product trapped in the vadose zone. High concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were also found in the material within Detention Basin No. 1. Elevated metals concentrations were found in surface soil in areas of sand -blast grit and paint chips that occur under pipe runs and manifolds, in isolated grit piles, and in certain tank basins. Leachable metals concentrations were low, indicating that leaching of metals from surface soil is not likely. Additionally, metals were not found in substantial concentrations in subsurface soil. Petroleum -related chemicals were detected in on -site stormwater, primarily from the lower yard. Non-BETX volatile organic compounds, and oil and grease were not found in stormwater. Similarly, these constituents were also not detected in surface water in the drainage ditch and tidal basin adjacent to the site, nor were TPHs in the gas, diesel, or oil ranges. The highest metals concentrations, and elevated PAH concentrations, were found in surface water upgradient of the site. Biotoxicity testing results for sediments collected in the drainage ditch along the existing Unocal property boundaries exceeded clean-up screening level criteria at five of 15 sample locations. No discernible pattern was identified by EMCON (1996a) that would point to a single sediment toxicity source. However, the draft RI report concluded that the potential was low for toxic effects further downgradient from the upland tidal basin in the drainage ditch. No sampling and analysis of offshore marine sediments was performed for the RI." Since the draft RI was submitted, Unocal has begun interim clean-up actions at the site under the supervision of Ecology. The following clean-up actions have occurred or are ongoing: "Lower yard interim remedial action 2001-2003. Free petroleum product and associated petroleum -contaminated soil were removed from four areas of the lower yard east of Willow Creek/drainage ditch and shipped off site for thermal treatment. The excavations extended vertically to between 6.5 and 10.5 feet below grade and extended laterally until product -saturated soil was not observed in the excavation side walls (or until structural concerns made it prudent to cease excavation). Additionally, the excavation was kept open for several weeks to allow for removal of floating product from the groundwater surface. This work was performed primarily between August 28 and November 7, 2001. A final interim action as -built report was submitted to Ecology in November 2002 (Maul Foster & Alongi, November 30, 2002). According to Unocal, no free product has been observed in monitoring wells in the area since the action was completed (Brearley, pers. comm.., 2003). A second lower yard interim remedial action was completed in December 2003 that included excavation of contaminated materials from Detention Basin No. 1 and the southwest lower yard. The excavated materials were transported and Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 30 November 2007 Packet Pg. 704 8.2.d disposed of at an offsite landfill (Brearley, pers. comm., 2004; South, pers. Comm., 2004). The FS for clean-up alternatives for contaminated soils and groundwater at the existing Unocal property has not been completed. A draft FS report was submitted to Ecology in 2004, but the agency was notified that the document is to be replaced with a revised version. Ecology is deferring review of the FS until receipt of the revised document (South, pers. comm., 2004). Environmental clean-ups at the Unocal property that have occurred at the lower yard (adjacent to Edmonds and near SMP boundaries) include an interim action to remove free product from groundwater and petroleum contaminated from four areas was completed in 2002. Contaminated materials from Detention Basin No. 1 and the southwest lower yard were excavated and disposed of offsite during an interim action completed in December 2003." Studies were conducted at the Point Edwards site, west of the BNSF right-of-way, including the Marina Beach Park and subtidal areas in the vicinity of the Unocal pier and the two stormwater outfalls and the Port of Edmonds South Marina dry storage area. Soil and groundwater samples from Marina Beach Park were analyzed for TPH as gasoline, diesel, and heavy oil, and metals. Although TPH (as heavy oil) was detected in soil, concentrations were substantially below MTCA Method A clean-up levels for unrestricted land use and as such do not represent a threat to human health or the environment. Groundwater samples collected from the boreholes were analyzed for TPH as gasoline, diesel, and heavy oil, and volatile organic compounds. These contaminants were not detected in groundwater. A subsurface investigation at the Port of Edmonds' South Marina, north of Marina Beach Park, confirmed the presence of TPH in soil and groundwater. The source of the petroleum hydrocarbons was not established. Ecology's Hazardous Site List ranked this site "5" (lowest potential threat to human health and the environment) and is awaiting remedial action (as of February 2003). A sediment investigation was conducted at the Point Edwards site in accordance with a sampling and analysis plan approved by Ecology. Sediment samples were collected from 15 stations offshore of Marina Beach Park between the inner and outer harbor lines and in the DNR lease areas. Sample stations included five in the vicinity of the Willow Creek drain and Edmonds Way drain located south of the Port of Edmonds breakwater. The chemical analytical results showed compliance with the Washington State Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) [WAC 173-204-320], and as such the marine sediments were found to be uncontaminated (CH2M HILL, 2000d). The area west of the railroad tracks between Point Edwards and Dayton Street has been used historically by various industries, wood shingle mills, a steel and bolt manufacturing facility, a lumberyard with a paint and oil warehouse, and a boat maintenance facility. Most of these industrial facilities had docks or piers. In addition, various residences were located here. Possible onshore or offshore contaminants that could have resulted from operation, storage, and maintenance activities at these facilities include petroleum products, semivolatile organic compounds (including PAHs), volatile organic compounds, and metals. Ecology's sediment database indicates that sediments in the vicinity of the proposed pier under this alternative have concentrations of PAHs elevated above Puget Sound Marine Sediment Clean -Up Screening Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 31 November 2007 Packet Pg. 705 8.2.d Levels (WAC) 173-204-520 (including fluorene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene, and phenanthrene, Washington Sediment Management Standards). Since the 1960s, the area has been managed and operated by the Port of Edmonds Marina. The marina was dredged in the early 1960s and early 1970s in conjunction with construction projects; no maintenance dredging was performed. According to Port of Edmonds staff, the marina was last dredged about 1987 and the sediments were transported to an upland site for a parking lot project. Some of the marina dredge spoils were used as fill at the Harbor Square business park. Sediment testing data are not available. According to historical aerial photographs, surface water discharge from the existing Unocal property previously entered Puget Sound within the area now used by the marina. As such, it is possible that the dredged sediments may have been contaminated from boat maintenance and repair operations, as well as possible industrial discharges from adjacent sites (e.g., Unocal). According to the environmental agency database search, the Port of Edmonds has removed old USTs and replaced them with new tanks. In 1985, the tanks were located close to the water near the marina fuel dock. Ecology's database also indicates that one or more leaking USTs have been reported and that clean-up of soil and groundwater was initiated in 1995. In addition, the database search indicated that the Port is a RCRA small -quantity generator of hazardous waste. According to staff at the Port of Edmonds, two Northwest Farm Food Co-op tanks were acquired by the Port and were replaced, along with two tanks previously owned by the Port, in June 1995. The exact location of these tanks was not identified during the database search (Howard, pers. comm., 1995). In addition to fueling activities at the marina, some boat maintenance activities appear to take place in the upland storage areas immediately west of the BNSF right-of-way. At least one boat was observed being prepared for painting during the site visit on June 2, 1995. A subsurface investigation conducted to collect geotechnical information for design of a dry stacked storage area of the south marina of the Port of Edmonds detected petroleum in soils. The Port of Edmonds initiated a focused environmental investigation to confirm the presence of petroleum in the subsurface and to help determine the origin of the petroleum. Background information in the investigation report stated that the south marina site was filled in 1962 using dredged sediments from what is now the marina basin (Landau, 1998). Subsurface soil samples contained concentrations of TPH (as diesel and oil) that exceeded MTCA Method A clean-up levels at five locations. Groundwater samples were reported to contain concentrations at or above MTCA Method A clean-up (1 milligram per liter) at two locations. The report recommended additional investigation to assess the presence of other petroleum constituents and to further evaluate the source(s) of contamination. Unocal was contacted regarding the potential that the Edmonds Bulk Terminal may have been the source of the contamination. Unocal responded by installing a single monitoring well (MW- 301) in the right-of-way area immediately north of Shellabarger Creek (Brearley, pers. com., 2000). The purpose of the well was to evaluate whether the backfill and storm drain might have presented a preferred path of flow for petroleum hydrocarbons from the Unocal property onto the Port's property. It is not clear from the report whether the well was installed in the backfill of the Shellabarger/Willow Creek culvert (48-inch diameter) or in the backfill of the Edmonds Way storm drain (72-inch diameter). Testing of soils and groundwater collected from MW-301 did not reveal contamination. Other commercial facilities exist adjacent to the rights -of way, including restaurants, retail, and professional offices. Some private residences were also observed. It is not known whether these structures have any heating oil USTs or any building materials with asbestos -containing materials or lead -based paint. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 32 Packet Pg. 706 8.2.d BNSF maintains a railroad maintenance area within the railroad right-of-way immediately south of the Dayton Street crossing. According to historical aerial photographs, it appears that this maintenance area has been in existence since at least the late 1940s. During the site visit on June 2, 1995, a maintenance building, a diesel aboveground storage tank, a flammable gas tank (propane), and several 55-gallon drums of what appeared to be lubricating oils were observed. The drums were outside and directly on the ground. They were corroded, and one had visible oil leakage on the top. Stained soils were also observed in the area. Currently, there is a railroad spur to the west of the tracks where rail cars were stored. Historically, as evidenced from aerial photographs, there was also a rail spur on the east side of the tracks under what is now the Harbor Square business park. Potential contaminants in this area could include petroleum products, semivolatile organic compounds, volatile organic compounds, PCBs, and metals. Insufficient information is available to classify the site as "reasonably predictable" or "substantially contaminated" in accordance with FHWA terminology (FHWA, 1997). Other hazardous material clean-up sites were identified by searches through state and federal databases. Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program database, including the LUST database was searched in 2006 for site addresses within the shoreline jurisdiction. Sites within the SMP shoreline jurisdiction were reviewed for their material and clean-up orders. The LUST list indicated that all potential clean-up sites within the shoreline jurisdiction were either completed (i.e., cleaned up) or, in the case of the former Unocal site and two Port of Edmonds properties, undergoing remedial action. The Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) represents a coordinated multi -agency approach to management of dredged materials in the state of Washington. The cooperating agencies include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Seattle District, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 10, and the Washington Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through its DMMP office, provides oversight of all disposal activities occurring on the public's state-owned aquatic lands. The Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Program (PSDDA) manages disposal within Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There are no recognized dredge material disposal sites in the Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction. The closest site is in Port Susan, west of Everett, at 47058.85'N 1220 16.74'W (NAD83) or 47058.86'N 122016.57'W (NAD27) (USACE et al. 2002). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 33 Packet Pg. 707 8.2.d 5. Nearshore Physical Characterization The City of Edmonds abuts the eastern shore of Central Puget Sound and contains 5.2 miles of sand, gravel, and cobble beach, mostly backed by moderate to high bluffs. Natural beach area and beach replenishment material has been limited by the topography of the area (bluffs predominate), the BNSF railroad bed and right-of-way, seawalls and other structures in the intertidal zone, and the loss of sediment sources that replenish beach substrate under natural conditions. Data from the Snohomish County database (2001) indicate that most of the shoreline is bordered by armored slopes or vertical seawalls (see Figure 6). Most of the upper intertidal zone has been armored and filled, and additional areas of the lower intertidal beach have been covered by boulders dislodged from the armored face of the railroad bed. Edmonds beaches are typical of sediment -starved beaches, indicated by a relatively narrow and steep beach profile and coarser -grained sediment. Puget Sound beaches that have limited replenishment typically have a narrow, steep foreshore in the upper intertidal areas with an intertidal/shallow subtidal bench adjacent to the upper beach. The beach material may vary seasonally, but is typically coarse -grained (coarse sand, gravel, or cobble) (Downing 1983). Exceptions are the low -gradient beach south of the marina breakwater (Marina Beach Park), where a large sand flat was constructed, and the Brackett's Landing beaches, which capture some finer material between the fishing pier, the WSF ferry pier, and the groin at Edmonds' Underwater Park. Sediment -starved beaches gradually loose their intertidal fine material to subtidal depths, resulting in continued steepening of increasingly coarser -grained nearshore slopes until equilibrium is reached. These conditions affect beach function both physically and biologically. Physically, the intertidal beaches begin to disappear in most areas. A few areas (e.g., the groin at Edmonds Underwater Park) may actually accumulate sand that normally would have been deposited along a longer stretch of beach. Adjacent marine shorelands and upland areas consist primarily of steep slopes and moderate to high bluffs, ranging in height from 15 to 100 ft above sea level. The high shoreland is crossed by deeply incised ravines with perennial streams and a few riparian wetlands. In the downtown area of Edmonds, the shorelands drop to sea level in a broad bowl that contains the largest wetland (Edmonds Marsh) and two additional streams. Small deltas have formed at the mouths of most creek drainages in Edmonds, particularly at Shell Creek (Pentec Environmental 2001). Stream discharges are not sufficient to significantly alter the salinity at these locations, although they may serve as a source of organic material to the local estuarine environment. These small deltas tend to be composed of sand and gravel and provide a lower gradient habitat relative to the adjacent fringing beach. In general, they do not provide enough sediment to supply a significant source of sand and gravel to adjacent beaches. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 34 Packet Pg. 708 8.2.d 5.1 Geologic Units Recessional outwash deposits (Qgo), Vashon till (Qgt), and pre -Fraser deposits [Qc(w)] are exposed in shoreline Segments A through E. Advance outwash (Qcg, Qgu) is extensively exposed in incised stream channels above the shoreline in these segments. Segments E, F, G, and H contain artificial fill (Qf ). Advance outwash (Qga, Qga(t), Qcg, Qgu) is extensively exposed in incised stream channels above the shoreline area in these segments. Segments F, G, and H contain a combination of artificial fill and alluvial deposits (Qf and Qa). Segment I (Lake Ballinger) is underlain predominantly by outwash deposits (Qga and Qgo). These geologic units were described in more detail in Section 3.1.4 and shown on Figure 5. Table 4 summarizes the surficial geologic units present along each shoreline segment. 5.2 Soils With the exception of Segments F, G, and H, which are mapped as urban land, soils along Edmonds' Puget Sound shoreline are all mapped as various members of the Alderwood-Everett soil unit (MRCS 2006). These soils are described in more detail in Section 3.1.4. The south and west shores of Lake Ballinger (Segment I) are mapped as Mukilteo Muck (a very deep, very poorly drained organic soil that occurs in depressional areas) and Alderwood soil, respectively. Table 4 summarizes the soil types that are present along each shoreline segment (Figure 8). Table 4. Soil Types and Surficial Geologic Units Present at Each Shoreline Segment Shoreline Segmentil Surficial -... NRCS 0i A Alderwood-Everett Gravelly Sandy Loams, 25 to 70 % slopes Qc(w) and 2 to 8 % slopes B Alderwood-Urban Land Complex, 8 to 15 % slopes Qgt C Alderwood-Everett Gravelly Sandy Loams, 25 to 70 % slopes Qgo, Qgu, Qcg and 2 to 8 % slopes D Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 8 % slopes and 8 to 15 % Qc(w) slopes E Alderwood-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 8 % slopes except in the Qc(w), Qf center of the segment Custer Fine Sandy Loam F Urban land Qf G Urban land Qf H Urban land Qf I West side of lake is Alderwood-Urban Land Complex, 8 to 15 Qgo, Qga, Qa % slopes. South side of lake is Mukilteo Muck. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 35 November 2007 Packet Pg. 709 8.2.d 5.3 Landslide Hazard Areas Landslide hazard areas, as discussed in this inventory, are areas that have been given landslide hazard designation by the City of Edmonds. Per ECDC Chapter 23.80.020, landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. Susceptibility is based on any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors that are prone to failure. Within the City of Edmonds, landslide hazard areas specifically 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 the1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc. 2. Any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet, except areas composed of consolidated rock. 3. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. 4. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments. Along the City's shorelines, only the northern two-thirds of Segment A, predominantly along Browns Bay, is presently mapped by the City of Edmonds as a landslide hazard area (Figure 9), based on geologic conditions and analysis conducted in 1979 and 1985. The City data agree with the Coastal Zone Atlas (Ecology 2001), which depicts Browns Bay as unstable, with recent landslides; however, the landslide dataset was based on information collected in the mid-1970s (Ecology) to mid-1980s (GeoEngineers, Inc.), which omits the other city shoreline areas that have had recent slides. 5.4 Seismic Hazards Per ECDC Chapter 23.80.020, Designation of Specific Hazard Area, 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. The most damaging effect of an earthquake is shaking at the ground surface. Ground shaking during an earthquake is strongest in areas of soft soils, such as in river valleys or along the shorelines of bays and lakes. In addition, ground shaking in areas of soft soils underlain by stiffer soils or rock is generally stronger than in areas where there is little or no variation between the surface and substratum. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which strong earthquake shaking causes a soil to rapidly lose its strength and behave like quicksand. Liquefaction typically occurs in artificial fills and in areas of loose sandy soils that are saturated with water, such as low-lying coastal areas, lakeshores, and river valleys. The northwest shoreline of Lake Ballinger contains areas of moderate and high soil liquefaction risk. Along the City shorelines, landslide hazard areas and areas of moderate to high risk of soil liquefaction are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. These hazard areas contain some of the elements that define a seismic hazard area. Further definition of seismic hazard areas is provided by the City on a case -by -case basis. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 36 November 2007 Packet Pg. 710 8.2.d 5.5 Shoreline Slope Stability For the purposes of this inventory, shoreline slope stability refers to the relative stability of coastal slopes as portrayed in the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas (Ecology 2001). This determination refers to the relative stability of coastal slopes as interpreted by geologists based on aerial photographs, geological mapping, topography, and field observations. This mapping was digitized from the Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas and represents conditions observed in the early and mid-1970s. Along the Edmonds Puget Sound shoreline, the northern two-thirds of Segment A is mostly mapped as "unstable" (i.e., slopes generally are greater than 15 percent in areas underlain by weak, unstable materials in which old or recently active landslides have occurred) with some areas mapped as "unstable old landslides" (i.e., former landslide areas, generally located within areas underlain by weak, unstable materials. Slopes generally are greater than 15 percent.),and some mapped as "modified" areas (i.e., highly modified by human activities and considered unpredictable). The southern one-third of Segment A is mapped as "intermediate (i.e., believed to be stable under natural conditions; may become unstable if disturbed. Slopes generally greater than 15 percent, but may be less in areas with less stable geologic materials.). Segment B is mostly mapped as "stable" (i.e., well -drained permeable layers with slopes less than 15 percent). Segment C is mapped as "unstable." The northern portion of Segment D is mapped as "intermediate," while the southern portion is mapped as "stable." Segments E through H are mapped as modified and stable. Segment I (Lake Ballinger) is not addressed by the Coastal Zone Atlas; however, the available geology and soils data indicate that the northwestern shoreline of the lake contains areas with unconsolidated soils (Alderwood-Urban Land complex and Mukilteo Muck), moderate slopes approaching 15 percent, high erosion potential, and moderate to high soil liquefaction potential. These factors indicate probable slope instability along part of Segment I. There are some potential indications this may also increase seismic risks. 5.6 Erosion Hazard Areas In this inventory, erosion hazard areas are areas determined by the City of Edmonds to be erosion hazards. Per ECDC Chapter 23.80.020, 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. 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. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils and springs or groundwater seepage; and Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 37 November 2007 Packet Pg. 711 8.2.d 3. Areas with significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, and which also include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope. Erosion hazard areas are shown on Figure 9. All shoreline segments of the City, except Segment F (between the ferry terminal and the marina) contain hillsides mapped as erosion hazard areas. In addition, all streams within the City, included in the SMP Update because of their hydraulic connection to shorelines of the state, are mapped with extensive erosion hazard areas along their banks. In urban areas, erosion hazard areas are important considerations along waterways where soil deposition can harm wetlands, streams, and lakes by excessive accumulation. Clearing (vegetation removal) and grading (earthmoving) are the first steps toward destabilization of slopes (Canning 2001). Soil protection provided by vegetation is especially important in erosion hazard areas in Edmonds to prevent soil compaction and erosion on ravine slopes and lake shorelines, thereby limiting turbidity and sedimentation in waters that harbor fish and aquatic invertebrates. 5.7 Aquifer Recharge Areas As described in Section 3.1.5, groundwater in the Edmonds area is recharged in upland areas and discharged along streams, lakes, and the Puget Sound shoreline. No significant recharge areas are expected to exist in the shoreline area. Additionally, no CARAs have been identified anywhere in the City (ECDC 23.60.010). 5.8 Lakes and Streams Within the City limits, numerous surface water drainages flow into Puget Sound through gorges downcut in the steep bluffs. The Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) defines streams as "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." From north to south, the following perennial streams were identified along the marine shoreline: Lund's (Gulch) Creek and Meadowdale Creek in Segment A; Perrinville Creek in Segment B; one unnamed creek in Segment C; Fruitdale Creek, Northstream Creek, and Shell Creek (with tributary Hindley Creek) in Segment D; and Shellabarger (various spellings)/Willow Creek in Segment H. Willow Creek, which lies mostly within Woodway, flows into the Edmonds Marsh along the base of the hillside of the former Unocal site where it mixes with flows from Shellabarger Creek before flowing through a series of ditches and culverts into Puget Sound near the Unocal Pier at Point Edwards. Shellabarger Creek, situated along the western bluff abutting Puget Sound, represents the intersection of the land surface with the Vashon advanced outwash aquifer water table. The Edmonds CAO recognizes the six named creeks south of Lund's Creek as Category 2 streams. None of the streams included on the 2004 CAO inventory within the City of Edmonds meet the criteria for "shorelines of the state," but all contain potential or actual fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type F waters pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. The only lake within City limits is Lake Ballinger in Segment I. Neither the inlet source (Hall Creek) nor the outlet (McAleer Creek) of Lake Ballinger flow within the City, although small areas of the City drain into them. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 38 November 2007 Packet Pg. 712 8.2.d 5.9 Flood Hazard Areas Aside from the shoreline of Puget Sound itself, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain only includes the Edmonds Marsh, a small portion of the Shell Creek drainage extending about one -quarter -mile upstream from the stream outfall, and shoreline areas of Lake Ballinger located within the City limits. In total, these areas include only 84 acres or 0.67 percent of Edmonds' total jurisdictional area (EDAW 2004). Although the flood hazard areas in the City of Edmonds are defined on the FEMA maps, a better way to describe them is by referring to their base (100-year) flood elevations. For the coastline this elevation is 10 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) or 14 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). For Lake Ballinger this is elevation is 282.5 feet NGVD or 286.1 feet NAVD. Some flooding has occurred along the coast, but more serious flooding has occurred in areas adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh/Shelleberger Creek and on Lake Ballinger in recent years. 5.10 Nearshore Processes c The Net Shore -Drift in Washington State program (Ecology 2002) map coverage denotes the o extent of individual drift cells and the direction of net shore -drift within the littoral zone for the CO City shoreline, based on a shoreline study conducted in the early 1990s by Jim Johannessen. The Edmonds shoreline littoral drift zone consists of two large partial drift cells separated by an area M of no appreciable net drift (see Figure 5). No clear net -shore drift pattern was observed from v Ecology's 2001 aerial photos taken of the Edmonds shoreline. c A large drift cell (SN-3) extends north from King County and terminates at the south end of the .2 N marina, contributing sand and drift logs to Marina Beach Park. SN-3 measures approximately 6.2 miles. Accretion shoreforms in this drift cell were found in relatively close proximity to i Point Wells and the King -Snohomish county line. Historically, about 66 percent of this drift cell z actively contributed slide material to the nearshore; following the railroad construction, little material currently reaches the shore (Johannessen et al., 2005). Between the park and the downtown area is a 1.6-mile-long area of no appreciable net drift c (SN-2/SN-3 NAD), which terminates at a latitude roughly even with Caspers Street. The ferry terminal and southern breakwater of the Edmonds Marina impede net shore -drift in this shore segment. The southern breakwater of the Edmonds Marina prevents northward sediment transport, resulting in accretion and progradation of the South Marina Beach (Johannessen et al., 2005); however, the beach was initially constructed along with the marina breakwater and may 0 not receive enough nearshore drift sediment to be self -maintaining. North of the ferry terminal at CO Brackett's Landing (north unit) is a constructed rock groin and beach area that may function as a 1; potential accretion shoreform. The beach was artificially nourished in 1989 with several Z different sizes of gravel (Shipman in prep). Results of historic accretion shoreform mapping w indicated that 58 percent of the historic accretionary beaches in this drift cell have been lost due to anthropogenic alterations to the nearshore (Johannessen et al., 2005). E North of the "no drift" area, another large drift cell (SN-2) moves sediment northerly along the 0 city shoreline and beyond the city limits. SN-2 originates approximately 1,000 ft north of the a ferry terminal and extends approximately 10.7 miles to just beyond Elliott Point in Mukilteo. Eighty-nine percent of the shores of this drift cell are modified by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) seawall. Landslides delivered sediment over the top of the BNSF railroad in three percent of the drift cell. The remaining 11 percent consisted of small accretion shoreforms typically formed from sediment derived from nearby streams (Johannessen et al., 2005). The few Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 39 Packet Pg. 713 8.2.d small deltas along the shoreline are symmetrical and give little visual indication of a predominant drift direction. Currently there are no intact bluff sediment sources in this drift cell; however, historic mapping and analysis shows that at least 74 percent of this cell was an active sediment source prior to construction of the BNSF seawall (Johannessen et al,. 2005). Today, intermittent landslides continue to occur along bluff shores, but sediments loads rarely reach the water, due to the presence of the BNSF railroad bed and land use restrictions by State agencies that prevent the timely transfer of slide material onto the beach. Obstructions to beach re -nourishment and net shore drift, such as bulkheads, breakwaters, groins, docks, and boat ramps, block the redistribution of upland sediment onto the nearshore and result in increased erosion in areas where the beach is depleted. Hardened surfaces also deflect waves and concentrate wave energy onto adjacent properties, leading to increased beach erosion and a restructuring of shoreline substrate slope and particle size, which in turn alters biological composition from sandy beach communities (e.g., eelgrass, littleneck clam, Dungeness crab, surf smelt) toward gravel and cobble beach communities (e.g., kelp, butter clam, red rock crab) (Williams and Thom 2001). 5.11 Shoreline Modifications Shoreline modifications refer to features or structures added to or removed from a shoreline that alters the shoreline's natural function, typically resulting in changes to wave energy dissipation, erosion, and sediment transport. Examples of modifications include armored intertidal slopes (e.g., bulkheads, riprap armoring, etc.), overwater structures (e.g., dock and piers), cleared vegetation (commonly done to improve views), channelized stream outlets (confining streams to channels or culverts that discharge at a point, instead of across a broad area), dredging, and filling Visible shoreline modifications along the City's waterfront within 200 feet of OHW were recorded using a GPS during a shoreline inventory and transferred into a GIS database (Snohomish County 2001). Figure 6 depicts the primary shoreland modification, bulkhead/seawall, and locations of armoring and overwater structures that affect marine habitat. No corresponding data were available for Lake Ballinger, although aerial photos reveal numerous piers and floats along the entire Edmonds shoreline. In general, the Edmonds marine shoreline is defined by the steep shoreline bluffs and the BNSF railroad bed along the northern two-thirds of its length. The western edge of the rail bed fill covers the intertidal and transitional upland zones along the beach, with either a vertical seawall or a steep armored slope composed of large boulders or granite block. The remaining third of the shoreline, adjacent to the downtown area and south to the county border, is characterized by low or no banks; however, the low banks have been bulkheaded or armored and filled by buildings and road. These structures have likely been constructed on historic backshore habitat, which formerly allowed a slow and widespread re -distribution of erodable bluff material along the shoreline. Today, only infrequent and severe landslides are able, at few locations, to contribute "pulses" of sediment to the nearshore. Intertidal structures have also eliminated most nearshore riparian vegetation and limited marine life to those species adapted to hard, nearly vertical substrates. Shoreline hydrology along the southern third of the city is further modified by a rock groin, a ferry terminal, a parking lot, a fishing pier, a marina, and a commercial pier. Nearshore drift is interrupted, reduced, or shifted seaward by these structures, causing drift sediment and organic material to drop into subtidal, rather than intertidal areas. What once had been a broad sandy gravel intertidal slope with a Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 40 November 2007 Packet Pg. 714 8.2.d width of hundreds of feet is now, in numerous areas, a narrow intertidal gravel and cobble beach with a width of 50 feet or less. Considering that many marine invertebrates, fish, and plants are adapted specifically to a narrow range of intertidal elevations, the reduction of intertidal habitat represents a significant loss of habitat area for those species along the Edmonds shore. 5.11.1 Shoreline Armoring Shoreline armoring typically refers to the placement of hard structures, such as rock -covered slopes and bulkheads, to deflect wave energy away from a location perceived as vulnerable to erosion. Armoring is also done to stabilize an area from normal changes in sediment transport (e.g., to reduce shoaling at a marina entrance or encourage sand deposition along beach). Shoreline armoring has adverse effects on the nearshore physical processes necessary to maintain native species habitats and shoreline functions. These effects include the loss of beach areas, impoundment of sediment, modification of groundwater regimes, lowering of beach elevations, concentration and redirection of wave energy to adjacent areas, alteration of substrate, and loss of riparian vegetation and associated functions (KC DNR WTD 2003). With the exceptions of Lund's Creek estuary, Edmonds Underwater Park, Brackett's Landing, and part of Marina Beach Park, the entire Edmonds shoreline (more than 90 percent) is armored by the BNSF railroad bed and bulkheads. Most of the BNSF rail bed along the Edmonds shoreline consists of an armored berm with two sets of parallel tracks on top, comprising a top width of at least 24 feet or more and a wider base width. The waterward side of the berm is typically armored with large rock or granite blocks, placed vertically or on a 2:1 slope. Concrete or wood bulkheads comprise the upper intertidal shoreline of the marina, adjacent commercial and residential buildings, and parking areas (see Figure 6). Many of these structures are probably reconstructions of old timber mill structures that date back to the late 1800s, when Edmonds was established specifically because of the potential for waterfront access to transport lumber by steamship and rail (BOLA Architecture + Planning 2005). The railroad tracks were constructed along the shoreline, and mills and docks were built waterward, on planks and fill placed on the beach. A new city wharf was built in 1911 near the WSF ferry terminal, and a sea dike and sea gate were built around the same time to prevent floods of the tide flats areas southwest of downtown in the area of the Edmonds Marina. Impacts to coastal processes from the extensive armoring of upper intertidal habitat along the Edmonds shoreline have affected the area for over a hundred years. Historic records of site - specific shoreline natural conditions are generally either unavailable or not quantifiable, so it is difficult to ascertain pre -development shore features and derive subsequent changes to nearshore conditions and processes. However, one potentially useful historic record in this regard is the United States Coast Survey's topographic sheet ("T-sheet") for the Edmonds' area. T-sheets are comprehensive and detailed early map representations of nearshore conditions in the second half of the 19th century, and are generally quite accurate, with some limitations. The most obvious impact is the conversion of intertidal sand and gravel beach habitat into steep - walled, armored upland slopes and structures with little or no habitat value. A second impact to shoreline function from armoring is the isolation of landslide material from the beach and adjacent shoreline areas. In many Puget Sound areas, landslide material is the sediment source that replenishes beaches from erosion by waves and currents; drift cell studies indicate that 66 to 74 percent of nearshore sediment sources from bluffs between Shoreline and Mukilteo have been eliminated by the railroad (see Section 5.10). The stream deltas north of Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 41 November 2007 Packet Pg. 715 8.2.d downtown Edmonds shore contribute small volumes of nearshore sediment (about 11 percent in Drift Cell SN-2) to the beach. The loss of historic sources of beach sediment caused by the construction of rail bed and other bulkheads, and the interruption of shoreline drift at other structures, such as the marina, ferry terminal, and the groin north of the Edmonds Underwater Park, further limit sediment replenishment. These modifications may be responsible for the relatively steep and narrow beach along this shoreline, and a possible shift from sandier substrate to gravelly cobble substrate in some areas. Another impact to shoreline function from armoring and filling is the loss of nutrients from beach wrack that normally accumulates in broad bands along upper intertidal elevations. Beach wrack, consisting of decomposing marine and terrestrial shoreline vegetation, is a significant source of nutrients to the nearshore and a habitat upon which many aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates thrive (Sobocinski 2003). Beach wrack also provides shelter, food, and protection from solar energy and desiccation over intertidal sediment that is used as spawning and foraging substrate for several species of forage fish (e.g., sand lance and surf smelt) and shellfish (e.g., crabs, snails, gastropods). The sea dike and sea gate would have stopped the natural tidal inundation of the Edmonds Marsh, shifting water quality to a less -saline, more stagnant brackish wetland, and shifting vegetation to species that are tolerant of lower salinity, warmer temperatures, and eutrophic water conditions. About three-quarters of the former marsh was subsequently filled for development of the marina, Harbor Square development complex, Edmonds sewage treatment plant, SR-104, and a City park. These changes have likely eliminated most sediment input to the intertidal nearshore. It is possible that the shoreward extent of eelgrass has been reduced by the presumed steepening of the shoreline caused by armoring and fill. The addition of such marine structures and the resulting elimination of beach vegetation and possible coarsening of beach substrate may have reduced or eliminated forage fish spawning areas along most of the Edmonds shoreline. 5.11.2 Docks, Piers, and Over/In-water Structures Overwater and in -water structures in Edmonds include docks, piers, ramps, wharves, and a marina. Over/in-water structures change the levels of light, shoreline energy regimes, substrate type and stability, and water quality along shorelines (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). These changes result in alterations in the presence, abundance, and diversity of plant and animal species in the nearshore, including eelgrass, algae, fish, and wildlife. The physical supports that hold up overwater structures, such as bulkheads and piling, alter wave energy and sediment dynamics that affect plant propagation, fish foraging, spawning and migration, and shellfish settlement and rearing. In addition, construction materials associated with overwater structures can leach contaminants (e.g., creosote, metals from paint) into the nearshore environment. The most significant over/in-water structures within the City's shorelands are the Port of Edmonds Marina and the Washington State Ferry terminal. The marina covers about 617,000 square feet, and the ferry terminal covers about 24,700 square feet (CH2M HILL 2004). Other overwater coverage includes Laebugten's Wharf (about 70,300 square feet, including the ramp, pier, and wharf structure), the former Unocal fuel pier (about 23,500 square feet), the City and Port of Edmonds fishing pier, and a small concrete ramp in Segment F. In the locations of overwater piers, aerial photographs and hydroacoustic surveys reveal the fragmentation of an otherwise continuous band of eelgrass paralleling the shore. Eelgrass is Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 42 November 2007 Packet Pg. 716 absent from under -pier areas probably due to shading and erosion from boat propeller wash and current/wave refraction around pier piles. Although these structures appear to cover large areas of the shallow nearshore marine waterfront, they are probably less extensive than the historic boardwalks, beach mills, and numerous steamship docks that covered the waterfront in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Along the Lake Ballinger shoreline, docks and piers were noted at almost every parcel. Aerial photos revealed about 47 structures that extend into the lake. These structures alter freshwater shoreline physical and ecology characteristics, although the effects are difficult to estimate because the lake itself is a highly modified wetland that was converted into a lake by damming the outlet to McAleer Creek. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 43 November 2007 Packet Pg. 717 8.2.d 6. Nearshore Biological Characterization Physical shoreline conditions and processes described in Section 5 determine the biological species, conditions, and processes of the nearshore. Within the Edmonds SMP area, the marine shoreline is dominated by seawalls and fill, with the exception of three small beach parks. Waterward of the seawalls is a short, steep beach that ranges from sandy gravel to gravelly cobble. Landward of the seawall are moderate to tall (greater than 70 ft) bluffs, except in the commercial waterfront area. In addition to the seawalls within the intertidal zone, five additional in -water structures extend into the subtidal: the former Unocal pier, the Edmonds marina, the WSF pier, the rubble mound groin north of the ferry terminal, and Laebugten's Wharf. These structures all affect the physical characteristics of the shoreline, which influence or determine the biological characteristics. The effects of in -water structures on longshore currents, sediment and nutrient transport, light (photosynthetic active radiation), and substrate largely determine the habitats available for aquatic plants and animals. The seawalls and fill for the railroad, marina, and commercial district occupy much of the intertidal zone, eliminating habitat for plants and animals that depend on those limited elevations between aquatic and terrestrial conditions. This includes the loss of upper intertidal and backshore vegetation, such as pickleweed, saltgrass, dune grass, driftwood, and beach wrack. Beach wrack, which consists of accumulations of aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals, provides nutrients and minerals to the shoreline and food and habitat to a community of resident and migratory species, including insects, fish, birds, and mammals. Recent studies of Pacific Coast and Puget Sound beaches have shown that the loss of beach wrack results in the absence of critical food resources for marine and terrestrial communities, and migrating shorebirds (Orr et al., 2005, Sobocinski 2003). Shoreline armoring eliminates beach wrack and decreases abundance and species diversity in both benthic infaunal invertebrate and insect assemblages in the upper intertidal zone. The impacts of shoreline modifications are most profound when they are installed below MHHW and where backshore vegetation has been removed (Sobocinski 2003), which is the condition of most of Edmonds' marine shoreline. The numerous streams along this Central Puget Sound shoreline continue to contribute nutrients, insects, and terrestrial plant detritus to the marine nearshore via culverts under the BNSF railroad bed. These streams are unlikely to have ever been a significant source of driftwood or log debris, although landslides along the eroding bluffs would have regularly contributed logs to the marine nearshore. Currently, the BNSF railroad, the marina and WSF ferry terminal, and commercial seawalls occupy the zone in which drift logs and beach wrack would have accumulated. Mid- and upper intertidal beach elevations provide spawning habitat for forage fish, such as surf smelt and sand lance, which form a critical base of the Puget Sound food web for birds, fish, and marine mammals. Although a few spawning areas for forage fish occur between Seattle and Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 44 November 2007 Packet Pg. 718 8.2.d Everett, none has been identified by WDFW in the Edmonds area, possibly due to intertidal beach alterations and habitat loss due to seawalls and fill. Shoreline armoring, backshore fill, and in -water structures affect sediment transport and deposition as described in the previous section. The results of a shift in the physical shoreline conditions affects beach biological function in several ways. Structures deflect energy from waves and currents into unarmored areas, resulting in small areas of sediment accumulation (e.g., Underwater Marine Park spit) at the expense of larger areas of beach erosion, slope steepening, and substrate coarsening. The rate of erosion or sedimentation is too extreme for most plants and animals to adapt to, so these continually disturbed areas soon favor large numbers of a few species that thrive in unstable habitats. The result of sediment coarsening is often seen in a shift to larger, hardier bivalves (e.g., horse clams instead of Manila clams) and the loss of eelgrass at intertidal elevations. In both freshwater and marine ecosystems, structures such as bulkheads, docks, and piers create a physical barrier between upland and aquatic biological communities, in addition to eliminating critical habitat features (especially vegetation), that forms important transitional habitat between the upland fresh -water ecosystem and the marine ecosystem. 6.1 Wetland Habitat The City has four areas with potential wetlands that may be associated with the draft shoreline jurisdiction (Figure 11). These four areas are: the Edmonds Marsh area, the area around the mouth of Shell Creek, the area around the mouth of Perrinville Creek, and the Lake Ballinger area. The City has one wetland (the 23-acre Edmonds Marsh), designated as a Category 1 wetland (highest quality), in addition to a Wildlife Habitat and Natural Resource Sanctuary. It is classified by the State as a priority habitat. Edmonds Marsh has been filled on the east by SR 104, the Harbor Square commercial area to the north, the BNSF tracks and the Port of Edmonds to the west, and the historical Unocal facility and Deer Creek Fish Hatchery to the south. The isolated remnant of Edmonds Marsh east of SR104 is hydraulically connected with the main marsh via a culvert under SR 104 that also conveys Shellabarger Creek. Portions of the marsh are seasonally flooded from discharges from Willow and Shellabarger Creeks. For the purpose of this inventory, both sections are treated as the Edmonds Marsh. A series of ditches, pipes, and a culvert under the railroad tracks convey flows from the wetland under Admiral Way into Puget Sound. The Edmonds Marsh receives water from approximately 900 acres, including Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, as well as runoff from surrounding properties. Adjacent property on the former Unocal site includes two stormwater detention ponds that were created from diking and filling the south portion of the wetland. During certain storm conditions, stormwater overflows from the ponds currently discharge into Willow Creek, which flows through the marsh. The marsh (including flows from Shellabarger Creek) drains to Puget Sound via a channelized portion of Willow Creek. The creek passes through a tide gate into a 48-inch pipe, which extends 1,275 feet into the lower intertidal portion of the beach south of the Edmonds Marina breakwater. The tide gate is kept closed from October through March (although there is some leakage); during the spring and summer months the marsh is tidally influenced. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 45 Packet Pg. 719 8.2.d The marsh tends to be brackish in the winter months and saline in the summer, once the tide gate is opened. The upgradient (eastern) portion of the marsh nearest the fish hatchery is primarily freshwater and is dominated by cattails, hard -stem bulrush, common velvet grass, water parsley, climbing nightshade and redtop. The overstory consists of alder, black cottonwood, Scouler's willow, Western red cedar, Douglas fir, and bigleaf maple. The shrub and herb layers include beaked hazelnut, salmonberry, red elderberry, skunk cabbage, horsetail, fringecup, and creeping buttercup. The western, estuarine portion of the marsh is dominated by American three -square, fleshy jaumea, Pacific silverweed, seacoast bulrush, salt grass, brass button, and soft rush. Invasive species are present throughout the marsh (and may be dominant) and include Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, Scot's broom, purple loosestrife, and reed Canary grass (CH2MHILL 2004). The marsh is used by a wide variety of bird species (over 225 species), including the great blue heron (a State monitor species), which nests near the marsh (WDFW 2006a). The presence of some other potential wetlands outside of shoreline jurisdiction was noted as part of the Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2002), based on the Snohomish County Critical Areas 1991, but little information is available regarding these features. Vegetation is anticipated to be similar to that observed in the freshwater portion of Edmonds Marsh. Wildlife use is likely to be less, because of the smaller size of these other potential wetland areas. 6.2 Fish and Wildlife None of the streams included on the 2004 CAO inventory within the City of Edmonds meet the criteria for "shorelines of the state," but all contain potential or actual fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type F waters pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. As of 2004, Edmonds anadromous fishbearing streams are known to include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek (a tributary of Shell Creek), Perrinville Creek, and Lund's Creek (ECDC 23.90.010). Numerous fish and wildlife species depend on the Edmonds shoreline and adjacent shoreland habitats for either part or all of a life stage. Certain species and habitats are therefore recognized by state and federal agencies because of their special values. Special values are often associated with consumptive use by people representing commercial, recreational, or tribal interests. In some cases, special value is assigned because of rarity (e.g., killer whale) or ecological importance (e.g., forage fish). These species and associated habitats are typically documented and protected by WDFW, at the state level, and several federal agencies. Government agencies may assign variable levels of value and protection to a species or its habitat, based on numerous factors. This is collectively referred to as a species' "status." General fish and wildlife species and their status are discussed below. Under the state's SMA, the City of Edmonds is also responsible for identifying critical habitats within its boundaries for the protection of natural resources under their jurisdiction. The Potential Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas identified in the CAO are shown in Figure 4. Edmonds Underwater Park is a portion of the area owned or controlled by the City of Edmonds designated as Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary. Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary includes intertidal areas owned or under the control of the City in addition to the underwater park area. The City has designated additional critical habitats that include Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 46 Packet Pg. 720 8.2.d 6.2.1 State Priority Habitats and Species WDFW has identified priority habitats for shellfish, salmonids, eagle, great blue heron, California sea lion, and harbor seal in the wetland, riparian, and estuarine habitats along the Edmonds shoreline (see Figure 11). State special status species that may occur in nearshore areas include peregrine falcon, pileated woodpecker, Vaux's swift, merlin, purple martin, great blue heron, green heron, western big -eared bat, Keen's myotis bat, long-eared bat, and longlegged bat. 6.2.1.1 Shellfish Shellfish resources include clams, mussels, crab, and shrimp. Species representing all of these groups are found in the marine waters of the City (Table 5). Table 5. Common Shellfish Found in the Edmonds Shoreline Jurisdiction Common Name Dungeness crab Scientific Name Cancer magister Cancer productus Red rock crab Bay mussel Mytilus edulis Small clam Macoma charlottensis Native littleneck clam Protothaca staminea Manila clam Tapes japonica or venerupis philippinarum Bentnose clam Macoma nasuta Butter clam Saxidomus gigantea Heart cockle Clinocardium nuttalli Horse clam Tresus capex Geoduck clam Panopea abrupta Spot prawn Pandalus platyceros Broken -back shrimps Heptacarpus spp. Dock (coon -stripe) shrimp Pandalus danae Information from KC DNR WTD 2003, WDFW 2006a, Kozloff 1993, Golder and Parametrix 2002 Several clam species inhabit Puget Sound waters in the vicinity of Edmonds, including horse or gaper, manila, native littleneck, butter, cockle, and geoduck clams. Clams have planktonic larvae that settle onto the bottom and crawl until they find a suitable habitat. They then attach themselves by a filament and burrow into the substrate after reaching sufficient size. Manila, native littleneck, butter, and horse clams, and heart cockle are found in intertidal sand and in sand -gravel substrates; butter and horse clams are the most abundant. Manila clams are typically found in intertidal habitat, whereas native littlenecks can occur from the mid -intertidal down to shallow subtidal areas. Butter clams can inhabit low intertidal down to subtidal areas (Harbo Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 47 Packet Pg. 721 8.2.d 1999). Horse and geoduck clams are found in both intertidal and subtidal zones but can occur in deeper waters than other clam species. Geoduck clams can occur from low intertidal areas down to a depth of over 300 feet (KC DNR WTD 2003). The small clam Macoma charlottensis dominates deeper subtidal areas. Hardshell clams, such as littleneck and butter clams, may be in sufficient densities to support recreational harvest, in those intertidal beach areas characterized as gravelly or cobbly. Geoduck are harvested both recreationally and commercially in Puget Sound. Geoduck beds were identified by WDFW along the entire Edmonds shoreline, from the marina north to the City boundary. The Edmonds beds range in depth from about -20 to -120 feet MLLW (KC DNR WTD 2003). A recent geoduck survey (Golder and Parametrix 2002) confirmed the range of geoduck beds along the City and recorded mean densities between 0.4 and 2.5 geoducks per square meter, with greater densities at increasing depth. A commercial geoduck harvest area occurs along the entire City nearshore, from the north end of the Edmonds marina to Picnic Point and north. Dungeness crab in Puget Sound prefer sandy bottom habitats or those with sandy -muddy substrates that support eelgrass, typically in waters ranging from approximately -9 to —185 feet MLLW. Dungeness crab can be expected to occur in the marine zones adjacent to the City at depths typically seen in other parts of the Central Basin of Puget Sound over similar substrate. They have also been harvested commercially and recreationally near the City of Edmonds (KC DNR WTD 2003). A juvenile Dungeness crab study, sponsored by the Snohomish County Marine Resources Committee, is currently being conducted in the North Marina Beach area (Lider 2006 personal communication). Red rock crab is more abundant in intertidal areas than Dungeness crab and is commonly associated with rock/gravel substrates, although they may also occur in sandy and muddy areas containing eelgrass. Red rock crab preys and scavenges on a variety of benthic species, including clams, mussels, snails, and other crabs. Like Dungeness crab, this species also has planktonic larvae that settle out as juveniles in intertidal to shallow subtidal areas. Red rock crabs are expected to occur along the Edmonds shoreline and have been harvested recreationally near Edmonds. Several species of shrimp inhabit Puget Sound waters, including pink, humpback, and coonstripe shrimp, as well as spot prawns (also known as spot shrimp). Spot prawn, the largest of the pandalid shrimps, is the most important commercially and recreationally harvested shrimp species in Puget Sound. Adult spot prawns inhabit discrete areas called beds and are typically found in waters between depths of -185 to -285 feet MLLW in central Puget Sound. Spot prawn habitat requirements depend on the developmental stage of the animal. Adults occupy deeper waters, while juveniles use shallower waters where vegetation is present. Spot prawns exhibit seasonal migrations from deep to shallow waters; they can also migrate vertically in the water column. There are commercial, tribal, and recreational spot prawn fisheries in or near Point Edwards (KC DNR WTD 2003). 6.2.1.2 Salmonids Eight species of salmonids use nearshore areas of Puget Sound at some point in their life cycle. These include Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon and sea -run cutthroat, steelhead, and bull trout (Striplin and Battelle 2001). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 48 November 2007 Packet Pg. 722 8.2.d Table 6. Salmonids Found within the Edmonds Shoreline Jurisdiction Common Name Chinook salmon (also called king, blackmouth) Scientific Name Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Coho salmon (also called red) O. kisutch Sockeye salmon O. nerka Chum salmon (also called dog, fall, calico) O. keta Steelhead (same as rainbow trout) O. mykiss Pink salmon (also called humpback) O. gorbuscha Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Cutthroat trout O. clarki Salmonids use nearshore areas for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, for migration, as nursery areas for juveniles (Striplin and Battelle 2001). Nearshore area surveys conducted in 2001 found juvenile coho, Chinook, sockeye, and chum salmon, along with cutthroat and steelhead trout at several locations in the Edmonds vicinity. Deeper water provides habitat for adult salmonids. Salmonid stocks that may be present near Edmonds include runs from the Skagit and Stillaguamish Rivers, but mostly from the Snohomish, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually Rivers and smaller drainages in central and southern Puget Sound. All streams within the City of Edmonds discharge either directly or indirectly to Puget Sound. However, anadromous salmon use (primarily chum and coho) has only been documented in three drainages (Lund's, Shell, and Willow Creeks), although natural spawning may be limited to Lund's and Shell Creek (accidental releases from the Deer Creek Hatchery are presumed to account for adults in Willow Creek). Juvenile chum salmon have been released in Perrinville Creek as part of a class project at Seaview Elementary School; however, no adult returns to this stream have been reported (Pentec Environmental 2002). In general, high sediment loads and impassable fish barriers have limited the use of potential spawning and rearing habitat that may be present. Native cutthroat trout are present in Perrinville, Northstream, Shell, Hindley, Shellabarger, and Willow Creeks. No bull trout have been observed in any of the drainages within the City (Pentec Environmental 2002). 6.2.1.3 Forage Fish Forage fish include those species that are preyed upon by species of concern. Forage fish include herring, surf smelt, and sand lance. Sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) are generally found in nearshore areas. Both species are a prey item for seabirds, marine mammals, and a variety of fishes. From November 2000 to February 2001 and again from November 2001 to Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 49 Packet Pg. 723 February 2002, King County conducted sand lance and surf smelt spawning surveys on beaches in the vicinity of Edmonds. Documented sand lance spawning habitat was found at Brackett's Landing and along Ocean Avenue. Documented surf smelt spawning habitat was found at Point Edwards (KC DNR WTD 2003). Although there are Pacific herring spawning grounds in the central basin of Puget Sound, none are within the City's shoreline. 6.2.1.4 Shorebirds and Upland Birds Birds with priority habitats that occur within the City include bald eagle, purple martin, and great blue heron. The bald eagle is listed as a federal and state threatened species. The following paragraph was taken from the Brightwater FEIS (KC DNR WTD 2003). Bald eagles are both residents in and migrants through the Puget Sound region. Eagle populations are usually highest in the region in the winter months, when both resident birds and winter migrants are present due to the mild winter climate and abundant fall salmon runs. Bald eagles generally perch, roost, and build nests in mature trees near water bodies and available prey, usually away from intense human activity. They prey on a variety of foods, including fish, birds, mammals, carrion, and invertebrates. In the Puget Sound region, waterfowl and fish are generally the most common food for eagles. Bald eagles typically return to one of several nests located within an established nesting territory. Their seasonal home range for foraging and nesting averages 1.8 square miles in this region. WDFW priority habitat map (2006a) notes nesting bald eagles at two locations within the City limits. It is not known if these nests are occupied every year, although nesting has been noted over the last 10 years (since 1997). Great blue heron have nested in the woods surrounding the Edmonds marsh. Up to 17 birds have been observed in the marsh in recent years (WDFW 2006a). The WDFW Priority Habitat and Species map (2006) noted the presence of a seabird colony (glaucous -winged gull) near the Edmonds Underwater Park. In April 2004, gourds were installed on a group of pilings south of the Edmonds ferry dock by volunteers, with the approval of the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Director. Prior to that time purple martin, a priority species, had not been nesting on the Edmonds waterfront due to lack of nesting habitat. Since the artificial nest sites were provided, Martins have successfully nested in 2004 and 2005, and nesting activity has been observed recently (Lider 2006 personal communication). 6.2.1.5 Marine Mammals A Priority Haulout Area has been identified by WDFW (2006a) within the Edmonds Underwater Park for harbor seals and California sea lions. These pinnipeds, along with the endangered Steller sea lion, will use beaches or structures near beaches as haulout areas. In the past, floats installed for divers at the Edmonds Underwater Park were taken over by sea lions. Because the sea lions rendered the floats unusable by divers, the floats were eventually removed, so this haulout designation may no longer be relevant; however, the adjacent beaches are frequently used by harbor seals (Lider 2006 personal communication). 6.2.2 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Several federally listed threatened or endangered species that may inhabit marine waters or adjacent habitats within the City are identified in the State database (WDFW 2006a). Threatened birds include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 50 Packet Pg. 724 8.2.d marmoratus). Bald eagles are known to be present in nearshore areas of the Central Basin of Puget Sound, and there are documented eagle nests and breeding areas within the City (Figure 11). Marbled murrelets are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters; winter and summer surveys by WDFW conducted near Edmonds found no murrelets in winter and only a few birds in the Edmonds area in summer (Striplin and Battelle 2001). Federally listed threatened fish species that may occur in or in the vicinity of Edmonds, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout. Puget Sound steelhead are currently proposed for federal listing as a threatened species. All three salmonids require varied habitats during different phases of their lives. Adults use nearshore areas as migration corridors when returning from the oceanic life stage, while juveniles reside in the nearshore prior during their outmigration from freshwater to the ocean. Bull trout adults also use shallow nearshore marine and estuarine areas as foraging grounds and migration corridors. Federally listed marine mammals may be present in the Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction, but are not commonly observed. Steller sea lion (Eumetopius jubatus), listed as endangered, is not commonly observed in the Central Basin of Puget Sound, although the area beaches and large fish diversity at the Edmonds Underwater Park would provide attractive habitat. The southern Puget Sound resident population of killer whale (Orcinus orca), listed as threatened, is also an uncommon visitor to central Puget Sound. Because the City of Edmonds' shoreline jurisdiction extends far offshore, it is likely that killer whales could transit through the area; however, extensive shoreline development, ferry traffic, and the absence of salmon -bearing streams makes it unlikely that they would be attracted to the nearshore. Critical habitat is designated by the federal government as part of its management of threatened and endangered species under the ESA. Critical habitats with the City of Edmonds include those for Chinook salmon and bull trout. Chinook salmon are not known to have used any of the small creeks within the City; critical habitat includes only the marine nearshore, from extreme high tide to a depth of 30 meters (FR Vol. 70, No. 170, September 2, 2005). Likewise, bull trout habitat is not recognized within any of the City creeks; critical habitat includes the marine nearshore, from MHHW to -10 meter MLLW, and any tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries (FR Vol. 70, September 26, 2005). Chinook salmon habitat use along the Edmonds shoreline would be during periods of juvenile foraging and juvenile and adult migration. The eelgrass beds along the shoreline provide high quality foraging habitat for juveniles. Bull trout habitat use along the Edmonds shoreline would be during periods of adult foraging and migration. Bull trout display wide-ranging foraging habits and are known to consume juvenile salmon (including Chinook) that inhabit shallow nearshore areas. 6.3 Riparian Zones Riparian habitats are those habitats that border streams, lakes, and marine beaches. All habitat types occur with the City. Figure 11 shows the location of both freshwater and marine riparian habitats. 6.3.1 Freshwater Two major drainages have been identified by the State as having priority riparian habitats; Lund's Creek and Perrinville Creek. Additional riparian habitat is associated with Shell, Hindley (a tributary of Shell), Shellabarger and Willow Creeks and parts of the shoreline of Lake Ballinger. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 51 November 2007 Packet Pg. 725 8.2.d Riparian habitat within the City is typically characterized by western red cedar, red alder, willow, bigleaf maple and Douglas fir, depending on the degree of flooding and gradient with the corridor. Characteristic understory vegetation includes Indian plum, salmonberry, thimbleberry and elderberry, with an herbaceous layer consisting of curly dock, skunk cabbage, salal, Oregon grape, stinging nettle, sword and lady fern, horsetail, and piggy -back plants. Invasive (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, ivy) or introduced plant species (e.g., holly, grasses, morning glory) may also be present, depending on the degree of disturbance or cultivation along the stream corridors. Riparian corridors support a variety of wildlife, including birds (such as song birds, owls, flickers, and pileated woodpeckers) and mammals (such as beaver, otter, and deer). 6.3.2 Marine The City's marine riparian zone is the narrow shoreline adjacent to the Sound, extending 5.2 miles from Point Edwards to the mouth of Lund's Gulch. This zone has been highly modified by development, including fill associated with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad bed and the Port of Edmonds Marina, construction of piers and wharfs to support industrial/commercial facilities in the downtown area (including the former Unocal facility), and bulkheads and seawalls for shoreline protection. These developments have replaced native vegetation, such as salt -tolerant plants found on less developed sites, which would otherwise grow at the highest tide elevations and in adjacent upland areas. Marine riparian vegetation, when present along the Edmonds shoreline, is characterized by a mix of native and invasive species (including dune wildrye, white sweet clover, yarrow, Puget Sound gumweed, oceanspray, English plantain, and Scot's broom). Near the shoreline, at the base of the small streams that flow through ravines, vegetation is a combination of non-native herbs and shrubs, and fast-growing deciduous trees that have established on the steep slopes following logging, clearing, and landslides. Plant species are described in more detail for each segment in Section 7. Native vegetation is mostly absent from the shoreline because of urban development in the downtown Edmonds area and the BNSF railroad in other areas. Native trees and shrubs that would have dominated this Puget Sound lowland forest shoreline include western hemlock, western red cedar, Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, red alder, madrona, and black cottonwood (Kruckeberg 1995). Common shrubs associated with lowland coastal forest would be Scouler's willow, vine maple, salal, red huckleberry, Oregon grape, and devil's club Kruckeberg 1995). A few native trees, such as bigleaf maple and red alder, and many native shrubs are present in the ravines and along the estuarine edges, but no longer along the shoreline edges. Besides providing essential wildlife habitat for native animal species, the dense native forest that would be present along the shoreline (and overhanging the upper intertidal beach) provides an important source of terrestrial insects for shoreline -oriented migratory animals, including shorebirds and juvenile salmonids (Brennan et al. 2004, Sobocinski 2003). Shade from vegetation also plays an important role in sheltering the eggs of beach -spawning forage fish from ultraviolet light and desiccation (Pentilla 2001). The elimination of fringing shoreline vegetation decreases food, shelter, and habitat value for all animals that use the shoreline. 6.4 Beaches and Backshore Flats No undeveloped areas of natural backshore flats remain along the Edmonds shoreline. Backshore flats would likely have been common along the southern third of Edmonds, in the Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 52 November 2007 Packet Pg. 726 8.2.d locations of the existing marina, waterfront commercial buildings, ferry terminal, and parks. Additional areas of backshore flats were likely common at the base of the bluffs, where the BNSF railroad bed was constructed. The areas without natural backshore flats were likely those areas where the BNSF railroad bed was constructed with vertical walls in the lower intertidal zone. Edmonds beaches are typical of sediment -starved beaches. Along most of the armored shoreline, steep, narrow beaches composed of gravelly cobble have replaced broad, sand and gravel beaches. The current sandy beaches at Marina Park and Brackett's Landing were constructed and have been artificially re -supplied with sand and gravel brought from upland sources. Little vegetation is typically present in the intertidal zone, with the exception of rockweed (Fucus spp.), sea lettuce (Ulva spp.) and the low -salinity tolerant Enteromorpha sp. (in cases where there are freshwater seeps). However, many burrowing organisms use the intertidal area, particularly from the mid -tidal elevations and deeper. Typical sandy beach communities are characterized by cockles, clams, moon snails, isopods, burrowing worms, nudibranchs, sea cucumbers, and sea stars. In addition to those species, periwinkles, drills and other snails, barnacles, mussels, hermit crab, shore crab, errantiate (not confined to tubes or burrows), and tube -dwelling worms, anemones, tunicates, and sponges will also be present if the beach contains some gravel or cobble. Small fish (gunnels, blennies, and sculpin) may also be present in small depressions or under rocks. More stable, hard substrate (e.g., consolidated clay or rock) will encourage the presence of urchins. At high tide, larger organisms will be move into the beach areas, including Dungeness and red rock crab, juvenile salmon and other fishes (Kozloff 1993). 6.5 Sub -Estuaries (Stream Mouths and Deltas) The Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) recognizes six Edmonds creeks as Category 2 streams. Streams are defined in the CAO as "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." None of the streams included on the 2004 CAO inventory within the City of Edmonds meets the criteria for "shorelines of the state," but all contain potential or actual fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type F waters pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. Among these streams are "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 (a tributary of Shell Creek), Perrinville Creek, and Lund's Creek (ECDC 23.90.010). Due to the location of the BNSF rail bed, sub -estuary habitat along Edmonds' shoreline has been significantly reduced by fill and further constricted by culverts. The sub -estuaries now occur shoreward/upgradient of the tracks, separated from Puget Sound by 50- to 150-ft-long culverts except at Edmonds Marsh, where the culvert is about 800 ft long. These inland sub -estuaries receive relatively high volumes of stormwater runoff from the backshore drainage ditch that parallels the rail bed. All stormwater runoff from all upland areas along the tracks flows toward the tracks and into the ditch, and then it is conveyed into the stream sub -estuaries. Because the steep slopes along the tracks are frequently denuded by slides and vegetation removal, unusually high sediment inputs are conveyed into the ditch and into the sub -estuaries, further degrading water quality. It is likely that the sub -estuaries support an altered benthic and epibenthic invertebrate community that favors large numbers of a few species that are tolerant of high siltation and small volumes of pollutants released by train traffic (e.g., oil and grease). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 53 November 2007 Packet Pg. 727 8.2.d Small deltas have formed at the outlets of most sub -estuaries in Edmonds, particularly at Shell Creek (Pentec Environmental 2001). Stream discharges are not sufficient to significantly alter the salinity at these locations, although they may serve as a source of organic material to the local estuarine environment. These small deltas tend to be composed of sand and gravel and provide a lower gradient habitat relative to the adjacent fringing beach. Small deltas are fairly productive and will be inhabited by worms, clams, mussels, snails, barnacles, amphipods, and other small crustaceans, anemones, red rock crab, sea stars, and small fish. The gravel and cobble that may be present can serve as holdfasts for smaller algae and kelp at the lower beach elevations. These stream deltas serve as foraging areas for diving ducks, shorebirds, fish -eating birds (such as herons and kingfisher), river otter, and fish. This habitat also provides spawning and rearing areas for many marine species that live out their lives in deeper water (e.g., midshipman fish). The small deltas along the marine shore also provide critical migration corridors for wildlife and anadromous fish between the marine shore and upland freshwater riparian habitat. Access to and from the marine shore is largely limited to the stream corridors and culverts at sub -estuaries. Large animals, such as raccoons and deer, may climb the railroad embankment, but face lethal train traffic. Urban development, including housing, parks, the ferry terminal, and the railroad bed has eliminated virtually all overhanging marine shoreline vegetation in Edmonds; thus terrestrial wildlife foraging in the intertidal beach habitat has no shelter or cover to avoid predation or adverse weather, other than at the sub -estuaries. Aquatic species are also dependent on sub -estuaries as migration corridors. Both juvenile and adult salmonids migrate through sub -estuaries to and from the ocean. The variable salinity within sub -estuaries provides juveniles with a relatively sheltered area and abundant food in which to adjust from freshwater to salt water (osmoregulation) during their migration to the ocean; adults returning to spawn depend on sub -estuaries for holding until stream flows adjust to acceptable volumes and temperatures for upstream migration. 6.6 Eelgrass Meadows Eelgrass is distributed in patchy narrow bands along the City waterfront south of the marina to Point Wells, and north of Shell Creek to Picnic Point (KC DNR WTD 2003) (Figure 1). Dense patches are present in some areas, including north and south of the Lynnwood outfall (near Meadowdale Creek), and north and south of Laebugten's Wharf. Although the WDNR ShoreZone inventory in 2001 depicted eelgrass between the ferry terminal and the north side of the marina, the recent Battelle Nearshore Survey (KC DNR WTD 2003) did not show eelgrass in that area. At its shallowest extent, the eelgrass starts 10 feet waterward of the shore, at about -2 feet MLLW. The deepest extent is probably about 200 feet offshore, to a maximum depth of about -20 feet MLLW, based on the depth of nearby eelgrass beds that were mapped south of the marina for a recent eelgrass survey (Parametrix, reported in KC DNR WTD 2003). The density of the mapped eelgrass beds is variable, ranging from a few shoots per square meter, to several hundred per square meter. Eelgrass beds provide foraging and refuge habitat for many species, including juvenile fish and Dungeness crab. Many diving ducks and other seabirds will also forage in the eelgrass beds. By late spring and summer, there is usually a well -developed invertebrate community inhabiting the beds, including small algae (attached to the eelgrass blades), flatworms, small crustaceans Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 54 November 2007 Packet Pg. 728 8.2.d including copepods, amphipods, isopods, hydroids, jellyfish, snails, nudibranchs, six -rayed seastars, spider crabs, and many others (Kozloff 1993). 6.7 Kelp Beds Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) and sugar kelp (Laminaria saccharina) are the most common types of kelp in central Puget Sound. Distribution of kelp, especially bull kelp, varies over time (Shaffer 1998 in KC DNR WTD 2003, see Figure 12). In general, kelp beds are found offshore of eelgrass beds, in deeper water, in areas of higher currents and rocky substrates that provide stable platforms for holdfast attachment. A dense band of kelp was recently mapped off the mouth of Shell Creek, extending about 1,000 feet to the north and south. Six smaller kelp beds were identified offshore in the general area of Perrinville Creek. One small kelp bed was mapped south of Laebugten's Wharf (KC DNR WTD 2003). The DNR ShoreZone Inventory indicates that an area of bull kelp was observed north of the Edmonds Underwater Park for about 2,000 feet, and between Perrinville and Fruitdale Creeks for about 3,000 feet. Kelp beds provide habitat for a variety of fish species, herring spawning substrate, and refuge for a variety of crabs and shrimps. Young rockfish common to the Central Basin of Puget Sound (brown, copper, and quillback) are typically found in kelp beds prior to moving to more typical adult rocky reef habitat. 6.8 Habitat Conservation Areas Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Conservation Area is defined in WAC 220-16-720 as those bed lands and tidelands owned by the City of Edmonds at Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary, and the water column above these bed lands and tidelands including all of the area known as Edmonds Underwater Park. Established in 1970, this is the oldest marine conservation area in Puget Sound, serving as a reference area for research into long-term marine conservation and ecological adaptation and recovery (WDFW 2006b). According to WDFW (2006b), the park's predominant fishes include copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus), quillback rockfish (S. maliger), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), and cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus). Kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus), painted greenling (Oxylebius pictus), surfperches (Embiotocidae), and black rockfish (S. melanops) are also common in the park, although they are associated with artificial rocky reef habitats that are atypical of the natural nearshore habitat of this locale. Flatfishes are often found on the sand and mud habitats away from the artificial structures, and the eelgrass beds support many small fishes such as bay pipefish (Sygnathus leptorhynchus), juvenile codfishes (Gadidae), and shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata). Pelagic schooling fishes may be seen in the park such as juvenile and adult salmon, tubesnouts (Aulorhynchus flavidus), and juvenile herring (Clupea harengus pallasi). Predominant macro -invertebrates include giant anemones (Metridium senile) that cover much of the artificial structures. Marine mammals frequent the site, including harbor seals and sea lions. Diving ducks, such as surf and white -winged scoters and red -breasted mergansers, can be observed during the winter at the park. Red -necked grebes (Podiceps grisegena), Western grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis), and horned grebes (Podiceps auritus) also occur in the reserve, as do seabirds such as marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (WDFW 2006b). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 55 November 2007 Packet Pg. 729 8.2.d 7. Segment Summaries and Assessment The marine shoreline was divided into segments (see Figure 2) based on a habitat assessment (Pentec Environmental 2001) that considered numerous environmental factors favorable to salmonids. The segmentation was determined by biologists based on shoreline physical characteristics identified through field surveys and hydrological, chemical, geomorphologic, biological, and landscape features identified from natural resource maps and reports, and a review of aerial photographs. Lake Ballinger was assigned a separate segment from the marine shoreline because of its physical separation and unique lacustrine characteristic. Detailed information about the habitat features within each segment were obtained from literature cited in this inventory, including a shoreline inventory conducted along the marine shore in 2001- 2002 (Snohomish County 2001). The marine shore inventory consisted of teams of biologists carrying global positioning system (GPS) receivers who walked along the shoreline in two tracks parallel to OHW and recorded the type and location of numerous physical and biological features within 200 feet of OHW (Table 7). This dataset provides the most comprehensive documentation of shoreline marine features, although continuing development at certain locations (e.g., the former Unocal site, the waterfront commercial district) has undoubtedly changed some conditions since 2000. Table 7. Marine Shore Inventory Habitat Features recorded for Snohomish County 2001 Location X X X X X X X X X X Material I X X X I X X Condition X X X X X X X Elevation X X X X X X Length X X X X X X X I X X Width X X X X X X X X X Diameter X Patch Size X X X Type or Species X X X Flow I I X X X Complexity X X Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 56 November 2007 Packet Pg. 730 8.2.d 7.1 Segment A—Lund's Gulch to Perrinville Creek 7.1.1 Marine Shoreland Segment A, from the northern edge of Edmonds to the mouth of Perrinville Creek, is about 7,100 feet long. The segment includes part of Lund's Creek estuary, although most of the creek and estuary is outside of Edmonds' city limits. The segment also includes Meadowdale Creek. The segment forms a broad arc along the shoreline, referred to as Browns Bay. The BNSF railroad track bed fills the transition zone between the upper intertidal zone and the a D upland slope. Along this segment, the waterward side of the railroad bed consists of a rock - armored, steep slope (about 1:1). Some of the armoring is in good condition, but a length of 0- about 4,000 feet is failing, as evidenced by deep holes in the waterward face and large rocks that a. have tumbled into the intertidal zone. At the top of the bed, the track(s) and adjacent fill width; varies between 10 and 15 feet. Throughout the segment are numerous small pipes and culverts that convey creeks and stormwater drainages under the BNSF railroad. At least 34 pipes, ranging in diameter from 4 inches to 3 feet, cross through the railroad bed and discharge into Puget Sound. Within the shoreline jurisdiction, most of Segment A is devoid of riparian vegetation, o except for about 400 feet of upland shoreline, immediately south of Lund's Creek estuary, where CO the forested ravine meets the water. The forest is separated from the intertidal beach by the railroad bed, and trees have been cleared to improve water views in front of several residences so the (lack of) riparian vegetation offers diminished value to the marine shoreline. v Near Laebugten's Wharf, the railroad bed moves inland, and an area of low bank stretches for c about 230 feet along the shoreline, waterward of the tracks. Low -growing vegetation, consisting N of grasses, forbs, and weedy shrubs, covers this "no bank" area just upland of the shoreland. Laebugten's Wharf covers about 200 square feet of intertidal habitat near the middle of L Segment A, between Lund's and Meadowdale Creeks. At the wharf, a 20-foot-wide wood ramp v crosses the shoreland and extends about 200 feet across the intertidal to the wharf, all on creosote -treated wood supports. 0 Attached to the wharf is a salmon -rearing net pen, about 20 x 20 x 12 ft in size. Since 1990, the r net pen has been used by WDFW to rear hatchery coho salmon smolts for release into Puget c Sound as a supplement to recreational and commercial fisheries. About 27,000 fish are released annually into the Edmonds Marina Boat Basin between May and June (WDFW 2006c). The Northwest Salmon and Steelheaders Council (NWSSC), Laebugten Chapter, maintains the net 0 pen, and feeds and releases the penned fish. co I* South of Laebugten's Wharf is Meadowdale Creek. The railroad fill has largely eliminated the estuary, and a culvert concentrates creek flows into a narrow band that discharges as a point in z the lower intertidal, instead of a broad arc across the upper intertidal. Consequently, this special w aquatic habitat is greatly reduced in both area and function. as South of Meadowdale Creek is a roughly 1,000-foot-long segment of shoreline that belongs to the City of Lynnwood. The property includes a sewage treatment plant and outfall. Near the 2 south end of Segment A, nine derelict wood piles were observed in the intertidal zone. a Segment A is rated as providing moderate quality habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon and bull trout. Although eelgrass is present along the nearshore, the armored and filled intertidal zone and lack of riparian vegetation within the 200-foot shoreland decrease habitat value. Lund's Creek Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 57 Packet Pg. 731 8.2.d estuary provides a small section of high quality habitat, but Meadowdale Creek's estuary has been filled by the railroad bed. Dense urban development in the upland areas adjacent to the shoreland further reduces habitat value and function along this segment. 7.1.2 Lund's Gulch Creek Lund's Gulch Creek subbasin drains an area of approximately 2.3 square miles (1,440 acres), of which only a small fraction, probably less than five percent, lies within the City of Edmonds. West of 52nd Avenue W, including the area within the City of Edmonds, the creek and its tributaries are contained within a deeply incised ravine with sloping sidewalls steeper than 40 percent. The creek and ravine are part of Meadowdale County Park. A significant part of the estuary has been filled by the BNSF railroad bed; the creek passes through a 36-inch-diameter culvert before entering Puget Sound. Shrubs and small trees on the east side of the railroad bed extend about 200 feet south of the estuary, except in front of several houses where vegetation has been cleared for unobstructed water views. Within the city limits, the ravine is mostly forested, except for a small area at the top of the hillside that contains medium -density residential housing. The upper portion of the basin is flat with drainage systems consisting of older ditch and culvert systems that lack sufficient conveyance capacity. The upper watershed, east of Edmonds, is urbanized with development consisting of medium to high -density residential development. Commercial development is also located along the Highway 99 corridor. Notable hydrologic features in the basin include a 21-acre forested wetland and a regional detention facility located upstream of 52nd Avenue (Snohomish County SWM 2002). Snohomish County SWM (Snohomish County SWM 2002) modeled hydrologic conditions for the entire Lund's Gulch Creek subbasin to determine stormwater runoff volumes that would be generated at different locations for both existing and future land use conditions. The county also modeled hydraulic conditions to evaluate the conveyance capacity of portions of Lund's Gulch Creek, as well as the primary drainage system, to determine water levels and evaluate backwater conditions that occur when downstream flow restrictions, such as an undersized culvert, cause high upstream water levels (Snohomish County SWM 2002). Geomorphologic analyses were conducted to evaluate erosion and sediment deposition problems within or affecting the study area. The geomorphologic field investigation included portions of the main stem for Lund's Gulch Creek, and detailed geomorphic analyses were also conducted to assess the stability of the stream channel and its tendency to erode and deposit sediment. The results of the studies, models, and analyses were presented in a Drainage Needs Report and appendices available through Snohomish County. The report identified 19 specific locations within the Lunds Gulch Creek subbasin with drainage problems. Most problems were related to inadequate stormwater conveyance and subsequent flooding of roads and private property outside of the creek corridor. Two undersized culverts within the creek channel were identified as blocking or restricting fish access and impounding creek flows, resulting in channel erosion and unnatural drainage patterns that further impacted the creek. The culverts were identified as Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's priority replacement projects. One section of creek was recommended for "tightlining," in which 300 feet of channel would be removed and water would be conveyed in a pipe. Although tightlining may simplify a drainage conveyance problem, it accomplishes one objective —water conveyance —by eliminating all other physical and biological functions from a creek system, resulting in practically complete habitat loss. Several other drainage erosion problems (related to flooding and erosion) that occurred on private property were not Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 58 November 2007 Packet Pg. 732 8.2.d recommended for correction because the costs were not justified by the limited scope of property damage; however, the analysis did not consider the cumulative impacts from these small-scale, but numerous and frequent sediment inputs into the creek channel. Ironically, this type of small- scale degradation, on a single -lot basis, is now recognized as the primary factor contributing to the degradation of Halls Creek. Coho and chum salmon and cutthroat trout are the predominant salmonid species that use Lund's Gulch Creek (Snohomish County SWM 2002). The creek is neither known nor presumed to support Chinook salmon, bull trout, rainbow trout, or steelhead, although one steelhead was reportedly seen in the creek in 1978 (Kerwin 2001). Lund's Gulch Creek may support a small population of resident cutthroat trout. Anadromous fish entering Lund's Gulch Creek pass through a culvert under the railroad tracks that occasionally clogs with sediment and sometimes limits access. The condition of fish habitat in the creek is fair to poor. The creek appears to have good spawning gravels in the first kilometer upstream of saltwater; however, active transport of bedload material from upstream sources and inputs of sediment likely limit egg survival in the spawning gravels. No study on the survival rate of eggs laid in these habitats was available. In addition to stream channel erosion problems, there are also side ravine sediment discharges throughout the creek. Little information regarding the salmonid population is available, except for WDFW (Pfeifer 1979, in WDFW 2003), of which all accounts are anecdotal. Coho and chum in Lund's Gulch Creek have been sighted consistently for the past decade or more, through 2001, by the park ranger. In 2001, about 100 coho and 100 chum salmon spawned in Lund's Gulch Creek. Local high schools and the Brackett's Landing Foundation are also reported to participate in off -site chum salmon rearing for release in Lund's Gulch Creek. The Brackett's Landing Foundation maintains a small hatchery in the large wetland complex at the headwaters of Lund's Gulch Creek. The Foundation rears and releases fry and smolts resulting from 10,000 chum and 500 coho eggs per year (CH2M HILL 2004). Local anglers have reported sea -run cutthroat use of Lund's Gulch Creek. The lower reaches of Lund's Gulch Creek provide a low -gradient spawning area without fish passage barriers as far upstream as 52nd Avenue W. Above 52nd Avenue W., the naturally low baseflow and moderate to steep gradient limits the area useable for salmonids and further upstream passage. In the midsection of Lund Gulch Creek, water velocity preferences for most anadromous species are exceeded due to high gradients. Historical distribution of salmon in Lund's Gulch Creek probably limited to the lower reaches. 7.1.3 Meadowdale Creek No information specific to Meadowdale Creek was found during a literature search. References to a drainage basin study of Meadowdale Creek by R.W. Beck in 1991 were reported in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2002), but no details were provided. Based on the Snohomish County marine shore inventory, USGS topographic maps, and aerial photographs, Meadowdale Creek characteristics and conditions appear to closely resemble the other short -length, deeply incised urbanized creeks that flow through the City. The outlet of Meadowdale Creek consists of a 30-inch-diameter culvert that passes under the BNSF railroad bed and discharges directly onto intertidal beach. No delta or defined estuary is present in aerial photos near the creek outlet. The gradient of the lower reaches of Meadowdale Creek closely resembles Perrinville Creek, which is moderately steep, but still allows anadromous fish passage. There are no records by WDFW of anadromous fish using the creek. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 59 November 2007 Packet Pg. 733 8.2.d 7.2 Segment B—Perrinville Creek to Southwest County Park 7.2.1 Marine Shoreland Segment B, from the mouth of Perrinville Creek to a latitude even with 176th Street SW, is about 2,100 feet long. This segment, rated as having low quality shoreline habitat for salmonids, lies between two adjacent areas of moderate quality habitat, as identified in the Edmonds Shoreline Habitat Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2001). The BNSF railroad track bed fills the transition zone between the lower intertidal zone and the upland slope. Along this segment, the waterward side of the railroad bed consists of a rock - armored slope, ranging from 20 to 30 feet high. Little of the armoring is in good condition —a length of about 1,200 feet is failing, as evidenced by deep holes in the waterward face and large rocks that have tumbled out into the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones. At the top of the bed, the double tracks and adjacent fill width is about 15 feet. Near the northern end of this segment is Perrinville Creek. The creek passes through a 36-inch- diameter concrete culvert under the railroad bed and discharges directly onto the lower intertidal, where a large delta is forming. Along the rest of the segment, five small plastic pipes, ranging in diameter from 4 to 6 inches, convey stormwater drainage under the BNSF railroad into Puget Sound. A backshore wetland is found within this segment, formed by water impounded along the railroad bed. The wetland is about 150 feet long and 35 feet wide. Moderate banks, less than 50 feet high, cover the backshore transition into upland habitat, except for a 300-feet-long section of low bank on both sides of Perrinville Creek. The upper riparian slopes along Segment A are mostly devoid of trees and other significant riparian vegetation. A narrow band of brambles and shrubs separates the rest of the shoreland from lawns and dense residential housing. Parts of the adjacent hillsides appear to have been cleared about the time of the 2002 shoreline survey. The shoreline segment is within a bald eagle breeding territory (WDFW 2006a). 7.2.2 Perrinville Creek Perrinville Creek is classified by the City of Edmonds as a Category 2 stream. The Perrinville Creek drainage basin was studied extensively in 1991 (R.W. Beck), 1998 (Pentec and Shannon & Wilson), and 2002 (Pentec Environmental). This creek closely resembles other creeks within the City, which are similar in topography, gradient, soils, vegetation, and channel modifications resulting from the railroad and surrounding urban development. The Perrinville Creek outlet is a 36-inch-diameter concrete culvert that discharges onto lower intertidal beach habitat that is heavily armored with boulders that have rolled off the BNSF railroad bed. A noticeable delta is accreting at the culvert outlet, indicating high sediment volumes are likely eroding from the upstream riparian corridor. The creek slopes moderately (less than 5 percent) for about 500 feet through residential properties west of Talbot Road. The gradient (and erosion -related problems) increases upstream of Talbot Road. Information about fish use of Perrinville Creek is limited. WDFW (1991, 2006a) reported resident cutthroat trout in the lower reaches and accessible, good quality spawning and rearing habitat in the lower and middle reaches for anadromous salmonids. Since 1994, juvenile chum salmon have been released annually in Perrinville Creek as part of a class project at Seaview Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 60 November 2007 Packet Pg. 734 8.2.d Elementary School; however, no adult returns to this stream have been reported (Pentec Environmental 2002). In general, high sediment loads and impassable fish barriers upstream of the culvert at Talbot Road have limited the use of potential spawning and rearing habitat that may be present. No bull trout have been observed in any of the drainages within the City (Pentec Environmental 2002). The lower riparian zone is within a bald eagle breeding territory (WDFW 2006a). 7.3 Segment C—Southwest County Park to Fruitdale Creek 7.3.1 Marine Shoreland Segment C, from Southwest County Park to Fruitdale Creek, is about 5,300 feet long. The segment coincides with a habitat segment assessed as moderate quality in the Edmonds Marine Shore Habitat Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2002). This segment includes one unnamed creek. Most of this segment is defined by the vertical rock wall along the BNSF railroad bed. The BNSF railroad track bed fills the transition zone between the mid -intertidal zone and the upland slope. Along this segment, the waterward side of the railroad bed consists of 3,700 feet of rock -armored, steep slope (about 1:1) and 1,600 feet of vertical rock wall, about 15 feet high. Most of the armoring is in good condition; a length of only about 200 feet is failing, as evidenced by deep holes in the waterward face and large rocks that have tumbled out into the subtidal zone. At the top of the bed, the double tracks and adjacent fill are about 15 feet wide. At the northern end of the segment is a 24-inch-diameter concrete culvert that carries stormwater flows under the railroad bed. Further south along the shoreline, a 36-inch-diameter plastic pipe also conveys stormwater flows under the railroad bed. Along the rest of the segment, ten small plastic pipes, ranging in diameter from 4 to 6 inches, convey stormwater drainage under the BNSF railroad into Puget Sound. A freshwater seep is also located along this segment. The entire segment consists of a continuous, moderately high bank that appears to have been cleared of vegetation in patches prior to the survey in 2002. Scattered trees (alder) were present along some of the slope uphill of the shoreland; however, no significant riparian tree or shrub layer was present within the shoreland. No vegetation was present from the intertidal zone to the landward edge of the railroad bed. Along the shallow subtidal zone, extensive eelgrass beds are visible in aerial photos and in maps of sonar surveys. This segment is within a bald eagle breeding territory (WDFW 2006a). 7.4 Segment D—Fruitdale Creek to Shell Creek 7.4.1 Marine Shoreland Segment D, from the mouth of Fruitdale Creek to a point south of Shell Creek, is about 3,300 feet long. This segment, rated as having moderate quality shoreline habitat for salmonids, lies between two adjacent areas of moderate quality habitat, as identified in the Edmonds Shoreline Habitat Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2001). The BNSF railroad track bed fills the transition zone between the mid -intertidal zone and the upland slope. Along this segment, the waterward side of the railroad bed consists of a rock - armored slope, ranging from 10 to 20 feet high. Most of the armoring is in good condition, with Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 61 November 2007 Packet Pg. 735 8.2.d only a short span (about 560 feet) failing, as evidenced by deep holes in the waterward face and large rocks that have tumbled into the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones. At the top of the bed, the double tracks and adjacent fill width is about 15 feet. At the northern end of the segment, Fruitdale Creek passes through a 30-inch-diameter concrete culvert under the railroad bed and discharges directly onto the lower intertidal, where a small delta has formed. A narrow backshore wetland, about 230 feet long, was formed by drainage impounded along the railroad bed. A large seep area is also located in this segment. This segment also includes Northstream Creek and Shell Creek. Low banks cover the backshore transition into upland habitat. About 1,000 feet of upper riparian slopes along Segment D contain riparian vegetation; the remainder is mostly landscaped residential yards devoid of trees and other significant riparian vegetation. No specific data on vegetation species and composition is available. A narrow band of brambles and shrubs separates the rest of the shoreland from lawns and dense residential housing. The shoreline segment is within a bald eagle breeding territory (WDFW 2006a) 7.4.2 Fruitdale Creek Fruitdale Creek is an Edmonds Category 2 stream, about 0.75 miles long, that drains 143 acres of the Talbot Park basin. Little information is available for Fruitdale Creek apart from a drainage study by URS in 1989 and a recent habitat survey (Pentec Environmental 2002). The creek outlet consists of a 30-inch-diameter concrete culvert under the BNSF railroad bed. During the 2002 survey, the culvert was about 40 percent filled with gravel. The creek channel flows through a series of pipes, incised channels, debris, and a flood -control structure. The WDFW (2006a) Priority Species database contains no fisheries information for Fruitdale Creek. An unspecified fish habitat survey conducted in 1985 (no other information available) found no fish present. A 2002 habitat survey (Pentec Environmental) verified the lack of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat in the creek and concluded current fish use of the creek was unlikely. 7.4.3 Northstream Creek Northstream Creek is classified by the City of Edmonds as a Category 2 stream that drains the 248-acre Northstream drainage basin (URS 1989). The creek is about 0.75 miles in length and drops about 400 feet in elevation from the top of the basin to the outlet, through a 24-inch- diameter culvert under the BNSF railroad bed (Pentec Environmental 2002; Snohomish County database 2001). In 1989, Northstream Creek was determined to have erosion and water capacity problems due to stormwater runoff (URS 1989). The stream channel has been confined to a narrow, concrete -lined ditch between several residential properties; all vegetation has been removed. Further upstream, the creek regains its natural channel and riparian vegetation. Information on fish use of Northstream Creek is limited. As of 2002, WDFW had not conducted fish surveys in the creek, although Pentec Environmental (2002) biologists observed fish, presumed to be cutthroat trout, downstream of an impassible fish barrier at the site of a 1920's era shingle mill water diversion structure. Residents along the creek reported that great blue heron and river otter were present in the basin. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 62 November 2007 Packet Pg. 736 8.2.d 7.4.4 Shell Creek Shell Creek is classified as a Category 2 stream by the City of Edmonds. The creek drains an 806-acre basin, which includes Hindley Creek. A significant part of the estuary has been filled by the BNSF railroad bed; the creek passes through a 36-inch-diameter culvert before entering Puget Sound, where a large delta has formed. The lower reaches of the creek are relatively undeveloped and provide good -quality shoreline habitat, including a rare Category 2 riparian wetland along the backshore. Within the shoreland, the wetland is about 100 feet wide and 230 feet long. It extends about a quarter -mile upstream from the railroad, out of the shoreland boundary. A short distance upstream of the BNSF culvert, Hindley Creek joins Shell Creek. Gradients are low in both channels and below the confluence, and spawning gravels are abundant. The middle and upper reaches of Shell and Hindley Creeks are described in detail in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2002). Both creeks pass through urbanized areas, where habitat is degraded by obstructions, culverts, riparian clearing, urban landscaping, stormwater inputs, and erosion/sedimentation. A large city park, Yost Park, protects part of the upper watershed from the impacts of dense urban development. The park includes upland forest and mature second growth riparian vegetation dominated by mature red alder trees as tall as 90 feet. The dense canopy and poorly drained soils limit the diversity of understory, which is dominated by salmonberry. Also present are red huckleberry, salal, sword fern, and elderberry, along with other shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous plants. The Yost Park red alder forest, meandering stream, and surrounding conifer forest offers critical refuge to wildlife in an increasingly urban environment (City of Edmonds 2006b). The park was originally the site of the first Edmonds community water supply; remains of dams built by the Edmonds Spring Water Company are still visible in Yost Park. Dozens of large old western red cedar stumps are found throughout the park as well as "nurse logs." As stumps and logs decay, their nutrients replenish the soil, and encourage smaller plants to grow upon them. Huckleberry, salal, salmonberry, ferns, moss, lichen and fungi all benefit from the decomposing wood in the park. Yost Park provides a habitat for numerous species of resident and migratory birds including barred owls, pileated woodpeckers, northern flickers, rufus-sided towhees, and Cooper's hawks. Black -capped chickadee, Swainson's thrush, olive -sided flycatcher, and winter wren are some of the more common small birds found in the park. Mammals include the nocturnal mountain beaver, opossum, raccoon, shrew mole, and a few types of bats. Giant pacific salamanders are sometimes found in the creek, and tree frogs can sometimes be heard singing in the wetlands surrounding the boardwalk (City of Edmonds 2006b). Although WDFW has not conducted any recent fish surveys on the Shell Creek system, biologists counted six chum salmon carcasses in the lower reach of Shell Creek during November 2002 survey, and other Pentec Environmental biologists reported seeing both coho and chum salmon spawning in lower Shell Creek in 2000 and 2001 (Pentec Environmental 2002). Resident cutthroat trout are likely distributed throughout many sections of the creek system (Pentec Environmental 2002). The state has designated lower Shell Creek as habitat for priority anadromous fish species (chum and coho salmon), and priority resident fish species (cutthroat trout). Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 63 November 2007 Packet Pg. 737 8.2.d 7.5 Segment E—Shell Creek to Edmonds Underwater Park 7.5.1 Marine Shoreland Segment E, south of Shell Creek to the Edmonds Underwater Park, is about 3,300 feet long. This segment, rated as having moderate quality shoreline habitat for salmonids, lies between adjacent areas of moderate and low quality habitat, as identified in the Edmonds Shoreline Habitat Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2001). The BNSF railroad track bed fills the transition zone between the lower intertidal zone and the upland slope. Along this segment, the waterward side of the railroad bed consists of a rock - armored slope or vertical rock bulkhead, ranging from 10 to 20 feet high. Most of the armoring is in good condition, with only a short span (about 200 feet) failing, as evidenced by deep holes in the waterward face and large rocks that have tumbled out into the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones. At the top of the bed, the double tracks and adjacent fill width is about 15 feet. Near the south end of the segment, the double tracks converge into one track, the gradient drops slightly, and the shoreline extends waterward against a large rock -armored groin. Along this segment, the bank transitions from steep high bank to moderate bank along most of the tracks, and then drops to low or no -bank slopes for the southernmost 700 feet. Along this segment are two 24-inch-diameter concrete pipes and one 24-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe that provide stormwater drainage under the BNSF railroad bed. Riparian vegetation is largely absent from Segment E. No riparian vegetation occurs between the railroad bed and adjacent shoreland along about 2,400 feet of the segment. Near the underwater park, a small area of low -growing vegetation (grasses, weeds) and a narrow band of blackberries, Scot's broom and other non-native shrubs separate the shoreland from streets, lawns, and residential housing. No streams occur in this segment. 7.6 Segment F—Edmonds Underwater Park to Port of Edmonds 7.6.1 Marine Shoreland Segment F, from the Edmonds Underwater Park to the Port of Edmonds Marina, is about 1,850 feet long. This segment, rated as having low quality shoreline habitat for salmonids, lies between two adjacent areas of low quality habitat, as identified in the Edmonds Shoreline Habitat Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2001). A Washington State Ferry terminal is in middle of this segment. The ferry car ramp and access pier is about 75 feet wide. It is supported by a combination of older creosote -treated piles and newer steel piles. Segment F is one of three marine segments whose shoreland is not defined (and filled) by the BNSF railroad bed. The shoreland transition into the upland consists of low or no bank. The upper intertidal shoreline is entirely armored with rock, wood, and concrete, except for a 250-foot section of natural beach and restored native vegetation at Brackett's Landing. About 1,300 linear feet of this segment consists of a vertical bulkhead; the remaining 250 feet is sloped rock and concrete armoring. A wood bulkhead, about 75 feet in length, projects about 25 feet into the intertidal beach area to provide parking for a commercial building. Most of the bulkheads extend into middle or lower intertidal elevations. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 64 Packet Pg. 738 8.2.d The dominant feature of this segment is the ferry terminal, which covers about 24,700 square feet over aquatic nearshore habitat (CH2M HILL 2004). In addition, support piling and associated "halos" cover about 5,868 square feet of substrate. (A "halo" refers to accumulation of shell debris at the base of a piling from barnacle shell fallout and other debris from the invertebrate community encrusting on the piling surfaces above. This forms a ring at the pile base and limits the use of the area by clams and other non -mobile benthic infauna in this zone. The calculated area assumes that the ring extends outward 18 inches from each piling around the entire perimeter.) Impacts to benthos, eelgrass, and macroalgae beds occurred when the terminal was built 50 years ago. Over time, the approach to the pier was dredged to a depth of about 40 feet. Propeller wash -caused scour eliminated a much larger footprint of eelgrass and macroalgae beds, in addition to the dredged beds. Eelgrass loss from shading, scour, and dredging was estimated to be approximately 112,033 square feet or 2.6 acres. Macroalgae losses from these same factors were estimated to be approximately 165,020 square feet or 3.8 acres. Together, this represents about 6.4 acres of historical eelgrass and macroalgae loss at the existing Edmonds ferry terminal (CH2M HILL 2004). Recently, substrate composition in the scour trough was described as rocky, incised in till, supporting a community of fish and invertebrates characteristic of rocky environments. Aquatic substrate prior to the building of the terminal was almost certainly fine to medium sand, as it is on either side of the terminal today (CH2M HILL 2004). It is likely that the eelgrass beds to the north and south of the existing terminal were once a continuous bed, although smaller ferry vessel propeller scour may have disturbed the eelgrass beds decades earlier. Little or no riparian vegetation characterizes most of the shoreland area, except for restored native vegetation mixed with ornamental landscaping at Brackett's Landing and ornamental (grass) landscaping along several commercial buildings. A 10-foot-diameter patch of invasive Japanese knotweed, observed in 2001, continues to flourish in Brackett's Landing Park. The nearshore subtidal area between the existing ferry terminal and the Port of Edmonds Marina is mostly sand. There are areas of artificial reef materials and rock at depths of -15 to -90 feet MLLW and some mixed sand/gravel at +5 to -15 feet MLLW. The marina breakwater consists of large rock riprap. A public fishing pier built on concrete piles extends beyond the breakwater. There is a band of sand/shell substrate at the base of the breakwater The area near the existing ferry terminal and Dayton Street has expansive macroalgae and eelgrass beds. Macroalgae, including Laminaria and Nereocystis, are nearly continuous from the -5-foot contour to the -60-foot MLLW contour. The area directly offshore of and including the docking area of the existing ferry terminal is conspicuously devoid of macroalgae, probably as a result of propeller -induced turbulence. Eelgrass beds are continuous from the marina to the ferry pier and from the ferry pier north through the underwater park and beyond. Depths range from about -2 feet to -20 feet MLLW. The green algae, Ulva lactuca, and the red algae, Gracilaria sjoestedtii, are also common (CH2M HILL 2004). A narrow sand and gravel beach extends north and south of the ferry terminal and provides habitat for surf smelt and sand lance spawning, according to WDFW records. Surf smelt spawn between 7 feet and MHHW and sand lance spawn between 5 feet and MHHW; these elevations comprise most of the publicly accessible beach along the Edmonds Underwater and Brackett's Landing parks. Heavy public use of these two beaches and the Edmonds Underwater Park (with over 20,000 diver visits annually) (City of Edmonds 2006c), plus strong propeller wash from the regular ferry service, probably decrease the habitat value for juvenile salmon, forage fish, Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 65 November 2007 Packet Pg. 739 8.2.d wildlife, and aquatic vegetation; however, the area is also a state -designated Marine Protected Area, which prohibits the collection or removal of plants and animals. This sanctuary is the oldest in Puget Sound, and its longevity has resulted in a succession of marine plants and animals of unusual size for Puget Sound. The Edmonds Underwater Park includes 27 acres of tide and bottom lands and was established as a marine preserve and sanctuary in 1970 (City of Edmonds 2006). The shore consists of sandy beaches recessed in two small coves to the north of the WSF pier. A jetty consisting of revetment rock juts into the water, splitting the conservation area. The primary subtidal habitat of the underwater park is a wide, sand flat gently sloping from the shore seaward. The maximum depth at the offshore extent of the park is approximately -40 feet MLLW. At the nearshore edge of the sand flats, healthy beds of eelgrass separate the intertidal zone from the deeper subtidal habitats. This habitat contains many artificial structures that attract fishes normally associated with rocky habitats (WDFW 2006b). The area within Edmonds Underwater Park is recognized as a fish haven for numerous large commercial species that face high fishing pressure in unprotected areas of Puget Sound. Exceptionally large lingcod and rockfish are associated with the park (G. Broadhurst 2005; Seattle Post-Intelligencer 2002.) Floats anchored within the park provided haulout platforms for California sea lions and harbor seals (WDFW 2006b), but they were subsequently removed to avoid conflicts with divers. In October 2004, the invasive tunicate Didemnum lahillei was identified in the Edmonds Underwater Park growing on a submerged ship hull. An eradication effort using bleach was attempted in 2005. The park continues to be monitored for reoccurrence In April 2004, gourds were installed on a group of pilings south of the Edmonds ferry dock by volunteers, with the approval of the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Director. Since the artificial nest sites were provided, martins have successfully nested in 2004 and 2005, and nesting activity has been observed recently (Lider 2006 personal communication). Along the bulkheads, five drainage pipes, ranging from 3 to 12 inches in diameter, discharge into the intertidal zone. No streams occur in this segment. 7.7 Segment G—Port of Edmonds Marina 7.7.1 Marine Shoreland Segment G consists of the Port of Edmonds Marina, Edmonds Marsh, and Shellabarger Creek. The marine portion of this segment is about 3,200 feet long. It is rated as having low quality shoreline habitat for salmonids, but Edmonds Marsh is rated as having high quality habitat, as identified in the Edmonds Shoreline Habitat Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2001). The marine segment consists of a steeply sloped rock breakwater surrounding the marina basin and a vertical concrete bulkhead along the shoreline. The shoreland consists of drives and paved parking for the marine, with a few port offices and workshops. The only vegetation in this segment consists of small strips of ornamental landscaping that line the sidewalk between the parking lot and the marina access street. The marina extends 500 feet westward into Puget Sound and is dredged to a depth of minus 13 feet (Port of Edmonds 2006). The marina breakwater extends approximately 2,400 feet from north to south along the shoreline. The marina footprint covers about 617,000 square feet of Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 66 November 2007 Packet Pg. 740 8.2.d intertidal and subtidal habitat with fill, armored breakwaters, piers, ramps, and docks. The shoreline is armored with a concrete bulkhead and backfilled to provide an area for port offices, parking, workshops, and commercial businesses. Although construction of the original marina was completed as early as 1961, most of the marina's piers, floats, and covered docks were destroyed in 1996 during a major storm. Reconstruction was completed in 1998 using concrete and steel materials (Port of Edmonds 2006). Adjacent to the marina basin is the Olympic Beach Park and Fishing Pier, which includes a developed urban park with amenities on the shoreline and a public fishing and viewing pier extending over the marina breakwater to the waterward edge of the marina. The Port property once included a fur breeding business; as of 1995, the site has been under a State cleanup order for a leaking underground storage tank that contaminated groundwater (Ecology 2006). 7.7.2 Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger and Willow Creeks Edmonds Marsh and its associated streams (Shellabarger and Willow Creeks) are part of the SMP jurisdictional shoreland area. Within this segment, Willow Creek flows parallel to the BNSF railroad tracks in a ditch, continues under the tracks and marina parking lot, and accesses the street through several hundred feet of culvert. Contrary to old maps and reports, the creek discharges subtidally at Point Edwards near the oil pier, not in the marina. Edmonds Marsh has been altered extensively by filling and creek re-channelization during the previous decades; about 22 acres remain of the original 40-acre estuarine wetland. It consists of a primarily freshwater wetland with a small area of saltmarsh along the western edge near the tide gate. The Shellabarger Creek drainage basin includes about 354 acres (Pentec Environmental 2002). A drainage study by URS (1989) identified numerous problems, including stream erosion, inadequate culvert capacity, nutrient loading from overuse of fertilizers, and oil pollution from road runoff and illegal dumping. These impacts indicate that the many ecological functions of Shellabarger Creek are impaired or subsumed by the overwhelming use of the creek as a surface water conveyance channel, with the primary function of moving excess water and contaminants off private property and into Edmonds Marsh and Puget Sound. Information on fish use of Shellabarger Creek is limited. As of 2002, WDFW had not conducted fish surveys in the creek, although resident cutthroat are likely present, and the creek is accessible to anadromous fish that use Edmonds Marsh. Steep slopes, lack of suitable spawning gravel, migration barriers (e.g., an impassible culvert at Third Avenue), lack of riparian vegetation and shade, and poor water quality probably prevent use by anadromous fish. Willow Creek, an anadromous fish -bearing Category 2 stream, drains about 343 acres within the Edmonds Way Basin (Pentec Environmental 2002). Willow Creek flows from a low -density residential area in the town of Woodway just south of the project area and above the existing Unocal property. The creek culvert runs under Pine Street near its intersection with SR 104 and flows past the Deer Creek Fish Hatchery to Edmonds Marsh. The Willow Creek riparian corridor south of Pine Street and through the Deer Creek Fish Hatchery is a narrow, shaded corridor with gently sloping banks. Vegetation along the creek includes western red cedar, red alder, bigleaf maple, and Douglas fir in the overstory; salmonberry, Indian plum, salal, and Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 67 November 2007 Packet Pg. 741 8.2.d Oregon grape in the shrub layer; and sword and lady fern, pig -a -back, bentgrass, reed canarygrass, and mannagrass in the herb layer (CH2M HILL 2004). The downstream area of Edmonds Marsh includes a channelized section of Willow Creek. The channel, as it approaches the culvert under the BNSF railroad bed, is characterized as a ditch with a bottom composed entirely of silt. The ditch passes through an area of contaminated groundwater that is presently in contact with the stream and has been for many decades. The ditch is connected to a 48-inch-diameter culvert, about 1,275 feet in length, that passes under the road, parking areas, and beach before discharging into the subtidal zone off Marina Beach Park. The existing culvert is considered a partial block to migrating adult salmon, because it is so long and its outlet is frequently blocked by sand. Gradient is not a migratory barrier, because the slope of the culvert is very low (CH2M HILL 2004). Willow Creek is known to contain coho salmon, resident and sea -run cutthroat trout, and, historically, chum salmon. Electrofishing efforts on June 28, 1995 confirmed use by coho salmon and cutthroat trout. Other fish species observed include sculpins (Cottus sp.) and three- spined stickleback (Gasterosteous aculeatus) (CH2M HILL 2004). 7.8 Segment H—Port of Edmonds Marina to Point Edwards This segment consists of the beach south of the marina breakwater to the City limits at Point Edwards, including the Unocal pier. The segment is about 1,650 feet long, of which 900 feet is the rock -armored marina breakwater. The shoreland consists of a natural -appearing sand and gravel, low -gradient beach. The backshore consists of the south breakwater rock wall, a grassy open space, a narrow parking lot, a section of BNSF railroad bed, fragments of upland vegetation (shrubs and trees) on the hillside, and a small area of naturalized shoreline with beach logs along the upper intertidal zone. North of the Unocal pier, North Marine Beach Park is designated as a marine sanctuary, where beach collecting and shellfish harvesting are prohibited. The southernmost portion of the segment, south of the Unocal pier, includes a mixed area of riparian vegetation; including shrubs and small trees, and the BNSF railroad bed. This area is South Beach Park, which features an off -leash dog area on the beach. The Point Edwards area has been surveyed extensively for several large infrastructure projects, including the Brightwater sewage treatment plant and the Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation center. The following information about this segment, including the Unocal pier, was taken from the SR 104, Edmonds Crossing FEIS (CH2M HILL 2004). The nearshore area just south in the vicinity of the Unocal pier includes a broad shallow bench to the south that is intertidal to about two-thirds of the distance to the end of the Unocal pier. Water depths drop off rapidly at that point (at about -10 feet MLLW). The intertidal area is mostly mixed gravel and small gravel, with some scattered areas of cobble and rocks. Some areas of medium sand are also present. Shallow subtidal areas are mostly sand with areas of mixed sand/gravel, sand/shell, and rock from the 8-foot contour and higher. The Edmonds Way stormwater drainage outfall (between the Unocal pier and the marina breakwater) is supported and surrounded by riprap materials. Habitat in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the Edmonds Marina Park breakwater is similar to that described for the Unocal pier, at least offshore of the zero tide elevation (MLLW). The marina breakwater is composed of large riprap boulders. Substrates are composed of sand, mixed sand and gravel, and shell fragments at depths between 0.0 and -10 feet MLLW at the foot Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 68 Packet Pg. 742 8.2.d of the breakwater. Further offshore, substrates are composed of medium to fine sand. These habitats are used by flatfish and sculpins for the most part. Eelgrass beds are small, patchy, and sparse in the vicinity of the Unocal pier (11). Macroalgae, primarily Ulva and Entermorpha species, are abundant in large patches adjacent to the Unocal pier on both sides. Geoduck clams were found in low densities in the area as a whole (<O.1/square yard) but were relatively abundant in a few restricted areas (such as between the Unocal pier and the marina breakwater (2.6/square meter)). Ten to fifteen crabs were found buried in the sand at about -10 feet MLLW. Most had soft shells, indicating that they had just molted. Hardshell clams are abundant in the intertidal and shallow subtidal areas surrounding the Unocal pier (CH2M HILL 2004). 7.9 Segment I —Lake Ballinger Little specific shoreline information is available for the Lake Ballinger Segment I. The portion of shoreline with the City of Edmonds is about 4,000 feet. The lake shoreland consists of single- family homes with docks and piers. In 2006, at least 42 docks and piers were visible in aerial photos —roughly one structure per waterfront lot. Within this segment, riparian vegetation consists almost entirely of lawns and a few scattered ornamental plantings. No other vegetation data were available along the Edmonds shoreline. Habitat value is likely low, due to the extensive shoreline alteration and the conversion of what was formerly a large wetland into a small lake and stormwater detention basin. The lake-level/stormwater control outlet structure is considered a barrier to anadromous fish, although resident fish have been stocked in the lake. Lake Ballinger is stocked with rainbow and cutthroat trout, catfish, yellow perch, and largemouth bass (City of Mountlake Terrace 2005). WDFW releases about 5,000 rainbow trout in the lake each spring for a recreational fishery (WDFW 2006c). Outside the Edmonds' city limits, the lake discharges into McAleer Creek, which has anadromous salmonid populations that travel through the Lake Washington system (WDFW 2003). Water quality studies of Lake Ballinger indicate that the lake is adversely affected by urban residential and commercial development, including increasing areas of pavement, high nutrient loading from surrounding lawns, golf courses, and gardens, and contaminant loading from roads and parking areas that are conveyed by Halls Creek into the lake. Runoff from the surrounding sub -basin carries high concentrations of nutrients into the lake, resulting in nuisance algae blooms and high biological and chemical oxygen demand, which is exacerbated by phosphorus cycling between lake water and sediment. Water quality conditions are no longer capable of supporting reproducing populations of cool -water adapted fish, although non-native warm -water adapted fish are flourishing. There are ongoing efforts by the surrounding jurisdictions, including Edmonds and the City of Mountlake Terrace, to control flooding and nutrient loading (especially phosphorous). Efforts to address water quality degradation from the 1950s to present include: transferal of homes from private septic systems to a public sewer system, stabilization of Hall Creek banks, construction of sedimentation ponds in Hall Creek, phosphorus control through alum treatment, hypolimnion "treatment" by injection of Hall Creek water and withdrawal of low -dissolved oxygen/high phosphorus lake water, and adjustments to lake inlet and outlet structures (City of Mountlake Terrace 2005, KCM 1986). Although the many water quality control efforts were initially effective, increasing urban development and population density within the Halls Creek and Lake Ballinger sub -basins have Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 69 November 2007 Packet Pg. 743 8.2.d exceeded design capacity and largely overwhelmed many of the water quality controls. For example, the sewage conveyance system initially reduced nutrient loads and fecal coliform contamination in the lake, but high density urban development has increased inputs from other non -point sources, such as animals (primarily geese, secondarily dogs and cats) and lawn runoff. The sediment control projects initially designed to limit sediment and phosphorus loading into the lake have been overwhelmed by Halls Creek sub -basin development and stormwater management within the lake. The hypolimnetic injection system, although initially successful, was found after several years to be detrimental to the lake because it relied on the quality of Halls Creek water, which had become increasingly degraded. In addition, the lack of effective lake - level management at the outlet weir also results in flooding throughout the surrounding areas of urban lawns, roads, driveways, sewer connections, and golf courses, all of which contribute nutrients, sewage, and pollutants to the lake. In terms of ecosystem function, Lake Ballinger's biological functions have been minimized or eliminated and its hydrologic and hyporheic functions maximized, resulting in a transformation from a lake into a regional stormwater detention pond that serves as an (unmaintained) collection basin for nutrients and waste. Although this functional shift is detrimental to Lake Ballinger's biology and chemistry, it likely benefits McAleer Creek and Lake Washington by retaining pollutants and controlling stormwater flows downstream. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 70 Packet Pg. 744 8.2.d 8. Shoreline Planning Reaches The shoreline segments described in the previous section were initially developed for a biological survey that focused on fisheries and related marine and freshwater habitats, using a detailed level of characterization and analysis. For the purposes of this shoreline characterization document, shoreline segments were then examined with adjacent shorelands and upland areas on a broader scale, considering zoning and land use. The shoreline segments were consolidated into four shoreline planning reaches, based on ecological similarities within a zoning and land -use context that would be useful for planning purposes (see Table 2). This section lists the ecosystem factures or functions within each reach that have been affected or impaired by land use. It also identifies opportunities for restoration within each reach. Potential restoration projects and shoreline locations are shown in Figure 13. These will be further evaluated as part of the preparation of the Edmonds Restoration Plan, a future element of the Edmonds SMP Update. 8.1 Reach 1 Biological functions or features that have been impaired in Reach 1 (Segments A through E) include: • Fish and wildlife accessibility between the marine nearshore and the terrestrial backshore: blocked by the BNSF railroad bed and restricted to a few small culverts • Nutrient transport and cycling: reduced by clearing vegetation from the backshore and bulkheading/filling of the upper intertidal zone and backshore, and further reduced by restricting the estuarine transitional area to small -diameter culverts that impound creek flows and block detritus and woody debris from moving between the ravine and the beach. • Estuarine and creek -mouth habitat area: significantly reduced, and habitat function, significantly impaired. • Marine riparian vegetation: eliminated by railroad fill or cleared for right-of-way maintenance and upland residential views. • Beach substrate composition and slope: coarsened and steepened by erosion and lack of replenishment from upland or aquatic sources. • Longshore drift: altered by in -water structures (seawalls, bulkheads, culverts, and a pier) that prevent sediment from naturally recruiting to the beach. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 71 November 2007 Packet Pg. 745 8.2.d Restoration opportunities (numbered according to Figure 13) include: 1. Replace railroad crossing over Lunds Creek with wider box culvert or trestle. 2. Enhance riparian vegetation along Lunds Creek. 3. Create an off -channel pond for fish and wildlife in lower Lunds Creek. 4. Add woody debris to off -channel pond. 5. Enhance marine riparian vegetation on lower Lunds Creek and along backshore between bluffs and BNSF railroad. 6. Conduct beach nourishment activities at Lunds Creek outlet. 7. Remove existing pier, piles, and overwater structures near Meadowdale Creek. 8. Conduct beach nourishment activities at Shell Creek outlet. 9. Replace railroad crossing over Shell Creek with trestle. 8.2 Reach 2 Biological functions or features that have been impaired in Reach 2 (Segments E and F) include: • Fish and wildlife accessibility between the marine nearshore and the terrestrial backshore: blocked by the BNSF railroad bed and urban development. • Upper intertidal and adjacent terrestrial habitat: degraded or lost due to urban development. • Nutrient transport and cycling: reduced by clearing vegetation from the backshore and bulkheading/filling of the upper intertidal zone and backshore. • Marine riparian vegetation: eliminated by railroad fill or cleared for right-of-way maintenance and upland residential views. • Longshore drift: altered by in -water structures (WSF pier and seawall, groin at Edmonds Underwater Park) that prevent sediment from naturally recruiting to the beach. Restoration opportunities (numbered according to Figure 13) include: 10. Further enhance marine riparian vegetation along Bracketts Landing Park: remove invasive species (e.g., Japanese knotweed, blackberries), and extend vegetation enhancement north to Edmonds Underwater Park parking lot and BNSF railroad. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 72 November 2007 Packet Pg. 746 8.2.d 8.3 Reach 3 Biological functions or features that have been impaired in Reach 3 (Segments F, G, and H) include: • fish and wildlife accessibility between the marine nearshore, Edmonds Marsh, and the terrestrial backshore: blocked by the BNSF railroad bed, Edmonds Marina, and commercial waterfront development, restricted to a paved corridor and culvert between Edmonds Marsh and South Marina Park. • Nutrient transport and cycling: significantly reduced by clearing vegetation from the backshore and bulkheading/filling of the upper intertidal zone and backshore, and further reduced by restricting the estuarine transitional area to a small -diameter culvert and tide gate on Willow Creek that impounds creek flows and blocks detritus and woody debris between the marsh and the beach. • Estuarine and creek -mouth habitat area: significantly altered and reduced, and habitat function, significantly impaired. • Marine riparian vegetation: eliminated by port development, commercial development, and railroad fill, and cleared for right-of-way maintenance and upland residential/commercial views. • Beach substrate composition and slope: coarsened and steepened by erosion and lack of replenishment from upland or aquatic sources. • Longshore drift: altered by in -water structures (seawalls, bulkheads, culverts, and the former Unocal pier) that prevent sediment from naturally recruiting to the beach. Restoration opportunities (numbered according to Figure 13) include: 11. Restore Willow Creek by removing most or all of the outlet culvert, planting native riparian vegetation, and addressing soil and groundwater contamination issues through ongoing site cleanup activities. 12. Remove former Unocal pier: restore marine aquatic vegetation (e.g., eelgrass and kelp) in former pier footprint. Enhance marine riparian vegetation along South Marina Park, remove non-native vegetation (e.g. grass) and replace with native vegetation. 8.4 Reach 4 Biological functions or features that have been impaired in Reach 4 (Segment I) include: hydrologic function of the lake outlet, which is currently managed as a stormwater catchbasin control hyporheic function, which has reached its capacity as a nutrient sink for nitrogen and phosphorus • nutrient transport and cycling, significantly reduced by increasing sediment and nutrient loading from watershed development, stormwater runoff, and former Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 73 November 2007 Packet Pg. 747 8.2.d septic/sewage inputs; replacing native wetland and riparian vegetation with ornamental vegetation (e.g., grass) and adding bulkheads, docks, and piers to the shoreline • lake inlet and outlet deltas, significantly altered or eliminated by control structures. • fish and wildlife accessibility between the lake and McAleer Creek, blocked by the outlet control structure. • fish and wildlife biological communities, significantly altered by habitat alteration (i.e., conversion of a wetland into a lake) and introduction of non-native species (e.g., catfish, yellow perch, and largemouth bass). • lake sediment, significantly altered by substantial sediment inputs from urban development within the Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger drainage sub -basins. Restoration opportunities (numbered according to Figure 13) include: 13. Control quantity and quality of surface water runoff entering lake. 14. Revise outlet control structure. Restoration opportunities are discussed in greater detail in a separate restoration document. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 74 November 2007 Packet Pg. 748 8.2.d 9. References Adolfson Associates. 2004. City of Des Moines Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Public Review Draft, Seattle, Washington. Bell -McKinnon, M. 2006. Lake Ballinger Total Maximum Daily Load Effectiveness Monitoring Study. Quality Assurance Project Plan. Publication No. 03-06-201. Environmental Monitoring and Trends Section, Environmental Assessment Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. BOLA Architecture + Planning. 2005. A Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds A Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds, Washington for The City of Edmonds & the Washington State office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Seattle, Washington. 39 pp. Brennan, S.J., K.F. Higgins, J.R. Cordell, and V.A. Stamatiou. 2004. Juvenile Salmon Composition, Timing, Distribution and Diet in Marine Nearshore Waters of Central Puget Sound in 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Seattle, WA. 164 pp. Broadhurst, G. 2005. Improving Existing Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound. Northwest Straits Commission. Canning, D. J. 2001. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Olympia, WA. CH2M HILL. 2004. SR 104, Edmonds Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Department of Transportation, and City of Edmonds, Bellevue, Washington. City of Edmonds. 2003. Stormwater drainages and outfalls data and map from City of Edmonds Engineering Division. City of Edmonds. 2005. General Information on City website at http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/edmonds_info.stm; accessed May, 2006. City of Edmonds. 2006a. Personal communication with Don Fiene, stormwater engineer, November 14, 2006. City of Edmonds. 2006b. Discovery Programs. Informational website at: http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/Discovery_programs_website/Yost_Park.html accessed December, 2006. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 75 November 2007 Packet Pg. 749 8.2.d 2006c. Discovery Programs. Informational website at: City of Edmonds. http://www. ci. edmonds.wa.us/Discovery_Programs%20Website/Underwater_Parlc.html Accessed May, 2006. City of Mountlake Terrace. 2005. City of Mountlake Terrace Comprehensive Plan and Appendix A. Adopted August 2003, Amended December 2004, Amended December 2005. Prepared by City Council, Planning Commission, and staff, with Reid Middleton, Inc. a D Davis, D. 2002. Don Davis, City of Lynnwood, WA. Personal communication in E telephone conversation with D. Lozano, Adolfson Associates, Inc., October 21, 2002. 0 L Downing, J. 1983. The Coast of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press. a L d Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). 2004. Edmonds Community Development Code, Chapter 15. m c Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands and Environmental L Assistance Program). 2001. Coastal Zone Atlas, scale: 1:24,000, original publication 0 mid-1970s, digitized 2001. Olympia, WA. Online at co <http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/website/coastal%SFatlas/viewer.htm>. Accessed June 4, 2006. n M Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program). 2002. Net Shore -Drift in Washington State. Online at: o <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/data.htm#driftcell>. Accessed June 16, N 2006. EDAW 2004. The City of Edmonds 2004 Best Available Science Report Preliminary Draft (Updated Draft as of November 11, 2004). v EMCON Northwest, Inc. (EMCON). 1994. Background History Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. 0 FHWA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration), WSDOT r (Washington State Department of Transportation), and Edmonds (City of Edmonds, WA). 1998. Goetz, F.A., E. Jeans, and E. Beamer. 2004. Bull Trout in the Nearshore Preliminary 0 Draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. June 2004. y Golder Associates and Parametrix, Inc. 2002. A Geoduck (Panopea abrupta) Survey for the Brightwater Marine Outfall. Prepared for King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources, Wastewater Treatment Division. x w Johannessen, J.W., MacLennan, A., and McBride, A. 2005. Inventory and Assessment of Current and Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion and Accretion Areas for the E Marine Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8 & 9. Prepared by Coastal Geologic Services. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and a Parks, Seattle, WA. Harbo, R.M. 1999. Whelks to Whales: Coastal Marine Life in the Pacific Northwest, A Field Guide. Heritage House, Victoria, Canada. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 76 Packet Pg. 750 8.2.d KCM. 1986. Restoration of Lake Ballinger Phase III Final Report. Prepared for the City of Mountlake Terrace. Prepared for City of Mountlake Terrace by KCM, Inc. and Aquatic Research Company, Inc., Seattle, WA. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar - Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division (KC DNR WTD). 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brightwater Regional Wastewater Treatment System, Seattle, Washington. Kozloff, E. 1993. Seashore Life of the North Pacific Coast. University of Washington Press. Kruckeberg, A.R. 1995. The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. Published by University of Washington Press, Seattle. Lider, S. 2006. City of Edmonds. Personal communication via email June 15, 2006, based on personal observations and reports, 1991 to present. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2006. Soil Survey Map of Snohomish County Area, Washington. http://www.or.nres.usda.gov/pnw_soil/wa_reports.html. Accessed June 3, 2006. Nightingale, B. and C. Simenstad. 2001. Dredging Activities: Marie Issues. Prepared for Washington Departments of Ecology, Transportation, and Fish and Wildlife. University of Washington. Orr, M., M. Zimmer, D. Jelinski, and M. Mews. 2005. Wrack deposition of different beach types: spatial and temporal variation in the pattern of subsidy. Ecology: Vol. 86, No. 6, pp. 1496-1507. Pentec Environmental. 2001. Edmonds Shoreline Habitat Assessment. Prepared for City of Edmonds. October 2001. Pentec Environmental. 2002. Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for the City of Edmonds. July 2002. Pentilla, D.E. 2001. Effects of shading upland vegetation on egg survival for summer spawning surf smelt on upper intertidal beaches in Puget Sound. In Proc. Puget Sound Research 2001. Seattle Audubon Society. 2006. Bird Web Puget Trough Ecoregion, Port Susan Bay and Discovery Park. Website at http://birdweb.org/birdweb/birding_site_details. aspx?id=16&ecoregion=3#birds. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 2002. Refuges around the Sound key to fish recovery. November 22, 2002. Snohomish County Marine Resources Advisory Committee. 2005-2007. Annual Report & Recommendations, August 17, 2005. 13 pp. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 77 November 2007 Packet Pg. 751 8.2.d Snohomish County. 2001. Marine Shore Inventory and Database. Prepared for Snohomish County Surface Water Management. Prepared by Landau Associates and TerraLogic GIS. Sobocinski. K.L. 2003. The Impact of Shoreline Armoring on Supratidal Beach Fauna of Central Puget Sound. Masters thesis., University of Washington. as Snohomish County Surface Water Management (SWM). 2002. Drainage Needs Report, Puget Sound Tributaries. No. 11. December 2002. CL D Striplin and Battelle. 2001. King County Marine Habitat Report. Prepared for King E County Division of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division, 0- Seattle, WA. a L d Thomas, B.E., J.M. Wilkinson, and S.S. Embrey. 1997. The Ground -Water System and Ground -Water Quality in Western Snohomish County, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 96-4312. m 5 L U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Seattle District, U.S. Environmental Protection 0 Agency Region 10, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and Washington C!? Department of Ecology. 2002. Dredged Material Evaluation and Disposal Procedures: n A Users Manual for the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Program. Online publication at: http://www.nws.usace. army.mil/publicmenu/Attachments/040226%20UM I .pdf February 2000 (updated with 2003 COC table). N U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2000. Reconstructed Trends National Synthesis Study. as United States Geological Survey. Accessed online October, 2006, at http://tx.usgs.gov/coreing/ c� URS. 1989. Edmonds Drainage Basin StudiesShellabarger, Five Corners, North Stream, Talbot Park Basins. Prepared for City of Edmonds, Washington, Community Services c Department, by URS Corporation, Seattle, WA. Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (WDAHP). 2006. WISAARD online database for City of Edmonds at <http://www.oahp.wa.gov/pages/wisaardIntro.htm>. Accessed May 1996. Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2004. Division of Geology and 0 co Earth Resources Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County, Washington, by Stephen P. Palmer, Sammantha L. Magsino, James L. Poelstra, Eric L. Bilderback, Derek S. Folger, and Rebecca A. Niggemann, Division of Geology and Earth x Resources. Scale 1:100,000, September 2004. w Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2005. Digital 1: 1 00,000-scale c E Geology of Washington State, Open File Report 2005-3, Version 1.0, by Washington 0 Division of Geology and Earth Resources staff. a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP). Laebugton Net Pen Coho Program. Updated March 17, 2003. Online at: <http://wdfw.wa. gov/hat/hgmp/pdf/puget_sound/coho/laebugtonnetpencoho2.pdf> Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization November 2007 Page 78 Packet Pg. 752 8.2.d Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006a. Priority Habitats and Species Report, Priority Resident and Anadromous Fish Presence Report from the StreamNet Database, Seabird Colonies Report, and Sea Lion Haulout Site Report, in the vicinity of T27R04E Section 8, T27R04E Section 28, and T27R03E Section 25. Report dated October 13, 2006. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006b. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) within Puget Sound. MPA 6. Website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/mpa/puget_sound/ 06.htm Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006c. Hatchery Trout Stocking Plan for Washington Lakes and Streams. WDFW Fish Program, Fish Management Division. Olympia, WA. 38 pp. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2006. Historical Climate Information, Climate of Washington Summary. National Data Climatic Center data. Online at <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/WASHINGTON.htm>. Accessed May 2006. Wiles, G. J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp. Williams, G.D. and R.M. Thom. (2001). Marine and estuarine shoreline modification issues. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Online at <http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/finalsl.pdf5. H:\DOC\27pl\06\002 Edmonds SMPU\Reports and Deliverables\Inventory\Final November 2007\EdmondsSMPUFinalInvCharNov07. doc Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 79 November 2007 Packet Pg. 753 8.2.d Appendix A Data Gaps Table Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 80 November 2007 Packet Pg. 754 EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Data Gaps Table Dec-06 WAC Requirement 7 - 26-201 ( C) Corresponding Data Set Layer Name Area Data Source Data Gap i Shoreline and adjacent existing land use patterns Existing Land Use LandUse Marine Shoreline & Lk. Ballinger Snohomish County Assessor Existing Land Use landuse City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Future Land Use zoning City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Extent of Existing Structures Bulk heads Armorin In Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Not inventoried for Lk Ballinger Levees Not Applicable Piers and docks Lk Ballinger ? Unknown pier _doc_In Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Boat launches boatlaunch Marine Shoreline & Lk. Ballinger IAC? ramp_lau_In Marine Shoreline Snohomish County ramp_lau_pt Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Pipes, outlets pipe_pt Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Lk Ballinger Other structures other pt Marine Shoreline Snohomish County City Outfalls city_outfalls Marine Shoreline City of Edmonds Lk Ballinger Building footprints Aerial Photo Marine Shoreline & Lk. Ballinger City of Edmonds Impervious Surfaces Impervious surfaces Iandcover01 Marine Shoreline & Lk. Ballinger Snohomish County Vegetation Aerial photography Aerial Photo City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Page 1 12/14/2006 datagaptableupdate Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (1379 : Shoreline Master Program Update) co N a WAC Requirement 173- 26-201 ( C) Corresponding Data Set Layer Name Area Data Source Data Gap Riparian vegetation pds_lake Lk Ballinger Snohomish County Unknown pds_marine Marine Shoreline Snohomish County riparian_ln Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Shoreline Modifications Armoring Armoring In Marine Shoreline Dikes, revetmens, levees Not Applicable Groins other pt Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Shoreline Use Patterns - water dependant, water oriented, non- water oriented Existing Land Use LandUse Marine Shoreline & Lk. Ballinger Snohomish County Assessor Pipes, outlets, outfalls pipe_pt Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Lk Ballinger Shoreline Transportation and Utility Facilities Roads roads City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Railroads rail City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Pipe, outlets pipe_pt Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Lk Ballinger City Outfalls city_outfalls Marine Shoreline City of Edmonds Lk Ballinger (ii) Critical Areas Wetlands wetlands nwi City of Edmonds National Wetland Inventor backshor_In Marine Shoreline Snohomish County stream_o Marine Shoreline Snohomish County wetlands_edaw City of Edmonds City of Edmonds edmonds_wetlands City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Aquifer Recharge Areas aquifer recharge areas Solesource City of Edmonds Snohomish County Crop City of Edmonds Snohomish County Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas jCoho Streamnet City of Edmonds Streamnet Page 2 12/14/2006 datagaptableupdate Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (1379 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO N a WAC Requirement 173- 26-201 ( C) Corresponding Data Set Layer Name Area Data Source Data Gap Bulltrout bulltrout City of Edmonds Snohomish County Sockeye Streamnet City of Edmonds Streamnet Chinook Chinook City of Edmonds Snohomish County Priority habitats and species phspoly City of Edmonds WDFW h rtg pts City of Edmonds WDFW & DNR - Natural Heritage Kelp and eelgrass beds fkelplin Marine Shoreline Snohomish Count kelpin Marine Shoreline Snohomish County nkelplin Marine Shoreline Snohomish County eelpoly Marine Shoreline Snohomish County vegetation Marine Shoreline King County Brightwater FEIS Forage fish (herring & smelt spawning areas) ff_pts Marine Shoreline Snohomish County smelt Marine Shoreline MRS sandlanz Marine Shoreline MRS Commercial and recreational shellfish areas growingareas Marine Shoreline MRS crab Marine Shoreline MRS eoduck Marine Shoreline MRS shrmppan Marine Shoreline MRS clamhard Marine Shoreline MRS Geologically Hazardous Areas Erosion Hazard Areas erosion hazard City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Landslide hazard areas landslide_ hazard City of Edmonds City of Edmonds steep_slope City of Edmonds City of Edmonds soil slope City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Volcanic hazard areas IGPKHAZ City of Edmonds Snohomish Count Soil Liquifaction Areas Isoilliquifaction ICity of Edmonds ICity of Edmonds Page 3 12/14/2006 datagaptableupdate Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (1379 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO N a m 0 X CD rt cQ v U1 00 WAC Requirement 173- Corresponding Data 26-201 ( C) Set Layer Name Area Data Source Data Gap Eroding shorelines / feeder bluffs banksurvey_ln Marine Shoreline Snohomish County driftcells Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Geology geology geology City of Edmonds Washington DNR Soils Soils soils City of Edmonds NRCS SSURGO King County Brightwater Substrate Substrate substrate Marine Shoreline FEIS Frequency Flooded FEMA floodways and Areas floodplain FEMA_flood City of Edmonds Snohomish County ESA Corridors Chinook Chinook City of Edmonds Snohomish County pentec City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Shorelines of Statewide Significance SMMP Maps Shorla City of Edmonds Snohomish County (III) Degraded reas and Sites with Potential for Restoration (iv) Areas of Special Designated Marine Interest Protected Areas Marine Shoreline City of Edmonds Priority habitats and species phspoly City of Edmonds WDFW Priority Habitats priority marine resources Marine Shoreline Snohomish County h rtg pts City of Edmonds WDFW parcels parcels City of Edmonds Snohomish County Rapidly Developing Waterfrongs, Clearing and Grading, Bulkheads, Intrusive Development on Priority Habitats, Conversion of Harbor Areas to Nonwater- oriented Uses I bulk heads armoring_ln Marine Shoreline ISnohornish Count Page 4 12/14/2006 datagaptableupdate Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (1379 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO N a WAC Requirement 173- Corresponding Data 26-201 ( C) Set Layer Name Area Data Source Data Gap pier _doc_In Marine Shoreline Snohomish County dock Lk Ballinger Snohomish County Aerial Photography aerial photography City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Existing land use LandUse City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Hazard Waste Sites Unknown Previously Identified Toxic or Hazardous Eroding shorelines / Material Clean-up Sites feeder bluffs driftcells Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Lk Ballinger Eroding Shorelines banksurvey_ln Marine Shoreline Snohomish County Lk Ballinger Existing land use LandUse City of Edmonds City of Edmonds (v) Conditions and Regulations in Shoreland and Adjacent Areas that Affect Shorelines, such as Surface Water Management and Land Use Regulations Zoning zonin _coe City of Edmonds City of Edmonds culverts fishbarrier City of Edmonds City of Edmonds parcels parcels City of Edmonds Snohomish County Adjacent Lands/Contributing Drainage Basin Assessment Drainage Basins esa_basins City of Edmonds Snohomish County Landcover Iandcover01 City of Edmonds Snohomish County Current shoreline jurisdiction Shorla City of Edmonds Snohomish County Potential shoreline Shoreline Jurisdiction jurisdiction broad jurisdiction City of Edmonds Snohomish Count street centerlines roads City of Edmonds City of Edmonds (vi) Existing and Potential Shoreline Access Sites city parks City of Edmonds City of Edmonds public lands mpl City of Edmonds WA DNR boat launches ramp_lau_pt Marine Shoreline Snohomish Count boatlaunch City of Edmonds IAC? Page 5 12/14/2006 datagaptableupdate Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (1379 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO N a WAC Requirement 173- Corresponding Data 26-201 ( C) Set Layer Name Area Data Source Data Gap Channel Migration Zones for Streams within Floodplains FEMA flood City of Edmonds Snohomish County the City (vii) General Location of Channel Migration The Information in this Zones and Floodplains Not Mapped Not Mapped City of Edmonds Not Mapped column (viii) Gaps in Existing Availability of Historic Information Aerial Photography aerial photography City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Photos unknown (ix) For Rapidly Developing Shorelines, Historical and Aerial Photographs may be Necessary to Document Past Conditions to Assist in Preparing an Analysis of Cumulative Impacts unknown as to of Development archaeology maps I Not digitally mapped Cit of Edmonds Unknown larchaeology data (x) Archaeological or Historic Resources in Shoreline Jurisdiction Page 6 12/14/2006 datagaptableupdate Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (1379 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO N a 8.2.d Appendix B Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Shoreline Segments & Planning Reaches Figure 3: Zoning Figure 4: Elements of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas Map Figure 5: Geology & Drift Cells Figure 6: Shoreline Modifications Figure 7: Existing Land Use Figure 8: Soils, Sediment, and Substrate Figure 9: Geologically Hazardous Areas Figure 10: Soil Liquefaction Areas Figure 11: Biological Resources Figure 12: Kelp & Eelgrass Resources Figure 13: Potential Restoration Projects Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Page 81 November 2007 d a D E M L 0 L a L 0 m c 5D L 0 z CO rn CO) Packet Pg. 761 r r r - J 0 1.5- _ 3 N Miles /0'"� I Edmonds I I I Point -- -- -- E- -- -ards ---- ------- dwy x_ i 4` Woodway-' _ I I _ F Point Wells • T w �I Legend City of Edmonds Boundary Other Jurisdictions Major Road Railroad Snohomish/King County Boundary LkA:� i'Ll i {I` Mukilteo I L 3 C Everett �17NOW Seattle Lake 1!�Washingto �0V- FDA O City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE 0 p "MOMMA Packet Pg. 762 8.2.d Legend Shoreline Planning Reaches � of ED yj0 • Planning Segment Break OONi Major Road Reach 1 004S,o Planning Segment Street Reach 2 V°r Edmonds City Limits Railroad Reach 3 ... DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Stream Reach 4 City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Packet Pg. 763 L u_n-d� LL "- - 7 R PI W� 22 Th St S i " "5 i 1,� 04_ . Lake - �. t, Reach 4U + Ballinger Reach 1 ,o a St SW ----------------- ----- — --- ------- , I2A4h St SW Lake Ballinger Insetk i 0 0.5 1 4 ��' CO) N Miles _ F T d F Q J N s _ODOD . ,North?sere�ek _ v 1 Reach 2 , i CO) x #' Sh 555 w � m Reach 3 ■ 0�, ---- -- ---- -- t w t � a 3 99 T Z -�•• -Creek Legend RS-6 RM-3♦�� BD1 BP CW Reach Breaks RS-8 RM-2.4 I�� BD2 :::: ' BN ® MP1 Overwater Structure RS-10 RM-1.5 *aTkO BD3 (�O FVMU MP2 Edmonds City Limits City of Edmonds \\\N RS-12 :, _ �� RM-EW 41♦�♦i BD4 — BC — MU Major Road ,� Railroad Shoreline Master Plan Updat( „�f, RSW-12 �� BD5 ., _ �� BC-EW P Street ( RS-20 4p OR CG OS Stream x RS-MP CG2 • _ x Packet Pg. 764 8.2.d N 0 0.25 0.5 Bn a and' I I Rood _ 00 1 Miles N. �Gj. �l kr I l d. I' 47- 104' Legend Potential Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Streams (Riparian Habitat Areas) Areas With Potential Wetlands � Edmonds City Limits /\/ Roads a OF EDP O� � � O C. I g9� City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE rrum cumunub Ordinance Map Figure i Packet Pg. 765 8.2.d Legend Geology Unit 410 Qa - alluvium Drift Cells DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction - Qc(w) - continental sedimentary deposits or rocks . Drift Cell End Point ' ' •.: Edmonds City Limits ' Qcg - continental sedimentary deposits or rocks, conglomerate ^i Major Road Of -artificial fill, including modified land Shore Drift Patterns Street �� SN-2 - South to Northam Railroad Qga - advance continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age SN-2/SN-3- No Appreciable �� County Boundary - Qgo - continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age Net Shore Drift �i Stream Qgt - continental glacial till, Fraser -age SN-3 -south to North Water Bodies Qgu -glacial drift, undivided Segment • k Brea Over/In Water Structure - Qls - mass -wasting deposits, mostly landslides OF EDP O +d City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Data Sources: Geology 1:100,000, Washington DNR 2005 - *Geology data is provisional pending updated data. Drift Cells: Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (Created 2002, based on 1991 data) Packet Pg. 766 8.2.d i r Lake � r rl .i • r J-` , r ' a Ballinger �+ ' 1 "y 'L •• 11 • � p p + Pe MTh St SW McAleer F r' 0 0.5 1 I i I Miles r r N �r r r ~�ilc > pl> Northstre .�e/r Cr Puaer t r ��'•� Hindley,' r` rr M a pers t - � Z r N r > fflI,� L I �7 !/� • - Cr e a e� �� -- Shellabo Fir: r9 — f > L i ................. M j N .... T i l~ Legend Shoreline Armoring Ow*#*o Sloped, Rock ^O Vertical, Concrete ONO Vertical, Rock ^/ Vertical, Wood • City Outfall Over/In-Water Structure DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Edmonds City Limits County Boundary ........... n o A -a E L 0 0 F a L 1.-CFT-TFTT:j ;1E�A � 1 OF EDP O �d Major Road U Street �r Railroad Stream ti Water Bodies City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Data Sources: Over/In Water Structures, Snohomish County Shoreline Inventory (2002), aerial photos digitizing (2006) Shoreline Armoring, Snohomish County Shoreline Inventory (2002) Outfall Locations, City of Edmonds 2003 (Data only includes City of Edmonds drainage pipes) Packet Pg. 767 8.2.d 70 7 o,V 228Th St SW I L H 104 Lake i 1 E i Reach 4 i r i it Ballinger St SW N 244�j� St 0 L N Reach 3 N Lake Ballinger Inset 0.5 Miles 1 i - i i r i i r i r' r if r' Y rr Lynwood Sewage Treatment Area o �. •`-- okkaa/e— 1 [•r rY_-- 7 X a ,ter C Reach 1 E Cn co`Od L r' C Northstl-, 00 X.'4asper Puget DrHindley- s St crpo z Reach'2 .' - > qj Q r a� � a Main St N L ek 7 �•} 41 Shel%di-.-. Q ............. > 1 �0 LO � +� { .- ..Creek Legend Commercial — Industrial - Manufacturing Institutional Mixed Use Natural Resource Production Parks — Residential - Mobile Home Residential - Multi -Family U) s F- rn Residential - Single Family Right -of -Way Undeveloped Unknown Utility/Transportation Water Bodies Designated Marine Protected Area • Planning Reach Break DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction ,,. Edmonds City Limits Major Road Street Railroad "N-i Stream Water Bodies Over/In Water Structure 1961 OF ED& C>Al L City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Packet Pg. 768 8.2.d Legend Soil Unit Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 8 % slopes - McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0 to 8 % sl Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes - Mukilteo muck Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 % slopes - Pits Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 % sl. - Urban land Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8% slopes Shoreline Substrate Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 % slopes O Mixed Coarse Custer fine sandy loam O Mixed Coarse with Eelgrass Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 % slopes • Mixed Coarse with Kelp Everett gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 % slopes O Sand Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 % slopes Sand with Eelgrass tidal , Fluva uents q •Sand with Kelp Kitsap silt loam, 0 to 8 % slopes • Sand with Kelp & Eelgrass - Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 % slopes Q Wood Debris Data Sources: Soils, NRCS SSURGO 2005 Substrate, King County Brightwater FEIS 2003. DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Edmonds City Limits �.� County Boundary Major Road �i Street Railroad �i Stream Water Bodies Over/In Water Structure OF EDAI O �d T City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Packet Pg. 769 8.2.d Legend Edmonds City Limits ' - _: DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Major Road Street Railroad 10ft Contour I—'\ _, 20ft Contour '—� Stream '^emu County Boundary Landslide Hazard Erosion Hazard Steep Slope OF EDAI O �d G cP u11�yC', g90 City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Data Sources: loft Contours, Landslide Areas, Steep Slopes, Erosion Hazards - City of Edmonds (2006) Packet Pg. 770 8.2.d Legend Liquefaction Hazard High Moderate Water Over/In-Water Structure DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction • ,•; Edmonds City Limits Major Road Street Railroad Stream County Boundary City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Data Sources: Soil Liquefaction Areas, City of Edmonds 2006 Packet Pg. 771 8.2.d Legend i Seabird Colony WDFW Haulout Location • Important Wildlife Resource ^ Surf Smelt Spawning Area Sand Lance Spawning Area Bald Eagle Territory Dungeness Crab Geoduck Over/In-Water Structure Wetland Designated Marine Protected Area DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Edmonds City Limits Major Road Street ' Railroad Stream ' . County Boundary City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Chinook salmon and bull trout distribution extends along entire Edmonds shoreline. Federally designated critical habitat extends along the marine shoreline from extreme high water to -30 m mean lower low water. Federally designated bull trout critical habitat extends from mean higher high water to -10 m lower low water. Seabird colony, bald eagle breeding territory, surf smelt and sand lance spawning areas, seal and sea lion haulout, Dungeness crab, geoduck, and wetlands from Priority Habitats and Species database, WDFW 2003. Packet Pg. 772 8.2.d Legend �r• Continuous Kelp Patchy Kelp *"%1.o Continuous Eelgrass Patchy Eelgrass Sparse Eelgrass 0 Moderate Eelgrass • Dense Eelgrass • Kelp Kelp (No Sonar Data Collected) Kelp & Eelgrass Over/In-Water Structure ' DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Edmonds City Limits Major Road m a D E M L CD O L a L d C� C L O N M n Op EDP 0 Street Railroad u11�yC', Stream ' County Boundary City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Polyline Eelgrass and Kelp from WDNR ShoreZone Inventory 2001. Polygon Eelgrass and Kelp from King County Brightwater FEIS 2001. Packet Pg. 773 8.2.d Legend • City Outfall (�:D Over/In Water Structure Street Shoreline Armoring ._- DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Railroad Sloped Edmonds City Limits �� Stream ^/ Vertical Major Road Water Bodies 80o°°01 ° Beach Nourishment J ! I New Crossing Riparian Vegetation 000 °o ` (wider box culvert or trestle) OOff -Channel Pond _ Woody Debris Data Sources: Over/In Water Structures, Snohomish County Shoreline Inventory (2002), aerial photos digitizing (2006) Shoreline Armoring, Snohomish County Shoreline Inventory (2002) Outfall Locations, City of Edmonds 2003 (Data only includes City of Edmonds drainage pipes) 4 of EDP O City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Packet Pg. 774 i rA01+ Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Shoreline Restoration Plan (1379 : Shoreline Master Program Update) F0 N M 8.2.e Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2 Restoration Planning Requirements................................................................................................ 3 Definitionof Restoration................................................................................................................ 3 RestorationApproach..................................................................................................................... 4 RestorationVision Statement......................................................................................................... 6 Restoration Goals, Policies, and Objectives................................................................................... 7 RestorationOpportunities............................................................................................................. 12 Existingand Ongoing Programs 19 d M Restoration Strategies................................................................................................................... 26 0. Project Evaluation......................................................................................................................... 29 E Monitoring and Adaptive Management........................................................................................ 31 Uncertainty 32 a' Potential Funding Sources............................................................................................................ 33 a L Restoration Glossa Glossary ..................................................................................................................... 40 d N Resource Links and References.................................................................................................... 42 as c 2 L O t Co M 1 Packet Pg. 776 8.2.e Introduction This restoration plan has been prepared in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines direct local government review and updates of shoreline master programs (SMPs). A significant feature of the Guidelines is the requirement that local governments include within their SMPs a "real and meaningful" strategy to address restoration of shorelines (WAC 173-26-186(8)). The Guidelines emphasize that any development must achieve no net loss of ecological functions. The Guidelines go on to require a goal of using restoration to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources and make "planning for and fostering restoration" an obligation of local government. From WAC 173-26-201(2)(c): Master programs shall also include policies that promote restoration of ecological functions, as provided in WAC 173-26-201(2)(f), where such functions are found to have been impaired based on analysis described in WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(i). It is intended that local government, through the master program, along with other regulatory and non - regulatory programs, contribute to restoration by planning for and fostering restoration and that such restoration occur through a combination of public and private programs and actions. Local government should identify restoration opportunities through the shoreline inventory process and authorize, coordinate and facilitate appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects within their master programs. The goal of this effort is master programs which include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area of each city and county. [Emphasis added] WAC 173-26-2012(f) states further that "...master programs provisions should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program." For guidance on preparation of a Restoration Plan, the City of Edmonds (City) looked to WAC 173-26-186, WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) and (f) and Restoration Planning and the 2003 Shoreline Management Guidelines, an Ecology report, as well as Systematic Approach to Coastal Ecosystem Restoration, developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Diefenderfer 2003), in addition to other resources listed at the end of this chapter. Restoration planning should be focused on tools such as economic incentives, broad funding sources such as Salmon Restoration Funding and Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) habitat restoration programs, volunteer programs, and other strategies. Furthermore, because restoration planning must reflect the individual conditions of a shoreline, restoration planning provisions contained in the Guidelines expressly note that a restoration plan will vary based on: • Size of jurisdiction • Extent and condition of shorelines • Availability of grants, volunteer programs, other tools • The nature of the ecological functions to be addressed 2 Packet Pg. 777 8.2.e Restoration Planning Requirements The Guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)) state that SMP restoration plans shall consider and address the following subjects: i. Identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with potential for restoration; ii. Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and impaired ecological functions; iii. Identify existing and ongoing projects and programs that are currently being implemented, or are reasonably assured of being implemented (based on an evaluation of funding likely in the foreseeable future), which are designed to contribute to local restoration goals; iv. Identify additional projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration goals, and implementation strategies including identifying prospective funding sources for those projects and programs; v. Identify timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and programs and achieving local restoration goals; vi. Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs will be implemented according to plans and to appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals. These requirements are intended to provide the framework to restore impacted, altered or missing ecological functions resulting from past development of the shoreline. Restoration planning is not intended to directly mitigate past or future development impacts on the City's shorelines. Restoration is intended to improve overall environmental conditions unrelated to upcoming projects planned in the shoreline environment. Nonetheless, restoration projects may leverage opportunities that result from development, and restoration planning needs be aware of projects and programs so as to not duplicate efforts or potentially waste valuable resources. Definition of Restoration The term restoration has a number of definitions, all of which share similar ideas. They often refer to the return of an area to a previous condition by improving the biological structure and function (Diefenderfer 2003). Examples of definitions of restoration put forth by various authors and agencies include: bringing back a former, normal, or unimpaired state; a return to a previously existing natural condition; reestablishing vegetation; and returning a damaged ecosystem to its pre -disturbed state. The Guidelines state that: "Restore," "restoration," or "ecological restoration" means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including but not limited to revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre - European settlement conditions. Packet Pg. 778 8.2.e The Society of Wetland Scientists (2000) defines wetland restoration, which is similar to shoreline restoration, as actions taken in a converted or degraded natural wetland (read "shoreline") that result in the reestablishment of ecological processes, functions, and biotic/abiotic linkages and lead to a persistent, resilient system integrated within its landscape. In an effort to be clear and consistent in the discussion of restoration, five key elements of the concept of restoration are adopted from the Society of Wetland Scientists: 1. Restoration is the reinstatement of driving ecological processes. 2. Restoration should be integrated with the surrounding landscape. 3. The goal of restoration is a persistent, resilient system. 4. Restoration should generally result in movement toward the historic (pre -contact) type of environment but may not always result in the historic biological community and structure. 5. Restoration planning should include the development of structural and functional objectives and performance standards for measuring achievement of the objectives. In this SMP, restoration is used broadly to include conservation and enhancement actions. Conservation is different from restoration as described above in that it protects areas relatively free of degradation. Enhancement, which improves shoreline functions, but may not result in restoration of underlying process, may be more viable than restoration in some instances. Restoration Approach A systematic approach to restoration planning, implementation, and monitoring increases the accessibility of the plan and increases the long-term usability of the restoration framework. The five components of a systematic approach to a restoration project are planning, implementation, performance assessment, adaptive management, and dissemination of results (Diefenderfer 2003). 4 Packet Pg. 779 8.2.e Planning implementation Performance Asses_%ment Adaptive Management Dissemination of Results Figure 1. Five components of a coastal restoration project (Diefenderfer 2003) NOAA's Systematic Approach to Coastal Ecosystem Restoration is a usable guidance tool for each of these five components and states: "The planning process starts with a vision, a description of the ecosystem and landscape, and goals. A conceptual model and planning objectives are developed, a site is selected, and numerical models contribute to preliminary designs as needed. Performance criteria and reference sites are selected and the monitoring program is designed. Cost analysis involves budgeting, scheduling, and financing. Finally, documentation is peer reviewed prior to making construction plans and final costing" (Diefenderfer 2003). This restoration plan should be considered within this overall framework. The restoration chapter is designed to meet the requirements for restoration planning outlined in the Guidelines, in which restoration planning is an integrated component of SMPs that include inventorying shoreline conditions and regulation of shoreline development. The restoration plan builds on the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Update Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Shoreline Inventory and Characterization) report (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2006), which provides a comprehensive inventory and analysis of shoreline conditions in Edmonds, including rating specific functions and processes of each shoreline segment. The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report documents baseline environmental conditions in the City's shoreline jurisdiction. This restoration plan provides a vision for ecological restoration, and includes goals, policies, objectives, and opportunities. It also establishes strategies for implementation, including recognition of existing and ongoing programs, and it provides a framework for long-term monitoring of shoreline restoration and shoreline conditions. While this restoration plan includes broad objectives, specific implementation measures, budgets, schedules, and individual monitoring programs will be needed for individual restoration projects as they occur. Packet Pg. 780 8.2.e To ensure that restoration goals are being achieved, it is important for the City to evaluate the performance effectiveness of this plan and to adapt to changing conditions. At a minimum, this restoration plan (as well as the entire SMP) will be reevaluated according to the schedule adopted by the state Legislature. The City will conduct reevaluation of the success of the SMP and its restoration goals consistent with the comprehensive plan update schedule. At times of reevaluation, the inventory conditions and restoration metrics will be considered in comparison to the 2002-2006 conditions reviewed for this SMP. Updates to inventory information and the results of reevaluation processes will be disseminated to other restoration planning agencies to facilitate regional monitoring of environmental conditions. Adaptive management is the process of continually improving management policies and practices to respond to results. Shoreline planning and restoration is an iterative process. As data are gathered and compared to past years' data, one will be able to come to a clearer understanding of environmental processes and stressors. As understanding increases, the City will have the opportunity to adjust policies, regulations and restoration priorities to adapt to changes in conditions and information. At a minimum, the City will take corrective actions if the mandate of no net loss of shoreline ecological resources is not being met. Restoration Vision Statement The vision statement establishes the overarching idea of the future restored ecosystem and provides a basis for the framework, including the restoration goals and objectives. This vision statement seeks to make clear the intent of addressing ecological restoration: • The Edmonds shoreline landscape and the ecosystem that makes use of the coastal habitat are community assets to be restored, protected, and preserved for the common good. • The Edmonds shoreline ecosystem is an integral part of the Puget Sound ecosystem and should be managed in concert with the ecosystem goals in the Puget Sound Management Plan (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team 2001). • All citizens are entitled to ready access to waters whose condition support high quality recreation and high quality habitat providing for a diverse population of marine life. • Puget Sound is an important resource that supports a variety of economic activities from tourism to navigation to commercial fishing. • The restoration plan seeks to maintain and protect existing functions and processes of the Edmonds shoreline ecosystem, where possible. • The restoration plan looks for opportunities to restore and enhance functions and processes of the Edmonds shoreline ecosystem, where possible. Packet Pg. 781 8.2.e • The restoration plan seeks to evaluate potential restoration projects on best available science. • The restoration plan adopts an adaptive management approach to implementation, funding, and evaluation. Restoration Goals, Policies, and Objectives For restoration, the City's SMP identifies three goals for restoring the Edmonds shoreline: 1. Improve water quality. 2. Restore degraded and lost habitat and corridors to improve ecological functions. 3. Improve connectivity of the shoreline environments in terms of both space and time. The SMP also identifies 13 polices for restoring the Edmonds shoreline: 1. Protect and/or restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat and habitat -forming processes. 2. Protect and restore wetland and restore salt marsh habitat to improve shoreline ecological functions. 3. Remove intertidal fill; restore beach deposits and processes and ecological functions. 4. Remove/replace creosote -treated logs, pilings, and debris. 5. Increase availability of large woody debris and opportunities for recruitment in the nearshore zone. 6. Protect and restore native species of vegetation, fish, and wildlife. 7. Remove or improve fish- and wildlife -passage barriers. 8. Manage and treat stormwater to improve water quality, decrease peak flow events, and increase implementation of low impact development (LID) practices. 9. Protect naturally eroding bluffs and associated ecological functions. 10. Protect and restore wildlife corridors. 11. Ensure that shoreline restoration projects do not degrade critical areas and water quality. 12. Establish incentives that could provide opportunities for new development to restore impaired shoreline ecological functions. Packet Pg. 782 8.2.e 13. Work with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to encourage nearshore restoration projects on the railroad right-of-way. While these goals and policies identify the direction of needed improvements, objectives identify specific actions —ideally measurable —that can be taken to achieve the stated goals. For example, to meet the goal of improving water quality, an objective would be to remove creosote pilings. Objectives that meet the restoration goals and policies of the SMP are listed in Table 1. These objectives assist with defining actions or projects to restore the natural processes and ecological functions identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization as not properly functioning. Later in this document, opportunities and strategies are identified as possible means of implementing the objectives. At this level, no measurable performance standards are applied to goals. For example, the overall goal is to improve water quality to meet the vision of a restored ecosystem, not to improve it by "X" amount. Individual restoration projects that may be implemented as part of this plan are expected to include specific measurable goals. The goals and objectives included here are developed for the Edmonds shoreline and are consistent with the recommendations in guidance from the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership (Fresh et al. 2004, Goetz et al. 2004), as well as that for nearshore habitats in the Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (WRIA 8 Steering Committee 2005), which includes Edmonds. Table 1 shows the relationships of the goals, objectives, natural processes and ecological functions. The first column shows the goals, the second column shows the objectives associated with those goals and the third column shows the natural process and ecological function that will be enhanced by completing the objectives. Objectives are found under multiple goals affecting different natural processes and ecological functions. Potential metrics for monitoring each objective are listed in the right hand column. Packet Pg. 783 8.2.e Table 1: Restoration Goals and Objectives Natural Process Restoration Goal Lik Potential Metrics Ecological Function Improve water quality Remove/replace unused Sediment Transport # creosote pilings creosote pilings; remove Toxic compound creosote beach logs Water and sediment removal quality measurements Vegetation support Protect and restore wetlands Hydrologic Processes Wetland acreage and salt marsh habitat Sediment Transport Nutrients Wetland functions Water storage Sediment storage Wetland ratings Toxic compound removal Water quality Nutrient removal measurements Manage and treat stormwater Hydrologic Processes Water quality and wastewater properly Sediment Transport measurements Nutrients Water storage Storm flows Sediment storage Toxic compound removal Nutrient removal Protect and restore native Hydrologic Processes % Impervious surface vegetation Nutrients in basin Water storage Sediment storage Acreage of vegetation Nutrient removal Toxic compound Extent of invasive removal species Water quality measurements Remove intertidal fill Sediment Transport Acreage or number of restored/remaining Water storage impaired areas Sediment storage Nutrient removal i M M a E L 0 L a L d cc a� c L 0 z Co u� z x w c m E Q Packet Pg. 784 8.2.e Table 1: Restoration Goals and Objectives Natural Process Restoration Goal Objective Potential Metrics Ecological Function Restore degraded Protect and restore native Hydrologic Processes Acreage of vegetation and lost habitat and vegetation Sediment Transport by type (riparian, corridors to improve Vegetation eelgrass, kelp) ecological functions Nutrients Habitat Degree of diversity Improve Support vegetation connectivity of the Woody debris Species supported shoreline recruitment Organic material Connectivity/areas of environments in availability isolation terms of both space Rearing habitat and time Resting habitat Extent of tree canopy Predation avoidance habitat Linear feet of Migration corridors bulkhead Food production Food delivery Extent of invasive species Protect and restore wetlands Hydrologic Processes Wetland acreage salt marsh habitat, and Sediment Transport estuarine and lagoon Vegetation Wetland functions functions Nutrients Habitat Wetland ratings Support vegetation Woody debris Connectivity/areas of recruitment isolation Organic material availability Rearing habitat Resting habitat Predation avoidance habitat Osmoregulatory adjustment Migration corridors Food production Food delivery Q 10 Packet Pg. 785 8.2.e Table 1: Restoration Goals and Objectives Natural Process es ora on Potential Metrics Ecological Function Protect naturally eroding Sediment Transport Linear feet of active bluffs, sand spits and Vegetation feeder bluff accretion land forms Habitat Support vegetation Rate of sediment Woody debris delivery to beach recruitment Organic material Acreage of vegetation availability in bluff areas Beach habitat Predation avoidance Linear feet of habitat bulkhead Migration corridors Remove intertidal fill/restore Sediment Transport Acreage or number of beach deposits and processes Vegetation restored/remaining Nutrients impaired areas Habitat Linear feet of Support vegetation Woody debris bulkhead recruitment Organic material Number of stream availability mouth migration Rearing habitat barriers removed Resting habitat Predation avoidance Shoreline habitat connectivity/areas of Migration corridors interruption Food production Food delivery Manage and treat stormwater Hydrologic Processes Water quality and wastewater properly Sediment Transport measurements Nutrients Storm flows Water storage Sediment storage Toxic compound removal Nutrient removal i 0 M a E M a� 0 a L a� 0 d c L 0 z Co Q 11 Packet Pg. 786 Restoration Opportunities This restoration plan recognizes that the Edmonds shorelines are highly altered and retain few elements that are fully functioning through natural processes. The Edmonds shoreline of Lake Ballinger is fully developed with single-family housing, yards, and docks. The Puget Sound shoreline in the City does retain large areas of functioning eelgrass and kelp beds in the littoral zone (lower intertidal to shallow subtidal elevations). Overall, however, the middle to upper intertidal zone is modified by the presence of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, the Port of Edmonds, the Washington State Ferries terminal, and the former Union Oil dock. The Edmonds Marsh is impacted and constrained by the former Union Oil development, the BNSF railroad, Harbor Square, and State Route 104. Preservation is the first priority for achieving no net loss of existing eelgrass or kelp bed function. In addition, limited opportunities for restoration of other littoral habitats do exist and, given the currently degraded nature of the City's shorelines, there is a high potential that the restoration goal of increasing shoreline habitat function can be met. Table 2 lists specific opportunities for each shoreline segment that have been identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and others that have been provided through other sources (some of these opportunities are shown geographically in Figure 13 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization). These are opportunities for restoration that correspond to the restoration goals, policies and objectives. Opportunities, listed by shoreline segment, are in the left-hand column. The second column lists the related restoration objectives. Identified restoration activities and monitoring activities, where known, are listed in the third and fourth columns, respectively. The fifth column indicates whether funding for the restoration opportunity has been secured. The sixth column provides a preliminary timeline for when work related to the restoration opportunity might take place. "Indeterminate" means that the timeline for the restoration opportunity —if work related to the opportunity occurs at all —is dependent upon other factors, and is therefore difficult to predict. "Long-term" signifies that no action plan is currently in place for a given restoration opportunity. Finally, in accordance with the Guidelines, the sixth column indicates the preliminary priority of restoration opportunities. Opportunities are designated as "high," "medium," or "low" priority. Restoration opportunities that are currently funded were designated as "high" priority. Restoration opportunities that would either meet three or more of restoration element policies, or may receive funding were designated as "medium" priority. Restoration opportunities that would either meet two or fewer restoration element policies or have no current prospect of future funding were designated as "low" priority. Regarding opportunity prioritization, controlling environmental factors (such as hydrology, water quality, sediment type, etc.) provide the foundation for habitat structures (i.e., species and their abundance), and the structure supports habitat functions (i.e., production, food support, rearing, etc.)(Thom 2003). That is, restoration of habitat functions may be ineffective if habitat structures and controlling factors are not also restored. Thom (2003) states: "There is no universally accepted method for setting priorities for nearshore sites for restoration or for determining what strategies are best applied to each site. We have found that restoration of controlling factors is the key to successful and long-term restoration." 12 Packet Pg. 787 8.2.e So, overall priority should be given to protection and restoration of natural processes that are needed to support ecosystem and habitat functions. However, where restoration of those processes is not currently feasible (e.g., sediment supply interruption by the railroad right-of-way and bulkhead), non -natural measures may be taken to enhance ecological function on a non -self sustaining basis (e.g., by artificial addition of sediments into a coastal drift cell). Table 2 is an extensive list that likely exceeds near -term funding opportunities, and yet, is not exhaustive. Additional restoration opportunities may continue to be identified through local and regional shoreline monitoring and planning actions. Further discussion of ongoing programs, implementation strategies, and project evaluation to determine appropriate priority is provided in sections following the table. As such, Table 2 is a snapshot and it is expected that actual restoration opportunities and priorities will evolve over time as restoration projects are completed and new information becomes available. The City may periodically identify additional restoration opportunities that are consistent with the objectives of this restoration chapter. 13 Packet Pg. 788 8.2.e Table 2: Restoration Opportunities Restoration Restoration Restoration Monitoring Funding Timelinel Priority Opportunity Objective Activity Activities Secured? Marine Shoreline Throughout: Enhance Expand eelgrass Restoration of Measure survival No Indeterminate/Long Medium/Low eelgrass extent/productivity eelgrass and and expansion of -term by establishing new macroalgae beds transplanted plots plots at existing ferry terminal proposed for "Edmonds Crossing" (new ferry terminal) development Lunds Gulch: Replace Protect/restore No ongoing Monitor fish usage No Long-term Medium the existing box culvert nearshore and estuary activity beneath the railroad habitat for enhanced identified with a wider box culvert coho and chum (may be out of production; decrease Edmonds' jurisdiction) sedimentation; 1* improve fish passage; decrease pedestrian contact Lunds Gulch: Enhance Protect/restore Some planting Monitor plant No Long-term Medium riparian vegetation (may stream habitat for underway by survival; control be out of Edmonds' enhanced coho local volunteers invasives jurisdiction) 2* production Lunds Gulch: Create Protect/restore No ongoing Monitor fish usage No Long-term Low an off -channel pond in lacustrine habitat for activity county park (may be out enhanced coho identified of Edmonds' production; provide jurisdiction) 3* high -flow refugia r a 14 Packet Pg. 789 8.2.e Table 2: Restoration Opportunities Restoration Restoration Restoration Monitoring Funding Timelinel Priority Opportunity Objective Activity Activities Secured? Lunds Gulch: Add Protect/restore No ongoing Monitor fish usage No Long-term Low large woody debris lacustrine habitat for activity (LWD) to off -channel enhanced coho identified pond (may be out of production Edmonds' jurisdiction) 4* Lunds Gulch: Protect and restore No ongoing Perform vegetation No Long-term Medium Enhance/restore marine native vegetation activity transects after riparian vegetation 5* waterward of railroad identified planting (1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 ears Lunds Gulch: Conduct Restore beach No ongoing Monitor sediment No Long-term Low beach nourishment deposits and activity transport and activities 6* processes; identified evolution of beach protect/restore profile; check with nearshore habitat- aerial photos after forming processes initiating activities Meadowdale Creek: Remove/replace No ongoing Inspect after No Long-term Low Acquire and remove creosote- activity removal; perform existing Meadowdale contaminated pilings; identified vegetation Marina structure 7* protect/restore transects for nearshore habitat eelgrass (1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years) Shell Creek: Conduct Restore beach No ongoing Monitor sediment No Long-term Low beach nourishment deposits and activity transport and activities at the mouth of processes; identified evolution of beach Shell Creek 8* protect/restore profile; check with nearshore habitat- aerial photos after formin rocesses initiating activities Shell Creek: Replace Protect/restore No ongoing Monitor fish usage No Long-term Medium railroad crossing with nearshore and estuary activity trestle or improved habitat identified culvert 9* a 15 Packet Pg. 790 8.2.e Table 2: Restoration Opportunities Restoration Restoration Restoration Monitoring Funding Timelinel Priority Opportunity Objective Activity Activities Secured? Underwater Park: Add Structures increase Planning by Monitor vegetation No Long-term Low more structures habitat diversity and local dive groups establishment and serve as substrata for and City Parks fish use of new algal colonization and Recreation structures Dept. Bracketts Landing: Protect and restore No ongoing Perform vegetation No Long-term Medium Marine riparian native vegetation activity transects after vegetation restoration identified planting (1, 3, 5, 7, and enhancement; and 10 years) opportunity for public education/interpretive exhibit describing Edmonds -wide efforts 10* Bracketts Landing: Restore beach No ongoing Monitor sediment No Long-term Low Conduct beach deposits and activity transport and nourishment activities processes; identified evolution of beach just north of jetty protect/restore profile; check with nearshore habitat- aerial photos after forming processes initiating activities Existing Ferry Remove/replace Proposed Inspect after No Indeterminate Medium Terminal: Removing creosote- activity for removal; perform portions of the terminal contaminated piling; "Edmonds vegetation that sit atop creosote protect/restore Crossing" (new transects for pilings nearshore habitat ferry terminal) eelgrass (1, 3, 5, 7, development and 10 years) South County Senior Restore beach No ongoing Monitor sediment No Long-term Medium Center: deposits and activity transport and Reconfiguration of processes; identified evolution of beach parking lot to restore protect/restore profile; check with beach habitat nearshore habitat- aerial photos after forming processes initiating activities a 16 Packet Pg. 791 8.2.e Table 2: Restoration Opportunities Restoration Restoration Restoration Monitoring Funding Timelinel Priority Opportunity Objective Activity Activities Secured? Edmonds Marsh: Protect/restore City of Edmonds Monitor saltwater Yes Inter High Channel improvements freshwater and Capital marsh vegetation estuarine habitat Improvement Proj ect Edmonds Marsh: Protect/restore Proposed Monitor fish usage No Indeterminate Medium Culvert replacement nearshore and estuary activity for habitat "Edmonds Crossing" (new ferry terminal) development Willow Creek: Restore Protect/restore Proposed Monitor fish usage No Indeterminate Medium creek to open channel freshwater and activity for 11* estuarine habitat; "Edmonds increase Crossing" (new opportunities for ferry terminal) recruitment development; culvert replacement proposed in Sound Transit JARPA mitigation plan Point Edwards: Remove/replace Proposed Inspect after No Indeterminate Medium Remove existing pier creosote- activity for removal; perform 12* contaminated pilings; "Edmonds vegetation protect/restore Crossing" (new transects for nearshore habitat ferry terminal) eelgrass (1, 3, 5, 7, development and 10 ears LO t x w r c m E r r a 17 Packet Pg. 792 8.2.e Table 2: Restoration Opportunities Restoration Restoration Restoration Monitoring Funding Timelinel Priority Opportunity Objective Activity Activities Secured? Lake Shoreline Lake Ballinger: Manage and treat Ongoing Monitor water Partially 2015-2020/Long- Medium/Low Control quantity and stormwater to implementation quality (water term quality of runoff improve water of the quality is currently entering lake 13* quality, decrease Stormwater being monitored peak flow events, and Management through a City of increase Manual for Edmonds Capital implementation of Puget Sound; Improvement low impact stormwater Proj ect) development (LID) system practices improvements as street improvements are constructed Lake Ballinger: Revise Protect/restore No ongoing Monitor fish usage No Long-term Medium outlet control structure freshwater habitat; activity (may be out of increase identified Edmonds' jurisdiction) opportunities for 14* recruitment * Numbers correspond to Figure 13 of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Update Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, which geographically identifies potential restoration projects ' Short-term means 1 — 5 years. Intermediate means 5 — 10 years. Long-term means more than 10 years. 18 Packet Pg. 793 8.2.e Existing and Ongoing Programs The following list of agencies and organizations with nearshore interests is by no means complete. It does, however, include those agencies and organizations that appear to have the most interest in nearshore areas and restoration in and around the City. Snohomish County Marine Resources Committee In 1998, passage of the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative established the Northwest Straits Commission and seven Marine Resource Committees, including the Snohomish County Marine Resource Committee (MRC). The Snohomish County MRC is a citizen -based effort to identify regional marine issues, foster community understanding and involvement, recommend positive action and develop support for various protection and restoration measures. The Snohomish County MRC works toward fulfilling the following performance standards: a. Broad county participation in MRCs b. A scientifically -based, regional system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) c. A net gain in highly ecologically productive nearshore, intertidal and estuarine habitat in the Northwest Straits, and no significant loss of existing, high -value habitat; improvements in state, tribal, and local tools to map, assess, and protect nearshore habitat and prevent harm from upland activities d. Net reduction in shellfish harvest areas closed due to contamination e. Measurable increases in factors supporting recovery of bottom fish (such as rockfish) —including numbers of fish of broodstock size and age, average fish size, and abundance of prey species —as well as sufficient amounts and quality of protected habitat f. Increases in other key marine indicator species (including those identified in the 1997 West report on Puget Sound marine resources) g. Coordination of scientific data (for example, through the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program), including scientific baseline, common protocols, unified GIS, and sharing of ecosystem assessments and research h. Coordination with entities on an effective outreach and education effort with measurements of the numbers of people contacted as well as changes in behavior Shared Strategy for Puget Sound The Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (Shared Strategy) is a collaborative effort to protect and restore salmon runs across Puget Sound. Shared Strategy engages local citizens, tribes, technical experts and policy makers to build a practical, cost-effective recovery plan endorsed by the people living and working in the watersheds of Puget Sound. The Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, revised in December 2005, is available for review at http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/index.htm. 19 Packet Pg. 794 8.2.e Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership The Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership (PSNP) group is a cooperative effort among government organizations, tribes, industries, and environmental organizations to preserve and restore the health of Puget Sound's nearshore that generally runs from the top of bluffs on the land across the beach to the point where light penetrates the Puget Sound's waters sufficient to support attached marine vegetation (approximately 30 feet deep). A General Investigation Reconnaissance Study conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 2000 identified a direct link between properly functioning (healthy) nearshore habitat and the physical condition of the shoreline. The study identified four areas that need restoration and improvement: 1. Restoring shoreline processes to a more natural state, 2. Providing beaches with essential sand and gravel materials, 3. Removing, moving, and modifying artificial structures (bulkheads, riprap, etc.), and 4. Using alternative measures to protect shorelines from erosion. The timeframe for implementing projects is longer term, with projects beginning in 2008 By June 2006, PSNP will produce a strategic needs assessment for comprehensive, geospatially explicit, process -based restoration of Puget Sound's nearshore ecosystem. The PSNP Science Team is working to narrow the uncertainty inherent in restoration, by improving our understanding of the most critical restoration needs at various scales of analysis in Puget Sound. To do so, PSNP is reviewing and synthesizing a number of existing key data sets, collecting new information and adopting the most effective theories on the linkages between landscape ecology and restoration. The current understanding of relationships between nearshore processes, structures and functions is illustrated in a nearshore conceptual model (Puget Sound Nearshore Project 2003). This conceptual model continues to be refined as scientists test new hypotheses about nearshore processes, structure and function. Preliminary outputs of this analysis are informing those engaged in nearshore habitat restoration as part of their species recovery plans through this web site and guidance to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. In turn, actions taken by salmon recovery lead entities may serve to evaluate hypothesized relationships between restoration actions and effects on ecosystem processes and salmon populations. It is expected that over time, the relationship between local species -specific efforts and regional process -based approaches will converge to the point that the restoration goals identified by species recovery entities and those of PSNP are one and the same for many projects. Collaboration and sharing of resources will serve to bring about a common endpoint as the ecological integrity of Puget Sound is improved to the benefit of salmon, shellfish, marine birds, and other components of the ecosystem. 20 Packet Pg. 795 8.2.e Puget Sound Nearshore Policy Group Staff to the Puget Sound Action Team partnership convened a regional group to conduct a policy discussion that sets a vision for salmon recovery in Puget Sound's nearshore and marine environments. This vision will lead to actions that protect and restore Puget Sound's shorelines, marine areas and estuaries for salmon recovery. This high-level policy group is central to development of a nearshore chapter in Shared Strategy's salmon recovery plan for Puget Sound. This group is working to establish policy direction and identify needed commitments to actions that will protect and restore Puget Sound's shorelines, marine areas, and estuaries for salmon recovery. This nearshore chapter will address regional threats to the nearshore environment and regional -scale management opportunities. The specific objectives of the nearshore policy group are to: 1. Develop a set of regional strategies for salmon recovery in the nearshore; 2. Identify needed commitments for actions and pathways to gain those commitments; 3. Develop prescriptions for additional activities that should occur to protect and restore nearshore and marine ecosystems in the Puget Sound region; and 4. Develop an overall vision of nearshore and marine contributions to salmon recovery and integrate this vision with all other chapters of the Shared Strategy's recovery plan. The nearshore policy group has technical support from personnel who are working with regional experts and other individuals involved in developing planning area chapters. Staff members and others are working to assess and analyze relationships among management actions that might be needed to protect and restore the nearshore and marine ecosystem processes and functions that will support viable salmon populations. Puget Sound Partnership In December 2005, Governor Christine Gregoire appointed 21 leaders in the Puget Sound region in commerce, research, and government as members of the Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership). She gave the group a 10-month charge to "develop recommendations for preserving the health and ecosystem of Puget Sound, and to help educate and enlist the public in achieving recovery of the Sound by 2020." The Partnership delivered its recommendations in December 2006 (Puget Sound Partnership 2006). While the entire effort of the Partnership focuses on protection and restoration of the Puget Sound ecosystem, these topics are central to two of five immediate action recommendations for the Governor: protect Puget Sound habitat and implement priority projects to restore damaged forests, rivers, shorelines, and marine waters. To protect Puget Sound habitat, the Partnership recommends substantially increasing compliance 21 Packet Pg. 796 8.2.e with existing laws, primarily by increasing resources to state and local governments and acquiring land from willing sellers in watershed, estuarine, and marine shoreline areas. To restore damaged habitat, the Partnership recommends increased funding necessary to implement projects identified in recovery plans for salmon and other species and nearshore evaluation and other programs. Several of the points made in the Partnership's recommendations bear on strategies applicable to this restoration plan: • Regulatory and restoration actions that focus on a single species or location fail to recognize the importance of natural processes in contributing to habitat function. Process -based strategies improve the chances of a successful restoration. • Implement high -priority restoration projects such as recovery plans for salmon and other species, and nearshore evaluation and other programs. • Implement other critical restoration actions such as preventing the spread of invasive species, removal of derelict vessels and fishing gear, and removal of creosote logs. • Improve the success of habitat mitigation from the current rate of 50 percent to approaching 100 percent. The Partnership's recommendations provide a focus to coordinate restoration efforts around Puget Sound. In 2007, legislation was adopted that made the Partnership a new state agency, replacing the Puget Sound Action Team. The Partnership will be responsible for integrating the work of state, local and federal governments, as well as local watershed planning and salmon recovery efforts. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT) provides the overall scientific conceptual approach for assessing salmon recovery planning. This approach identifies the four characteristics of a population and their role in maintaining population viability. These characteristics are abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity. TRT liaisons help watershed groups implement their technical approach to the nearshore component of their draft habitat plans to ensure that it is consistent with the logic laid out in the Watershed Guidance. Washington State University Shore Stewards Program/Water/Beach Watchers Washington State University started a Shore Stewards Program in Snohomish County as part of the Water/Beach Watchers in 2005. The Beach Watcher program provides education and best practices for shoreline landowners, and participants receive a metal 22 Packet Pg. 797 8.2.e Shore Stewards sign for their property. In addition to working directly with shoreline landowners, program administrators also periodically conduct public workshops, as they did in the Edmonds/Woodway area in 2006. While the number of Edmonds shoreline landowners currently participating in the program is limited, local participation is expected to increase in the future as this young program becomes more established. WRIA 8 Watersheds often encompass broad land areas and cross various governmental jurisdictions. The Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82) created a mechanism to focus water -related planning on a local, watershed basis by forming the Planning Unit, composed of various interests and governments. The shorelines of Edmonds are located in Cedar River/Lake Washington Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8). Included in the new administrative body are counties, municipalities, utilities and tribal governments, collectively knows as Initiating Governments. The composition of the Planning Unit must include a wide range of water resource interests and representatives of state, county, and tribal governments whose policies and resources may be affected by the proposed plan. The purpose of the Planning Unit is to formulate a plan containing recommendations on water quality and quantity management, protection and restoration of instream flows, protection of fish habitat and alternative strategies for managing water, to be sent to local and state governments for adoption. The Planning Unit instituted two subgroups; the Steering Committee, to help it move forward with administrative issues; and a Technical Committee to sort through the details of resource data required to make informed water management decisions. The final plan for WRIA 8 is now available on their website. By enacting the Watershed Planning Act in 1998, the State of Washington sought to coordinate watershed planning efforts statewide. The legislation provided for three phasesorganizational, assessment, and planning —and provided funding for local execution of these phases. This act created 62 WRIAs across the state in which these activities would take place. Also in 1998, the state enacted the Salmon Recovery Planning Act (RCW 77.85) to encourage and require an enhanced effort at protecting and restoring habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and other fish species then recently listed as endangered. To clarify roles and responsibilities, to promote interagency cooperation, and to coordinate efforts and simplify implementation procedures, 12 agencies within state government signed a memorandum of understanding for the coordinated implementation of these two laws. City of Edmonds The City of Edmonds has a number of existing programs and projects with potential benefits for the shoreline environment (restoration projects are included on "Table 2. Restoration Opportunities"). These projects and programs include: • Waterfront acquisition — Acquire any remaining waterfront parcels to complete access to Puget Sound. This action is intended to increase public ownership of the waterfront along Puget Sound. 23 Packet Pg. 798 8.2.e • Tideland acquisition — Acquire tidelands whenever feasible, working with local citizens to secure for public use as identified in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan. This action is intended to meet the need for continued waterfront access. Edmonds Marsh environmental master plan — Produce comprehensive environmental master plan for the Edmonds Marsh. Final document will include an ecological assessment and environmental impact study with input from the public and local organizations. Plan will directly correlate with goals and recommendations included in WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. Edmonds Marsh channel improvements — An environmental study regarding the current state of the marsh and its impacts from storm water runoff is proposed. The study would be reviewed by federal and state agencies and routed through the master plan process as well. Following approval of the study, dredging of the channel would commence as approved by the agencies. Dredging of the existing channels would improve the hydraulic capacity of the channel. The marsh has also experienced a recent influx of freshwater cattails migrating towards the west. This is presumably resulting from the fact that the drainage channels in the wetlands have filled with silt and therefore are not allowing the salt water to flow back as far as it used to flow. Dredging may therefore enhance diversity (saltwater marsh vegetation) in the marsh as well. Environmental education — Various environmental education activities and programs are offered to schools, scout groups, community organizations and the general public through the Discovery Programs Office. The mission is "to provide interpretive and environmental education opportunities for the citizens of Edmonds, our school -age children, and visitors to our parks and beaches. Additionally, the program promotes stewardship of Puget Sound, its shorelines, and the surrounding watershed." Programs include Beach Ranger visits to classrooms and low -tide beach walks, Discover the Forest at Yost Park, Earth Day, beach cleanups, spring and summer nature day camps, and special events such as the Watershed Fun Fair. • Lake Ballinger monitoring — Roughly half of Lake Ballinger lies within Edmonds city limits. Lake was at one time deemed the most polluted in the state. Monitoring efforts are performed to evaluate environmental health of the lake and the necessity for further enhancement efforts. Transportation Projects Two transportation projects developing in the region —the Sound Transit commuter rail improvements and the Edmonds Crossing terminal improvements —include potential restoration projects. 24 Packet Pg. 799 8.2.e Sound Transit Commuter Rail The mitigation plan for the Everett -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project Third Easement (Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2005) contains a restoration project identified in "Table 2. Restoration Opportunities": culvert replacement on Willow Creek. The construction of a new box culvert under the railroad track at Willow Creek would convey creek and tidal flows. This action would facilitate daylighting of the creek. Edmonds Crossing The Edmonds Crossing project proposes several environmental restoration actions as part of the project. These actions include: Daylighting Willow Creek — This action would protect and restore freshwater and estuarine habitat, improve upon tidal influence and freshwater outflow, and restore the Edmonds Marsh to estuarine habitat by improving its connection to Puget Sound. The non -railroad portion of the restoration of Willow Creek is described in the Edmonds Crossing Environmental Impact Statement (CH2M-Hill 2004) and would consist of open channel upstream to about the salt marsh portion of Edmonds marsh. The EIS left to be worked out during the design phase some hydraulic issues that could influence potential flooding, and there are minor variations on the approach depending on which alternative is selected. In general the creek would be open from the Puget Sound shore for about 300 feet heading east. It would then go through a culvert under the railroad tracks for about 100 feet with an emergency tide gate on the east side of the tracks. It is then open to the east for another 800 feet or so. This downstream 1,200-foot reach is channelized; the plans indicate that the streambed of the upstream reach is natural. • Removal of the existing Unocal pier at Point Edwards — This action would eliminate contamination, protect and restore nearshore habitat, and improve visual and physical access to Puget Sound. • Removing portions of the existing ferry terminal that sits on creosote piling — This action would remove pilings, restore aquatic habitat, and minimize the potential offshore diversion of juvenile salmonids. • Restoration of macroalgae and eelgrass beds near the existing ferry terminal that have been damaged by several decades of propeller wash — This action would connect two macroalgae and eelgrass beds that are presently divided due to ferry propeller -induced scouring. • Install newer and larger culvert near Pine Street and State Route 104 — This action would improve stream flow as well as fish and wildlife passage. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway The BNSF railway, as discussed in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report, significantly influences the ecological processes and functions of the Edmonds shoreline. 25 Packet Pg. 800 8.2.e When a restoration effort involving the City might benefit from the participation of BNSF, the City would make every reasonable effort to contact and engage railroad officials. Restoration Strategies This section discusses programmatic measures for the City designed to foster shoreline restoration and achieve a net improvement in shoreline ecological processes, functions, and habitats. With projected budget and staff limitations, the City does not anticipate leading most restoration projects or programs. However, the City's SMP represents an important vehicle for facilitating and encouraging restoration projects and programs that could be led by private and/or non-profit entities. The discussion of restoration mechanisms and strategies below highlights programmatic measures that the City could implement, as well as parallel activities that would be led by other governmental and non -governmental organizations. Restoration Demonstration Project A small demonstration restoration project that included a variety of techniques could be completed by the City as an example for others. The City could also identify a set of good demonstration restoration projects (which have broad public support), then actively solicit entities to implement one or more of them. Additionally, the City could work with existing programs such as the Sound Transit JARPA mitigation project or the Edmonds Crossing mitigation project to leverage funding and efforts to implement smaller scale demonstration projects. Volunteer Coordination Another way the City could accomplish restoration projects is by using community volunteers. Volunteers could be recruited for project implementation and monitoring and the City would provide equipment and expertise. The City would also need to fund a volunteer coordinator to organize projects, solicit various environmental groups and individual volunteers to complete the projects and partner or coordinate with other government entities on projects. Regional Coordination The City should continue its active role in the WRIA 8 salmon recovery planning process, an inter -governmental organization facilitating freshwater and shoreline habitat restoration for salmon recovery. The City should also look for other opportunities for involvement in regional restoration planning and implementation. Development Opportunities When shoreline development is proposed, the City should look for opportunities to conduct restoration in addition to minimum mitigation requirements. Development may present timing and funding opportunities for restoration that would not otherwise occur and may not be available in the future. 26 Packet Pg. 801 8.2.e Mitigation practices may also allow for the "banking" of credits from restoration projects that can provide advanced mitigation credit for future unavoidable impacts of development. In certain cases, on -site mitigation opportunities are limited due to building site constraints, limited potential ecological gains, or other site -specific factors. In these instances, the City shoreline administrator may identify an off -site restoration site that could be contributed in lieu of on -site mitigation. Development Incentives Development incentives for restoration might include the waiving of some or all of development application fees or waiving City -required infrastructure improvement fees. This could serve to encourage developers to try to be more imaginative or innovative in their development designs to include more habitat preservation or restoration, or public access to shorelines. Tax Relief/Fee System The City may consider a tax/fee system to directly fund shoreline restoration measures. One possibility is to have the City work with Snohomish County to craft a preferential tax incentive through the Public Benefit Rating System administered by Snohomish County under the Open Space Taxation Act (RCW 84.34) to encourage private landowners to preserve natural shore -zone features for "open space" tax relief. Ecology has published a technical guidance document for local governments who wish to use this tool to improve landowner stewardship of natural resources. More information about this program can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/99108.html. The guidance in this report provides "technically based property selection criteria designed to augment existing open space efforts with protection of key natural resource features which directly benefit the watershed. Communities can choose to use any portion, or all, of these criteria when tailoring a Public Benefit Rating System to address the specific watershed issues they are facing." Another possibility available to the City is a Shoreline Restoration Fund. A chief limitation to implementing restoration is local funding, which is often required as a match for state and federal grant sources. To foster ecological restoration of the City's shorelines, the City could establish an account that may serve as a source of local match monies for non-profit organizations implementing restoration of the City's shorelines. This fund could be administered by the City shoreline administrator and would be supported by a levy on new shoreline development proportional to the size or cost of the new development project. Monies drawn from the fund would be used as a local match for restoration grant funds, such as the Salmon Recovery Funding Board Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account or another source. Shore Stewards Education Shore Stewards are shoreline property owners and residents of waterfront communities with shared beach access who voluntarily follow 10 wildlife -friendly guidelines in caring for their beaches, bluffs, gardens and homes. These guidelines help them create and preserve a healthy shoreline environment for fish, wildlife, birds and people. This program was created to help shoreline residents feel more connected to the nearshore 27 Packet Pg. 802 8.2.e ecosystem because it is found that when people understand the natural processes at work on their beaches, they may play a more active, positive role in the preservation of healthy, fish -friendly wildlife habitats. The 10 guidelines for shoreline living are: 1. Use water wisely 2. Maintain your septic system 3. Limit pesticide and fertilizer usage 4. Manage upland water runoff 5. Encourage native plants and trees 6. Know permit procedures for shoreline development 7. Develop on bluffs with care 8. Minimize bulkheads, docks and other structures 9. Respect intertidal life 10. Preserve eelgrass beds and forage fish spawning habitat Shore Stewards was created in 2002 with grant funding by the Island County Marine Resources Committee. The pilot program was launched on Camano Island by Washington State Beach Watchers, who wrote the resource -packed Shore Stewards Guide. Shore Stewards is now expanding to other counties of Puget Sound, including Snohomish County. Stewardship Certification Process The Shore Stewards program sets up guidelines for shoreline residents to preserve and enhance the shoreline environment. With a verification component, Shore Stewards could provide certification and tracking. This could be implemented as a Shoreline Tax Incentive when someone participates in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) backyard sanctuary program. Since the City recognizes that there are important opportunities to improve shoreline ecological conditions and functions through non -regulatory, volunteer actions by shoreline residents and property owners it might examine the potential for property tax breaks for shoreline property owners who are actively manage their property for habitat protection or enhancement. To encourage volunteer actions that better shoreline ecological functions and values, shoreline property owners actively participating in the WDFW backyard sanctuary program or some similar program could receive, for example, a 5% credit on their City property taxes. Resource Directory The City could develop a resource list for property owners that want to be involved in restoration. Examples of grant programs that could be included are: 28 Packet Pg. 803 8.2.e Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) The Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) is a competitive grant process to provide financial assistance to private individual landowners for the protection, enhancement, or restoration of habitat to benefit species -at -risk on privately owned lands. The LIP website, http://federalaid.fws.gov/lip/lip.html, has more information about the next application cycle. Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) Grant Programs The Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) administers two grant programs for protection and/or restoration of salmon habitat. Eligible applicants can include municipal subdivisions (cities, towns, and counties, or port, conservation districts, utility, park and recreation, and school districts), tribal governments, state agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners. The City should continue making use of the SRFB grant programs through its participation in the activities of the lead entity WRIA 8. Backyard Sanctuary Program The City should encourage participation in WDFW wildlife backyard sanctuary program Project Evaluation When a project is proposed for implementation by the City, other agency or by a private party, the restoration project should be evaluated to ensure that the project's objectives are consistent with those of this restoration plan and, if applicable, that the project warrants implementation above other candidate projects. (It is recognized that, due to funding sources or other constraints, the range of any individual project may be narrow.) Enhancement of selected attributes Restoration to historic conditions Creation of new ecosystem Enhancement of selected attributes 0 y Creation of a new ecosystem (highly disturbed urban site C • and landscape) (highly disturbed site, but landscape is intact) t; O Restoration to historic conditions �1 Conservation cr. O O ++ ai a�i Protection . (not greatly disturbed site, but tom., Conservation region around site is disturbed) o Restoration to predisturbance conditions A (minimal site disturbance landscape is intact) and LOW High Degree of Disturbance of Landscape (larger dots indicate higher probability of restoration success) Figure 2 (Thom 2005) 29 Packet Pg. 804 8.2.e It is also expected that the list of potential projects may change over time, that new projects will be identified and existing opportunities will become less relevant as restoration occurs and as other environmental conditions, or our knowledge of them, change. When evaluating potential projects, the following nine criteria should be considered in assessing priority (the criteria are not listed in any order of importance): a. Restoration meets the goals and objectives for shoreline restoration. b. Restoration of processes that form and sustain habitat is generally of greater importance than direct restoration of functions. c. Restoration avoids residual impacts to other functions or processes. d. Projects address a known degraded condition. e. Conditions that are progressively worsening are of greater priority. f. Restoration has a high benefit to cost ratio. g. Restoration is feasible, such as being located on and accessed by public property or private property that is cooperatively available for restoration. Restoration should avoid conflicts with adjacent property owners. h. There is public support for the project. i. The project is supported by and consistent with other restoration plans, such as that for WRIA 8. The City shall develop a project "score card" as a tool to evaluate projects consistent with these criteria. As an example, see the project scorecard from the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership that uses eight principles (Johnson et al. 2003). The eight principles are: • Size; • Complexity; • Accessibility; • Connectivity of adjacent habitats; • Potential quality includes the potential for self -maintenance; • Substantial improvement of ecosystem functions; 30 Packet Pg. 805 8.2.e • Benefit to nearshore-dependent threatened and endangered species; and • Conformance with natural habitat structure, processes, and functions. Monitoring and Adaptive Management In addition to project monitoring required for individual restoration and mitigation projects, the City should conduct system -wide monitoring of shoreline conditions and development activity, to the degree practical, recognizing that individual project monitoring does not provide an assessment of overall shoreline ecological health. System -wide monitoring will follow this three -pronged approach: 1. Track information using the City's GIS and permit system as activities occur (development, conservation, restoration and mitigation), such as: a. New shoreline development b. Shoreline variances and the nature of the variance c. Compliance issues d. New impervious surface areas e. Number of pilings removed/replaced f. Fill area removed/added g. Vegetation retention/loss h. Bulkheads/armoring additions or changes The City may require project proponents to monitor as part of project mitigation, which may be incorporated into this process. Regardless, as development and restoration activities occur in the shoreline area, the City should monitor shoreline conditions to determine whether both project specific and SMP overall goals are being achieved. 2. Periodically review and provide input to ongoing regional monitoring programs, such as: a. DNR monitoring (e.g., eelgrass distribution) b. Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program c. University of Washington (the Puget Sound Regional Synthesis Model) d. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Through this coordination with regional agencies, the City should seek to identify any major environmental changes that might be occurring. 3. Re -review status of environmental processes and functions at the time of periodic SMP updates to, at a minimum, validate the effectiveness of the SMP. Re -review should consider what restoration activities actually occurred 31 Packet Pg. 806 8.2.e compared to stated goals, objectives and priorities, and whether restoration projects resulted in a net improvement of shoreline resources. Under the Shoreline Management Act, the SMP is required to result in no net loss of shoreline ecological resources. If this standard is found to not be met at the time of review, Edmonds will be required to take corrective actions. The goal for restoration is to achieve a net improvement. The cumulative effect of restoration over the time between reviews should be evaluated along with an assessment of impacts of development that are not fully mitigated to determine effectiveness at achieving a net improvement to shoreline ecological resources. To conduct a valid reassessment of the shoreline conditions every seven years, it is necessary to monitor, record and maintain key environmental metrics (quantitative measures and calculations used to assess success) to allow a comparison with baseline conditions. As monitoring occurs, the City should reassess environmental conditions and restoration objectives. Those ecological processes and functions that are found to be worsening may need to become elevated in priority to prevent loss of critical resources. Alternatively, successful restoration may reduce the importance of some restoration objectives in the future. Evaluation of shoreline conditions, permit activity, GIS data, and policy and regulatory effectiveness should occur at varying levels of detail consistent with the Comprehensive Plan update cycle. A complete reassessment of conditions, policies and regulations will be undertaken every seven years. Uncertainty This restoration plan proposes project opportunities to restore shoreline conditions. The restoration opportunities included are based upon a detailed inventory and analysis of shoreline conditions (Pentec 2001, Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2006). Nonetheless, exhaustive scientific information about shoreline conditions and restoration options is cost prohibitive at this stage. Additionally, many forms of restoration remain, to a degree, experimental. Monitoring must be an aspect of all restoration projects. Information from monitoring studies (local and Puget Sound -wide) will help demonstrate what restoration is most successful in the particular environment of the City's shorelines. Generally, conservation of existing natural areas is the least likely to result in failure. Alternatively, enhancement (as opposed to complete restoration of functions), has the highest degree of uncertainty. This SMP provides a comprehensive index of restoration opportunities but does not provide the backup analyses that would allow the City to objectively compare opportunities against each other. As funding becomes available, restoration opportunities could be ranked on several criteria by expected rate and degree of success, 32 Packet Pg. 807 8.2.e resources/habitats/functions that would benefit, cost, and other factors. Funding could also support a long-term monitoring program that evaluates restoration over the life of the SMP (as opposed to independent monitoring for each project). Potential Funding Sources Potential sources of grant funding for restoration opportunities on the City's shorelines have been documented in Table 3. 33 Packet Pg. 808 8.2.e Table 3: Funding Opportunities Allocating Entity Grant Size Acorn Foundation (family foundation that supports Elizabeth Wilcox Acorn Foundation projects dedicated to building a $5,000410,000 Phone: (510) 834-2995 sustainable future for the planet and Email: ccounsel@igc.org to restoring a healthy global .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... environment) Bullitt Foundation (private philanthropic foundation providing funding to nonprofit organizations working to safeguard Steven Whitney Aquatic Ecosystems the natural environment by Varies Email: swhitney@bullitt.org promoting responsible human activities and sustainable communities in the Pacific .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Northwest) Washington Department of Natural Leslie Ryan Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account $10,000-$1 million Phone: (360) 902-1064 Resources Email: leslie.ryan@wadnr.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Audubon Washington Audubon Washington Varies Phone: (360) 786-8020 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Basinwide Restoration New Starts General United States Army Corps of Bruce Sexauer Investigation Engineers Varies Phone: (206) 764-6959 Email: bruce.r.sexauer@usace.army.mil ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... National Fish and Wildlife ... Pam McClelland Bring Back the Natives Foundation Varies Phone: (202) 857-0166 Email: mcclelland@nfw£org LO t x w c m E t r r a 34 Packet Pg. 809 8.2.e Table 3: Funding Opportunities Allocating Entity Grant Size Washington State Department of Jeff Nejedly Centennial Clean Water Fund Ecology Phone: (360) 407-6566 Email: jnej461@ecy.wa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... City Fish Passage Barrier, Stormwater and Washington Department of Cliff Hall Habitat Restoration Grant Program Transportation Varies Phone: (360) 705-7993 Email: hallc@wsdot.wa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Coastal Grant Program United States Fish & Wildlife $5,000-$50,000 Coastal Grant Contact Service Phone: (703) 358-2201 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Coastal Zone Management Administration/ Washington State Department of $19,000429,000 Bev Huether Phone: (360) 407-7254 Implementation Awards Ecology Email: bhue461@ecy.wa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Chris Doley Community -Based Restoration Program Administration $1,000-$500,000 Phone: (301) 713-0174 Email: chris.doley@noaa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Cooperative Endangered Species United States Fish & Wildlife Dan Morgan Conservation Fund Service $1,000414,000 Phone: (703) 358-2061 Email: Dan Morgan@fws.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Multi -year grantsthat Adrienne Fisher Doris Duke Charitable Foundation range from that rangefrom Phone: (212) 974-7000 5 $12Email: afisher@ddcs.org million r a 35 Packet Pg. 810 8.2.e Table 3: Funding Opportunities Allocating Entity Grant Size Estuarine and Salmon Restoration Program Washington Department of Fish and Varies Paul Cereghino Wildlife Email: ESRP@dfw.wa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Johanna Laderman FishAmerica Grant Program FishAmerica Foundation Varies Phone: (703) 519-9691 Email: jaderman@asafishing.org ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . $5,000-$20,000 John Pai Five -Star Restoration Program Environmental Protection Agency (subgrants average Phone: (202) 260-8076 $10,000) Email: pai.john@epa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... FMC Corporation Bird and Habitat FMC Corporation and The National Peter Stangel Conservation Fund Fish and Wildlife Foundation Varies Phone: (404) 769-7099 Email: stangel@nfw£org .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... United States Forest Service, Brad Pruitt Forest Legacy Program — Washington Washington Department of Natural Varies Phone: (360) 902-1102 Resources Email: brad.pruitt@wadnr.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... United States Fish and Wildlife Sally Valdes Habitat Conservation Service Coastal Program Varies Phone: 703-358-2201 Email: sally.valdes@fws.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation (family foundation which supports Therese Ogle Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation nonprofit organizations in the Pacific $2 000-$7,500 Phone: (206) 781-3472 Northwest and Alaska. Dedicated to the preservation and restoration of Email: OgleFounds@aol.com nature, including wildlife and their required habitats) rn ti M r c a c 0 L 0 r m m c L 0 M U) r a 36 Packet Pg. 811 8.2.e Table 3: Funding Opportunities Allocating Entity Grant Size JILT- ago Washington State Department of Fish Up to $5,000 for Ginna Correa or Jeff Skriletz Landowner Incentive Program and Wildlife, Lands Division small grants; others Phone: (360) 902-2478 or (360) 902-8313 up to $50,000 Website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/lip .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Matching Aid to Restore States Habitat Ducks Unlimited (MARSH) Ducks Unlimited Varies Phone: (916) 852-2000 Email: conserv@ducks.org .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... National Fish and Wildlife Peter Stangel Migratory Bird Conservancy $10,000-$60,000 Phone: (404) 769-7099 Foundation Email: stangel@nfwforg .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Bureau of Land Management, Forest Caroline Cremer Native Plant Conservation Initiative Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, $10,000-$50,000 Phone: (202) 857-0166 and National Park Service Email: caroline.cremer@nfwf.org .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant (319) Environmental Protection Agency, Aleciea Tilley Program Washington State Department of Varies Email: ati11461@ecy.wa.gov Ecology ...................................................................................................................................... . $100,000-$1 North American Wetlands Conservation Act United States Fish & Wildlife million (small Bettina Sparrowe Grants Program Service grants capped at Phone: (703) 358-1784 $50,000) Email: r9arw nawwo@fws.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Anna Weinstein Pacific Grassroots Salmon Initiative National Fish & Wildlife Foundation $5,0004100,000 Phone: (415) 778-0999 Email: weinstein@nfwf.org LO t x w c m E t r r a 37 Packet Pg. 812 8.2.e Table 3: Funding Opportunities Allocating Entity NEEL Grant Size Dave Nelson Planning/Technical Assistance Program Bureau of Reclamation Varies Phone: (503) 872-2801 Email: drnelson@pn.usbr.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... United States Fish & Wildlife Mary Mahaffy Puget Sound Program Service Varies Phone: (360) 753-7763 Email: mary_mahaffy@fws.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Washington State Department of Technical Richard Gersib Puget Sound Wetland Restoration Program Ecology assistance Phone: (360) 407-7259 Email: rger461@ecy.wa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Washington State Department of Fish Kristi Lynett Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups and Wildlife $10,000440,000 Phone: (360) 902-2237 Email: lynetksl@dfw.wa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Interagency Committee for Outdoor Rollie Geppert Salmon Recovery Funding Board Recreation Varies Phone: (360) 902-2636 Email: Salmon@iac.wa.gov ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Section 204: Environmental Restoration United States Army Corps of 75% of total Mona Thomasonproject Projects in Connection with Dredging Engineers Phone: (206) 764-3600 modification costs Email: mona.j.thomason@usace.army.mil ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65% of total Martin Hudson Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration United States Army Corps of project Phone: (503) 808-4703 Program Engineers implementation Email: martin.hudson@usace.army.mil cost r a 38 Packet Pg. 813 8.2.e Table 3: Funding Opportunities Allocating Entity Grant Size Transportation Environmental Research Michael Koontz Program (TERP) Federal Highway Administration $20,000-$50,000 Phone: 410-962-4586 Email: michael.koontz@fhwa.dot.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Washington Department of Shari Schaftlein Century (TEA-21) Transportation Varies Phone: (360) 705-7446 Email: sschaft@wsdot.wa.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Washington State Ecosystems Conservation United States Fish & Wildlife $500-$26,000 n Phone: ( Rich Carlson 753-5829 Program Service Email: rich—carlson@fws.gov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Wetland Protection, Restoration, and Christina Miller Stewardship Discretionary Funding Environmental Protection Agency $5,000-$20,000 Phone: (206) 553-6512 Email: miller.christina@epa.gov f+ a 39 Packet Pg. 814 8.2.e Restoration Glossary Abiotic: Nonliving, such as environmental factors including light, temperature, and atmospheric gases. Biotic: Produced or caused by living organisms or having to do with life or living organisms. Disturbance: Any relatively discrete event in time and space that disrupts or alters some portion of an ecosystem. Disturbances are important factors that affect the character and state of ecosystems. Examples from nearshore ecosystems include: Winter storms, which move large quantities of organic (e.g., logs) and inorganic (e.g., sand) materials that can reshape beaches. • Landslides, which deposit sand and gravel from bluffs onto beaches and into nearshore marine waters. • Shifts in ocean currents, which can result in changes in nutrient availability, water temperature, primary production, and food web relationships. Ecosystem: Community of organisms and their physical and chemical environment interacting as an ecological unit. Ecosystem process: Any interaction among physical, chemical and biological elements of an ecosystem that involves a change in character or state of that system. In nearshore ecosystems, some examples include the following: • Changes in chemical composition of the water or sediment that occur as part of nutrient uptake and transformation. • Movement and mixing of fresh and salt water through an estuarine delta. • Sediment transport along the shoreline. Ecosystem recovery: Taking actions that allow an ecosystem to generate and maintain processes that result in desirable ecosystem structure (e.g., habitats for valued species) and functions (e.g., forage fish production). Habitat: The physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a specific spatial unit or geographic area of the environment occupied by specific biota (e.g., we refer to "Pacific sand lance habitat" and "sand beach ecosystems"). To define habitat, it is necessary to know the spatial extent in the ecosystem of a specific habitat for the plant or animal considered, and the attributes of the habitat that support growth and survival of that organism. 40 Packet Pg. 815 8.2.e Nearshore: The estuarine/delta, marine shoreline and areas of shallow water from the top of the coastal bank or bluffs to the water at a depth of about 30 meters below Mean Lower Low Water. (This is the average depth limit of light penetration.) This zone incorporates those geological and ecological processes, such as sediment movement, freshwater inputs, and subtidal light penetration, which are key to determining the distribution and condition of aquatic habitats. By this definition, the nearshore extends landward into the tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries and coastal streams. 41 Packet Pg. 816 8.2.e Resource Links and References Battelle Memorial Institute, Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem: Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). Seattle: King County DNR, http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/watersheds/Puget/nearshore/sonr.htm 2001. CHZM Hill 2004. SR 104 Edmonds Crossing; Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Federal Transit Administration; Washington State Department of Transportation; and City of Edmonds. Prepared by CHZM Hill, Bellevue, Washington. November 2004. Diefenderfer, H.L., Ronald M. Thom and J.E. Adkins. For the Expert: Systematic Approach to Coastal Ecosystem Restoration. Battelle Memorial Institute Pacific Northwest Division: Richland: NOAA, http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastal/expert/systematic/systematic.htm, 2003. Fresh, K., C. Simenstad, J. Brennan, M. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, F. Goetz, M. Logsdon, D. Myers, T. Mumford, J. Newton, H. Shipman, C. Tanner. 2004. Guidance for protection and restoration of the nearshore ecosystems of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2004-02. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Available at http://pugetsoundnearshore.org/. Goetz, F., C. Tanner, C.S. Simenstad, K. Fresh, T. Mumford, and M. Logsdon, 2004. Guiding restoration principles. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2004-03. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Available at hM2://pugetsoundnearshore.org/. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2005. Conceptual Nearshore Marine, Estuarine, and Wetland Mitigation Plan, Everett -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project Third Easement, King and Snohomish Counties, Washington. Prepared for Sound Transit, Seattle, Washington. Prepared by Herrera Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. August 2005. [not seen; information from Order Number 3306; 401 Water Quality Certification by Washington Department of Ecology.] Johnson, G. E., R. M. Thom, A. H. Whiting, G. B. Sutherland, J. A.Southard, B. D. Ebberts, and J. D. Wilcox. 2003. An ecosystem -based approach to habitat restoration projects with emphasis onsalmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. Final report prepared bythe Bonneville Power Administration, Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, Oregon. PNNL-14412. [not seen] 42 Packet Pg. 817 8.2.e Pentec Environmental (Pentec) 2001. Edmonds Shoreline Habitat Assessment. Pentec # 1213012. Prepared for City of Edmonds. October 31, 2001. People for Puget Sound. Sound Stewardship Program. Seattle: http://pugetsound.org/index/pubs. Port Townsend. City of, 2005. Chapter 14: Shoreline Restoration. Draft 5. 21 December 2005. Part of City of Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program Update. Puget Sound Action Team. Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Seattle: http://www.pugetsoundnearshore. org/material_activity.html#papers. Puget Sound Action Team 2007. 2007-2009 Puget Sound Conservation & Recovery Plan. January 2007. Olympia, Washington. http://www.psat.wa.gov/2007- 2009plan. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team 2001. 2000 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan; Adopted December 14, 2000. Olympia, Washington. http://www.psat.wa.gov/2000managementplan. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership 2003. Nearshore Ecosystems Conceptual Model. Fact sheet available at http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/techical papers/conceptualmodel.pdf. [viewed 4 October 2006]. Puget Sound Partnership 2006. Sound Health, Sound Future; Protecting and Restoring Puget Sound. December 2006. http://www.pugetsoundpartnership.org/reports/final/final/Final wAPPx_lr.pdf. Sea -Run Consulting, TetraTech, Inc., Reid Middleton, Inc., and Pentec 2006. City of Edmonds; Shoreline Master Program Update; Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization. SMA Grant Agreement No. 60600108. Prepared for City of Edmonds. June 2006. Thom, Ronald M., Gregory D. Williams and Amy B. Borde. Conceptual Models as a Tool for Assessing, Restoring, and Managing Puget Sound Habitats and Resources. Bainbridge Island: City of Bainbridge Island, http://www.psat.wa. gov/Publications/03_proceedings/PAPERS/ORAL/9e_thom.p df, 2003. Van Cleve, F. B., C. Simenstad, F. Goetz, and T. Mumford. Application of Best Available Science in Ecosystem Restoration: Lessons Learned from Large -Scale Restoration Efforts in the USA. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2004-01. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, 2004. 43 Packet Pg. 818 8.2.e Williams, Gregory D., and Ronald M. Thom. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. Sequim: Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/mamrsrc.htm 2001. 44 Packet Pg. 819 8.2.e Legend • City Outfall (�:D Over/In Water Structure Street Shoreline Armoring ._- DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Railroad Sloped Edmonds City Limits �� Stream ^/ Vertical Major Road Water Bodies 80o°°01 ° Beach Nourishment J ! I New Crossing Riparian Vegetation 000 °o ` (wider box culvert or trestle) OOff -Channel Pond _ Woody Debris Data Sources: Over/In Water Structures, Snohomish County Shoreline Inventory (2002), aerial photos digitizing (2006) Shoreline Armoring, Snohomish County Shoreline Inventory (2002) Outfall Locations, City of Edmonds 2003 (Data only includes City of Edmonds drainage pipes) 4 of EDP O City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Packet Pg. 820 8.2.f City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Update Cumulative Impacts Analysis Cn r- M T N N 2, w C a N r V R Q E N R 7 E E 7 ci r Q Packet Pg. 821 8.2.f 1. Introduction The Washington State Shoreline Master Program Guidelines state that local Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) are required to "evaluate and consider" the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions promoted by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The guidelines further state that "to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities." Specifically, the guidelines state that the evaluation of cumulative impacts should consider: i. current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes; ii. reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and iii. beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws. Additionally, the guidelines indicate that an appropriate cumulative impact analysis (CIA) will also consider the effects of unregulated activities and development exempt from permitting on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions and uses. Also, the guidelines indicate that particular attention should be paid to policies and regulations concerned with the platting or subdividing of property, laying of utilities, and mapping of streets that establish a pattern for future development. Finally, the guidelines note that methods for determining reasonably foreseeable future development may vary depending on local circumstances, including demographic and economic characteristics as well as the nature and extent of shorelines. 2. Current Circumstances Affecting the Shorelines and Relevant Natural Processes The City of Edmonds (the City) Shoreline Inventory and Characterization describes in- depth the current circumstances affecting the City's shorelines and relevant natural processes. For planning purposes, that document divided up the City's shorelines into four distinct reaches (Figure 2 — Shoreline Planning Segments & Planning reaches form the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization is included with this document for ease of use). The first three reaches are continuous and together cover the City's shoreline situated along Puget Sound. The fourth reach consists of the City's shoreline along Lake Ballinger. This section begins with a brief description of each of those four reaches and reproduces the list of biological functions and features that have been impaired in each Packet Pg. 822 8.2.f reach as found in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (section 8). Then, a summary discussion regarding the ecological functions at risk is provided. Reach Descriptions and Impaired Biological Functions and Features Reach I Reach 1 encompasses the section of the City's shoreline along Puget Sound that begins at the City's northern limits (in the Lund's Gulch area) and extends south to Caspers Street. This reach is approximately 19,351 feet in length, and therefore makes up approximately 64% of the City's shoreline jurisdiction. A defining feature of this reach is the pair of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks that run parallel to the shoreline in the upper portion of the beach. Because of the tracks, the entire shoreline in this reach is armored with rock walls. Waterward of the tracks, the beach is generally narrow, steep, and made up of coarse substrate. Landward of the tracks, the land generally slopes upward before flattening out. Several creeks flow down these slopes before flowing into Puget Sound via culverts. This reach has little riparian vegetation. As mentioned, a primary use of the shoreline in Reach 1 is rail transportation. The other principal land use in this reach is single-family housing, which is situated on the uplands above the beach. In the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (section 8.1), the following biological functions or features of this shoreline reach are listed as being impaired: • Fish and wildlife accessibility between the marine nearshore and the terrestrial backshore: blocked by the BNSF railroad bed and restricted to a few small culverts • Nutrient transport and cycling: reduced by clearing vegetation from the backshore and bulkheading/filling of the upper intertidal zone and backshore, and further reduced by restricting the estuarine transitional area to small -diameter culverts that impound creek flows and block detritus and woody debris from moving between the ravine and the beach • Estuarine and creek -mouth habitat area: significantly reduced, and habitat function, significantly impaired • Marine riparian vegetation: eliminated by railroad fill or cleared for right-of-way maintenance and upland residential views • Beach substrate composition and slope: coarsened and steepened by erosion and lack of replenishment from upland or aquatic sources • Longshore drift: altered by in -water structures (seawalls, bulkheads, culverts, and a pier) that prevent sediment from naturally recruiting to the beach For more detailed information on the current circumstances of Reach 1, see the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (sections 7.1-7.5). Packet Pg. 823 8.2.f Reach 2 Reach 2 consists of the section of the City's shoreline along Puget Sound to the south of Caspers Street and to the north of Main Street. The length of this section of shoreline is approximately 2,253 feet, and therefore comprises roughly 7% of the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The BNSF tracks continue to be a defining feature in this reach. Because of their presence, most of this reach is armored with rock walls. The slope landward of the tracks is generally more moderate than in Reach 1. No streams are found in this reach. Riparian vegetation is scant throughout the reach. As in Reach 1, the major uses of this reach are rail transportation and single-family housing. Another significant use of the shoreline in this reach is public recreation, due to the presence of Brackett's Landing North (Edmonds Underwater Park). In the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (section 8.2), the following biological functions or features of this shoreline reach are listed as being impaired: • Fish and wildlife accessibility between the marine nearshore and the terrestrial backshore: blocked by the BNSF railroad bed and urban development • Upper intertidal and adjacent terrestrial habitat: degraded or lost due to urban development • Nutrient transport and cycling: reduced by clearing vegetation from the backshore and bulkheading/filling of the upper intertidal zone and backshore • Marine riparian vegetation: eliminated by railroad fill or cleared for right-of-way maintenance and upland residential views • Longshore drift: altered by in -water structures (Washington State Ferries pier and seawall, groin at Brackett's Landing North) that prevent sediment from naturally recruiting to the beach For more in-depth information on the current circumstances of Reach 2, see the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (sections 7.5-7.6). Reach 3 Reach 3 extends south of Main Street to the City's southern limits (at Point Edwards). It is approximately 4,716 feet in length, and therefore includes approximately 16% of the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Major features in this reach include the Washington State Ferries pier, the Port of Edmonds Marina, and the Unocal pier. The shoreline in this reach is mostly armored. The transition from the shore to uplands is marked by little or no bank. Some creeks and a major wetland (Edmonds Marsh) occur in this reach. Little riparian vegetation is present. Land uses in this reach are more varied than in Reaches 1 and 2. Land uses include parks, transportation, commercial, and natural resource production. al Packet Pg. 824 8.2.f In the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (section 8.3), the following biological functions or features of this shoreline reach are listed as being impaired: • Fish and wildlife accessibility between the marine nearshore, Edmonds Marsh, and the terrestrial backshore: blocked by the BNSF railroad bed, Edmonds Marina, and commercial waterfront development, restricted to a paved corridor and culvert between Edmonds Marsh and South Marina Park • Nutrient transport and cycling: significantly reduced by clearing vegetation from the backshore and bulkheading/filling of the upper intertidal zone and backshore, and further reduced by restricting the estuarine transitional area to a small - diameter culvert and tide gate on Willow Creek that impounds creek flows and blocks detritus and woody debris between the marsh and the beach • Estuarine and creek -mouth habitat area: significantly altered and reduced, and habitat function, significantly impaired • Marine riparian vegetation: eliminated by port development, commercial development, and railroad fill, and cleared for right-of-way maintenance and upland residential/commercial views • Beach substrate composition and slope: coarsened and steepened by erosion and lack of replenishment from upland or aquatic sources • Longshore drift: altered by in -water structures (seawalls, bulkheads, culverts, and the former Unocal pier) that prevent sediment from naturally recruiting to the beach For more in-depth information on the current circumstances of Reach 3, see the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (sections 7.6-7.8). Reach 4 Reach 4 consists of the City's shoreline along Lake Ballinger, which is located on the western and southern sides of the lake. The length of this reach is around 3,947 feet, and therefore constitutes approximately 13% of the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Land use in Reach 4 consists of single-family housing. Nearly all the houses in this reach have an accompanying dock or pier. Riparian vegetation consists almost entirely of lawns and ornamental plantings. In the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (section 8.4), the following biological functions or features of this shoreline reach are listed as being impaired: • Hydrologic function of the lake outlet, which is currently managed as a stormwater catchbasin control 5 Packet Pg. 825 8.2.f • Hyporheic function, which has reached its capacity as a nutrient sink for nitrogen and phosphorus • Nutrient transport and cycling, significantly reduced by increasing sediment and nutrient loading from watershed development, stormwater runoff, and former septic/sewage inputs; replacing native wetland and riparian vegetation with ornamental vegetation (e.g., grass) and adding bulkheads, docks, and piers to the shoreline • Lake inlet and outlet deltas, significantly altered or eliminated by control structures • Fish and wildlife accessibility between the lake and McAleer Creek, blocked by the outlet control structure • Fish and wildlife biological communities, significantly altered by habitat alteration (i.e., conversion of a wetland into a lake) and introduction of non-native species (e.g., catfish, yellow perch, and largemouth bass) • Lake sediment, significantly altered by substantial sediment inputs from urban development within the Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger drainage sub -basins For more in-depth information on the current circumstances of Reach 4, see the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (section 7.9). Summary Discussion — Ecological Functions at Risk As discussed above, several functions and features of the City's shorelines are impaired. This section briefly summarizes the at risk ecological functions of the City's shorelines. Puget Sound shorelines (in reaches 1, 2, & 3) • Sedimentation — The sedimentation processes of these shorelines are significantly degraded. The presence of the railroad bed prevents upland sediment from reaching the beach and resulting in its coarse substrate and steep slope. Also, in - water structures prevent longshore drift sediment from recruiting to the beach. • Habitat provision — This function of the shoreline is diminished due to a loss of habitat related to construction of the railroad bed, vegetation clearing, and uplands development. Moreover, access between the marine nearshore and the terrestrial backshore is impaired due to the presence of the railroad bed, and for aquatic organisms, the presence of small artificial connectors. • Nutrient transport and cycling — This function is degraded due to the clearing of backshore vegetation, bulkheading/filling of the upper intertidal zone and backshore, and restricted estuarine transitional areas. Con Packet Pg. 826 8.2.f • Woody debris production and distribution — Production is degraded due to vegetation clearing and uplands development. Distribution is degraded due to the bulkheading/filling of the upper intertidal zone and backshore, and the limited estuarine transitional areas. Edmonds Marsh (in reach 3) • Habitat provision — This function of the Edmonds Marsh is diminished due to prior wetland filling and creek re-channelization. The value of the remaining habitat is diminished because of the reduced access resulting from the presence of the railroad bed, Edmonds Marina, and commercial waterfront development in between the marsh and the shoreline, as well as from the restriction of aquatic access to a single artificial culvert. • Water quality function — Altered due to the presence of tide gate, which causes the marsh to be brackish in the winter and saline in the summer (when the tide gate is opened). • Nutrient transport and cycling — Reduced due to the restricted estuarine transitional area between the marsh and Puget Sound. • Woody debris production and distribution — Reduced due to the restricted estuarine transitional area between the marsh and Puget Sound. Lake Ballinger (reach 4) • Nutrient transport and cycling — Significantly reduced by sediment and nutrient loading, stormwater runoff, former wastewater inputs, vegetation alteration, and the presence of artificial shoreline structures. • Hydrological function — Significantly altered by the stormwater control system. • Habitat provision — Significantly altered by the stormwater control system, which has converted the former wetland into a lake, altered or eliminated inlet and outlet deltas, and blocked fish passage between the lake and McAleer Creek. Habitat has also been altered by the introduction of non-native species. • Water quality function — Reduced by sediment, contaminant, and nutrient inputs. 3. Reasonably Forseeable Future Development and Use of the Shoreline In this section, the reasonably foreseeable future development and use in each of the four reaches is described. Next, some additional remarks regarding the reasonably foreseeable future development and use in the City are given. Then, the cumulative impacts that might potentially result from actions related to the reasonably foreseeable development and other shoreline alterations are presented in a tabular format. The table lists the 7 Packet Pg. 827 alterations with potential cumulative impacts, lists the ecological functions and processes at risk, gives the shoreline reaches at risk, provides mitigating draft SMP policies and regulations, and finally provides some possible non -regulatory mitigation measures. In the final part of this section is a discussion of the modifications made to regulations as a result of this CIA. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Use Reach I As mentioned in the previous section, land use in Reach 1 consists primarily of the BNSF railway and the single-family housing landward of the tracks. Due to the failing condition of the railroad armoring in many locations, it is likely that portions of it may be repaired in the future. Regarding the single-family housing in the uplands, the 2006 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the land in this area as Single Family —Resource. The corresponding zoning is either Single Family, 12,000 square foot lots or Single Family, 20,000 square foot lots. While it is possible that a minimal number of the 190 or so existing residential parcels in the shoreline jurisdiction might be further subdivided, the comprehensive plan designation and zoning regulations would prevent any dramatic increase in development intensity. It is also worth mentioning that BNSF ownership and use of the railroad right -of way precludes the construction of residential docks in this area and negates the need for these residences to construct their own bulkheads. Activities related to vegetation (such as clearing) would be expected to continue on these residential parcels. Development in the far north of the City, in the Lund's Creek area, is prevented by the Meadowdale Beach County Park. Although this park is currently zoned as Single Family, 20,000 square foot lots, this land is designated as Park in the City's comprehensive plan. Waterward of the railroad tracks, a small section of land where the dilapidated Laebugten's Wharf now stands is designated in the comprehensive plan as Mixed Use Commercial and correspondingly zoned Commercial Waterfront. In the future, it is likely that Laebugten's Wharf will be removed. However, it is unlikely that any new structures would be permitted at this site. Additionally, waterward of the railroad tracks several parcels have been platted. However, these parcels are non -buildable. Reach 2 As in Reach 1, the BNSF railway is a major feature of this reach. To accommodate the future expansion of commuter trains operated by Sound Transit, BNSF plans to construct a second railroad track in the parts of this reach that feature just one track. Also, due to the failing condition of the railroad armoring in a few locations, it is possible that portions of it may be repaired. The bulk of the developable parcels in Reach 2 are designated as Single Family —Urban 1 in the comprehensive plan. These parcels are correspondingly zoned Single Family, N. Packet Pg. 828 8.2.f 6,000 square foot lots. These lots are virtually built out. Development activity would therefore consist primarily of structure remodel or replacement. As was the case with the single-family residences in reach 1, BNSF ownership and use of the railroad right -of way precludes the construction of residential docks in this area and negates the need for these residences to construct their own bulkheads. Activities related to vegetation (such as clearing) would be expected to continue on these residential parcels. A small number of parcels in Reach 2 are designated by the comprehensive plan as Downtown Mixed Commercial and Downtown Residence —Office and zoned Downtown Mixed Commercial and OfficeResidential, respectively. There parcels are already are for the most part already intensely developed and future development will largely be restricted to structure remodel or replacement. Waterward of the railroad, the area around Brackett's Landing North is designated by the comprehensive plan as Park/Open Space and zoned Public Use. Thus, development in this area is precluded. And while a small portion of the shoreline waterward of the tracks is platted and zoned Waterfront Single Family, 12,000 square foot lots, this is not a development concern because the land is non -buildable. Reach 3 Reach 3 comprehensive plan designations include Park/Open Space, Shoreline Commercial, Master Plan Development, and Multi Family —High Density. These areas are correspondingly zoned Public Use, Open Space, Commercial Waterfront, Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use, and Multi Family, 2,400 square feet of lot area per unit. This reach will likely see intense development and redevelopment activity in the near future. One of the major sources of this development activity will be the Edmonds Crossing project. This project is an effort to provide a long-term solution to current operation and safety conflicts in the downtown area for ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and pedestrian transportation modes. Part of this effort is the proposed move of the existing ferry terminal to a location further south and its conversion into a multimodal transportation complex. State Route 104 would be rerouted to serve the new complex. Several other development actions may occur in this reach as well. As was the case in Reach 2, BNSF is planning to install a second railroad track in areas where only one track currently exists. Also, the Port of Edmonds is considering several projects involving the construction, renovation, and removal of buildings and facilities. Such development projects are likely to in turn spur other new development projects in the vicinity. Reach 4 As already mentioned, land use in Reach 4 consists of single-family housing and associated infrastructure. The City's comprehensive plan designates the 49 or so parcels in this reach as Single Family —Resource. All these parcels are correspondingly zoned Waterfront Single Family, 12,000 square foot lots. These parcels are virtually built out. Development activity in this reach would be limited to the remodel or replacement of I Packet Pg. 829 8.2.f existing houses and ancillary structures (such as docks). Activities related to vegetation (such as clearing) would be expected to continue on these residential parcels. Additional Remarks on Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Use On activities exempt from shoreline permits Some of the reasonably foreseeable development activity in the City would be exempt from shoreline permits. This is because the SMA exempts from shoreline permitting several development actions including: single-family residences, normal protective bulkheads of single-family residences, normal maintenance and repair of existing structures, salt water docks worth less than $2,500, fresh water docks worth less than $10,000, and emergency construction. However, because of a variety of constraints, not much development of entirely new structures exempt from shoreline permits is expected. The most significant constraint is the BNSF railway, which precludes many of the parcels along the Puget Sound shoreline from developing docks or bulkheads. Therefore, it is likely that most of the exempt development activity would be limited to work related to the repair or replacement of existing structures. However, development activity related to existing structures is not expected to produce adverse cumulative impacts due to the beneficial effects of other regulatory programs (see section 4), such as the critical areas code. As an additional note on exempt shoreline development activities, of growing concern in the Puget Sound area is the increased intensity of use of residential lots (through the remodel and replacement of existing residences). However, in the City of Edmonds, such increased intensity of use is not currently foreseeable. This is because development standards in the shoreline area have not recently been amended. For example, maximum lot coverage (an important determinant of impervious surface area) remains unchanged at 35%. Moreover, at least several of the houses in the shoreline jurisdiction are located in portions of parcels outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. In sum, exempt shoreline development is expected to be minimal, and whatever activity might occur will be subject to other regulations. Therefore, development activities exempt from shoreline permits are not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological function. On the establishment of future development patterns As noted in the beginning of this document, the Washington State SMP Guidelines indicate that particular attention should be paid to policies and regulations concerned with the platting or subdividing of property, laying of utilities, and mapping of streets that establish a pattern for future development. Of these factors, as discussed above, the subdivision of property will likely be the only factor contributing to the future development pattern in the shoreline area. However, any subdivision activity is expected 10 Packet Pg. 830 8.2.f to be minimal, and therefore should not result any development pattern markedly different from the existing pattern. Packet Pg. 831 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Alteration: Process: Puget Sound Policies: Encourage the use Placement/Replacement of Wave action shorelines Shoreline use element: of low impact shoreline armoring Functions: (reaches 1, 2, 24.20.050.C.15 The rehabilitation of "natural development Sediment erosion, & 3) systems" (e.g. the improvement in water techniques. Potential Cumulative Impacts: deposition, and quality, removal of beach obstructions, etc.) Loss of beach areas, transport; turn over Lake should be encouraged when opportune. impoundment of sediment, of thermal Ballinger modification of groundwater stratification (reach 4) Conservation element: regimes, lowering of beach 24.20.060.C.2 Development in shoreline areas elevations, concentration and Process: should be managed so that any adverse redirection of wave energy to Large woody impacts on aquatic and land plants and animals adjacent areas, alteration of debris production are avoided or mitigated to result in no net loss substrate, loss of riparian and distribution of ecological function. vegetation Functions: Shoreline Restoration element: stabilization, 24.20.110.C.1 Protect and/or restore habitat provision, freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat water flow pattern and habitat -forming processes. complexity, food production General Modification Policies 24.50.010.A.1 Locate and design all new Process: development in a manner that prevents or Sedimentation minimizes the need for shoreline Functions: modifications. Land formation, provision of 24.50.010.A.2 Ensure that shoreline nutrients and modification, where permitted, are as 12 ti M N N R c a N 0 Q. E aD 2 CU E 0 U w x w c aD t r r Q Packet Pg. 832 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures minerals compatible as possible with natural shoreline processes and character. Process: 24.50.010.A.3 Regulate shoreline Nutrient Transport modifications to assure that modifications and Cycling individually and cumulatively do not result in Functions: a net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation Provision of may be required to meet the no net loss nutrients, provision standard. of water quality 24.50.010.A.4 Give preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a less impact on ecological functions and require mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications. 24.50.010.A.5 Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem -wide processes in the placement and design of shoreline modifications. To avoid and reduce ecological impacts, the mitigation sequence in ECDC 24.40.020.E.3 shall be utilized. Shoreline Stabilization Policies: 24.50.020.13.5 Consider the effect that proposed shore defense works have on ecosystem -wide processes (e.g. sand movement) and functions (e.g. habitat). 13 ti M N .N CU c a N 0 0. E aD CU E E 0 U to x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 833 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Make provisions to avoid and minimize impacts where feasible. Mitigation must be provided to achieve no net loss. Regulations: Flood Hazard Reduction: 24.40.030.B.4 New structural flood control works shall be placed landward of associated wetlands and designated habitat conservation areas, except for works that improve ecological functions, such as wetland restoration. General Shoreline Modification Regulations: 24.50.010.13.2 Structural shoreline modification measures shall be permitted only if nonstructural measures are unable to achieve the same purpose. Shoreline Stabilization Regulations: 24.50.020.C.2 Structural stabilization methods shall be permitted when necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement purposes. 24.50.020.C.3 New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes 14 ti M N .� CU c a N 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U c0 w x w c aD t r r Q Packet Pg. 834 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures significant negative impacts to adjacent or down -current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. 24.50.020.C.4 New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the normal, useful life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. 24.50.020.C.5.a — 5.d New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner. 5.a.ii The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 5.b.ii The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 5.d To protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW... 15 ti M N N CU c a N 0 Q. E aD CU E U c0 w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 835 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Shoreline Stabilization Siting and Design Regulations: ECDC 24.50.020.D. La Limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum necessary. Use measures designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses. Alteration: Process: Puget Sound Policies: Encourage the use Placement/Replacement of Light transmittal shorelines Shoreline use element: of low impact overwater structures Functions: (reaches 1 & development Water temperature 3) 24.20.050.C.4 Overwater structures other than techniques. Potential Cumulative Impacts: moderation, energy source for Lake ferry terminal passenger shelters, docks, piers, walkways, breakwaters and other similar Changed levels of light, shoreline energy regimes, photosynthesis, Ballinger structures should be prohibited with the substrate type and stability, visibility exception of minor appurtenant buildings, and water quality can result in Nearshore buoys, divers resting floats, and art sculpture. alterations in the presence, Process: and Conservation element: abundance, and diversity of Wave action freshwater plant and animal species in Functions: aquatic 24.20.060.C.2 Development in shoreline areas the nearshore area Sediment erosion, habitat should be managed so that any adverse deposition, and impacts on aquatic and land plants and animals transport; turn over are avoided or mitigated to result in no net loss 16 ti M N N R C a N 0 Q. E aD CU E U w X w c aD t r r Q Packet Pg. 836 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures of thermal of ecological function. stratification Restoration element: 24.20.110.C.1 Protect and/or restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat and habitat -forming processes. Moorage Piers, Docks and Floats Polices: 24.50.030.B.4... shall be designed and constructed to avoid or to minimize and mitigate the impacts to ecological functions, critical areas resources such as eelgrass beds and fish habitats and processes such as currents and littoral drift. Boating Facilities Policies: 24.60.020.B.4 Boating facilities shall be located, designed, constructed and operated in a manner that will minimize damage to shoreline processes and functions. When impacts cannot be avoided, impacts must be mitigated to assure no net loss of ecological function necessary to sustain shoreline resources. 17 ti M N .:1 CU c a N 0 Q. E a) CU E E 0 U c� x w c a� E t r r Q Packet Pg. 837 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Regulations: Moorage Piers, Docks, and Floats Regulations: 24.50.030.C. Lb Covered moorage is prohibited. 24.50.030.C.3.a — 3.d Regulations to minimize impacts or nearshore areas and avoid reduction in ambient light level. 24.50.030.C.5 Prohibited substances. Boating Facilities Regulations: 24.60.020.C. Lb Covered moorage is prohibited 24.60.020.C.2 Marinas or launch ramps shall not be permitted within the following marine shoreline habitats because of their scarcity, biological productivity and sensitivity unless no alternative location is feasible, the project would not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions... 24.60.020.C.9 Prohibited substances. Alteration: Process: Puget Sound Policies: Public outreach In ti M N .� c a N V 0 Q. E aD E E 0 U to w x w c aD t r r Q Packet Pg. 838 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Vegetation clearing Large woody shorelines Shoreline use element: and education on debris production (reaches 1, 2, 24.20.050.C.15 The rehabilitation of "natural shorelines. Potential Cumulative Impacts: and distribution & 3) systems" (e.g. the improvement in water Losses in production and Functions: quality, removal of beach obstructions, etc.) Restore degraded delivery of woody debris to Shoreline Lake should be encouraged when opportune. shoreline areas shoreline, decreased amount stabilization, Ballinger with native riparian and quality of shoreline habitat provision, Views and Aesthetics element: vegetation where habitat, decreased water water flow pattern 24.20.090.C.3 Public views from the shoreline possible. quality, altered water complexity, food upland areas should be enhanced and temperatures, erosion, losses production preserved. Enhancement of views should not of favorable microclimates be construed to mean excessive removal of Process: vegetation which partially impairs views. Light transmittal Functions: Conservation element: Water temperature 24.20.060.C.2 Development in shoreline areas moderation, energy should be managed so that any adverse source for impacts on aquatic and land plants and animals photosynthesis, are avoided or mitigated to result in no net loss visibility of ecological function. Process: Restoration element: Sedimentation 24.20.110.C.1 Protect and/or restore Functions: freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat Land formation, and habitat -forming processes. provision of nutrients and Shoreline Vegetation Conservation: minerals 24.40.050.A.3 Where new developments 19 a� a D E a� 0 a a� c L- 0 Cn ti M N N CU c a N 0 Q. E aD 2 CU E 0 U c0 w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 839 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures and/or uses are proposed, native shoreline Process: vegetation should be conserved to maintain Nutrient Transport shoreline ecological functions and/or and Cycling processes and mitigate the direct, indirect Functions: and/or cumulative impacts of shoreline Provision of development... nutrients, provision of water quality Regulations: Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Regulations: 24.40.050.B.1.d Alteration of native shoreline vegetation only allowed when Restoration activities conducted in accordance with an approved plan designed to improve ecological functions and values. 24.40.050.13.2 The removal or disturbance of existing vegetation and the alteration of topography shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved shoreline development. Alteration: Process: Puget Sound Policies: Encourage the use Increased impervious surface Hydrologic cycle shorelines Circulation element: of low impact area (reaches 1, 2, development & 3) 24.20.040.C.2 Where new streets are needed to techniques. 20 ti M N .N CU c a N r V 0 0. E aD CU E 0 U to x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 840 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Potential Cumulative Impacts: Functions: Water, nutrient, Lake serve uses in the shoreline area, these streets should be the minimum size necessary to Low dissolved oxygen in water bodies; increased pathogen, sediment Ballinger provide safe and efficient vehicular, contaminants, nutrients, and transport, and (reach 4) pedestrian, and bicycle access, including toxics in water; scouring of water quality access for emergency vehicles, to the land from increased runoff Edmonds properties to be served. volume, increased erosion Process: Marsh Conservation element: Tidal action Functions: 24.20.060.C.2 Development in shoreline areas Salinity, water should be managed so that any adverse flow patterns, impacts on aquatic and land plants and animals water volume are avoided or mitigated to result in no net loss of ecological function. Restoration element: 24.20.110.C.1 Protect and/or restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat and habitat -forming processes. Restoration element: 24.20.110.C.8 Manage and treat stormwater to improve water quality, decrease peak flow events, and increase implementation of low impact development (LID) practices. Transportation and Parking Policies: 24.60.080.B.4. Avoid unnecessary duplication 21 ti M N .N R c a N r 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U cfl X W c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 841 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures or roads by making use of existing roads where practicable. Utilities: 24.60.090.13 2. New public or private utilities should be located inland from the land/water interface, preferably out of the shoreline jurisdiction, unless this location is reasonably necessary for the efficient operation of the utility facility or service. 24.60.090.B.6. Utilities should be located in existing rights -of -way and corridors whenever feasible. 24.60.090.B.7. Utilities serving new development should be located underground, wherever feasible. Regulations: Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint pollution regulations: 24.40.060.B.4 New development is encouraged to employ Low Impact Development principles and practices such as setbacks, retaining land cover, and reducing impervious areas, and use special caution to avoid infiltration of stormwater in shoreline 22 ti M N .N CU c a N r V 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 842 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures areas along marine bluffs Transportation and Parking Regulations: 24.60.080.C.1 Transportation and parking facilities shall be planned, located, and designed so that routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water -dependent uses. 24.60.080.C.8 Parking layouts must be designed efficiently to use the minimum amount of space necessary to provide the required parking and safe and reasonable access... 24.60.080.C.9. Transportation facilities shall be constructed of materials that will preclude or minimize adverse affects on water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the long term... Elements within or over water shall be constructed of materials approved by applicable state agencies for use in water for both submerged portions and other components to avoid discharge of pollutants from splash, rain or runoff. No part of a 23 ti M N .N R c a N r V 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U to w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 843 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures transportation facility that may come in contact with the water may be treated with or consist, in whole or in part, of creosote, oil based paints, toxic chemicals or other substances that would be harmful to the aquatic environment, unless specifically permitted and authorized by appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies. Reereational Development — Shoreline Area Regulations: 24.60.060.D.10.a Structures will not result in more than ten percent (10%) building coverage or 4,000 square feet, whichever is greater and total impervious surface will not exceed twenty percent (20%), or 10,000 square feet, whichever is greater. Utilities Regulations: 24.60.090.C.2 Except where infeasible, all utility lines, pipes, conduits, meters, vaults and similar infrastructures and appurtenances must be placed underground consistent with the standards of the serving utility. 24.60.090.C.4 Utilities shall be located 24 ti M N N CU c a N 0 Q. E aD 2 CU E E 0 U to w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 844 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures adjacent to or within existing utility or circulation easements or rights -of -way whenever feasible. Joint use of rights -of - way and corridors is encouraged. Alteration: Process: Puget Sound Policies: Public outreach Increased vehicular traffic Water quality shorelines Circulation element: and education on maintenance (reaches 2 & shorelines. Potential Cumulative Impacts: Functions: Provision of water 3) 24.20.040.C.2 Whenever practicable, safe pedestrian and bicycle movement on and off Encourage vehicles Decreased water quality, decreased air quality quality Edmonds roadways in the shoreline area should be waiting at the ferry Marsh encouraged as a means of personal terminal to turn off Process: transportation and recreation engines. Air quality maintenance 24.20.040.C.4 Public waterborne Functions: transportation linked to public and private Provision of air forms of ground transportation should be quality encouraged to minimize auto usage, and to eliminate barriers between public waterborne transportation and ground transportation in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 24.20.040.C.7 Public transit systems should be linked to the urban waterfront. Transportation and Parking Policies: 24.60.080.13.2 Transportation system plans and 25 ti M N .:1 CU c a N V 0 0. E aD CU E E 0 U c0 x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 845 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures transportation projects within shorelines should provide safe travel ways for non - motorized traffic such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Space for such uses should be required along roads on shorelines, where appropriate, and should be considered when rights -of -way are being vacated. Regulations: Transportation and Parking Regulations: 24.60.080.C.1 Transportation and parking facilities shall be planned, located, and designed so that routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water -dependent uses. 24.60.080.C.5 Road routes shall make provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, and other non -motorized modes of travel whenever feasible. 26 a� a D E a� 0 a a� a� c L 0 Cn ti M N .N R c a N 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U to w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 846 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Alteration: Process: Puget Sound Policies: Dredging Sedimentation shorelines Restoration element: Functions: (reaches 1, 2, Potential Cumulative Impacts: Land formation, provision of & 3) 24.20.110.C.1 Protect and/or restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat Habitat disruption, increased water turbidity, altered nutrients and Lake and habitat -forming processes. hydrology minerals Ballinger Aquatic Environment: (reach 4) Process: Marine 24.30.030.D.11 Dredging and dredge material and freshwater disposal should be limited to the minimum habitat amount necessary. Dredging operations should Functions: Water minimize impacts to other shoreline uses and quality functions. Dredging and dredge material policies: 24.50.060.B.1 Site and design new development to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging. 24.50.060.B.2 Dredging waterward of the ordinary high water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material shall not be allowed, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of ecological functions. 24.50.060.B.4 Plan and conduct dredge and 27 ti M N .:1 CU c a N r 0 0. E a) CU E E 0 U to w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 847 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures dredge disposal operations in a manner that avoids or minimizes interference with navigation and significant ecological impacts. Impacts which cannot be avoided should be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 24.50.060.13.5 Minor dredging for fill materials as part of ecological restoration or enhancement, beach nourishment, public access or public recreation should be permitted if consistent with this Program. Regulations: Dredging and dredge material regulations: 24.50.060.C. La — l.g Regulations for when dredging may be permitted, including; l.f. Restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and processes benefiting water quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat. 1.g Dredging waterward of the ordinary high water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material shall not be allowed, except when the material is necessary for the NM ti M N .N CU c a N r V R 0. E a) CU E E 0 U to w X w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 848 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures restoration of ecological functions. When allowed, the site where the fill is to be placed must be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The project must be either associated with a MRCA or CERCLA habitat restoration project or, if approved through a shoreline conditional use permit, any other significant habitat enhancement project. 23.50.060.C.2 The existing physical alignment and ecological function and processes shall be maintained, except to improve hydraulic function, water quality, fish or wildlife habitat, or fish passage. 23.50.060.C.3 New development shall be sited and designed avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and/or maintenance dredging. 23.50.060.5.a — 5.h ...when permitted dredging shall 5.b Include all feasible mitigating measures to protect habitats and to minimize adverse impacts such as turbidity, release of nutrients, heavy metals, sulfides, organic materials, or toxic substances, depletion of oxygen, disruption of food chains, loss of 29 ti M N N R c a N r V R Q. E aD CU E E 0 U w x w aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 849 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures benthic productivity, and disturbance of fish runs and important localized biological communities. 5.c Be scheduled so as to not materially interfere with the migratory movements of anadromous fish. 5.e. Not interfere with geohydraulic processes. 51 Be found, through analysis by qualified professional, to be nonpolluting or shall have no significant negative pollution impact. 5.h Not result in erosion of the shoreline or undermine the stability of neighboring properties. 24.50.060.E.12 — Natural Environment: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permits as an essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement project subject to the policies and regulations of the Program. Alteration: Process: Puget Sound Policies: Filling Sedimentation shorelines Restoration element: Functions: (reaches 1, 2, Potential Cumulative Impacts: Land formation, & 3) 24.20.110.C.1 Protect and/or restore 30 ti M N N R c a N 0 Q. E a� CU E E 0 U w x w c a� E t r r Q Packet Pg. 850 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Reduced sediment storage, provision of freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat decreased water quality, nutrients and Lake and habitat -forming processes. habitat disruption, altered minerals Ballinger 24.20.110.C.3 Remove intertidal fill; restore hydrology (reach 4) beach deposits and processes and ecological Process: Marine functions. nearshore and Edmonds freshwater habitat Marsh Functions: Water Shell Creek Aquatic Environment: quality Wetland 24.30.030.D.12 Filling should be avoided if practicable and limited to the minimum amount necessary. Filling operations should minimize impacts to other shoreline uses and functions. Shoreline stabilization: 24.50.020.B.3.c Structural stabilization will not be permitted for the indirect purpose of creating land by filling. Landfill: 24.50.040.B.1 Landfill should only be permitted to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate an approved shoreline use or development and with assurance of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and rocesses. Enhancement and voluntary 31 a� a D E a� 0 a a� a� c L- 0 Cn ti M N .:1 R c a N 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U cfl x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 851 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures restoration of landforms and habitat are encouraged. 24.50.040.B.2 Allow landfills waterward of the ordinary high water mark, in those limited circumstances where permitted, only when necessary to facilitate water -dependent uses or ecological restoration projects that are consistent with this program and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plans. Where feasible, public access to the shoreline and the water should be incorporated into the design. Regulations: Landfill Regulations: 24.50.040.C.1.a —1.f Landfill water ward of the ordinary high water mark may be permitted as a conditional use in limited instances for the following purposes only, with due consideration given to specific site conditions, and only in conjunction with approved shoreline use and development activities that are consistent with this program: Lc Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency 32 ti M N N CU c a N r 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 852 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures environmental clean-up plan. Lf Mitigation action, environmental restoration, beach nourishment or enhancement projects. 24.50.040.C.2.a — 2.f Landfills shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that: 2.a The project has been located, designed, and constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to ecological processes and functions and where impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation is provided to achieve no net loss. 2.b The fill will not result in erosion of the shoreline or undermine stability of neighboring properties. 2.f Placement of landfill will be timed so as to minimize damage to water quality and aquatic life. 24.50.040.C.3 The applicant must stabilize exposed fill areas with vegetation. 24.50.040.E.12 Natural Environment: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use when necessary to protect or restore 33 a� a D E a� 0 a a� a� c L 0 Cn ti M N .� CU r_ a N 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U to x w aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 853 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures shoreline ecological functions subject to the policies and regulations of this program. Alteration: Process: Puget Sound Policies: Land surface modification Hydrologic cycle shorelines Restoration Element: Functions: (reaches 1, 2, Potential Cumulative Impacts: Water, nutrient, pathogen, and & 3) 24.20.110.C.1 Protect and/or restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat Reduced sediment storage, decreased water quality, sediment transport Lake and habitat -forming processes. altered hydrology Ballinger Natural Environment: Process: (reach 4) Sedimentation 24.30.040.D.4 New development or significant Functions: Edmonds vegetation removal that would reduce the Land formation, Marsh capability of vegetation to perform normal provision of ecological functions should not be allowed. nutrients and Shell Creek Subdivision of property in a configuration that minerals wetlands would, to achieve its intended purpose, require significant vegetation removal or shoreline Process: Upland modification that adversely impacts ecological shore habitat functions should not be allowed. Functions: water Urban Conservancy Environment: quality 24.30.050.D.5 New development should be designed and located to preclude the need for shoreline armoring, vegetation removal, flood control, and other shoreline modifications. 34 ti M N .N CE c a N 0 Q. E a� CU E U c0 w X w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 854 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Shoreline Residential: 24.30.060.D.3. Structurally engineered shoreline modifications and stabilization should be prohibited except in cases of emergency as defined. General Modification Policies: 24.50.010.A.1 Locate and design all new development in a manner that prevents or minimizes the need for shoreline modifications. 24.50.010.A.2 Ensure that shoreline modification, where permitted, are as compatible as possible with natural shoreline processes and character. 24.50.010.A.3 Regulate shoreline modifications to assure that modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation may be required to meet the no net loss standard. 24.50.010.A.4 Give preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a less impact on ecological functions and require mitigation of identified impacts resulting from 35 a� a D E a� 0 a a� a� c 0 Cn ti M N N CU c a N 0 Q. E aD CU E E 0 U to w X w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 855 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures shoreline modifications. 24.50.010.A.5 Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem -wide processes in the placement and design of shoreline modifications. To avoid and reduce ecological impacts, the mitigation sequence in ECDC 24.40.020.E.3 shall be utilized. Regulations: Critical Areas: 24.40.020.J Additional authority. In addition to any other authority the city may have, the city is hereby authorized to condition or deny a proposed use, modification or activity or to require site redesign because of hazards associated with the use, modification or activity on or near an environmentally sensitive and/or critical area, and/or the effect of the proposal on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area. Shoreline Vegetation Conservation: 24.40.050.B. La —1.d Alteration of native shoreline vegetation shall only be allowed as set forth below: 36 ti M N .N R c a N 0 Q. E aD CU E U w x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 856 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures Lb Removal of noxious weeds as listed by the state in WAC 16-750, provided such activity shall be conducted in a manner consistent with best management practices and native vegetation is promptly reestablish in the disturbed area. 1.c Modification of vegetation in association with a legal, nonconforming use provided that said modification is conducted in a manner consistent with this Master Program and results in no net loss to ecological functions or critical fish and wildlife conservation areas. l.d Restoration activities conducted in accordance with an approved plan designed to improve ecological functions and values. 24.40.050.13.2 The removal or disturbance of existing vegetation and the alteration of topography shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved shoreline development. General Shoreline Modification Regulations: 24.50.010.B.1 Shoreline modification activities that do not support a permitted shoreline use are considered "speculative" and are prohibited by this Master Program, 37 ti M N N CU c a N 0 0. E aD CU E E 0 U x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 857 8.2.f CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS TABLE Shoreline Alterations with Ecological Shoreline Mitigating Draft SMP Policies and Possible Non - Potential Cumulative Processes and Resources at Regulations (selected regulation excerpts Regulatory Impacts Associated Risk included) Mitigation Functions at Risk Measures unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Shoreline Administrator that such activities are in the public interest and necessary and for the maintenance of shoreline environmental resource values. 24.50.010.13.3 Shoreline modification activities, with the exception of restoration or enhancement efforts, are prohibited in wetlands, and undeveloped spits, hooks, bars, barrier beaches, or similar accretion terminals or accretion shore forms. 24.60.090.C.10 Utility developments shall be located and designed so as to avoid, to the extent practicable, the need for any structural or artificial shoreline modification works for the life of the project. a� a D E a� 0 a a� c L 0 L Cn ti M N .N CU c a N r V 0 Q. E aD E E 0 U c0 t x w c aD E t r r Q Packet Pg. 858 8.2.f Modifications to Regulations as a Result of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis The policies and regulations evaluated in this draft of the cumulative impact analysis were developed to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses and these regulations and policies have been iteratively reviewed by the Department of Ecology for consistency with this requirement. As a result of this review process, no modifications to the regulations were necessitated as a result of this cumulative impacts analysis. 4. Beneficial Effects of Any Established Regulatory Programs Under Other Local, State, and Federal Laws Several other established regulatory programs (besides the SMP) yield beneficial effects on the City's shorelines. Some regulatory programs with beneficial effects are briefly described below. For more information on the shoreline regulatory framework, refer to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (section 2). Local City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan provides the overall strategy for the physical layout of the City. One of its purposes is "to anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the City and its environs and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources." City of Edmonds Community Development Code The City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Titles 16 and 17 contain the zoning ordinance for the City. The zoning designations are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The ECDC also contains the environmentally critical areas code (Title 23) for the City. The purpose of this code 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." The code covers wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The code yields beneficial effects on the City's shorelines because its provisions extend to the critical areas which exist in or are in the vicinity of the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The code attempts to achieve its purpose by requiring that "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." Mitigation is only allowed when applicants first demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts. Packet Pg. 859 8.2.f State Shoreline Management Act The goal of the SMA (RCW 90.58) is to "prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." The SMA gives preference to uses that protect water quality and the natural environment, water -dependent uses, and preserve or enhance public access or recreational opportunities. Cities, including the City of Edmonds, and counties prepare SMPs based on state guidelines, yet geared to fit the specific circumstances of the individual jurisdictions. SMPs include both plans and regulations for shoreline areas. Growth Management Act Many of Washington's cities and counties, including the City, plan according to the Growth Management Act (GMA). While the goals and policies of the SMA are themselves a goal of the GMA, other goals of the GMA are particularly relevant in shoreline jurisdictions as well. Those goals include "Encourage economic development consistent with resources and facilities throughout the state," "Maintain and enhance natural resource -based industries," and "Protect the environment and enhance quality of life." To meet the goals of the GMA, jurisdictions planning under the GMA are required to designate and protect critical areas, as well as to use the best available science in developing policies and regulations to protect their functions and values. Also, the land use element of comprehensive plans is required to consider stormwater management and discharges into waters of the state. State Environmental Policy Act The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) aims to maintain and improve environmental quality. SEPA does so by requiring procedures designed to insure that governmental agencies give proper consideration of environmental matters when making decisions on development actions. If initial governmental review of a proposed action indicates that the action will have probable and significant adverse environmental impacts, preparation of a detailed environmental impact statement is required. The review of projects in the shoreline area triggering SEPA will afford the City's shorelines additional environmental protection. Water pollution control laws The state also has water pollution control laws (RCW 90.48) with beneficial effects on the City's shoreline. In enacting these laws, the legislature declared that it is "public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state, and to that end require the use of all known available and reasonable methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state of Washington. Consistent with this policy, the state of Washington will exercise its powers, as fully and as effectively as possible, to retain and secure high quality for all waters of the state." O Packet Pg. 860 8.2.f Federal Federal Water Pollution Control Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act regulates discharges of pollutants into federally designated waters, which include Lake Ballinger, Edmonds Marsh, and the marine waters along the City's shoreline abutting Puget Sound. Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act protects shoreline flora and fauna by requiring all projects permitted, funded, or authorized by the federal government to protect threatened and endangered species. Magnuson -Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson -Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act requires federally funded, authorized, or permitted projects that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat to be consulted upon by NOAA Fisheries. -41 - Packet Pg. 861 8.2.f Legend Shoreline Planning Reaches � of ED yj0 • Planning Segment Break OONi Major Road Reach 1 004S,o Planning Segment Street Reach 2 V°r Edmonds City Limits Railroad Reach 3 ... DRAFT SMP Jurisdiction Stream Reach 4 City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program UpdatE Packet Pg. 862 8.2.g Main Motion #4 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE 2013 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. Councilmember Bloom recalled during the last legislative session the Senate or the House voted to exempt audio recordings of executive sessions from public records requests and if a request was made, a judge would review the tape to determine if the Council met the criteria for an executive session. She suggested including that on the 2013 legislative agenda. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled Councilmember Bloom's interest was for all audio recordings of executive sessions to be automatically exempt from public records regardless of the subject of the executive session versus the current hodge- podge of exemptions. Councilmember Bloom clarified her intent was to support the original bill that was approved by either the House or Senate. If the Council was not interested, she was okay with not pursuing it at this time. Action on Main Motion #4 THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Main Motion #5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND MIKE DOUBLEDAY. Action on Main Motion #5 THE MOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE INTRODUCTION Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the City has been working on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update for about six years. The Planning Board recommended the Council review the SMP update concurrent with the Harbor Square Master Plan. He provided an overview: • Shoreline Management Act (SMA) o Passed by legislature in 1971, adopted by voters in 1972 • SMA policies address: o Shoreline Uses o Environmental Protection o Public Access Shoreline Master Program (SMP) ■ Under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline -specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. In 2003, the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted new guidelines for SMP development. The SMP guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their SMPs. The guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. The SMP consists of several sections, including: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2012 Page 9 Packet Pg. 863 8.2.g • Cumulative Impact Analysis In 2006 the City received a grant from DOE to begin work on the SMP update. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed who reviewed policies, inventory and characterization, restoration plan, and shoreline environments. A consultant drafted ECDC Title 24 and the Cumulative Impact Analysis. Tonight's presentation is intended to be an introduction to the SMP update; Mr. Lien envisioned there would be several reviews/discussions with the Council in the first quarter of 2013. Once the Council adopts the SMP; it is forwarded to DOE for approval. Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (Edmonds has none) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien explained the intent of shoreline environments is to encourage uses that will protect or enhance the current or desired character of a shoreline. Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction. The TAC reviewed the environmental designations with the exception of Mixed Use III and how it applies to Harbor Square. In the current draft SMP, there are 11 shoreline jurisdictions. Mr. Lien displayed a map of current shoreline designations, explained the current shoreline jurisdiction is 200 feet from Puget Sound. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh is considered an associated wetland, meaning shoreline jurisdiction ends at the edge of the Edmonds Marsh boundary. As part of the update, the Edmonds Marsh was determined to be a shoreline, meaning that shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond the Marsh. He displayed an aerial view of the Edmonds Marsh, identifying historic boundaries of the marsh in 1870, 1944, 1964 and 2006. In negotiations with DOE, the extent of Edmonds Marsh as a shoreline was determined to be the 2006 boundary. Shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond the Edmonds Marsh, into Harbor Square and the potential Edmonds Crossing site. Mr. Lien displayed another aerial view, a survey WSDOT did when considering Edmonds Crossing. A question that often arises is what happens when Willow Creek is day lighted and saltwater is allowed to intrude further into the Edmonds Marsh. He explained the Edmonds Marsh boundary will not expand; the salt aspect of the Marsh will expand. He identified the area that WSDOT believes will become a salt marsh (blue hatched on map) and the 10-foot elevation mark (mean high tide of Puget Sound is 10 feet depicted as red line on map). Mr. Lien explained it was near the end of the SMP update that DOE determined Edmonds Marsh would be a shoreline rather than an associated wetland. During the SMP update, consideration must be given to all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state. The SMP must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the SMP. When it was discovered Edmonds Marsh would be a shoreline, he was aware of the Port's plans with regard to the Harbor Square Master Plan. When a new environment was created it was with that and the City's Comprehensive Plan in mind. He referred to the Downtown Master Plan that states, this area is appropriate for design -driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. Under the current SMP, there were two Urban Mixed Use zones: • Urban Mixed Use I Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2012 Page 10 Packet Pg. 864 8.2.g o North of fishing pier to Brackett's Landing South • Urban Mixed Use II o Ferry Terminal o Marina Beach to fishing pier With the language in the Downtown Master Plan and the knowledge of the Harbor Square Master Plan, a new shoreline environment was established: • Urban Mixed Use III o Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh o Commercial area north of ferry terminal Mr. Lien explained the Urban Mixed -Use III designation is appropriate for those areas that have been intensely developed and that have no direct access to navigable waters. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for mixed -use development including high -intensity, commerce, transportation, recreation and residential development. (ECDC 24.30.070.B). The Planning Board delayed review of the SMP update until the Harbor Square Master Plan was submitted. Mr. Lien reviewed uses and bulk and dimensional standards in the SMP that apply to Harbor Square: • ECDC 24.40.80 — Permitted Use by Shoreline Designation o Multifamily Residential Development proposed as an allowed use • ECDC 24.40.090 — Bulk and Dimensional Standards 0 50 foot setback from edge of Edmonds Marsh for most uses and development 0 15 foot setback for recreational use o Allowed height 35 feet with footnote that height determined by underlying zoning The current contract rezone for Harbor Square property has a 35-foot height limit. The Port has requested taller building within the Harbor Square site. Mayor Earling reiterated there will be further meetings on the SMP update. He invited general, big picture questions from the Council. Councilmember Bloom commented when she reviewed the SMP, it is clear that wetland buffers need to be observed. It was her understanding the Marsh is a wetland and the standard buffer for a Category I wetland such as the Edmonds Marsh was 200 feet; the Harbor Square Master Plan has a 50-foot setback. She asked how that would be resolved. Mr. Lien answered critical area regulations are an outgrowth of the GMA. There have been a few court decisions that have addressed that and DOE has developed guidelines: areas 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark are ruled by the SMP and areas outside of shoreline jurisdictions are ruled by the GMA and the critical areas regulations. When the SMP update was being drafted, there were a few options: copy specific sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) into the SMP, reference the CAO and SMP, or include portions of the CAO in the appendix of the SMP. The City did a combination, adopting most of the CAO within the SMP but DOE felt the City's wetland regulations did not meet their requirements and requested the City incorporate their Best Available Science for Small Jurisdictions. Title 24 contains a new section regarding wetlands and how wetland buffers will be applied within a shoreline jurisdiction area; the base buffer from DOE is 150 feet. Mr. Lien referred to allowed uses in critical areas, ECDC 23.40.220.0 and ECDC 23.50.020, explaining Harbor Square is currently developed to approximately 25 feet of the Edmonds Marsh. Any redevelopment is an allowed activity per the City's critical area regulations. The Port's Master Plan references enhancing and increasing the buffer where possible but the critical area regulations would allow the site to be redeveloped within the critical area buffers because it already is a developed area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2012 Page 11 Packet Pg. 865 8.2.g Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that the City would grandfather in its current footprint. Mr. Lien answered the Port is grandfathered to the developed footprint which is within 25 feet in some places. The impervious footprint of Harbor Square can be redeveloped per the City's critical area regulations. In addition to language in the Harbor Square Master Plan regarding enhancing and increasing the buffer where possible, there are other things that can be done to improve the Marsh and reduce existing impacts. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if she could add to the questions she previously asked of staff regarding Harbor Square. Mr. Lien advised another public hearing regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan is scheduled for December 18. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE PORT'S HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN ENVISIONS A MIXED -USE TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. THE MIXED -USE NATURE OF THE MASTER PLAN WILL ALLOW FOR RETAIL, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND PUBLIC USES, AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. THE MASTER PLAN COULD PROVIDE 340 TO 358 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 50,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 9,784 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, 123,410 SQUARE FEET OF RECREATIONAL HEALTH CLUB USES (INCLUDING TENNIS COURTS), 3.8 ACRES OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, AND 1,091 SPACES OF OFF-STREET PARKING. THE MASTER PLAN ENVISIONS BUILDINGS OF VARYING HEIGHTS, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 55 FEET CONCEPTUALLY, BUILDINGS UP TO 35 FEET ARE PROPOSED FOR THE SR-104/DAYTON STREET INTERSECTION WHILE BUILDINGS OF 45 FEET ARE PROPOSED ALONG DAYTON STREET (WITH STEP -BACK PROVISIONS FOR PORTIONS ABOVE 35 FEET). FIVE STORY BUILDINGS (UP TO 55 FEET IN HEIGHT) COULD BE LOCATED TOWARD THE FAR SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE SITE. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City to incorporate the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Port envisions a mixed use development including retail, commercial, office, public uses, and residential development. He emphasized this is a non -project level plan review. The Port has not applied for a development permit or a rezone. However, incorporating the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan would lay the foundation for a future rezone and/or development agreement for the site. Mr. Lien reviewed steps in a timeline of the Comprehensive Plan/development review process for Harbor Square, 2004-2014 and beyond, identifying points where the City Council will be involved (shown in italics): • 2004-June 2012 o Port prepares and adopts Harbor Square Master Plan • July — October 2012 o City reviews and adopts Harbor Square Master Plan as a Comprehensive Plan amendment o City completes and adopts SMP • 2012-2013 o City and Port enact conceptual development agreement/MOU • Undetermined — depends on market conditions and other factors o The Port prepares and issues a developer RFP, review proposals and select developer o Developer refines analysis, secures financing and prepares proposal and permit application o Developer applies to City for final development agreement, City reviews and approves with conditions o Developer completes construction documents and prepares building permit application o City reviews building permit application o Construction begins Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2012 Page 12 Packet Pg. 866 8.2.g add an additional 60 days to the timeframe to develop the work program. That amendment could be prepared and presented to Council next week. The Members Advisory Board will present the 2013 work program to the Council for approval. Once the members of the BID choose their own Members Advisory Board, they will prepare and submit a 2014 work program to the City Council before the end of September 2013. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Members Advisory Board will be selected. Mr. Clifton responded the ordinance calls for appointing members based on proportional representation based on the valuation of collections. It is approximately a 50150 split now. The ordinance allows for appointment of an Interim Board of 7 to 11 members. Thus far, 14 individuals have expressed interest in serving on the Interim Members Advisory Board; a proportional representation would be 5 members from by appointment businesses and 5 members from open door businesses. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the deadline for businesses to submit their name to participate on the Board. Mr. Clifton advised the letter requests names be submitted by March 8. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the 50150 split of open door and by appointment businesses. Mr. Clifton responded the percentages based on the total assessment collected are 50.6% open door and 49.4% by appointment businesses. Councilmember Bloom pointed out if the percentage was based on the number of businesses, there would be more by appointment members of the Board. She asked whether the calculation method could be changed. Mr. Clifton answered it was in the ordinance and the only way to change it would be for the Council to revise the ordinance. 11. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE INTRODUCTION Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the second introduction to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided a brief introduction at the December 4, 2012 Council meeting, primarily related to the Harbor Square property. A continued work session regarding the SMP is scheduled on March 26 and a decision will be made at that meeting whether to hold another work session. Mr. Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA): • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: o Shoreline Uses ■ The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection ■ The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." against adverse effects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. o Public Access ■ Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline -specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 8 Packet Pg. 867 8.2.g In 2003 the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted SMP Guidelines that are contained in WAC 173-26. The SMP Guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their shoreline master programs. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. Edmonds did a fairly significant update of its SMP in 2000; the prior SMP was adopted in the early 1970s. The SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations • Draft ECDC Title 24 • Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications • Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis He reviewed components of the SMP update: • Technical Advisory Committee, convened in 2006 • Consultant Documents o Shoreline Inventory and Characterization o Restoration Plan • Development Regulations — ECDC Title 24 • Cumulative Impact Analysis • SMP must be approved by Ecology o Have tentative DOE approval of regulations Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (Edmonds has none) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien described the differences between jurisdiction, setback and buffers: • Jurisdiction — Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark of shorelines (OHWM) • Setback — Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM Buffer — the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values. Mr. Lien explained often people think of an idealized natural concept of an undeveloped shoreline when thinking about buffers. The reality in Edmonds is a heavily developed shoreline with the Port, railroad tracks and other uses. Thus the naturalized concept for buffers does not apply in urban developed areas. As an example, he provided an image of Lake Ballinger, identifying the shoreline jurisdiction, shore setback prescribed by the SMP, and wetland setback. He provided an image of the bluff area in north Edmonds, identifying the railroad tracks, steep bluffs, bluff setback, and critical area building setback. Council President Petso asked if the appropriate setback and buffers are intended to be in Title 24 or will other critical area ordinances apply. Mr. Lien answered he would address that later in his presentation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 9 Packet Pg. 868 8.2.g Mr. Lien explained a key aspect of the SMA and a key consideration in developing the SMP is the concept of no let loss: • RCW 90.58.620 — Updated SMP's must ensure expansion, redevelopment and replacement of existing structures will result in no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline. • WAC 173-26-186 — Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions. Achievement of no net loss is documented via the cumulative impacts analysis. • SMP Handbook — Setbacks only, with vegetation conservation and enhancement with new development meet the requirements to protect ecological functions. Mr. Lien reviewed the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. • Part I: Introduction ECDC 24.10.000 — 24.10.060 o 24.10.030 — Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations ■ SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan ■ SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC • Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP • SMP prevails where there are conflicts Part II: Goals & Policies ECDC 24.20.000 — 24.20.110 o Goals and Policies reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 2006 o Largely unchanged from current SMP o Added policies on climate change, LID, and Edmonds Marsh Part III: Shoreline Environments ECDC 24.30.000 — 24.30.080 o Intent is to encourage uses that will protect or enhance the current or desired character of a shoreline. o Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction o Environmental designations reviewed by TAC o Edmonds has 11 Shoreline Environments: ■ Aquatic • Aquatic I (Low Intensity) — purpose is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the OHWM. • Aquatic 11 (high intensity) — purpose is protect the unique characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing water -dependent use activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation, and commerce, and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses. ■ Natural — purpose is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low -intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. • The Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route 104. • The Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone ■ Conservancy — purpose is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses • Bracket Landing South and North • Off -leash Dog Park • Willow Creek outlet of Edmonds Marsh ■ Shoreline Residential — purpose is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. • Shoreline Residential I Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 10 Packet Pg. 869 8.2.g — North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning Shoreline Residential II — East of railroad, RS-6 zoning Shoreline Residential III — Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 Mr. Lien explained one of the major changes between the current SMP and the updated SMP is the change in designation of the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland which meant shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the Marsh. In this update, DOE determined the Edmonds Marsh was itself a shoreline and the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the Marsh. The portion of the Marsh that is shoreline jurisdiction is the portion that is tidally influenced, the salt marsh area. He displayed an image identifying the historic boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh and the boundary set for the SMP. He identified an area where WSDOT estimated would turn into a salt marsh if Willows Creek were daylighted. Mr. Lien continued with the list of Edmonds' 11 shoreline environments: ■ Urban Mixed Use — the purpose is to provide for high -intensity, water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded • Urban Mixed Use I — North of fishing pier to Brackett's Landing South • Urban Mixed Use II Ferry Terminal Marina Beach to fishing pier • Urban Mixed Use III Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh Commercial area north of ferry terminal Councilmember Buckshnis commented Urban Mixed Use III was the only classification that allows residential. Mr. Lien agreed, explaining the SMP update is to consider all plans made or being made. Staff was aware the Port was considering redevelopment of Harbor Square which included a residential component. He identified an area where the Urban Mixed Use III applies to a Master Plan II zone that also envisions mixed use development with residential and commercial. He advised the use tables consider residential development within Harbor Square. Council President Petso asked if Urban Mixed Use II was an option for the south end of the Marsh as it was her understanding that was to be a transportation oriented use such as the ferry terminal relocation. Mr. Lien answered the south end of the Marsh allows for residential use. There is a MP 1 zone on the hill and MP 2 zone at the base of the hill. In the MP 1 zone, multi -family residential, offices, hotels/motels, restaurants, local public facilities and other uses are allowed. In the MP 2 zone, all uses permitted in the MP 1 zone are allowed. Council President Petso relayed her understanding the area on the map colored purple was intended to be used for the new ferry terminal, a transportation use. Mr. Lien responded it is the Edmonds Crossing site, but some commercial development was also envisioned in that area. Mr. Lien advised language describing the difference in the Urban Mixed Use environments is contained on page 30 of Title 24. Mr. Lien continued with the list of Edmonds' 11 shoreline environments: ■ Urban Railroad — purpose is to identify the 100-foot right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad along the Edmonds shoreline. This designation will provide for high -intensity transportation uses while protecting ecological functions • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 11 Packet Pg. 870 8.2.g Mr. Lien continued his review of the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. • Part IV: General Policies & Regulations ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090 0 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Table ■ Allowed uses and required permits 0 24.40.090 — Bulk and Dimensional Standards ■ Setbacks and height limits Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is a jurisdiction of 150-200 feet from the OHWM, and a shore setback of 50 feet and asked whether the jurisdiction trumps the setback. Mr. Lien answered the jurisdiction is not a buffer or setback; 200 feet from the OHWM is the shoreline jurisdiction and is where the SMP applies. Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example: a house could not be located in the dog park because it is not 200 feet from the OHWM. Mr. Lien answered a house could not be located in the dog park because it is a conservancy environment which does not allow residential development. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the shore setbacks in Urban Mixed Use III are 50 feet and 15 feet for Urban Mixed Use I and II. She asked if that could be changed, expressing her interest in having the correct setbacks to seek grant funds. Mr. Lien responded he has worked closely with Ecology drafting these regulations; Ecology submitted a letter to the Port, copied to the City, regarding the Mixed Use III environment, and it states Ecology supports the Edmonds draft Mixed Use III shoreline environment and the associated shoreline regulations for Harbor Square area. The proposed standards recognize the existing high intensity land use that is present at Harbor Square and the highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. Standards allow for potential redevelopment in the same impervious footprint. He explained although there are small setbacks, the setback is larger than currently exist and any redevelopment of the area provides an opportunity for enhancement. This also applied to critical area regulations that are outside the shoreline. Edmonds is 96% developed and many of the buffers encompass 2-3 parcels and the science the buffers are developed on areas that are undeveloped natural areas and do not apply to urbanized area. Councilmember Yamamoto asked how the OHWM is determined. Mr. Lien answered the OHWM on Puget Sound is the mean higher high tide. There are two high tides each day, one is always higher. The mean higher high tide for the Edmonds area is 10 feet. Around the Edmonds Marsh area, the OHWM is the edge of the wetland. Mr. Lien continued his review of the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. He explained a major change is proposed in the SMP update: • Part VIII: Administration — Shoreline Permits ECDC 24.80.000 — 24.80.170 o Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 0 24.80.100 — Public Hearing ■ Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner ■ Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: • One or more persons request a hearing • A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued • Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use • The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • Part IV: General Policies & Regulations ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090 0 24.40.020 — critical areas o GMA vs. SMA o CAO Integration Options: 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 12 Packet Pg. 871 8.2.g o Recommend City pursue options two and three Mr. Lien explained there are certain provisions within the CAO that had to be excepted out such as the reasonable use variance in the CAO. There is a shoreline variance process in the SMP that will need to be followed, not the CAO variance process. Councilmember Bloom asked what was meant by "except out." Mr. Lien explained these are provisions of the CAO that do not apply within shoreline jurisdiction. The entire CAO was adopted by reference. He referred to Section D, page 35 of the SMP which lists the provisions of the CAO that would not apply within shoreline jurisdictions. The remainder of the CAO would apply within shoreline jurisdictions. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the reasonable use variance in the CAO does not apply in shoreline jurisdictions; however, there is a variance process in the SMP for shorelines. He summarized he has worked closely with Ecology in developing the City's SMP and these were items that Ecology said would need to be excepted out before they would approve the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified in this instance the SMP trumps GMA. Mr. Lien agreed. Mr. Lien explained another major change with regard to exceptions is there are certain provisions that are allowed in the City's CAO that would require a shoreline variance. He provided an example in a bluff area in north Edmonds; the CAO requires a 50 foot setback from the top of the bluff and a 15 foot building setback for a standard setback of 65 feet. The CAO regulations allow construction close to the bluff with a geotech report that says it is safe. In the updated SMP, building closer to the standard setback would require a shoreline variance. The same is true with wetland buffer reductions, construction closer than the 50% reduction allowed by the CAO would require a shoreline variance. Mr. Lien reviewed CAO integration: • 24.40.020.13 — CAO exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands 24.40.020.0 — CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance Wetlands 0 24.40.020.F — Wetlands o Wetland regulations based on Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities: Publication No. 10-060- 002 o Wetland compensatory mitigation ratios according to Ecology's Guidance for protecting and Managing Wetlands, Appendix 8-C, Table 8-C 11: Publication No. 05-06-008 Mr. Lien asked what other details the Council would like to have provided at the March 26 work session. Council President Petso asked if the PowerPoint slides were available in the Council packet or on the City's webpage. Mr. Lien answered he could make the slides available to the Council. Council President Petso requested the slides Mr. Lien presented tonight be posted on the City's website. Mr. Lien advised he has created a webpage on the City's website for the SMP update that contains all the details and links to Planning Board and City Council agenda items. He will add this PowerPoint to that webpage. Councilmember Buckshnis commented her primary concern is having the correct setbacks around the Marsh so if/when WRIA 8 funds are available, the setbacks are consistent with other cities' setbacks. Mr. Lien commented every city is different; the SMP update is intended to fit Edmonds. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers forward any additional questions to Mr. Lien. Mr. Lien explained he plans to review the use tables and setbacks at the March 26 work session. He encouraged Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 13 Packet Pg. 872 8.2.g Councilmembers to inform him if there were other elements of the SMP update they wanted him to provide further details on. 12. DISCUSSION: CITY CODE REVIEW/REWRITE Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained this is a follow-up to a presentation made at the Council retreat. He reviewed the general approach for a code mapping project: • Technical exercise o Improve organization o User-friendly orientation o Web -based for online delivery o Identify and resolve conflicts • Identify policy issues o Policy issues will require a separate public process o Could be simultaneous or follow-on process • Problem: o Edmonds has standards that are specific to Edmonds and reflect community values and identity o No single template to adopt o No single consultant can provide a finished product • Intent is to maximize available recourses o Requires substantial staff commitment and time o Use Code Publishing for presentation and online format and delivery o Use AWC template/author to provide legally sound modules to help organize re -mapped code Mr. Chave described research done thus far: • January 2013 — met with Code Publishing to review existing and potential expansion of online formats and features • January 2013 — met with Carol Morris to review AWC templates and potential legal services • 2012 — completed digital mapping of existing code (displayed digital map of ECC and ECDC) Council President Petso asked how issues that are policy and/or legal issues will come back to Council. She assumed once they have been identified, they will need to be prioritized. Mr. Chave answered that will entail working with Carol Morris. For example, Ms. Morris has been working on a template that integrates a standard subdivision process that tracks with State law and the civil review. As civil review is not included in the City's code, that will be a high priority. He anticipated a few high priorities will be identified early in the process and others will arise throughout the process. His plan is to provide an update to the Council every 1 to 2 months, identify policy issues that have arisen and determine whether the Council wants them pursued via a separate process or incorporated in the rewrite. Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Chave to provide further details regarding the overall civil review process that is not mentioned in the subdivision code. Mr. Chave explained there is a preliminary approval in the subdivision process where most details are worked out. Final approval occurs after the process of developing and having civil plans approved administratively by the City and showing that the requirements of the preliminary approval have been met. The subdivision code is essentially silent regarding the process for approving civil plans. Councilmember Bloom asked whether most other cities include the civil process in their code. Mr. Chave was uncertain, noting subdivision processes primarily come from State enabling legislation and do not include the civil process. Subdivision processes were developed primarily via zoning rules; whereas civil approvals are related to Public Works and Utilities. There are a number of potential issues that can arise Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 14 Packet Pg. 873 8.2.g Councilmember Peterson observed there may be some intangible savings such as the cost of parts to continually repair the boiler at Yost Pool. Mr. Williams noted a catastrophic failure of the Yost Pool boiler could have very negative impacts on the users. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE ESCO PROJECT CONTRACT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES TO AUTHORIZE A TOTAL MAXIMUM PROJECT COST OF $758,683, AND THE GRANT AGREEMENT THAT FORMS PART OF THIS CONTRACT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR $187,556. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien advised this was the third time the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) has been before the City Council. The intent of tonight's presentation is to review: • Urban Mixed Use Shoreline Environments • ECDC 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation • ECDC 24.40.090 — Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Mr. Lien introduced David Pater, Department of Ecology, who was present to answer questions. Mr. Lien explained the Edmonds Marsh was designated as a shoreline. Under the previous SMP, there is no environment for the areas next to the marsh, which is the reason a new environment was developed for those areas. The marsh on the east side of the railroad tracks is a very different environment than the west side of the tracks, particularly because it does not front Puget Sound. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) talks about protection of navigable waters and priority uses that are tied to water -oriented type development. Harbor Square and other properties given the Urban Mixed Use III environment are not the same type of environment as property on the west side of the tracks. He provided language from RCW 90.58.020, Legislative findings: "It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." Mr. Lien referred to language in WAC 173-26-221(4)(b)(ii), the guidelines used to develop the SMP: • Protect the rights of navigation and space necessary for water -dependent uses. • Prohibit nonwater-oriented develop unless WAC 173-26-241(3)(d)(ii) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site; and the commercial use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration. Mr. Lien referred to language in RCW 90.58.110(c): "consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state." The Harbor Square Master Plan was considered in the SMP update. Mr. Lien displayed a map identifying the current shoreline designations: Urban Mixed Use I for the Port, Urban Mixed Use II south of Brackett's Landing and Haines Wharf. Under the proposed SMP, Haines Wharf is no longer considered and Urban Mixed Use area. He provided description criteria: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 10 Packet Pg. 874 8.2.g • Urban Mixed Use I o Water -related and water -enjoyment commercial and recreational uses • Urban Mixed Use II o Planned for high -intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation • Urban Mixed Use III o Areas that have been intensely developed and that have no direct access to navigable waters o Planned for mixed -use development including high -intensity, commerce, transportation, recreation and residential development He displayed maps identifying the location of Urban Mixed Use I, II and III. He identified the Comprehensive Plan designations on the map and described each: • Urban Mixed Use I o Shoreline Commercial ■ This area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water - oriented and water -dependent uses. (pg. 55) • Harbor Square o Downtown Master Plan ■ This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. (pg. 55) • Port of Edmonds & Edmonds Crossing o Master Plan Development ■ This area is governed by the master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in the FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. these areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies.(pg. 55) He identified the location and described zoning within the environments: • CW — Commercial Waterfront o ECDC 16.55.000 Purposes A. To reserve areas for water -dependent and water -related uses and for uses which will attract pedestrians to the waterfront; B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of the waterfront; C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public. o ECDC 16.55.010.A Permitted Primary Uses 1. Marine -oriented services; 2. Retail uses which are either marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented, excluding drive-in businesses; 3. Petroleum products storage and distribution; 4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics; 5. Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation; 6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 • OR — Office Residential o ECDC 16.77.000 Purposes B. ...provides for a mix of small-scale office and residential uses which provide a transition between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential uses along Sunset Avenue. o ECDC 16.77.010.A Permitted Primary Uses Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 11 Packet Pg. 875 8.2.g 1. Single-family dwellings. 2. Office uses. 3. Multiple dwelling unit(s). 4. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. Master Plan — Master Plan Hillside (MP 1: Pt. Edwards, MP 2: Edmonds Crossing) o ECDC 16.75.000 Purpose B. To reserve an area where a mix of land uses can take advantage of site conditions and waterviews. D. To promote a mix of residential, commercial, and other uses in a manner that is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan... E. To encourage visual access to the water for the public from public spaces within the development. o ECDC 16.75.010.B Permitted Primary Uses in MP2 1. All uses permitted in MP1 (multifamily residential; Office; Hotels/motels; Restaurants, excluding drive-in businesses; and Local public facilities), except that residential use is prohibited on the ground floor of any building; 2. Neighborhood -oriented retail uses intended to support other uses in the immediate area, 3. Service uses as a primary use intended to support other uses in the immediate area, 4. Multimodal transportation center; 5. Educational facilities. o Permitted Secondary Uses in MP1 and MP2 ■ Off-street surface parking and structured parking to serve a permitted use Harbor Square Zoning: Contract Rezone — General Commercial o All uses allowed in the CG zone except the following prohibited uses ■ Automotive wrecking ■ Automotive sales ■ Car washes ■ Drive-in restaurants ■ Fuel storage yards ■ Kennels ■ Motels ■ Mobile home parks ■ Service stations ■ Residences, except for caretaker and/or guard Mr. Lien provided a comparison of Mixed Use I and 11 to Urban Mixed Use III: Urban Mixed Use I & II Urban Mixed Use III Adjacent to Puget Sound No direct access to Puget Sound Comprehensive Plan — Master Plan and Shoreline Comprehensive Plan — Master Plan and Residence - Commercial Office • Generally encourages water oriented type • Encourages mixed use development development Zoning — Commercial Waterfront Zoning — MP2, CG, OR • Water -dependent and water -related uses • Zoning generally encourages mixed use development Commercial Development Commercial Development • Preference for water -oriented development • Nonwater-oriented development specifically permitted Specific view corridors pursuant to ECDC More general view corridor pursuant to ECDC 24.40.040.B.1l.a 24.40.040.B.I Lb Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 12 Packet Pg. 876 8.2.g Setbacks 15 feet Setbacks 50 feet Parking setback 60 feet Parking setback 50 feet Residential development prohibited Multifamily residential development allowed Councilmember Bloom asked about setbacks. Mr. Lien advised the setbacks are from the ordinary high water mark. In the case of the marsh, it would be the edge of the wetland boundary. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had been reading Anacortes' SMP and it was phenomenal. She asked if the marsh could also be considered a wildlife sanctuary. Mr. Lien answered the shoreline designation for the marsh is Natural Environment. Councilmember Buckshnis noted Anacortes' SMP refers to conservatory, natural, riparian, restoration, etc. and has a different setback for those reasons. She asked whether consideration was given to increasing the 50 foot setback in consideration of additional water flowing into the wetland area and more activity such as salmon recovery when Willow Creek is daylighted. Mr. Lien explained the edge of the wetland marsh on the north and south is established by historic fill. Daylighting Willow Creek will not expand the marsh in either of those directions. The edge of the salt marsh boundary would move eastward toward SR104 if Willow Creek is daylighted and saltwater allowed to flow up the creek. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the existing viewing decks are quite high and she has been told that the water used to be up to the viewing decks. Mr. Lien answered viewing decks are also high to accommodate wetland plants and to provide a view down into the marsh. Mr. Lien reviewed tables in ECDC 24.40.070 (page 50 of the draft SMP) and Section 24.40.080, the Shoreline Development Table, that lists shoreline development permitted by Area designation. He highlighted shoreline area designations where residential use would be allowed in the draft SMP —Harbor Square, south of Harbor Square, and in Office -Residential areas north of Main. If the Council ultimately decides they want to prohibit residential development at Harbor Square, a new shoreline environment may need to be developed for Harbor Square. Council President Petso asked if the southern edge of the Harbor Square property could be designated Conservancy and if so, what effect would that have. Mr. Lien was uncertain that would fit with the Conservancy designation. He referred to Urban Conservancy Environment (page 27 of draft SMP), explaining the purpose of the Conservancy is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. The designation criteria include: 1. They are suitable for water -related or water -enjoyment uses; 2. They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be more intensively developed; 3. They have potential for ecological restoration; 4. They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or 5. They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration. Mr. Lien explained that portion of Harbor Square is more intensely developed and he was doubtful it met the designation criteria. Council President Petso asked if the south edge of the marsh could be Urban Mixed Use II which focuses on transportation development. She observed the current plans indicate potential use of that site for a ferry terminal. Mr. Lien agreed that was the site of the ferry terminal but the underlying zoning, MP2, allows for mixed use development including multi -family residential within that area. Council President Petso asked whether there was space for those uses in addition to a ferry terminal. Mr. Lien answered there could be some retail with residential above. The zoning allows for residential development, similar to the area north of Main Street. Council President Petso asked if the zoning would need to be changed if the designation of either of those places was changed in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered his intent when developing the SMP regulations was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 13 Packet Pg. 877 8.2.g to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning. Most of the setbacks in the table are from the SMP or zoning. He answered the zoning would not necessarily need to be changed but there would be a conflict if someone wanted to develop residential development within the shoreline jurisdiction as they would be unable to obtain a shoreline permit. Councilmember Bloom observed there is currently residential on the waterfront which is Urban Mixed Use I or II. Mr. Lien answered it is a non -conforming use. Councilmember Bloom asked if that residential use could be rebuilt if it was damaged. Mr. Lien referred to non -conforming regulations in the SMP, "If a nonconforming development, building and/or structure is destroyed or damaged to an extent not exceeding 75 percent replacement cost at the time of destruction, it may be restored to its former size..." Councilmember Buckshnis commented the marsh and the wildlife preserve are a destination. Whatever buildings exist in 100 years, she wanted to have the marsh preserved. She asked whether incentive zoning that suggested residential would be consistent with Urban Mixed Use III. Mr. Lien answered it would. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the marsh/wetland was a wildlife habitat; Anacortes' SMP talks about birds in their marsh and classifies habitat. She asked if consideration had been given to the possibility of salmon and increased bird and other wildlife with restoration of the marsh. She asked if the SMP looked into the future. Mr. Lien assured it did. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the SMP also consider what could happen with dredging, removing cattails, daylighting Willow Creek, etc. Mr. Lien advised the marsh has a Natural environment designation that significantly limits uses in that area. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she did not feel 50 foot setbacks were sufficient but she was continuing her research. Mr. Lien referred to 24.40.090, Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards (page 53 of draft SMP) that identifies setbacks within the shoreline environments. The majority of the setbacks are from the existing SMP or underlying zoning and some reference the Critical Areas Ordinance. He highlighted setbacks for parking in the Urban Mixed Use I and 11 compared to Urban Mixed Use III, advising parking is not a priority use within shoreline environments, which is why it has additional setbacks in Urban Mixed Use I and II. Structural setbacks in Urban Mixed Use I and 11 are 15 feet. The standard setback for parking is 60 feet but if walkways or boardwalks are provided, it can be reduced to 40 feet. If the desire is to have larger setbacks on Harbor Square, incentives could be provided to reduce setbacks. Mr. Lien displayed a map that identified the 200 foot Shoreline Jurisdiction, 150 foot SMP Wetland Buffer, 50 foot Shore Setback and 200 foot CAO Wetland Buffer. He reiterated within shoreline jurisdictions the SMA rules and outside shoreline jurisdictions, the GMA rules; CAO buffers are part of GMA. Harbor Square is an intensely developed area. One of the main principals in developing the SMP is no net loss over current ecological functions. The restoration plan in the SMP talks about enhancement of the marsh, daylighting Willow Creek, etc. There are also vegetation requirements in the SMP. The 50- foot setback would establish a new buffer; if the Port redeveloped Harbor Square, that area could be improved and enhanced. Mr. Lien explained the studies that established these larger buffers were done in rural areas where buffers exist and there was no development. There is little Best Available Science (BAS) about buffers in urban environments. The BAS report done for the CAO update in 2004 recognized this is an urban area; the buffers can encompass several parcels and do not make sense in an urban environment. The SMP and COA envision protecting what exists and not correcting the harms of the past. Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Lien to comment on the 25 foot open space strip that was part of the contract rezone for Harbor Square versus the Planning Board's recommendation to expand that to 50 feet. Mr. Lien explained the contract rezone for Harbor Square established a 25 foot wide band of open space from the edge of the marsh. That area is where the walkway is located that the City maintains. The marsh Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 14 Packet Pg. 878 8.2.g is currently zoned open space. When the SMP was first proposed to the Planning Board, there was a 25 foot setback from the edge of the marsh. The Planning Board increased that to 50 feet. One of the Planning Board's recommendations regarding Harbor Square is that the 25 foot open space established via the contract rezone be protected. Councilmember Johnson observed there are two land use designations on the Harbor Square property, CG and open space. With the proposed change, there would continue to be two, Urban Mixed Use III and open space. She asked if the open space was anticipated to be expanded or only the setback expanded. Mr. Lien answered this was mixing zoning and the SMP. The zoning for the site establishes a 25-foot open space from the edge of the marsh on the Harbor Square property. If Harbor Square were rezoned in the future, that could be retained, changed, or expanded to 50 feet but that would occur via a rezone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she met with environmental specialists from Seattle at the marsh who indicated the marsh is a wetland. They felt the 25 foot setbacks were insufficient, that setbacks are typically a minimum of 50 feet and after watching the Council meeting, preferred a 150 foot setback. Mr. Lien answered the proposed SMP includes a 50 foot setback. At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas's request, Mr. Lien identified a 50 foot setback and a 100 foot setback on the map. Councilmember Peterson asked if there was currently a significant amount of development or pavement within 50 or 100 feet. Mr. Lien identified parking and a dog run that is part of a business within the 50 foot setback and other areas of the 50 foot setback where there was no development. He concluded there is a pretty good established 50-foot buffer. Councilmember Peterson referred to the goal of the SMP to protect what exists, not correcting the harms of the past. He asked if Ecology was interested in the City creating incentive zoning to expand the buffer. Mr. Lien answered one problem with that is expanding shoreline jurisdiction. The SMA has language stating with restoration projects, the shoreline jurisdiction can remain where it previously existed. In areas where there is fill, it would be difficult and expensive to expand the buffer. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her preference for larger buffers. She asked if consideration had been given to flows from Shellbarger Creek into the marsh/wetland once the culverts under SR 104 are expanded. Mr. Lien answered some dredging in the marsh would have to occur as part of that project to accommodate the flow. He referred to policies the Planning Board added to the SMP (page 14 of draft SMP) regarding climate change and associated flooding. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the marsh is a destination. If the area redevelops, she wanted sufficient setbacks to be retained to provide sufficient open space for people to enjoy the marsh. Her research indicates a 250 foot buffer for high level functioning habitat. Mr. Lien agreed adequate setbacks and buffers along the marsh were important but the intent of the SMA is no net loss over the current ecological function. The SMP handbook developed to assist planners states establishing setbacks alone meets the SMA. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Mr. Lien was aware of other wetlands of this size where the buffer width varied based on the need of the wetland. Mr. Lien answered he did not know of any specific areas, but he could envision that. There are four categories of wetlands and each have different buffer requirements; a large wetland could have various categories. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the marsh was large enough to have different buffers. Mr. Lien answered the BAS report in 2004 determined the Edmonds Marsh was a Type 1 wetland; however, there are places along the ditch between Harbor Square and SR104 that likely do not meet the requirements of a Type 1 wetland. There is also the historic fragment of wetland on the east side of SR 104 which may not meet the Type 1 category. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien advised the purple line on the Setback, Buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction map is the shoreline jurisdiction, 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. It is not a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 15 Packet Pg. 879 8.2.g buffer, anything that happens in that area must be compliant with the shoreline regulations. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the SMA rules. There are specific wetland buffers within the SMP that apply within shoreline jurisdiction. He identified the red 150 SMP wetland buffer on the map. Outside shoreline jurisdiction, GMA rules which are the CAO buffers. He identified where the shoreline jurisdiction ends on the map and where the 200 foot CAO wetland buffer applies (depicted in green on the map). Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the shoreline jurisdiction would be the CAO buffer if it were not in the shoreline. Mr. Lien agreed. He explained the portion of the marsh that was designated as shoreline environment was only the salt influenced portion of the marsh; beyond that point, it is an associated wetland and shoreline jurisdiction does not extend beyond the edge of an associated wetland. Councilmember Bloom asked about the wetland on the east side of the Harbor Square property. Mr. Lien answered it was formerly connected. The Edmonds Marsh is largely a wetland because it is an estuary wetland; estuary wetlands larger than an acre are automatically a Category 1 wetland. The wetland east of SR 104 is not an estuary wetland. Although he had not seen a wetland determination on that area, given its location, smaller size, disconnection from the larger marsh, it may not meet the Category 1 requirement. David Pater, Shoreline Planner, Department of Ecology, commented he has worked with a number of urbanized communities including Issaquah and Redmond. This is a common issue, for example in Redmond, the Sammamish River runs through downtown. Redmond struggled with delineating the shoreline environments and ultimately adopted parallel designations; the first 100 feet is Conservancy. The next 100 feet has a heavy development footprint that is unlikely to change. The overall guideline of the State SMP is no net loss from current conditions. The current conditions for Edmonds were established by the Shoreline Inventory and Categorization developed in 2007 and are used as a baseline for no net loss. Ecology would view a 50 foot buffer for Harbor Square as meeting the no net loss. He recognized it was a degraded buffer and if the buffer was restored to a quasi -natural state, it would provide a better buffer. Ecology requires the City to develop a restoration plan but implementation is voluntary under the guidelines. Ecology recognizes it is a challenge and a long term effort to restore buffers within built out environments. There are opportunities for restoration with the 50 foot buffer. He noted the stormwater controls within the Port's Harbor Square proposal would be of great benefit to the marsh via better treatment of stormwater. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Department of Ecology website is great; Anacortes' SMP is great with regard to restoration and classifications, and Redmond has issues similar to Edmonds. She hoped the marsh and the wildlife sanctuary, not the buildings, would be a destination in 100-200 years. When redevelopment occurs, she wanted to be eligible for as many grants and private -public partnerships as possible. She asked if there was a standard for grants with regard to buffers. Mr. Pater answered some grant programs such as the Salmon Recovery Board give more points to projects with larger buffers. He agreed a larger enhancement would increase the chances of receiving funds. In looking at the Port's plans for mixed use residential development, from a SMA standpoint, it would increase public access to this special area that currently exists. That is a positive aspect that addresses improving access and water enjoyment in the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was necessary to include restoration goals and objectives in the SMP. Mr. Pater answered Ecology does like to see restoration goals and policies in the SMP that mirror the goals in the Restoration Plan. He explained Ecology does not formally approve the Restoration Plan as they do with the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Edmonds SMP was not on the list of SMP on Ecology's website. Mr. Pater answered because Edmonds SMP has not been locally adopted. After local adoption, Ecology runs its own public process, the City's plan is provided its own web link and when Ecology approves it, a final copy is posted to Ecology's website. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 16 Packet Pg. 880 8.2.g Council President Petso asked about making the nearest area one designation and the area further inland another designation; for example, in Edmonds' case, Conservancy status for the first 25 feet and a different designation beyond. Mr. Pater answered there is already a parallel designation, the marsh setback buffer is designated Urban Mixed Use III. In Redmond, along the Sammamish River there is the established King County Conservation Easement of 100 feet; Redmond called that Conservancy. In downtown there is an urban designation for the upland 100 feet to make it 200 feet. In Edmonds the railroad and the residential areas are an example of a parallel designation. Councilmember Johnson referred to the DOE's evaluation of no net loss of ecological function and asked whether environmental factors such as vibration, noise, glare, light, etc. are used to evaluate the impact of redevelopment on the ecological function of the marsh. Mr. Pater answered the State SMP guidelines do not address those issues. Mr. Lien referred to required mitigation measures to reduce impact to the marsh (page 38 of draft SMP). Mr. Lien asked whether the Council wanted to hold another work session to address other issues prior to the public hearing and if so, what issues he should focus on during that presentation. Councilmember Peterson suggested another work session to address Lake Ballinger and Haines Wharf. Council President Petso advised a work session regarding the SMP would be scheduled on April 23. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SOUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mayor Earling explained staff's intent was for the Council to continue their review and commentary on Exhibit 3. He recalled the Council had reviewed and commented on the first two pages at a previous meeting. Special Districts or Incentive Zoning Council President Petso asked if a special district can be created without incentive zoning. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised incentive zoning is always optional. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained a special district such as a brewery/distillery/pub zone is related to uses. Special districts are about uses; incentive zoning can be about uses but provides a way of encouraging a set of uses. When referring to a general development area such as the CG zone, the general principle is there are a variety of uses in the zone and specific properties are not designated for certain uses. With incentive zoning, incentives can be provided that encourage each property owner to consider certain uses. Incentive zoning provides the best way to do that when the City does not have control of the property. Council President Petso asked what type of things can be offered via incentive zoning other than heights and expedited permitting. Mr. Chave answered forgiving parking, bulk requirements such as setbacks, or other bulk standards. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she raised the issue of incentive zoning and a brewery district, relaying it is a huge industry according to brewpub.com. She referred to a photograph of an old building where height was added to create an upstairs restaurant. She favored incentive zoning to create synergy from wineries, breweries, etc. Councilmember Peterson asked at what point the Council needed to narrow the special districts or incentive zoning, noting a brewery district or a tech campus could be great options. Mr. Chave answered if the Council liked all the concepts and any combination, they did not need to narrow the focus. If the Council identified some of these ideas in the Plan, the zoning needed to follow. At that point the focus Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 17 Packet Pg. 881 8.2.g Attorney about using the existing impact fee rates until a new study can be conducted. The other alternative would be a moratorium on building permits in the annexed area until a new study is conducted. Councilmember Johnson noted the Yost Pool project in the CFP has a range of $5 — 23 million and several other projects have ranges. There is also a $5 million placeholder in the CFP for an art museum. She asked how the lack of certainty in the CFP was considered. Mr. Young answered in the instances where there were ranges, he discussed with Ms. Hite whether to use the top or mid -point of the range. Councilmember Johnson suggested if the park impact fee is done concurrently with the PROS Plan, more certainty could be provided in those project estimates. Ms. Hite stated all the CFP projects will be reviewed including a public process to prioritize projects and to refine cost estimates. For example the aquatics study includes a range but the adopted preference is an $8 million project which was used in the park impact fee study. If the Council agreed a park impact fee had merit, Ms. Hite recommended scheduling a public hearing and she will prepare a draft ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested a Council committee review it first to discuss the six options. Council President Petso requested Councilmembers submit comments to Ms. Hite via email. If a consensus emerges from the comments, it can be scheduled for full Council. If there are conflicts, she will schedule review for Council committee. Mayor Earling announced Item 13 would be deferred to the May 7 meeting. He declared a brief recess. 12. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained his presentation tonight will focus on how the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update affects single family development and the Meadowdale Marina. He described the SMP's relationship to other plans and regulations: • 24.10.030 — Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations o SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan o SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC ■ Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP ■ SMP prevails where there are conflicts He explained the draft SMP includes 11 shoreline environmental designations; of those 11, 3 are shoreline residential development: • Shoreline Residential I o North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning • Shoreline Residential II o East of railroad, RS-6 zoning • Shoreline Residential III o Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 The main permit for shoreline is Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. • Single family residences is a preferred shoreline use (RCW 58.17.020) • Most single family developments exempt for shoreline substantial development permit process; however, • Single family development must still comply with the regulations within the SMP Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 17 Packet Pg. 882 8.2.g He identified shoreline exemptions: • Single family residence and associate appurtenance • Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences Construction of a dock o < $2,500 in salt water o < $10,000 in freshwater Mr. Lien reviewed the following: • Residential Development ECDC 24.60.070: o New residential development must be consistent with Comprehensive Plan, zoning restrictions, and shoreline area designations o Public access must be considered with subdivision of four or more lots o Shared docks with subdivision of two or more lots Docks ECDC 24.50.030: o Prohibited substances o Not more than five feet above water o Not to exceed 25% of lot width o Located 10 feet from side property line o Shared docks can be located on a property line o No more than 400 square feet Shore Stabilization (Bulkheads) ECDC 24.50.020 o New development designed so bulkheads are not needed o Locate landward of ordinary high water mark o Soft methods preferred over hard methods Mr. Lien reviewed CAO integration: • 24.40.020 — Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA • SMA rules within shoreline jurisdiction, CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction • CAO Integration Options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP • City pursued options two and three • 24.40.020.D — CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.0 — CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien displayed and reviewed an image of Lake Ballinger. He provided the following information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.17) o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet • Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien noted in addition to the above buffers, there is a 15-foot building setback. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 18 Packet Pg. 883 8.2.g Councilmember Buckshnis asked how habitat is scoring. Mr. Lien advised it is contained in 24.40.020.F. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 1/2 HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien commented on the bluff setback: • Standard setback is 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback • Shoreline variance required to build closer For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained for a Category III wetland, the buffer would be a 60 foot base, and a habitat score of 20-30 would add another 45 feet for a total of a 105 foot wetland buffer. Councilmember Bloom asked how the habitat was scored. Mr. Lien answered it is done by a wetland biologist. The wetland biologist considers the hydrology, soils, and plants as well as the size of the wetland and the quality of the plant community to develop a habitat score. Councilmember Bloom asked how an applicant seeks a variance. Mr. Lien answered shoreline variances are approved by the Department of Ecology (DOE). The City would hold its process including review and decision by the Hearing Examiner which would be forwarded to the DOE. Shoreline substantial development permits do not require approval by DOE. Councilmember Bloom asked if that applied to only new construction. Mr. Lien answered staff's thinking was redevelopment within the developed footprint would be allowed such as in Harbor Square. If development is not allowed within the developed footprint and development must comply to adopted standards, that would apply to properties on Lake Ballinger as well as redevelopment at Harbor Square. When the SMP was drafted and staff consulted with DOE, the thought was and the way the SMP is drafted is redevelopment could occur within the developed footprint. Discussions with the City Attorney indicated the language in the SMP and COA may not be sufficient. Mr. Lien explained within the CAO, a buffer width reduction can be done without a variance process. Within the shoreline jurisdiction, the CAO does not rule, the SMP rules. Therefore a reduction of the buffer below 25% would require a variance process. When the regulations were drafted and the CAO was updated in 2004/2005, the intent was redevelopment could occur as long as it was in the developed permit. Best Available Science (BAS) for the CAO addresses development and developed footprint. When that language was transferred to code from BAS to CAO, it states additions to structures. If the interpretation is development cannot occur within the developed footprint, demolition and rebuilding would be required to meet the buffer setback. Councilmember Bloom asked if this was different or the same as Harbor Square. Mr. Lien replied with regard to development in the developed footprint, what applies here would apply to Harbor Square and vice versa. He clarified the intent was redevelopment could occur within the developed footprint. Mr. Taraday explained this is a policy question; staff is proposing a policy whereby redevelopment would be allowed in an existing footprint. He was uncertain the proposed language actually effectuates that policy choice. If that is the Council's policy choice, the language needs to be tightened. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the standard in drafting the SMP is no net loss of ecological functions over the current conditions. Redevelopment within the previously developed footprint meets the standards of the SMA and the CAO. The intent when the SMP regulations were drafted was to allow redevelopment in the developed footprint. Some jurisdictions have used a straight setback and no buffers and DOE has indicated that meets the requirements of the SMA. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 19 Packet Pg. 884 8.2.g Mr. Lien explained there was a change in the Shoreline designations from the existing SMP to the proposed SMP for Meadowdale Marina. The current shoreline designation of the Meadowdale Marina is Urban Mixed Use, the Comprehensive Plan designation is Mixed Use Commercial and the zoning is Commercial Waterfront, the same as the Port area. The proposed shoreline designation is Aquatic I. He provided the history of the shoreline designation: • Aquatic Environment — New environment consistent with SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26) • Shoreline designation reviewed by TAC • TAC notes mention designating upland area associated with Haines Wharf as Urban Mixed Use • There are no upland areas associate with the site He described the two aquatic designations and identified areas on the waterfront and Lake Ballinger: • Aquatic I (Low Intensity) • Aquatic 11(High Intensity) Mr. Lien described Meadowdale Marina Permitting: • Shoreline substantial development permit issued in 2005 (SM-05-94) to reconstruct pier • Two years to start, five years to finish project • Time begins other permits have been obtained • Other required permits: HPA, Army Corps, Railroad Crossing, Building Permits • SM-05-94 still a valid permit • Proposed change to SMP: Applicants have 5 years to obtain other require permits Mr. Lien summarized he hoped tonight would be the last work session on the SMP and a public hearing could be scheduled. Hearing no further questions, Mayor Earling suggested Mr. Lien work with Council President Petso to schedule a public hearing. 13. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE This item was deferred to the May 7 meeting. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Peterson reported members of the Lake Ballinger Forum had a successful trip to Washington DC with the lobbyist. They met with Senator Cantwell and Congressman Larsen regarding funding from the Water Resource Development Act to address flooding and water quality issues in Lake Ballinger. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the main topic of the recent South County Cities meeting was outdoor recreation area plans for Monroe, Sultan and Gold Bar. In Monroe their stormwater runoff flows into manmade lakes; this summer wakeboarding will begin on the stormwater lakes. The meeting also included discussion regarding economic development in an industrial area in Monroe. She noted none of the buildings were over 35 feet; Monroe's City Manager indicated they did not find building heights over 35 feet necessary. Monroe's proposed City Hall will be taller and will combine offices for the city and the school district. Monroe is also attracting businesses; an electronic assembly business opening this summer will employ 350 people. Councilmember Buckshnis reported Snohomish County Tomorrow passed their GMA population targets for 2035. Woodway submitted a letter of objection because Pt. Wells which is within their MUGA was to provide a population of 1300. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 20 Packet Pg. 885 8.2.g Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the City Attorney to respond to Council President Petso's question. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered the City has the option to make local modifications to the State adopted building code. He asked if imposing D2 standards would require additional amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Bjorback answered it was not a difficult language change; it is simply a designation within a table. Mr. Taraday stated he did not have any reason to think the City could not do that. If the City is in the D1 zone, Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the designation would remain D2 and whether it was simply to be extra cautious and require higher standards in a development. Mr. Bjorback agreed that would be the reason, more stringent standards to build stronger, safer buildings. He highlighted one difference between the two zones: in D2 skipped sheeting on rooftops is not allowed but is allowed in D1. In a number of re -roof projects where the inspector determines a house has skipped sheeting, the house is required under the D2 zone to have solid sheeting. That has been met with quite a bit of resistance. In that situation in the D1 zone, the skipped sheeting could remain. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if a property owner was totally paranoid, they could require D2 construction. Mr. Bjorback agreed there was no reason a property owner could not overbuild a structure. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, referred to questions about the history of the Board of Appeals, explaining in 2003 several local builders and developers strongly requested that the Hearing Examiner be removed from the process and they wanted a Board of Appeals. Issues of technical competence with the building code were raised and their concerns were documented in the City Council meeting minutes. That was passed and the Hearing Examiner was removed from the process. Several years passed with very little appeal activity, Ordinance No. 3740 was presented to the City Council under the representation there had been scrivener's errors that left the Hearing Examiner out of the process as the backup when the Board of Appeals could not convene. He summarized there was a time when local builders and developers were strongly opposed to involving the Hearing Examiner in this process. He was instructed by City staff to pursue the Board of Appeals process on a code enforcement appeal; he paid the related $330 fee and subsequently realized he had been guided incorrectly and pulled his appeal. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, FIRE AND SUPPLEMENTAL CODES BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the fifth meeting regarding the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA): • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 6 Packet Pg. 886 8.2.g o Shoreline Uses ■ The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." against adverse effects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. o Public Access ■ Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline -specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. In 2003 the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted SMP Guidelines that are contained in WAC 173-26. The SMP Guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their SMPs. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. Edmonds did a fairly extensive update of its SMP in 2000; this update brings the SMP into compliance with WAC 173-26. The SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis Mr. Lien described the SMP's relationship to other plans or regulations: • SMP is adopted element in Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP o SMP prevails where there are conflicts Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (none in Edmonds) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien explained shoreline environments are established within shoreline jurisdictions. Environmental designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction. Environmental designations were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee that the City formed early in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 7 Packet Pg. 887 8.2.g process. He identified the location of Edmonds' 11 shoreline environments (Aquatic I and II, Natural Environment, Urban Conservancy, Residential I, II and III, Urban Mixed Use I, 11, and III, and Urban Railroad) on an aerial image. Mr. Lien explained one of the major changes between the current SMP and the updated SMP is the change in designation of the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland which meant shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the marsh. In this update, Ecology determined the portion of the Edmonds Marsh that is tidally influenced, the salt marsh area, was itself a shoreline and the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the marsh. He displayed an image identifying the historic boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh and the boundary set for the SMP. With the marsh determined to be a shoreline itself, the shoreline jurisdiction was extended and a new Urban Mixed Use III environment was established for the areas north and south of the marsh. The biggest change with the Urban Mixed Use III environment is it contains a residential element; Urban Mixed Use I and II do not. Under the current SMP Haines Wharf is an Urban Mixed Use II environment; under the updated SMP it is an aquatic environment. Aquatic is a new environment established in WAC 173-26. The TAC mentioned designating the upland area associated with Haines Wharf as an Urban Mixed Use environment; however there is no upland area associated with Haines Wharf. Mr. Lien explained another important part of the SMP is Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) integration. • 24.40.020 — Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA o SMA rules within shoreline jurisdiction, GMA rules outside of shoreline jurisdiction • CAO Integration Options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP o City pursued options 2 and 3 • 24.40.020.13 — CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.0 — CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien provided information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F) o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet • Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien provided information regarding bluff setbacks: • 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback • Shoreline variance required to build closer Mr. Lien displayed an aerial image, identifying setbacks, buffers and shoreline jurisdiction. There has been discussion about what occurs in previously developed areas of the buffer. Staff's intent when drafting the SMP was as long as development occurred within the previously development footprint, it would be an allowed activity. He relayed that some Councilmembers have expressed concern with that. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 8 Packet Pg. 888 8.2.g Mr. Lien explained another change in the updated SMP is in Part VIII: Administration — Shoreline Permits (ECDC 24.80.000 — 24.80.170): • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 — Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: ■ One or more persons request a hearing ■ A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued ■ Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use ■ The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • 24.80.140 — Time requirements o Two years to start project o Five years to complete project o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and federal) are being pursued o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension Mr. Lien highlighted Part IV: General Policies and Regulations (ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090) • 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Table o Allowed uses and required permits • 24.40.090 — Bulk and Dimensional Standards o Setbacks and height limits Mr. Lien provided the definition of jurisdiction, setbacks, and buffers: • Jurisdiction — Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines • Setback - Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer - the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline Mr. Lien displayed an idealistic drawing of a shoreline, explaining the best available science for streams and wetlands buffers and shoreline areas is done in rural areas where there is still vegetation and wildlife along the shoreline and development is a considerable distance from the shoreline. He displayed an aerial image of the Edmonds shoreline, explaining in reality the shoreline area is developed. He displayed an aerial image identifying the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, 150 foot SMP wetland buffer, 50 foot shore setback and 200 foot CAO wetland buffer. He explained when the updated SMP was drafted consideration was given to no net loss: • RCW 90.58.620 — Updated SMP's must ensure expansion, redevelopment and replacement of existing structures will result in no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline over current conditions. • SMP Handbook — Setbacks only, with vegetation conservation and enhancement with new development meet the requirements to protect ecological functions. Mayor Earling observed staff recommended the Council solicit comments from the public and consider comments/amendments at a future Council meeting. Mr. Lien answered part of the SMP update process is responding to public comments. He expected lengthy discussion in regard to buffers versus setbacks and noted there is still the issue of the Harbor Square Master Plan and Urban Mixed Use III. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she recently returned from Anacortes where they have cleaned up their shoreline. She referred to the building at Haines Wharf and asked if the City could require it to be cleaned up before it falls into the water. Mr. Lien answered they have valid shoreline permits. The City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 9 Packet Pg. 889 8.2.g could add it to the Shoreline Restoration Plan as a potential restoration project. It would take a significant amount of funds to remove the structure and restore the area. There is currently nothing the City can require them to do. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was interested in leaving the pilings in the water and removing the structure before it collapsed. Councilmember Peterson asked if the Building Department had any jurisdiction due to the safety of the structure. He recalled a couple of years ago some swimmers got stuck there. He noted if a building becomes uninhabitable, the Building Department can condemn it and force action. Mr. Lien explained after a storm in 2011, the structure collapsed further. One of the problems with permitting for Haines Wharf is it is a nonconforming structure and the conditions of the permit was it must come into compliance if it was moved at all. Nonconforming structures that are damaged more than 75% must be rebuilt according to code. After the collapse in 2011, the Building Official issued a determination that replacement costs exceeded the 75%. That decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner determined in considering the entire development, the wood structure was less than 75% so it still met the nonconforming requirements. Council President Petso referred to a restoration plan dated 2008 and asked whether any changes had been made to the restoration plan. Mr. Lien answered this SMP update began in 2006. The TAC was formed and reviewed policies and shoreline jurisdictions. A consulting firm drafted the shoreline inventory and characterization and the restoration plan. He picked up that work in late 2009 and spent over a year working with DOE on ECDC Title 24. There have been no changes to the restoration plan since 2008. Council President Petso referred to transportation facilities of statewide significance, observing transportation facilities would be allowed to expand. She presumed that included the ferry dock. She asked whether the Port was considered a transportation facility of statewide significance. Mr. Lien answered no. Regulations in the transportation section were the same as the current SMP (23.10). He did not provide Council a redline version of 23.10 versus Title 24 because it has been totally reformatted based on State guidelines. The redline version provided to the Council are changes the Planning Board made to the initial draft. Council President Petso inquired about language removed and replaced on page 118 of 159. Mr. Lien answered he would need to review the Planning Board's notes. Council President Petso recalled the SMP would not allow construction between the marsh and Puget Sound, yet a presentation last week referred to a tide gate. She asked whether the SMP would prevent construction of a tide gate. Mr. Lien answered there should not be a conflict. Councilmember Bloom referred to protecting and enhancing natural systems on page 15, and said the tide gate would meet that SMP goal. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 14, number 13, and asked if this was the time to tighten the language, such as all use and development should use low impact development (LID) techniques where appropriate and feasible. She suggested using a stronger word such as "must use" and define what was appropriate and feasible. Mr. Lien envisioned changes would be discussed at a future meeting. He referred to page 146, the definition section, that defines must, should, shall and will; shall and will and must are mandatory, may is permissive, should means a particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated compelling reason based on policy of the SMA and SMP against taking action. With regard to LID, the stormwater regulations and stormwater manual spells out when LID is and is not feasible. The SMP works with all other City development regulations and the stormwater regulations address when LID is feasible. He said the use of "must" was not appropriate because there were some instances where LID is not feasible. Councilmember Bloom requested he provide an example when LID is not feasible. Councilmember Bloom referred to number 11, the City of Edmonds shall stay abreast of scientific information regarding climate change and sea level rise and reevaluate the SMP development standards as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 10 Packet Pg. 890 8.2.g soon as adequate scientific information is available. She asked how that would be instituted. Mr. Lien advised the SMP is updated every 7 years. Much more information will be available for the next update once all the studies regarding the marsh, Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek and stormwater issues are complete. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a Wetland Category table on page 38 that identifies additional buffer width based on habitat points, explaining Anacortes' plan has identified insects, fish, etc. Mr. Lien explained habitat points are part of the wetland delineation process. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the second table on page 38 of the SMP and disturbances such as toxic runoff. Mr. Lien explained the two tables are taken directly from DOE Guidance for Small Jurisdictions that DOE requested the City include in its SMP. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Eric Laschever, K&L Gates, representing the Port of Edmonds, distributed copies of a letter. He explained the purpose of the letter was to support the staff proposed approach of allowing redevelopment of property within the shoreline buffers. He referred to Mr. Lien's depiction of what would happen if a 150 foot buffer was imposed on already developed property. This issue applied not only to the Port property but other properties with developed buffers. He relayed two reasons for supporting staff's approach, first, from a practical standpoint, drawing a 150 foot line will not improve conditions in the Edmonds Marsh. The buffer concept that works well in intact upland areas does not work once development has occurred. The Port is supportive of improving the condition of the marsh; the buffers will not do that. Second, the shoreline guidelines which were the product of extensive negotiations between the business community, the environmental community, and local governments, make a clear distinction between protection and no net loss. He referred to a Supreme Court case that illustrates that concept in the GMA context, local governments are not required to impose buffers in areas that have already been developed. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Peterson referred to the Swinomish case and asked if development could be allowed in the expanded setback buffer if it achieved a LEED Gold or Platinum standard. Mr. Lien stated that could be an incentive. The SMP Guidelines and Handbook state a setback itself meets the requirements of the SMA. An incentive could be provided in the SMP to build closer than the base setback such as a LEED standard. Councilmember Buckshnis commented grandfathering and no net loss is one thing, but redevelopment from a CG zone to an Urban Village is not grandfathering. She understood the concept of no net loss but also understood points are awarded for federal grants for proper setbacks. In terms of grandfathering, she had no problem with no net loss, but an urban village would totally change the footprint. She did not understand no net loss without grandfathering. Mr. Lien explained the Best Available Science Report that was done with the CAO update addressed development within the developed footprint. With regard to grandfathering and no net loss, he considered the paved area of Harbor Square as the developed footprint. Under the contract review for Harbor Square, there is only a 25 foot setback from the Edmonds Marsh. The SMP update proposes a 50 foot setback. Grandfathering and development within the developed footprint is one aspect; redevelopment provides opportunity for enhancement within the 50 foot setback area that may not be provided if a 150 setback is required. Mr. Taraday responded he had not had an opportunity to research the points made in Mr. Laschever's letter. He agreed in general with the notion that no net loss applies more appropriately to the impact of development occurring on virgin soil than the built out situation at Harbor Square. He was not certain he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 11 Packet Pg. 891 8.2.g agreed that the City was prohibited from imposing larger buffers, notwithstanding the built environment. From a practical standpoint, the reality is if extremely large buffers are imposed in an area that is already developed, the end result will be a perpetuation of the existing use forever because it will be the most economic use of the property. No one will ever want to redevelop as redevelopment will not pencil out because it will result in the loss of currently usable property. It may be more effective to achieve restoration via an incentive program for redevelopment rather than imposing a huge buffer on the property that already includes a great deal of developed landscape. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the impervious pavement at Harbor Square represented the footprint. Mr. Lien answered yes, for the most part. He identified areas that are within the setbacks and buffers on an aerial image. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Lien clarified the current footprint is all the impervious surface. Councilmember Johnson asked about the sequencing of the Comprehensive Plan update and the SMP as it relates to options for Harbor Square redevelopment. Mr. Lien answered there are two important issues with regard to how the SMP update relates to Harbor Square, 1) the buffer setback area, and 2) the Urban Mixed Use III environment. One of the reasons the Urban Mixed Use III environment was proposed rather than one of the existing Mixed Use environments was the Port's consideration of residential development. It also addresses 4-5 other office/residential parcels north of Main Street. As the City considers moving forward with the Harbor Square Master Plan and has to move forward with the SMP, the biggest issue is residential development and whether to allow it long term on this site. The City must act on the SMP this year; Harbor Square may take longer. Mayor Earling summarized further discussion will be scheduled on a future agenda. 10. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A 2013 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained topics for the State special legislative session include balancing the operating budget and a statewide transportation funding package that will provide additional funding opportunities for the State, WSDOT and local governments. The package is evolving; there are currently a number of projects that would directly and indirectly benefit Edmonds. There are two specific capital projects for which bonding would be issued, 1) $700,000 for a walkway on Sunset Avenue, and 2) $10 million to begin the plan and fund the first phase of access, safety, and mobility improvements on Highway 99. Another key feature of the transportation package is a proposed increase in the State gas tax of $0.10 over a 4 year period, $0.05 the first year, $0.02 the second and third years, and $0.01 the fourth year. This would provide a substantial amount of funding for State and local projects. Edmonds would receive an additional approximately $140,000; the City currently receives approximately $900,000 from the State gas tax. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about BNSF with regard to the Sunset project. Mr. Williams answered he had not given up hope of additional help from BNSF as the project proceeds into detailed design. If nothing changes the walkway can be built within the existing footprint of Sunset Avenue. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1291, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A 2013 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this has been a long time coming, particularly for Highway 99. She observed there were limited sidewalks on Highway 99 and asked if the proposed project would include sidewalks. Mr. Williams answered the intent would be to include pedestrian and bicycle amenities and bring the existing amenities up to ADA standards as well as solve numerous safety problems that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 12 Packet Pg. 892 8.2.g tree could be completed in about 11/2 hours. If Councilmembers were interested in doing something with the near waterfront area and the Harbor Square area, he asked how that was going to take place. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the decision tree in the packet, commenting it was clear to her that consensus would never be reached within committee. Developing a decision tree that will result in the same issues was a considerable waste of Council and staff time. She looked forward to considering the near waterfront in the future, something this Council has not done before. She suggested a short cooling off period would be helpful. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has received so many controversial comments and emails and there is a lot of confusion in the public. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' suggestion for a cooling off period. She preferred to consider the entire waterfront area as the Group of 33 did. A vision for both large parcels needs to be developed that could include an emergency vehicle overpass. Councilmember Bloom commented five consultants worked with the Group of 33; the consultant's plans included 8-10 story buildings. Nearly all the citizens who viewed the plans said they did not want the code changed. She will support the motion. The Council tried to integrate citizens' input; the Port was very unreceptive to those changes. The Port's withdrawal and the Council's denial of the plan will allow a Council -driven process with citizens' support and input to develop a plan for the waterfront and near waterfront that works for everyone. Councilmember Johnson recalled Mr. Taraday informed the Council they had several options, 1) deny the plan, 2) modify the plan, and 3) do a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday responded a fourth option was to terminate the review which had the same procedural effect as a motion to deny. To the extent there was any stigma attached to the Council denying the Port's plan, the fourth option would acknowledge the application has been withdrawn and terminate the review. He reiterated that option would have the same procedural effect as a motion to deny. Councilmember Johnson was interested in pursuing the fourth option because the Council has not yet discussed all aspects of the plan. Most of the time has been spent discussing the process. The first motion considered, made by Council President Petso, was to deny the plan. If the Council approves this motion, that will also be the last action. Although some Councilmembers have been very forthright in stating their objections to the plan, there has not been a full discussion. The most important issues are those that have risen to the top via the decision tree. She acknowledged it was unlikely consensus would be reached on all issues. As it relates to the Shoreline Master Program, the Council should at least decide whether residential development is appropriate for the site. Until changes are made, the existing contract rezone remains in place. She did not support the motion as she objected to denying the plan without a full evaluation. She would support a motion acknowledging the Port's withdrawal of the plan. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling said he found the Council's action disappointing and he relayed several concerns. Staff estimates the cost to study the complete waterfront to be $150,000 - $200,000. In addition to the expense of a consultant, a massive staff effort will also be required. He did not anticipate the Port would be interested in participating or contributing financially to the study. 8. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 5 Packet Pg. 893 8.2.g AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the sixth time the SMP update has been before to the Council; the intent of tonight's presentation is to solicit Council feedback on the proposed update. He explained the SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis He commented on 24.10.030 — Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations • SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan • SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP o SMP prevails where there are conflicts He reviewed Edmonds shoreline jurisdictions: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien explained within the shoreline jurisdictions there are shoreline environments. Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction. Environmental designations were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee. Edmonds has 11 shoreline environments: • Aquatic I • Aquatic II • Urban Conservancy • Natural • Shoreline Residential I • Shoreline Residential II • Shoreline Residential III • Urban Mixed Use I • Urban Mixed Use II • Urban Mixed Use III • Urban Railroad One of the largest changes over the current SMP and the updated SMP was the designation of the Edmonds Marsh as a Shoreline of the State. In the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh is an associated wetland which means shoreline jurisdiction ends at the edge of the wetland marsh. For the SMP update, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 6 Packet Pg. 894 8.2.g the salt influence portion of the Edmonds Marsh is designated a Shoreline of the State which means shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet shoreward. He displayed aerials maps of the Edmonds Marsh and adjacent areas. With that change comes a new shoreline environment, Urban Mixed Use III, which applies to the area on the south side of the marsh, the Harbor Square property, and a few parcels north of Main Street. Another aspect of the SMP is integration of the City's critical area regulations. The critical area regulations are an outgrowth of the GMA and ECDC Title 24 is the SMA. Within shoreline jurisdiction the SMP rules, outside of shoreline jurisdiction the GMA rules. Options for CAO integration include: • Copy specific sections of CAD into SMP • Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP • Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP • The City is pursuing options two and three With integration of the CAO, there were certain provisions of the CAO that Department of Ecology (DOE) did not feel should be in the SMP. The SMP must be approved by the DOE; staff has worked closely with DOE over the past several years developing the draft regulations. • 24.40.020.D — CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.0 — CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien advised the City was allowed to retain allowed uses within the critical area regulations; therefore, the provision for redevelopment within previous developed footprint would apply as the SMP and CAO are currently integrated. Another change in the updated SMP is related to administrative procedures — shoreline permits ECDC 24.80.000-24.80.170: • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 — Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits go to Hearing Examiner ■ One or more persons request a hearing ■ A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued ■ Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use ■ The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • 24.80.140 Time requirements o Two years to start project o Five years to complete project o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and federal) are being pursued o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension He highlighted two tables in the SMP update: • 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Table o Allowed uses and required permits • 24.40.090 — Bulk and Dimensional Standards o Setbacks and height limits Mr. Lien highlighted the following definitions: • Jurisdiction — Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark of shorelines (OHWM) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 7 Packet Pg. 895 8.2.g • Setback - Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM Buffer - the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline Questions Councilmembers raised in past meetings have related to: • CAO Allowed Activities • Setbacks and Buffers • Residential Use in Urban Mixed Use III Transportation Facility Expansion Mayor Earling relayed his understanding of the intent of tonight's presentation was question and answers and ultimately setting a public hearing date. Mr. Lien explained one public hearing has been held on the SMP; the Council has not yet proposed any changes. He suggested the Council identify any proposed changes; he would incorporate them into the SMP and hold another public hearing prior to submitting the SMP to DOE. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged moving the ferry to Pt. Edwards was not in WSDOT's ferry system plans until at least 2030. She asked whether there would be another SMP update before 2030. Mr. Lien answered the SMP must be updated every 7-8 years; there will be at least two more updates before 2030. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Urban Mixed Use III, noting there are currently houses on the waterfront. Mr. Lien answered the homes are located in the Urban Mixed Use II zone. The Urban Mixed Use II does not include residential as preferred use, therefore, the two houses and the Ebbtide are nonconforming uses. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that area could be changed to Urban Mixed Use III. Mr. Lien referred to the areas designed Urban Mixed Use III, explaining it is a different type of shoreline environment; it is separated from Puget Sound. Much of the SMA is geared toward navigable waters, water oriented uses, and water dependent uses which describes the area west of the railroad tracks. The Urban Mixed Use III east of the railroad tracks has no real connection to navigable waters, therefore he did not recommend changing the designation on the west side of the tracks to Urban Mixed Use III. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council needed to decide whether to include Urban Mixed Use III as a shoreline environment. Mr. Lien responded he did not want to eliminate it completely because residential development was allowed in the MP 2 zone on the south side of the marsh and in the Office Residential zone. Another option would be to develop a new environment that only applied to Harbor Square. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Harbor Square could remain Urban Mixed Use III. Mr. Lien answered it could, the Comprehensive Plan designation for Harbor Square mentions mixed use; residential is often considered as part of mixed use. The SMP would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the zoning regulations do not allow residential. The SMP, like the Comprehensive Plan, is a visioning document. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested an incentive for incentive zoning could be residential such as live/work space. She asked whether a footnote stating something like future potential residential would be required if Harbor Square remained Urban Mixed Use III. Mr. Lien explained any development proposal would need to be consistent with the SMP and the zoning ordinance. If someone applied for residential development now, the zoning does not allow it. A footnote would not be necessary. When working with high level visioning documents, whether the Comprehensive Plan or the SMP, City Attorney Jeff Taraday encouraged the Council to figure out what they wanted and make the document say that. Where the Council got into trouble was when they tried to "keep kicking the can down the road" and say "we might maybe want residential." He encouraged the Council to figure out whether they wanted residential and have the document state that. Councilmember Buckshnis commented incentive zoning was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 8 Packet Pg. 896 8.2.g one of the main discussions in the PPP committee. Residential could be an incentive in incentive zoning. Mr. Taraday responded that at least that was a clear statement of policy; residential is allowed only in exchange for a public amenity. He recommended against an unclear policy statement. Council President Petso referred to the critical area allowed activities exception, recalling Mr. Lien's statement that the railroad tracks would serve to physically separate and functionally isolate the entire City from Puget Sound. Mr. Lien responded the physically separated and functionally isolated portion of the CAO was not incorporated into the SMP. There is some physically separated and functionally isolated language on page 40 in the wetland section of the SMP. He referred to the 100-foot wide railroad right-of- way along Puget Sound as well as the bluff in the north part of the City. Council President Petso asked whether physically separated and functionally isolated applied near the marsh. Mr. Lien answered it did. What also applies to the marsh is development within the previously developed footprint. As the CAO is currently incorporated into the SMP, development within the previously developed footprint applies to the Harbor Square property. Council President Petso inquired about the property on the south end of the marsh. Mr. Lien identified the location of an old stormwater pond in relation to the marsh and Willow Creek. Council President Petso relayed she has been told that allowing building too close to the marsh impacts marsh quality and grant eligibility. She asked whether the physically separated and functionally isolated language would allow building closer to the marsh than the 100-200 foot buffer needed for grants. Mr. Lien identified the area where physically separated and functionally isolated does not apply. He displayed two aerial images, one a wetland delineation prepared by WSDOT. A 150-foot wetland buffer does not extend to the other side of the stormwater pond. He identified the area of the marsh that is an associated wetland where the critical area regulations apply. Council President Petso asked whether it was easier to just not bother with the physically separated and functionally isolated language in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered the idea of physically separated and functionally isolated is good to include in the SMP. That language and allowed activities were discussed with DOE, one of the criteria for development of the SMP is no net loss. Development in an area that is physically separated and functionally isolated results in no net loss; DOE agreed to that. Development in the previously developed footprint also meets the no net loss criteria. Council President Petso referred to the provision that would allow expansion of the ferry terminal. She asked whether that language would be removed and the City not allow expansion of the ferry terminal at the existing site. Mr. Lien answered the addition of the language on pages 118-119, Transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline may be expanded or altered as a conditional use upon demonstration that alternatives to expanding in or alteration of the Aquatic I environment are not feasible, was prompted by DOE and is taken from WAC 173-26, the state guidelines for the SMP update. He referred to the table on page 52, Shoreline Area Designations, and the X for railroads which prohibits any fill in Aquatic I and 11 environments; however the asterisk relates to pages 118 and 119. If the railroad wanted to expand they can per State guidelines and State law. Ferry terminals are an allowed use in Aquatic I and 11 with a conditional use permit. The language was added because fill was prohibited for railroads within Aquatic I and II which was in conflict with the State guidelines and State law. Council President Petso asked whether they could be separated, allowing the railroad to do what State law required the City to allow but not allow expansion of the ferry dock at its current location. Mr. Lien answered State law applies to railroads as well as ferry terminals as they are both transportation facilities of statewide significance. He offered to forward his email with the RCW reference. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 9 Packet Pg. 897 8.2.g Council President Petso observed there are references in the tables to 35 foot heights; it was her understanding the City's zoning did not allow 35 foot heights. Mr. Lien referred to the table on page 53, explaining the zoning in Urban Mixed Use I and II is commercial waterfront which has a maximum height of 30 feet. Urban Mixed Use III, Harbor Square, has a maximum height of 35 feet. He referred to footnote 16 Urban Mixed Use III (The maximum height limit shall be determined by the underlying comprehensive planning document and zoning designation.) Council President Petso relayed her understanding that the height limits in the document were the existing height limits. Mr. Lien answered yes. The setbacks and height limits in 24.40.090 are from the zoning or the current SMP with the exception of Urban Mixed Use III which is a new environment. Councilmember Bloom referred to Urban Design Policy 24.20.100.C.1 (pages 19 and 20), The shoreline area within and south of the north boundary of the Brackett's Landing North Park, to the south city limits (generally the urban mixed -use shoreline environment) is one of the most scenic areas of the city. It also, to a large extent, establishes the visual identity of Edmonds. As such, both public and private development in these areas should be controlled and regulated to provide an urban environment which preserves or enhances the opportunity for the public to enjoy the scenic quality of the shoreline. She noted this addressed Mr. Hertrich's concerns as well as Council President Petso's concerns about expansion of the ferry. She asked whether expansion of the ferry at the current location could be excluded as it had been determined not to be the best option and the area is key to the public's scenic enjoyment of the shoreline. She observed those two provisions seemed to be in direct conflict. Mr. Lien responded DOE indicated transportation facilities of statewide significance can expand. Mr. Taraday explained the ferry terminal is an essential public facility and local jurisdictions cannot use their land use regulatory power to preclude the existence or expansion of an essential public facility. He used the third runway at SeaTac as an example; although the surrounding jurisdictions fought it, they lost. Mayor Earling commented when he served on the Growth Management Hearings Board, when issues regarding this type of facility arose, the GMHB followed State law that allows essential transportation facilities to expand. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave recalled when the City tried to impose a condition on the duration of the overhead loading structure, the ferry system took the City to court and the City lost. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested retaining Urban Mixes Use III and indicate residential can only occur as an incentive in exchange for a public amenity. Mr. Lien pointed out that would also apply to the four parcels on Main Street. Councilmember Buckshnis observed it would apply from Main Street to the marsh. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested changing the shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use III from 50 feet to 150 feet. She commented on the OHWM for the marsh and dredging of channels as part of daylighting Willow Creek, relaying her understanding from WRIA 8 is that grant requests utilize a setback distance on a checklist. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the procedure for suggesting changes to the SMP. Mr. Taraday suggested the Council reach consensus on issues, acknowledging any votes tonight would be tentative until the actual SMP is adopted. Council President Petso suggested Councilmembers provide guidelines on changes, Mr. Lien could then determine what would be needed to implement those changes and the public would have an opportunity to comment. Mr. Lien suggested the Council reach consensus on issues so that he could make the changes to the SMP. Another method would be to include options related to Councilmembers suggestions for the public to comment on at the public hearing. Councilmember Bloom suggested Councilmembers propose changes based on the list Mr. Lien provided earlier (CAO Allowed Activities, Setbacks and Buffers, Residential Use in Urban Mixed Use III and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 10 Packet Pg. 898 8.2.g Transportation Facility Expansion). Mayor Earling suggested Mr. Lien provide options to address Councilmembers' concerns. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the transportation facility expansion issue has already been addressed; State law requires expansion be allowed. She agreed with retaining the physically separated and functionally isolated language. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' recommendation to expand the shore setback to 150 feet. With regard to residential uses in Urban Mixed Use III, she recalled there was not agreement on this at the PPP Committee. She was reluctant to allow the Urban Mixed Use III in the near waterfront area, noting there was little choice on the opposite side because there was already residential. She had many reasons including the Port's proposal for Harbor Square that included 350 condominiums and the issues that would raise. She recalled Councilmembers' indication they would support affordable housing or possibly artist live/work studios, but she did not think those were realistic or financially feasible. She stressed the need for further discussion regarding urban mixed use due to its relationship to the future of the entire waterfront and whether it will be used for private or public use. She did not support Urban Mixed Use III for the Harbor Square or Salish Crossing sites or any of the near waterfront areas. Mr. Lien requested the Council provide further direction regarding residential development. He recommended retaining Urban Mixed Use III environment for the areas south of the marsh and the parcels north of Main. He displayed a map identifying the location of the Urban Mixed Use III environment. If the Council does not want to allow residential on the Harbor Square site, he recommended developing a new shoreline environment that applies only to Harbor Square. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the area south of the marsh was part of Pt. Edwards master planned area. The upper yard was developed with condominiums and the south was to be the Edmonds Crossing. He identified the MP1 and MP2 zones, advising the MP2 zone allows for mixed use development including multi -family residential. He said developing a new shoreline environment for Harbor Square and integrating it into the SNIP would be a significant amount of work. For Council President Petso, Mr. Lien referred to the definition of Urban Mixed Use I and II on page 30, pointing out Urban Mixed Use I and II did not allow residential. Council President Petso asked whether a new definition was required for areas where residential was not desired or could they be designated Urban Mixed Use I or II. Mr. Lien explained Urban Mixed Use I and II have direct connection to navigable waters and uses should be marine oriented, water dependent. The shoreline environment on the east side of the railroad tracks is different and different uses would be expected that would not be water oriented/dependent. If the Council did not want residential, he suggested developing a new shoreline environment and appropriate uses. Council President Petso observed two of the Urban Mixed Use III designated parcels already have residential; the only one that does not is Harbor Square. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Peterson commented it was important to retain the Urban Mixed Use III designation. Although the Council could not reach consensus regarding what they wanted at Harbor Square, everybody agrees an office park is probably not the best use. If the Council does not plan to allow residential, uses are limited to an office park or light industrial. He was uncertain what other development could occur unless someone purchased the entire site and turned it into a park. For Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Lien identified the OHWM, the edge of the saltmarsh, the 10-foot elevation, and the historic fill on the 2008 wetland survey conducted by WSDOT. He explained if Willow Creek was daylighted and Puget Sound flowed up Willow Creek, the saltmarsh could be expected to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 11 Packet Pg. 899 8.2.g expand. Daylighting Willow Creek will not expand the marsh in the direction of the historic fill; it will change the wetland environment, making it more salt -influenced. Councilmember Peterson asked if Councilmember Buckshnis' concern was if the buffer did not change and Willow Creek was daylighted, the buffer would be in the middle of the wetland. Councilmember Buckshnis answered daylighting Willow Creek will include dredging two channels south toward the hatchery. Mr. Lien advised the boundaries of the marsh will not change with the daylighting of Willow Creek as they are established by historic fill; daylighting Willow Creek will change the nature of the marsh. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien advised the setback in the SMP is proposed to be 50 feet; the wetland buffer is 150 feet. The provisions in the CAO for development and redevelopment within previously developed footprint also apply to the SMP. When the SMP was drafted and in discussions with DOE, physically separated and functionally isolated was intended to allow redevelopment in Harbor Square within the previously developed footprint. DOE's letter of support states, "Ecology supports Edmonds draft mixed use shoreline environment and associated shoreline recreation for Harbor Square area. These proposed standards recognize the exiting high intensity land uses present at Harbor Square and highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to Edmonds Marsh. The standards also allow for potential redevelopment in the same impervious footprint. The restoration plan and having a smaller setback, although greater than what currently exists, would allow for potential redevelopment and improvement of the buffer area. DOE noted redevelopment of Harbor Square could allow for improvement of stormwater facilities which would improve the marsh, provide opportunities for enhancement." He referred to a letter from Friends of the Edmonds Marsh expressing their support for Urban Mixed Use III, recognizing redevelopment would provide opportunity for enhancement of the buffer. The contract rezone requires a 25-foot open space; the draft SMP proposes a 50-foot setback. He relayed a 150 foot buffer discourages any redevelopment. Council President Petso asked whether a 150 foot setback from the marsh in the SMP would conflict with the CAO allowed activities provision that allowed redevelopment in previously developed footprint. Mr. Lien answered the intent as the SMP is drafted and in discussions with DOE is to allow redevelopment within the previously developed footprint. Council President Petso summarized even if the Council wanted a 150 foot setback, it would not be provided because development would be allowed within the existing footprint. Mr. Lien answered potentially yes, it will depend on how the Planning Board's recommended changes to the CAO. Council President Petso asked whether the CAO allowed uses must be incorporated into the SMP. Mr. Lien answered that could be an area that was excepted, meaning it would not apply. Currently allowed uses have not been excepted. For Council President Petso, Mr. Lien explained multi -family was the only residential use allowed in Urban Mixed Use 111. Council President Petso asked whether it could be restricted as has been discussed in the Port Master Plan; for example not be a primary use on the property. Mr. Lien advised residential is a primary use on other properties where Urban Mixed Use III applies. Council President Petso suggested creating an Urban Mixed Use IV for Harbor Square. She asked whether residential development could be restricted in geologically hazardous areas. Mr. Lien answered that would be all the residential areas along the bluff in north Edmonds. Council President Petso asked whether residential development could be restricted in earthquake liquefaction areas. Mr. Lien answered if the Council does not allow residential development within the shoreline jurisdiction of Harbor Square it would push it away from the marsh. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 12 Packet Pg. 900 8.2.g Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Mr. Lien could provide a matrix of the proposed changes. Mr. Lien suggested scheduling another workshop prior to a public hearing. He offered to develop options based on Council input before integrating the text into the SMP. Mayor Earling requested that information be provided to the Council a week before it is scheduled on the Council agenda. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for an Urban Mixed Use IV environment that reflected the current development at Harbor Square and what the community wants to see there in the future. She was surprised by Councilmember Peterson's characterization of Harbor Square as an office park, noting there is a nautical school, two breweries, the Harbor Square Athletic Club, Maverick Label, restaurants, etc. She envisioned uses at Harbor Square such as incubator spaces to foster high tech businesses, marine related businesses, art studios, a year-round market, etc. Councilmember Peterson was unclear how the 150 foot setback would affect the marsh. His understanding was the current OHWM would not change. Mr. Lien offered to invite DOE to the next meeting to discuss that issue. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the 150 foot setback is one of the items on a grant checklist. She was interested in environmental sustainability and addressing the sins of the past. The marsh is a unique wildlife habitat, one of few in the United States. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he spoke with Councilmember Yamamoto last weekend; he is doing well following major surgery and expects it will be a few more weeks before he returns. Mayor Earling reported a 37-member delegation from Hekinan will visit Edmonds in late October. He encouraged the public to attend events. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mr. Shuster and Keely O'Connell received positive comments from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board review panel about the project to daylight Willow Creek. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there are a number of scarecrows displayed throughout the City. She thanked everyone who has built and displayed a scarecrow. 11. ADJOURN TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to committee meetings at 7:55 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 13 Packet Pg. 901 8.2.g COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE 2013 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the last time the Council discussed the SMP, the Council requested options. Tonight he is seeking guidance from the Council regarding the options before they are incorporated into the SMP. The goal is to incorporate the Council's suggestions into the SMP and return to the Council for a public hearing and final approval to send the SMP to Department of Ecology (DOE). He reviewed a potential Urban Mixed Use IV (Exhibit 16, Attachment A): • Create a new shoreline environment for Harbor Square without residential uses. • Update 24.40.080 (Shoreline Development Table) and 24.40.090 (Bulk and Dimensional Standards) Mr. Lien reviewed potential incentives for residential development: • Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and pedestrian routes. • Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh form SR 104. • Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce undesirable run-off. • Incorporate into individual building and overall site development both low energy and low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint. • Contribute to day -lighting Willow Creek and improving the site's ecological value. • Provide improved natural vegetated buffers to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh He referred to the use table in 24.40.080, attachment A to the staff memo, and described how the residential incentives would be applied. For example, residential development would be allowed if some of the incentives were provided. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many incentives and the dollar amount. Mr. Lien answered the dollar amount would be subjective. There are six potential incentives; a requirement for three could be incorporated into the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the varied cost/complexity of the incentives, anticipating a developer would be choose the easiest. Councilmember Johnson recalled an earlier discussion that some LID techniques would not be feasible due to the high water table. Mr. Lien answered LID techniques such as imperious surface or rain gardens may be difficult at the Harbor Square site; studies have indicated the water table across the street is five feet below the surface. Other LID techniques such as green roofs may be feasible. Councilmember Johnson recalled previous discussions about appropriate types of residential uses such as live/work units. She asked whether that would be part of an incentive program. Mr. Lien answered it could be. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 21 Packet Pg. 902 Councilmember Buckshnis recall the Friends of Marsh supported residential due to stormwater issues. She suggested including stormwater incentives. Mr. Lien responded any new development must comply with the City's stormwater regulations; that was not an incentive. His approach to incentives was tying them to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and SMP as well as the Council's interest in environmental stewardship of the marsh. Council President Petso was not interested in residential incentives and preferred the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. Mr. Lien advised the residential incentives could be applied to Urban Mixed Use IV. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether these could be requirements instead of incentives. Mr. Lien answered they are termed incentives but they actually are requirements for residential development. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there should be a nexus between a development condition and the impact the development has; that is what distinguishes incentive zoning from a typical development regulation. In many development regulations, there is a direct nexus between the impact and the requirement; those withstand constitutional scrutiny and there is no tradeoff like in incentive zoning. In incentive zoning, for example no incentives would be required for commercial; residential development would require incentives. Mr. Lien explained the SMP as recommended by the Planning Board includes a 50-foot setback from the edge of the marsh. Council requested staff provide options for setbacks and buffers. He reviewed three potential options: Option 1: 50 foot setback as recommended by the Planning Board with a 45% maximum structural coverage Mr. Lien explained the City's multi -family zones have a 45% maximum coverage. Council President Petso observed the building would have a 45% maximum coverage; the remainder of the site could be paved for parking. Mr. Lien agreed there was no limitation proposed on imperious surface. • Option 2: 100 foot setback, 50 foot vegetative buffer with redevelopment For Councilmember Bloom Mr. Lien explained in this option the 100 feet is a structural setback; the 50 foot vegetative buffer is within the 100 foot setback. Different setbacks can be established for different uses; buildings could have a 100 foot setback, roads and parking could have a 50-foot setback. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • Option 3: 150 foot setback Mr. Lien explained the buffer from a Category 1 wetland, such as the Edmonds Marsh, is 150 feet. Establishing a 150 setback did not establish a 150 buffer because the area is developed. A 50 foot setback requirement with a coverage limitation would allow some development which may result in some enhancement to the marsh. He was concerned a 150 setback would result in continuation of the existing conditions and no improvements to the marsh. Councilmember Bloom suggested a 50 foot buffer enhancement along with the 150 foot setback. Mr. Lien agreed any combination of the options was possible. He pointed out a 150 foot setback did not provide any incentive for redevelopment or establishment of a 50 foot buffer. He noted this would only apply to the shoreline jurisdiction; the regulations do not apply outside the shoreline jurisdiction. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 22 Packet Pg. 903 8.2.g Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated in 100 years citizens would be more interested in the marsh, not development. She referred to WRIA8 funding opportunities, expressing concern with the implication that restoration will only occur with redevelopment. She referred to a project on the lower Cedar River that included removal of 30 mobile homes and relocation of the residents to restore the area. She wanted to be known for restoring the marsh, not for development. When WRIA8 allocates funds, they look at the buffers. She concluded there was a lot of funding available for salmon recovery. Mr. Lien relayed another option proposed by DOE: • Establish an interim designation for Harbor Square • Allow the City more time without holding up finalization of the SMP update • Would require an SMP amendment in the future David Pater, Shoreline Planner, DOE, explained Everett did something similar with their marshland area in the southeastern portion of the city ten years ago as part of a legal settlement agreement. Everett developed a subarea plan about four years ago including a restoration plan and a permanent environment designation. Establishing an interim designation for Harbor Square would allow the SMP to proceed and provide time to address issues in Harbor Square. Everett's designation was Urban Conservancy Agricultural Interim; existing uses were allowed to continue. Edmonds may be able to take a similar approach to Harbor Square. Councilmember Bloom asked what the zoning for Harbor Square would be in the interim. Mr. Pater answered it could be Mixed Use IV to reflect existing uses or one of the options could be incorporated into the interim designation. The goal is to develop a permanent designation within a few years. An interim designation would allow the City and Port time to agree on a plan for redevelopment, reestablish a functioning buffer, improve water quality via incentives, etc. rather than being rushed by the SMP process. Councilmember Bloom asked whether buffers could be established and no residential allowed as an interim designation. Mr. Pater answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked how long the interim designation could be in place. Mr. Pater answered Everett's was in place longer than hoped. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it would be preferable for the interim regulations to be more restrictive. Mr. Pater answered not necessarily; he suggested the interim designation reflect ongoing uses and what the City perceives will happen in the interim. Council President Petso was unclear why an interim designation was needed and asked if the SMP could be amended in the future if a plan were developed for Harbor Square. Mr. Pater agreed that could be done. Council President Petso asked the purpose of an interim designation. Mr. Pater answered it recognized the separate process for this part of the shoreline that could not be resolved in a reasonable time and to allow the SMP to be adopted by the Council and approved by DOE. Mr. Lien explained an interim designation was simply an option. If the Council wanted to proceed with one of the other options, an interim designation was not necessary. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the only reason she will support an interim designation is she anticipates WRIA 8's plans and funding will gel within five years. Councilmember Peterson referenced the progress WRIA 8 has made in securing funding and moving the marsh up in priority. The exercise with the Port provided direction regarding what the Council did not want but not what they wanted. Most everyone agrees the existing development is not desirable in the long run. He liked the interim designation option, anticipating there will be future opportunities such as new building techniques, understanding the impacts and how to improve impacts on a sensitive area such Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 23 Packet Pg. 904 8.2.g as the marsh. He anticipated working together DOE, the Port, WRIA 8, Friends of the Marsh, and the City could develop a plan and establish the marsh as a world class waterway. He also anticipated more creativity in the future with regard to stormwater such as funding resources, treatment techniques, etc.; pausing the process will allow the City to take advantage of changes that will occur in the next few years. Councilmember Johnson commented the northern edge of the marsh is contained by a dike. She asked whether changes to the dike were anticipated that could change or improve the northern edge of the marsh. Mr. Lien answered that could be part of the discussion in the future with an interim designation. He described the historic boundaries of the marsh, explaining it was filled over the years; the edge of the marsh is marked by the edge of the fill. Enhancements to the marsh, daylighting Willow Creek and removing the tide gate will return the marsh to an estuary rather than a freshwater marsh. The marsh's shoreline of the state designation ends at the saltwater boundary. The boundaries established by historic fill will not change; all the historic fill would need to be removed for those boundaries to change. He did not anticipate any changes would occur on the Unocal side of the marsh. Councilmember Johnson observed setbacks referred to the built environment. Mr. Lien agreed, setbacks, buffers and shoreline jurisdiction are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Enhancement will not change the edge of the marsh, only the makeup of the marsh. Mr. Lien asked for Council guidance/consensus to direct final changes to the SMP regarding: • Buffers/setbacks • Interim Shoreline Designation • Urban Mixed Use W Councilmember Bloom expressed support for a 150 feet setback with a 50 foot vegetative buffer and the Mixed Use IV shoreline environment that does not include residential. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDES A NEW URBAN MIXED USE IV WITH NO RESIDENTIAL, A 150 FOOT SETBACK AND A 50 VEGETATED BUFFER. Councilmember Peterson asked if this was on an interim basis. Council President Petso answered that was not her intent. Councilmember Peterson said he would not support the motion because it was too restrictive, would not result in needed improvements and would stifle any creative thinking. He agreed a 50 foot vegetative setback was fantastic if it was not already on top of an asphalt parking lot. Councilmember Bloom pointed out when staff returned with the final language, the Council could decide whether to make it interim or permanent. Mr. Lien requested the Council indicate whether this was intended to be an interim designation because that needed to be described in the SMP. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THIS BE AN INTERIM ORDINANCE. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, YAMAMOTO, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Peterson did not support the main motion as he felt the very restrictive standard would defeat the purpose. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 24 Packet Pg. 905 8.2.g Mr. Lien summarized the Council's direction: a new, interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment that applies to Harbor Square. He will incorporate the changes into the SMP document and bring the SMP to the City Council for a public hearing and approval to submit to Ecology. Council President Petso asked what would be done on the other side of the marsh, whether this environment applied to that area as well. Mr. Lien answered no. On the assumption that funding opportunities would require 150 feet on both sides of the marsh, Council President Petso asked what should be done on the other side. Mr. Lien advised both sides of the marsh could be included in the new, interim designation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO INCLUDE BOTH SIDES OF THE MARSH IN THE NEW, INTERIM DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. 15. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 10, 2013 Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported most of the items discussed by the committee items were either approved on the Consent Agenda or on tonight's agenda. The only outstanding item is the Interlocal Agreement clarification between the City and EPFD. Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Johnson reported on items discussed by the committee: • Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and proposed rezone for Unocal lower yard — no action • Authorization for Mayor to sign professional services agreements with KPG for the 15`h St. SW Walkway, 236h St. SW Walkway, and 238`h St. SW Walkway projects — schedule on a future agenda for discussion • Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Storm Drainage Easement Transfer and Access Easement Grant Agreement for 1142 Vista Place —Consent Agenda • Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of an Asset Transfer Agreement for 645 9th Avenue North — scheduled for further discussion at the January PPP Committee meeting. Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Peterson reported on items discussed by the committee: • Renewal of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District for football game security — Consent Agenda • Supplemental Agreement (2) to the Services Agreement with Cellmark Forensics, Inc. for DNA Testing — Consent Agenda • Human Resources Assistant (part-time) Job Description — Consent Agenda 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling expressed to Councilmember Yamamoto how much he enjoyed having the opportunity to work with him during the last two years including his no nonsense, business, let's get something done approach. Mayor Earling referred to a letter from Eric Laschever, K&L Gates regarding the Port's position on setbacks. Mayor Earling wished the Council and citizens a happy and joyous holiday. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 25 Packet Pg. 906 8.2.g 30-foot wide lots; they are lots of record and can apply for a building permit but still have to comply with City's regulations including critical area regulations. Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis referred to a property that was purchased that was a stormwater repository and asked whether that would be considered an innocent purchaser. Mr. Taraday that property was part of a legal subdivision; there was no issue with the property being properly subdivided. The issue in that case was language on the face of plat that dedicated a lot for stormwater purposes. Having been through the subdivisions process, that lot would be considered lot of record. Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis referred to a house on Sunset that is set back and does not have frontage on the street. Mr. Lien advised that house has an access easement to the street. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing has been noticed September 16. 9. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES RELATED TO WESTGATE This item was postponed to a future meeting via action taken during Agenda Item 3. 10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND UPDATE ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM WITH FOCUS ON INTERIM URBAN MIXED USE IV SHORELINE DESIGNATION Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58 Adopted in 1971 Policies address: o Shoreline Uses ■ The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection ■ The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic resources. One of the requirements of the SMP update is the regulations provide for no net loss of ecological functions. o Public Access ■ Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline -specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. The Department of Ecology updated their SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26) and all jurisdictions in the State are required to update their SMP. Most jurisdictions' SMP were from the early 1970s and only being updated now. Edmonds had a comprehensive update of its SMP in 2000 which has been incorporated into this update. The SMP is comprised of several documents: Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 2, 2014 Page 9 Packet Pg. 907 8.2.g • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis Mr. Lien explained a comprehensive code rewrite/reorganization is also underway. The new Development Services Director Shane Hope was not when the City when Title 24 was originally drafted and has some ideas regarding how it could be organized. He provided a summary of the draft Shoreline Regulations ECDC Title 24: • Part I — Introduction • Part II — Master Program Elements: Goals and Policies • Part III — Shoreline Environments • Part IV — General Policies & Regulations • Part V — Specific Modification Policies & Regulations • Part VI — Specific Use Policies & Regulations • Part VII — Nonconforming Development • Part VIII — Administration — Shoreline Permits • Part IX — Definitions • Part X - Appendices Mr. Lien described the SMP's relationship to other plans or regulations: • SMP is adopted element in Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan • SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP o SMP prevails where there are conflicts Mr. Lien provided definitions for jurisdiction, setbacks and buffers: • Jurisdiction — Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines • Setback — Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer — the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Mr. Lien displayed an idealistic drawing of a shoreline with buffers and setbacks and an aerial image of the Edmonds shoreline which is quite developed. The SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (none in Edmonds) • Lakes 20 acres or larger (Lake Ballinger) • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands He described shoreline environments identified in the SMP (ECDC 24.30.000 — 24.30.080) • Environment designations are analogous t zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction • 12 proposed shoreline environmental designations o Aquatic I — low density o Aquatic II — high density Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 2, 2014 Page 10 Packet Pg. 908 8.2.g o Natural— protect shoreline areas relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions ■ Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route 104. ■ Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone o Conservancy ■ Brackett Landing South and North ■ Off -leash Dog Park ■ Willow Creek outlet of Edmonds Marsh o Shoreline Residential I ■ North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning o Shoreline Residential II ■ East of railroad, RS-6 zoning o Shoreline Residential III ■ Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 o Urban Railroad ■ Burling Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of-way Mr. Lien explained one of big changes with the SMP update is related to Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the marsh. During the process, Ecology determined the marsh was a shoreline of the state which meant its jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM. He provided aerial images of the historic extent of the marsh. He displayed an aerial image as part of a survey done by WSDOT for the Edmonds Crossing project that identified the saltwater portion of the marsh. It was decided to use a 2006 survey as the boundary of the salt marsh, 200 feet on either side is shoreline jurisdiction. Under the current SMP the marsh was an associated wetland and shoreline jurisdiction did not extend, there was no shoreline jurisdiction that applied to Harbor Square or the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh. He described the following shoreline environments: o Urban Mixed Use I ■ North of fishing pier to Brackett's landing South o Urban Mixed Use II ■ Ferry terminal ■ Marina Beach to fishing pier o Urban Mixed Use III ■ Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh ■ Commercial area north of ferry terminal ■ No access to navigable waters ■ Multi -family residential uses allowed ■ 50-foot setback The SMP update requires jurisdictions consider all plans or all plans being made. At the time, the Port was considering a new Master Plan for Harbor Square and the SMP was delayed to allow the Port an opportunity to apply the Harbor Square Master Plan. City Council ultimately did not adopt the Harbor Square Master Plan. When considering the Harbor Square Master Plan, the Council discussed whether residential uses should be allowed. During the last review of the update, the Council discussed developing a new mixed use environment that prohibited residential uses within the shoreline jurisdiction. A new environment was required because the Urban Mixed Use III was necessary for the office/residential properties north of Main Street. The direction from Council was to establish an Urban Mixed Use IV environment that would apply to the Harbor Square property and the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh was no residential, 150 setback and 50-foot vegetative buffer. That has been incorporated into Title 24. He reviewed changes required to incorporate the Urban Mixed Use IV environment: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 2, 2014 Page 11 Packet Pg. 909 8.2.g • 24.30.070 Urban Mixed Use o Designation criteria 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Table o Allowed uses and required permits 24.40.090 — bulk and dimensional standards o Setbacks and height limits He reviewed staff s recommendation with regard to Urban Mixed Use IV: • 50-foot setback • Consistent with no net loss criteria • Ecology support • Opportunities for enhancement • Interim designation (suggested by Ecology) • Concern with 150-foot setback: o Creates nonconforming situation ■ Makes minor expansions difficult ■ Difficulty obtaining financing or refinancing ■ Difficulty obtaining insurance ■ Difficulty obtaining tenants for long term leases (if building damaged beyond 75%, reconstruction would be required to meet setbacks) o Discourages redevelopment which would provide opportunity for enhancement Mr. Lien expressed concern with the interim designation that Title 24 suggests be in place for two years. This assumes the Council will review the issue during the next two years and make it permanent. When Ecology suggested the interim designation, they assumed the City and Port were working together to develop uses for the area which may not be on the Council or Port's agenda. The two year timeframe was included to ensure the interim designation be reviewed within two years and not wait until the next SMP update. An option is to have the consultant hired for the CAO update to also consider this issue. Otherwise, a consultant will need to be budgeted specifically to review this issue. Mr. Lien highlighted Part IV: General Policies and Regulations (ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090) • 24.40.020 — Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA • CAO Integration options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific AO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an apprencix to CAO • City pursued options 1 and 2 • 24.40.020.D — CAO exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands ■ At Ecology's suggestion, the Small Jurisdictions Guidance for Wetlands have been incorporated into the SMP wetlands section replacing the CAO wetland section. • 24.40.020.0 — CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance Mr. Lien provided information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 2, 2014 Page 12 Packet Pg. 910 8.2.g o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien provided information regarding bluff setbacks: • 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback • Shoreline variance required to build closer Mr. Lien explained another change in the updated SMP is in Part VIII: Administration — Shoreline Permits (ECDC 24.80.000 — 24.80.170): • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 — Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: ■ One or more persons request a hearing ■ A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued ■ Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use ■ The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • 24.80.140 — Time requirements o Two years to start project o Five years to complete project o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and federal) are being pursued o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension Mr. Lien reviewed the City's approval process: • Assemble complete draft SMP • Complete SEPA review and documentation • Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt • Hold public hearing • Prepare a responsiveness summary • Approve SMP and submit to Ecology • Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines He reviewed Ecology's approval process: • Approval process generally takes six months to complete • Process for minor amendment is the same as full blown update • Provide public notice and opportunity for comment • Minimum 30 day comment period • Send comments to local government within 15 days • Local government has 45 days to prepare response to comments • Prepare decision packet o 30 days after receiving response to comments, Ecology prepares decision packet • Ecology may: o Approve the submitted SMP amendment as is o Approve the SMP amendment subject to required changes o Deny the SMP amendment • Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval Council President Pro Tem Johnson recalled there were issues raised in the Shoreline Restoration Plan regarding whether the eel grass in the Brown's Bay area was properly mapped. She asked whether there Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 2, 2014 Page 13 Packet Pg. 911 8.2.g was a plan for enhancing the eel grass in the Brown's Bay area. She referred to a statement in the Shoreline Restoration Plan regarding relocation of the South County Senior Center to restore beach habitat, commenting this may raise issue related to their redevelopment. At the time the Planning Board reviewed the SMP there was an expectation that more Best Available Science regarding sea level rise would become available. Mr. Lien responded when sea level was discussed at the Planning Board, a document had recently been released; that is still the latest information regarding sea level rise. The Planning Board inserted policies into the SMP regarding sea level rise. He anticipated more information may be available at the time of the next update. Councilmember Petso noted the delineation of the shoreline area of the marsh was from 2006; she asked why that was not updated. Mr. Lien answered the survey that identified the boundary of the saltmarsh was conducted in 2008; it closely resembles the 2006 extent of the Edmonds Marsh. The aerial photos illustrate a clear distinction in the vegetation between salt and fresh water vegetation. Ecology's wetland biologist surveyed the marsh and felt the 2006 delineation accurately represented the edge of the saltwater marsh. Another question is what affect the daylighting of Willow Creek and more free flow from Puget Sound will have on the marsh. He referred to the blue hatched area on the aerial photograph, explaining within Edmonds the OHWM is the average high high tide or 10 feet above sea level. He identified the 10 foot elevation; if/when Willow Creek is daylighted and that flow is allowed to happen, the makeup of the marsh will change. He identified the area of the marsh that would become a salt marsh. The 2006 boundary was verified by Ecology and generally matches the survey done in 2008; there has not been any change in how the water is allowed to flow between Puget Sound and the marsh since that time. Councilmember Petso asked whether the boundaries will be re -delineated after the project is completed and the boundary changes. Mr. Lien answered maybe, maybe not; the SMP does not want to discourage restoration projects. The SMA allows restoration projects to occur that would normally extend shoreline jurisdiction and still retain the shoreline jurisdiction. There are three options, 1) identify in the SMP that if that project is completed, the shoreline jurisdiction established now will remain, 2) do it in the permitting process for the restoration project, and 3) a third option. Councilmember Petso noted when this was reviewed previously, the Edmonds Crossing project was taken into account in the designations. New ideas have been raised since then such as the train trench, the wayside horns; she asked whether the designations have enough flexibility to allow those projects to proceed under the SMP. Mr. Lien answered yes. Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Lien saying smaller setbacks could offer an opportunity for enhancement through redevelopment, noting enhancement could occur independent of redevelopment such as funded by a grant. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Lien's statement that retaining the 150-foot setback in the Harbor Square area would be problematic because the structures would be nonconforming. She asked which buildings would be affected and what was in the buildings. Mr. Lien identified the tennis courts, the Harbor Square Athletic Court, Blue Kennel Dogs, and American Brewery. From the audience, Port Executive Director Bob McChesney advised another building is a combination of warehouses and professional office spaces. Councilmember Bloom asked about the difficulty obtaining insurance. Community Services/Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty explained nonconforming status creates a clouded title for property owners and tenants. As users, tenants and/or owners change during the time a property is nonconforming, things may arise that are problematic. For example, if a change in insurance is desired, the new insurance company may inquire about the nonconforming status. Some insurance companies will deny coverage if a building is nonconforming, others require an explanation regarding reconstruction. Similar problems may arise if refinancing is sought. The Port owns those building now but they could sell Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 2, 2014 Page 14 Packet Pg. 912 properties if they wish and a future purchaser may be concerned about the nonconforming status. He summarized insurance is the most common issue because insurance coverage changes a lot. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the percentage a building can be damaged and still reconstructed. Mr. Doherty answered 75% of the value of a building; if a small percentage of a building were damaged, it could be rebuilt. There are two issues, 1) the actual physical issue of what can be rebuilt, and 2) the difficulties that can arise when an insurance company will not provide coverage because they do not want to deal with the nonconforming status. Councilmember Bloom understood the difficulty with obtaining financing or refinancing. She questioned why it would be difficult to obtain tenants for long term leases. Mr. Doherty answered a tenants would have the same issue obtaining insurance or financing for a tenant improvement. Observing the Harbor Square Athletic Club has a 29-year lease, Councilmember Bloom asked whether a long term lease protected a tenant. Mr. Doherty said Mr. Lien's point was in regard to re -leasing a space that becomes vacant. A cloud on the title due to nonconformity may not be an issue depending on the broker, the insurance company and the financing. He agreed long term leases were the safest for the Port. Councilmember Bloom inquired about minor expansions. Mr. Lien explained the setback is the distance that a use or a structure from the OHWM. If there is a 150 setback and a tenant wanted to do minor expansion, it would be within the setback and expanding the nonconformity would not be allowed. Any minor additions would need to be outside the 150-foot setback. With a 50-foot setback there would be some opportunity for minor improvements to the building on the marsh side. With a 150-foot setback there no minor expansion would be allowed without going through the process which is very difficult and highly unlikely. Councilmember Bloom asked whether any of the tenants have suggested improvements. Mr. Lien said he was not he was aware of any current proposals; two that happened in the last few years were American Brewery's silo which was in the setback and would not have been allowed and the life raft practice area. Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis asked whether the purpose of the interim designation was the daylighting of Willow Creek. Mr. Lien explained at the time Ecology proposed the interim designation, the Council was reviewing uses in that area, the Port had submitted the Harbor Square Master Plan and removal of residential zoning was being considered. The shoreline environment is in regard to the type of uses the City wants to have in the shoreline jurisdiction. Daylighting Willow Creek will not change the uses within shoreline jurisdictions around the marsh. Dayligthting Willow Creek will not change the boundaries of the marsh; the saltwater portion of the marsh will expand. The boundaries of Willow Creek are established by the historic fill and the only way it will expand is if the fill is removed. Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis commented WRIA8 considers buffers in grants requests and 150 feet is a standard buffer. She referred to language in Ecology's letter that states within this designation the Council also approved a 50-foot buffer with a 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim designation is to give the Port and the City time to negotiate development plans for the Harbor Square property. Ecology agrees with the concept of an interim designation for this property. Given that the Harbor Square Plan is in flux, Ecology has no problem with the City not finalizing specific buffers and setback for the marsh. Her concern was someone needs to "beat the drum for the environment;" the marsh is a gem that needs to be protected and it will not restore itself. Councilmember Mesaros asked Ecology's stance on the 50-foot setback versus a 150-foot setback. Mr. Lien answered the same letter Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis referenced states Ecology has previously indicated to the City and the Port that a 50-foot enhanced buffer would be adequate under the Port's initial Harbor Square redevelopment plan. He noted an enhanced buffer is establishing a vegetated buffer that is currently lacking in some places around the marsh. It is not the daylighting of Willow Creek that Ecology Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 2, 2014 Page 15 Packet Pg. 913 8.2.g is considering, it is the intensity of adjacent land uses. Ecology suggested the interim designation to allow the City and the Port to determine reach agreement on development in Urban Mixed Use IV environment. The Port has expressed support for a 50-foot buffer. Ecology's letter recommends the Council consider changing the proposed marsh buffer to a 50-foot minimum width with an interim designation and add additional language that recognizes the final buffer and setback will be determined within the Harbor Square redevelopment process. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the setback had to be 50 feet or 150 feet or could it be 75 feet. Mr. Lien answered it can be whatever the Council sets. The 50-foot setback recommended by the Planning Board was considered to be consistent with the no net loss requirement. The 150-foot setback originally came from Small Jurisdiction Wetlands Guidance where Category 1 wetlands such as the Edmonds Marsh have a 150-foot buffer. Ecology noted through their SMP handbook that a setback alone without a buffer requirement would meet the SMA requirement. Setting the setback at 50 feet is wider than the current 25-foot open space requirement in the current contract rezone. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out this proposal doubles the existing requirement. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with the 150-foot setback particularly with the redevelopment that is occurring at the Antique Mall property. He asked whether the Port could do any stormwater mitigation in the Antique Mall parking lot with a 150-foot setback. Mr. Lien answered that would be considered a restoration project and would be allowed with the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson commented if a restaurant moved in, a view of the marsh would be advantageous. He asked whether a deck could be constructed on the back of one of the buildings. Mr. Lien answered not within the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson referred to one of the building where 3/4th of the buildings was in the setback and asked whether a roof penetration could be done to install a hood. Mr. Lien answered improvements can be made within the existing building footprint but the nonconformity cannot be expanded by adding anything in the setback area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to language in the letter from Ecology that states within this designation the Council has approved a 50-foot buffer with a 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim designation is to give the Port and the City time to negotiate development plans for the Harbor Square property. Ecology agrees with the concept of an interim designation for this property. Ecology is available to help reach agreement on this important decision. Mr. Lien responded that was the reason for his concern with the interim designation; Ecology suggested the interim designation assuming the City and the Port are working together. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the City and Port have not been working together. Ecology's offer to help reach an agreement is an important step in determining the best setback and buffer. Mr. Lien agreed that could be worked on during the next two years. Council President Pro Tern Johnson raised an issue that was discussed at the Planning Board; an area of the 25-foot open space area between Harbor Square and the marsh that has been graveled and used for temporary parking. She asked what steps have been/will be taken to restore that to open space and remove the temporary parking. Mr. Lien answered no steps have been taken to remove the gravel parking next to Harbor Square Athletic Club. Councilmember Petso observed the letter from Ecology was dated spring 2014, the decision on the Port plan was fall 2013. Mr. Lien answered the decision on the Port Master Plan was the end of 2013; he acknowledged it has been awhile since this was discussed. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing is scheduled on September 16. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 2, 2014 Page 16 Packet Pg. 914 8.2.g Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 11. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58 • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: o Shoreline Uses o Environmental Protection o Public Access • Shoreline Master Program The SMP update is to bring the City's SMP into compliance with Department of Ecology Guidelines — WAC 173-26, the standards for regulation of shoreline uses. The SMP contains a number of elements: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline restoration plan Development regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions Cumulative impact analysis Mr. Lien described the SMP's relationship to other plans or regulations: • 24.10.030 — Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations o SMP is adopted element in Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan o SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC ■ Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP ■ SMP prevails where there are conflicts Mr. Lien provided definitions for jurisdiction, setbacks and buffers: • Jurisdiction — Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines • Setback — Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer — the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. The SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (none in Edmonds) • Lakes 20 acres or larger (Lake Ballinger) • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet of the OHWM • Associated wetlands (Edmonds Marsh east of SR-104 and the mouth of Shell Creek) He described shoreline environments identified in the SMP (ECDC 24.30.000 — 24.30.080) • Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction • 12 proposed shoreline environmental designations: o Aquatic I and II o Natural Environment o Urban Conservancy o Shoreline Residential I, II and III Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 16, 2014 Page 18 Packet Pg. 915 8.2.g o Urban Mixed Use I, II, III o Urban Mixed Use IV (proposed interim) o Urban Railroad Mr. Lien explained one of biggest changes with the SMP update is related to the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the marsh. With the SMP update, the Edmonds Marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state which means shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond the wetland boundary. The shoreline of the state area was established as the salt influence portion of the marsh. Under the current SMP the marsh was an associated wetland, no shoreline designation was established for the areas on either side of the marsh, Harbor Square and the old Unocal site. The Planning Board's recommendation was Urban Mixed Use III: • Multi -family residential uses allowed • 50-foot setback (measured from OHWM) The City Council's discussion included: • No residential allowed 150-foot setback (measured from OHWM) 50-foot vegetative buffer Department of Ecology proposed the Urban Mixed Use IV be an interim designation to allow the City and the property owners on both sides of the marsh to work together. He relayed staff's recommendation regarding Urban Mixed use IV: • 50-foot setback o Consistent with BAS and no net loss criteria o Department of Ecology supports o Opportunities for enhancement 150-foot setback creates nonconforming situation Interim designation Mr. Lien explained another important aspect of the SMP update is the CAO integration. He highlighted Part IV: General Policies and Regulations (ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090) • 24.40.020 — Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA • CAO Integration options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific AO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to CAO • City pursued options 1 and 2 • 24.40.020.D — CAO exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands ■ At Ecology's suggestion, the Small Jurisdictions Guidance for Wetlands have been incorporated into the SMP wetlands section replacing the CAO wetland section. • 24.40.020.0 — CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance Mr. Lien provided information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 16, 2014 Page 19 Packet Pg. 916 8.2.g SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F) o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien provided information regarding bluff setbacks: • 50-foot setback plus 15 feet building setback • A shoreline variance would be required to build closer Mr. Lien explained another change in the updated SMP is in Part VIII: Administration — Shoreline Permits (ECDC 24.80.000 — 24.80.170): • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 —Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: ■ One or more persons request a hearing ■ A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued ■ Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use ■ The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits He responded to questions raised by Councilmember Johnson's at the previous meeting: • Eelgrass, specifically in Brown's Bay: o Eelgrass distribution discussed in shoreline inventory and characterization, no specific mention of Brown's Bay o Reviewed most recent data from WDNR Near Shore Habitat Inventory, no specific information regarding Brown's Bay o Restoration Plan addresses opportunity for restoration throughout Edmonds marine shoreline Projected Sea Level Rise o UW Climate Impacts Group and the Washington Department of Ecology: Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State (January 2008) Year Projected Puget Sound Sea Level Rise* Low 3" 2050 Medium 6" High 22" Low 6" 2100 Medium 13" High 50 ' *Numbers are for advisory purposes, not actual predictions o Sea level rise tied to climate change. Considerations include: ■ Location ■ Time horizon ■ Risk tolerance He identified SMP policies related to sea level rise: • Shoreline Use Goal ECDC 24.20.050.B.10 - Develop adaptive management strategies to increase capacity to respond to future possible impacts on the Edmonds shoreline from climate change in the Puget Sound region. • EDCD24.20.050.C.I I- C.13 (new policies recommended by Planning Board) o Stay abreast of scientific information o Prioritize Edmonds Marsh studies o Development should use LID techniques where appropriate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 16, 2014 Page 20 Packet Pg. 917 He identified regulations in the draft SMP that although they do not specifically mention sea level rise, they imply it be taken into consideration: ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction ECDC 24.50.010 — General Modification and Policies Regulations ECDC 24.50.020 — Shoreline stabilization ECDC 24.60.070 - Residential development Mr. Lien reviewed the City's approval process: • Assemble complete draft SMP • Complete SEPA review and documentation • Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt • Hold public hearing • Prepare a responsiveness summary • Approve SMP and submit to Ecology • Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines He reviewed Ecology's approval process: • Approval process generally takes six months to complete • Process for minor amendment is the same as full blown update • Provide public notice and opportunity for comment • Minimum 30 day comment period • Send comments to local government within 15 days • Local government has 45 days to prepare response to comments o Prepare decision packet 30 days after receiving response to comments o Ecology may: ■ Approve the submitted SMP amendment as is ■ Approve the SMP amendment subject to required changes ■ Deny the SMP amendment • Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval Mr. Lien commented due to the Comprehensive Plan code update/reorganization, the code may be organized differently and the SMP may not be in Title 24. Mayor Earling advised the Council will hold a public hearing but not make a decision regarding the specific outcome. Mr. Lien sought guidance with regard to the Urban Mixed Use IV setback. Council President Buckshnis relayed Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Peterson did not object to the Council discussion during their absence but felt it best to have the full Council present for a decision. With regard to buildings in Harbor Square becoming nonconforming with a 150-foot setback, she observed 2 of the buildings would be nonconforming with a 50-foot setback including the bubble, a portion of the tennis court and near Blue Collar Dog House. Mr. Lien displayed an image of the 50-foot setback from the edge of the marsh, identifying the shoreline jurisdiction and the 50-foot setback from the march, advising the tennis bubble and the other three buildings at Harbor Square do not appear to be within the 50-foot setback. The tennis court would be but it depends on where the 50-foot setback is measured from. Council President Buckshnis noted the 150-foot setback is standard for most grant programs. Councilmember Bloom observed the Planning Board added development should use LID techniques where appropriate and feasible. She suggested replacing "where appropriate and feasible" with "to the maximum extent feasible." Mr. Lien responded he did not recall discussion regarding the maximum Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 16, 2014 Page 21 Packet Pg. 918 8.2.g extend but there was discussion regarding should versus shall versus may. A definition of should was added to the definitions section, the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated compelling reason based on policies of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program against taking the action. The stormwater update will include criteria for appropriate and feasible LID development. "Shall" was not used because LID techniques are not feasible in all areas. The feasibility aspect of LID is spelled out in the stormwater update; adding "to the maximum extent feasible" does not add to the language. Councilmember Petso recalled at one point she wanted to delete the physically separate and functional isolated language and recalled Mr. Lien recommended it be retained. Mr. Lien recalled the discussion regarding physically separate and functional isolated was related to an interim CAO regulation. Councilmember Petso recalled the Council's preference for Urban Mixed Use IV was no residential. Yet the table on packet page 305 indicates Urban Mixed Use IV contemplates residential. Mr. Lien referred to the Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation, explaining the X under Urban Mixed Use IV for detached residential and attached or stacked residential means it is not a permitted use. The Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table indicates residential is not allow in Urban Mixed Use IV. Councilmember Johnson asked when the last OHWM was done, when the flooding study will be done and when it will be measured after Willow Creek is daylighted. Mr. Lien explained the OHWM for Puget the Sound shoreline along Edmonds is the average higher high tide which in this area is 10 feet above mean sea level elevation. The OHWM for Edmonds Marsh is the wetland boundary. To be a wetland, a site must meet three criteria, 1) predominantly wetland vegetation, 2) wetland hydrology saturated for 12.5% of the growing season, and 3) have hydric soils. While the overall boundaries of the marsh are not likely to change, the boundary is set by the historic fill. Daylighting and sea level rise could change the makeup of the marsh. He displayed a 2008 aerial image of the marsh from a survey done by WSDOT during planning for Edmonds Crossing and the salt marsh boundary. He identified the 10-foot elevation mark; if Willow Creek is daylighted and more free flow is allowed between Puget Sound, the marsh boundaries will not change but the marsh makeup will change. Councilmember Johnson concluded from that explanation that the artificial dikes around Harbor Square are not likely to be affected by the OHWM. Mr. Lien agreed that boundary would not change. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, commented the Edmonds Marsh is a 24 acre remnant of barrier estuary, a uniquely rich Puget Sound habitat that is an ecological asset to the community. Less than 20% of tidal wetlands of Puget Sound remain intact. Improving the function of estuaries like the Edmonds Marsh is an essential step to Puget Sound recovery. Since the founding of Edmonds, the marsh has lost over 50% of its original size. Reestablishment of proper hydrology in the remaining remnant would improve stormwater management, help the community adapt to sea rise, and establishing a more direct connection between the marsh and Puget Sound through Willow Creek would allow juvenile salmonid and spawning Coho to access the marsh. The marsh is of interest to many entities including the City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, Native American Tribes and local citizen groups. The purpose of buffers is to protect aquatic ecosystems such as the Edmonds Marsh from the negative impacts of industrial, commercial and residential land uses. Buffers are transitional areas and should be populated by native vegetation. A recent study by the Economic Development Commission recommended the City continue to improve annual festivals. While at Bird Fest, she met people from Colorado and New England; restoration of the marsh represents a unique opportunity for creating a wildlife recreation area that attracts people to the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 16, 2014 Page 22 Packet Pg. 919 8.2.g Jim Orvis, Port of Edmonds Commission President, commented the process has been long and complicated, and the Port appreciates the efforts of staff, the Council, Ecology and the public to create a shoreline plan that represents the best interests of the Edmonds community. The Port has serious concern with the proposed expansion of setbacks from the Edmonds Marsh to 150 feet. The current 25-foot buffer at Harbor Square have worked well for over 30 years, demonstrating that structures and activities at Harbor Square are compatible with a function marsh. Establishing setbacks of 150 feet will have a serious, adverse effect on Harbor Square, drawing the setback line into existing structures and regulating them to nonconforming use. This will severely impact the Port's and Harbor Square tenants' ability to upgrade existing building as well as eliminate the opportunity for creative redevelopment, ensuring the buildings within the 150 setback remain as they are indefinitely. A 150 setback means these buildings cannot be modified to be more compatible with the marsh. Both DOE and staff have stated the existing buffer meets the no net loss criteria specified in the shoreline regulations. There is no scientific basis to support the expanded setback. Council action to expand existing buffers by imposing a 150-foot setback is an arbitrary taking of property rights for two reasons, 1) it is not supported by the required scientific evidence, and 2) it will not have the desired effect of improving the marsh. The action establishing a 150- foot setback is proposed as an interim solution to permit the parties to discuss a final solution. In the Port's opinion, those discussions have been held and the Port views the proposed interim solution as simply a mean to avoid making a decision. He requested the Council reconsider this important issue and served notice if the revised SMP is approve as presented with a 150-foot setback, the Port Commission will, in the interest of its constituents, appeal directly to the Department of Ecology and the Shoreline Hearings Board. Evan Zhao, Students Saving Salmon Club, Edmonds-Woodway High School, commented growing up he passed the Edmonds Marsh many times but did not know its function, thinking it was bare land waiting for development. After joining this club, he recognized the marsh's true importance. Theodore Roosevelt was a strong advocate of conservation and preservation of the nation's resources. He had the foresight to set aside 800,000 acres to create the Grand Canyon National Park and 600,000 acres to create Olympic National Parking. This is an opportunity to follow Roosevelt's example and create the City's own gem. There is grant funding available to restore the functions of the marsh, making it a center for natural life in Edmonds, a breeding ground for salmon and to purify water runoff. He asked the Council to realize the potential of the marsh and hoped it will one day become a gem of the City. Patrick Madvlka, Edmonds-Woodway High School Student, explained restoration of the Edmonds Marsh represents a large step to make Edmonds more environmental friendly and efficiently coexist with nature. His generation is cognizant of environmental issues and will facilitate change in the future for the good of the environment. He suggested starting now to make Edmonds a pristine example of environmental progress, starting with the restoration of the marsh. Val Stewart. Edmonds, speaking as an individual and not as a Planning Board Member, commented the interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline designation allows two years to work out details regarding buffers, setbacks and allowed uses on property adjacent to and including the marsh. After the SMA was passed in 1971, a high school teacher in the community, John Cook, took 30 students into the marsh to do a field study where they found evidence of saltwater influence. The students ultimately testified at a Snohomish County hearing that resulted in saving the marsh from fill. Now that a portion of the marsh has been reclassified as a shoreline, it will be subject to stricter standards of the SMP. This bodes well for the future of salmon populations and upstream where spawning occurs. Salmon are important to the health of the ecosystem. No net loss is not good enough. Before the marsh was diked and filled, it was a rare habitat and the remaining remnant is even rarer. Since the early 1900 approximately 90% of backshore tidal marshes in Puget Sound have been filled for agriculture and development. The City is at a crossroads; allowing more time to explore the possibilities for salmon recovery with available grant money through collaborative work the Tribes, government agencies and nonprofits. She relayed the words Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 16, 2014 Page 23 Packet Pg. 920 8.2.g of the late Billy Frank Jr., a tribal elder and a long time champion of tribal rights, salmon recovery and the environment. Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he came by his environmental concerns firsthand as a sportsman, diver and swimmer and was aware and concerned about preserving the environment. This morning he and his wife caught four silver salmon in Edmonds. In two weeks, silver salmon will be seen butting their heads on the seawall, trying to return to the stream where they were born but they cannot because the hatchery is behind the marsh. He was excited to learn about efforts to save the marsh, daylight Willow Creek and allow the salmon to incubate in the marsh. A 150-foot setback would make the marsh eligible for millions in grant funds for recovery. However, as a protector of private property rights, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states if life, liberty or property is taken for public use, it has to be paid for; this is a clear taking. He suggested an interim 150-foot buffer for a couple years. If he was a Port Commission, he would advocate for a lawsuit against the City if the 150-foot setback was approved. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing and remand to Council for comments. Councilmember Petso suggested deleting physically separate and functionally isolated provision, Item G on page 291 of the Council packet. Council President Buckshnis, a member of WRIA 8, believed cleaning up the marsh would improve the surrounding property values. She agreed with an interim solution, noting there are millions available in salmon recovery grants. A 100-150 foot setback is standard. Councilmember Johnson announced Val Stewart has arranged a tour of the Edmonds Marsh on October 4 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the Mayor, City Council Planning Board, the Climate Protection Committee and the Edmonds-Woodway High School Students for Salmon. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS With regard to Westgate, Mayor Earling commented there has been a mischaracterization that staff is the reason the Westgate Plan is what is which he said is not true. It has also been characterized as the Mayor's plan which is also not true. There have been several comments from the public saying the Westgate Plan feels rushed. He understood those comments, recognizing people often come late to a process. In fact the Westgate Plan is not rushed; it has been worked on for 4-5 years. It has been before the City Council, a group of UW students who helped shape some of the recommendations, the Economic Development Commission, the Planning Board and now it is back to the City Council. There has been a thorough vetting of the plan including Councilmember Bloom's Town Hall meeting yesterday. Sometimes in the heat of changes, people jump to assumptions. This plan has been underway at several levels for a number of years. Mayor Earling referred to today's press release regarding a $1.67 million bill from Fire District I as a result of union negotiations over the last few years. The City knew FDI would retroactively bill the City for 2013 and 2014, but the size of the bill was a surprise. Mountlake Terrace. Brier and Edmonds were taken aback that no preview of the amount was provided. The contract agreement with FD 1 was approved in November 2009, under a different Council and administration. He has asked FD 1 for full accounting and is working with FD1 and City Attorney to ensure all the costs they are billing are justified. FD1 Chief Ed Widdis will provide further information regarding the process and the amount at the October 14 study Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 16, 2014 Page 24 Packet Pg. 921 8.2.g Interpreter Expense 18,000 10,000 14,000 Caseloads down for 2014, probably rise in 2015 Miscellaneous 36,000 10,000 11,000 Electronic File Management System (DP) was not implemented Revenue 2014 2014 YE 2015 Modified Estimate Recomm Discussion Budget Public Defender Public defender assessment went from 35,000 33,000 39,000 $130 to $200 during 2014 and will be Recoupment $200 during 2015 Traffic infraction filings were down Infractions 310,000 273,000 293,000 significantly in 2014 and we anticipate some increase in 2015 • Decision Package o Electronic File Management System ■ City receives funds from "Washington State Court Improvements Account." Funds are restricted and must to be used only for improving the court's efficiency. Balance in this account as of today is $59,851 Mayor Earling advised Item 14 would be delayed to next week's study session. He announced the Council would hold a 5 minute executive session at the end of the meeting regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 25 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. INTENT TO APPROVE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the City approval process: • Assemble complete draft SMP • Complete SEPA review and documentation • Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt • Hold public hearing • Prepare a responsiveness summary • Approve SMP and submit to Ecology • Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines He explained Ecology's approval process generally takes six months to complete. To prepare the final SMP for submission to Ecology, Mr. Lien requested direction from the Council regarding: • Urban Mixed Use IV setback • Physically separated and functionally isolated provisions The provisions for Urban Mixed Use IV in the current draft SMP are: • No residential • 150-foot setback 50-foot vegetative buffer Interim designation (2 years) a Q. E c� 0 a` L d m c `0 z Cn CD ti M Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2014 Page 22 Packet Pg. 922 8.2.g Mr. Lien explained both the buffer and setback are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) which basically is the edge of wetland around the Edmonds Marsh. The total setback is the current draft SMP is 150 feet; within the 150 setback is a 50-foot vegetative buffer requirement for a total of 150 feet from the edge of the marsh. He reviewed staff recommendation for the Urban Mixed Use IV: • 50-foot setback o Consistent with BAS and no net loss requirement o Department of Ecology supports o Opportunity of enhancement 0 150 foot setback creates nonconforming situation Interim designation Council President Buckshnis apologized for all the work Mr. Lien has done and the discussions they have had; her intent has always been to have a 100 foot setback which she noted is part of the NOAA Appendix L requirements. Mr. Lien displayed images of the 100-foot setback and the 150-foot setback the 50-foot vegetative buffer within the setback. Councilmember Petso asked about the Appendix L that Council President Buckshnis referred to. Mr. Lien explained it is funding guidance for three water quality grant programs, Section 319 grants, Centennial Clean Water Fund grants, and the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund loans. He read from Appendix L, "In July 2011, Western Washington Treaty Tribes released the "Treaty Rights at Risk" paper. The paper stated treaty -reserved rights to harvest salmon and steelhead are being impaired by ongoing salmon habitat loss. To address concerns outlined in the paper, tribes approached federal government agencies that fund environmental work to improve salmon habitat and restore sustainable salmon fisheries to levels that meet treaty rights." As a result of the Tribes approaching the federal government, minimum buffer widths were established to obtain funds from those three grant programs; the minimum for Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek is 100 feet. Councilmember Petso commented the discussion was about the marsh as well as stream buffers; she asked whether the setback for federal funding for the marsh was a 100 feet or 150 feet. Mr. Lien answered he was unsure how it would apply in this situation. He identified the locations of Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, noting they are intricately intertwined with the marsh. He assumed the federal funding would consider whether a 100-foot setback was provided. The minimum buffer width for intertidal and estuarine streams and channels in Appendix L is 35-75 feet. A link in the appendix to specific stream buffers identifies a 100 foot buffer for Shellabarger Creek channel outlet. He would need to conduct further research to confirm the buffers. Councilmember Petso asked how difficult it would be to correct the setback in the future if the Council got it wrong tonight. Mr. Lien answered six months; Ecology's approval process for a minor amendment is the same as a complete SMP update. Councilmember Johnson asked when the two year interim period would start; the day the SMP is submitted to Ecology of the date it is approved by Ecology. Mr. Lien advised the SMP becomes effective 14 days after Ecology grants approval; the 2 year period would start from then. Council President Buckshnis expressed support for the interim designation, noting it would provide time for the City to have discussions with the Port, WSDOT and Unocal. Mr. Lien provided information regarding physically separated/functionally isolated provisions: 24.40.020.F.2.g — Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers g. Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2014 Page 23 Packet Pg. 923 8.2.g i. Areas which are both physically separated and functionally isolated from a wetland and do not protect the wetland from adverse impacts due to preexisting public roads, structures, or similar circumstances, shall be excluded from the buffers otherwise required by this subsection. ii. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated. He displayed a lidar map and identified areas east of the railroad tracks. The marsh becoming a shoreline of the state expanded the shoreline jurisdiction into Harbor Square and Unocal properties on the north and south sides of the marsh as well as made other areas with shoreline jurisdiction. A buffer provides protection to a critical area; it does not provide that function when it is physically separated and functionally isolated. In this case, the railroad separates a portion of the Port property from the marsh and does not provide any protection or function to the marsh. Councilmember Petso recalled previous discussion about the application of physically separated and functionally isolated to situations through the City such as a road in City Park separating the spray park from a wetland. She asked whether there was a way to limit the SMP to only this one example. Mr. Lien answered the SMP impacts shoreline jurisdictions; City Park is not in shoreline jurisdiction and none of the other streams in the City are within shoreline jurisdiction. Councilmember Petso asked whether it would apply to the path or tennis courts between the north end of the marsh and some areas of Harbor Square. Mr. Lien advised that determination is made by a qualified professional. He displayed the map, identifying the 50-foot vegetative buffer and the 100-foot setback. The physically separated and functionally isolated provision is in the critical areas section of the SMP and applies specifically to wetland buffers. Mr. Lien advised the resolution in the packet was a draft and would be returned to Council for approval on the Consent Agenda at a subsequent meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE A 100 FOOT SETBACK, NO RESIDENTIAL AND AN INTERIM DESIGNATION. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification whether the motion included a 50-foot vegetative buffer. Mr. Lien explained the draft SMP has a 150-foot setback with a 50 foot vegetative buffer; the motion would change that to a 100-foot setback with a 50-foot vegetative buffer. Council President Buckshnis agreed that was the intent of her motion. For Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Lien advised the current draft SMP did not allow residential development in the Urban Mixed Use IV. Councilmember Peterson said he was not completely comfortable with excluding residential but likely could move forward. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Lien for his recommendation regarding physically separated and functionally isolated. Mr. Lien recommended retaining it. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO RETAIN PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED. Councilmember Johnson asked how that would have been interpreted for the American Brewing Company silo and the Jacobsen's Marine project. Mr. Lien displayed the image of a 100-foot setback and 50-foot buffer. He identified the location of silo, explaining under the SMP it would not have been allowed because it added new structures within the setback area. The Jacobsen's Marine project is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2014 Page 24 Packet Pg. 924 8.2.g physically separated and functionally isolated from the marsh; that project was approved when the interim CAO was in place and they were allowed to build under the physically separated and functionally isolated provision. Mr. Lien explained the interim CAO had a physically separated and functionally isolated provision and it allowed development within the previously developed footprint. The American Brewery silo was constructed within the impervious surface area defined as the previously developed footprint. Both the American Brewery and Jacobsen's Marine project were required to provide enhancement and some buffer enhancement in the marsh is occurring as a result of those two projects. Councilmember Petso asked how many other projects came in during period the interim ordinance was in effect. Mr. Lien answered those two and the City Park spray pad. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. 14. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM This item was delayed to a future meeting via action take at the conclusion of Item 12. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling thanked the Council for approving the judge's job description and confirming the position's salary and benefits. The search will begin search tomorrow and he hoped to have a new judge in place by mid -December. Mayor Earling announced his reappointment of Darlene Stern and appointment of Jamie Reece to the Economic Development Commission. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 10:25 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.140(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director Scott James and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 10:30 p.m. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:30 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2014 Page 25 Packet Pg. 925 8.2.g o Work with the existing code or the proposed code for Westgate. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained there was a robust public process to develop the PROS Plan and Community Cultural Plan. The Planning Board vetted the plans in December 2013 and held a public hearing on January 8, 2014. The Council reviewed the plans and held two public hearings on February 4 and 25 and unanimously approved the plans on February 25, 2014. The plans have been submitted to the State to be eligible for the grant process; grants were due May 1, 2014. This is basically a housekeeping amendment; the City has traditionally included the PROS and Community Cultural Plans in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope advised the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is not part of this proposed amendment. That will be considered as part of the budget process and a future amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Westgate text language and asked the difference between mixed use and a mix of uses and why mixed use was selected rather than mix of uses. Ms. Hope responded they can mean the same thing; mixed use refers to a mix of different types of uses. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Ms. Hope's explanation that using one or the other would not limit where uses could be placed on a site and would allow room for whatever final decisions is made regarding Westgate. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Petso referred to discussions regarding flexible mixed use on Highway 99 such as commercial development at the front of a site and residential toward the back instead of the standard mixed use with residential over commercial. She asked whether the term mixed use would include both types of development. Ms. Hope answered it would allow full flexibility. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3984, AMENDING THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ADOPTING THE 2014 PARKS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN AND THE 2014 COMMUNITY CULTURAL PLAN AS ELEMENT S OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REPLACE THE EARLIER VERSIONS OF THOSE ELEMENTS; AMENDING SUBSECTION C OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCORPORATE NEW LANGUAGE FOR T HE WESTGATE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. INTENT TO APPROVE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the City approval process: • Assemble complete draft SMP • Complete SEPA review and documentation • Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt • Hold public hearing • Prepare a responsiveness summary • Approve SMP and submit to Ecology • Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines He explained Ecology's approval process generally takes six months to complete. The process for "minor" amendment is the same as a full blown SMP update. He reviewed the ecology approval process: • Provide public notice and opportunity for comment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 7 Packet Pg. 926 8.2.g o Minimum 30 day comment period o Send comments to local government within 15 days o Local government has 45 days to prepare response to comments Prepare decision packet 0 30 days after receiving response to comments, Ecology prepares decision packet o Ecology may: ■ Approve the submitted SMP amendment as is ■ Approve the SMP amendment subject to required changes ■ Delay the SMP Amendment Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval He explained with the proposal to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center building, questions arose regarding how the SMP applies to the site. The SMP Restoration Plan includes a restoration opportunity: relocation of parking lot (bump -out) to restore beach habitat. In the proposed SMP relocation has been changed to reconfiguration to address the bump -out, not relocation of the entire senior center parking lot. He identified the bump -out on an aerial photograph, explaining the bump -out was constructed in the early 1960s for the geodesic dome that was brought up from the Seattle's World Fair. He provided a photograph of the bump -out from the beach level and the seawall project completed in 2003. The restoration project would be to remove the bump -out and line up the beachfront. Mr. Lien identified SMP regulations that apply to the Senior Center development: • Urban Mixed Use I Environment • Senior Center structure 0 15-foot setback 0 30 feet in height • View corridor 0 30% of parcel width o Adjacent to north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor given development on adjacent properties • Parking o 60-foot setback He described parking setback reductions allowed in the Urban Mixed Use II: • 1 square foot for every foot of walkway or publically accessible open space • Minimum 40-foot setback He displayed a potential site plan for the senior center, identifying the 60-foot parking setback. The parking in the site plan is similar to the existing parking; he identified the area of parking that would be considered a nonconforming use and could continue as a nonconforming use. An option would be to apply the parking setback flexibility allowed in Urban Mixed Use II to the Urban Mixed Use I. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained within the Urban Mixed Use I environment where the senior center is located, the parking setback is 60 feet and there is no option to reduce it to 40 feet. In Urban Mixed Use II, the setback can be reduced 1 foot for every lineal foot of walkway or square foot of open space provided to a minimum of 40 feet. He displayed a potential site plan if the bump -out was removed and the parking setback reduced. Councilmember Petso asked what other properties would be affected by a change to allow the parking flexibility in Urban Mixed Use I. Mr. Lien identified the properties in the Urban Mixed Use I environment, advising all properties in that area could benefit from the setback reduction. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 8 Packet Pg. 927 8.2.g Mr. Lien identified the provision for parking setback reduction flexibility in 24.60.080.D.3.c; the Council could approve a change to allow the parking setback reduction flexibility that applies to Mixed Use II to apply to Urban Mixed Use I. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO HAVE THE PARKING SETBACK FLEXIBILITY IN URBAN MIXED USE II APPLY TO URBAN MIXED USE I. Councilmember Johnson asked how long the 60-foot setback had been in effect in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered at least since the SMP was last updated in 2000. Setbacks differ for parking and structures, largely because parking is not considered a priority use within the shoreline area. The parking setback flexibility may have been allowed for the Urban Mixed Use II zone because that zone largely applies to the marina where parking is important and where there is a water dependent use versus the Urban Mixed Use I zone where uses are office space and some residential. Councilmember Johnson asked if a 60-foot setback was consistent with any grant or State regulation. Mr. Lien answered not that he aware of. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1326, EXPRESSING INTENT TO ADOPT AN UPDATE TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English recalled a presentation was made to Council in October; this discussion has been carried forward for several Council meetings. Staff's recommendation is to approve the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and an ordinance be prepared to adopt the 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) with the budget. Councilmember Johnson commented there is one new project description related to the senior center. Parks & Recreation Carrie Hite highlighted two changes, the first in the CFP related to the senior center. A rebuild of the senior center has been in the CFP for quite some time. That has been revised to reflect that the non-profit will rebuild the senior center and the City's responsibility will be to rehabilitate the grounds and beach access surrounding the senior center when construction begins. The second change is the addition of the Veterans Plaza in the CIP which includes a project description, project benefit rational and a $10,000 initial budget based on Councilmember Peterson's recommendation. Council President Buckshnis relayed she has provided input to staff regarding funding for the Sunset Avenue project. She agrees with keeping that project on the list but preferred to see how the design goes before estimating the cost. She felt including $2 million in 2018 was premature. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the funding was included as a placeholder. Mr. English responded if the City applied for a construction grant in the future to build something more permanent such as sidewalks and facilities on the south and north end, it would be appropriate to have the $2 million in the plan. If the Council chose to construct something less, it was better to have the funds in the plan than to have no funding. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas supported retaining the full $2 million. Councilmember Petso suggested restoring the project description back to a walkway versus a multiuse pathway. She asked why that was not recommended by staff. Mr. English answered that could be done, it was up to the Council. Public Works Director Phil Williams agreed that could be done, pointing out a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 18, 2014 Page 9 Packet Pg. 928 OUIIaaoyS 6L£0 s;uauayoe;;V 4;inn IenoiddV jeuoi;ipuoa s.ABoloo3 jo;uampedea - 9;igiyx3 :;u8Wt43e;;V rn t �o N M ap �rn 6 x a �a� y 1 59 V STATE OF WASHINGTON a DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons ivith a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 June 27, 2016 The Honorable Dave Earling City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update — Conditional Approval Dear Mayor Earling: Thank you for submitting to Ecology the City of Edmonds (City) Shoreline Master Program comprehensive update. We have completed our review of the proposal for consistency with the Shoreline Management Act and implementing guidelines. As we have already discussed with your staff, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) identified specific changes necessary to make the proposal approvable. These changes are detailed in Attachment B. Recommended changes are detailed are proposed in Attachment C. Findings and conclusions related to the City's proposed SMP amendment are contained in Attachment A. Pursuant to RCW 90,58.090 (2)(e), at this point, the City may: • Agree to the proposed changes, or * Submit an alterative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted for consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by Ecology and with the Shoreline Management Act. Final Ecology approval will occur when the City and Ecology agree on language that meets statutory and Guidelines requirements. OUIIaaoyS : 6LE0 s;uauayoe};V 4;inn IenoiddV jeuoi;ipuoa s.ABoloo3 jo;uampedea - 9;igiyx3 :;uauayoejjV s r�i 00 The Honorable Dave Earling June 27, 2016 a Page 2 a Please provide your written response within 30 days to the Director's Office at the following address: WA State Department of Ecology Attention: Director's Office PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-6700 Ecology appreciates the dedicated work that you, the City Council, City Development Services staff (Kernen Lien, Shane Hope, and Rob Chave), the Planning Commission and engaged interested parties have put into this SMP update. Thank you again for your efforts. We look forward to concluding the SMP update review process in the near future. ff you have any questions or would like to discuss the changes identified by Ecology, please contact our Regional Planner, David Pater at David.Pater@ecy.wa.gov/(425) 649-4253, Sincerely, Maia D. Bellon Director Enclosures By Certified Mail [7012 1010 0003 3028 4383] cc: Shane Hope, City of Edmonds Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds David Pater, Ecology Erik Stockdale, Ecology 8.2.h Attachment A- Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Ecology's Findings and Conclusions (Attachment A), including reference to Attachment 8 (Required Changes), provide the factual basis for Ecology's decision on the City of Edmonds (City) updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The document is divided into four sections providing introductory information (Section 1), findings related to the City's submittal (Section 2), amendment history and review process (Section 3), and conclusions (Section 4). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Edmonds submitted to Ecology for review a comprehensive amendment to their SMP to comply with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) at RCW 90.58 and the SMP Guidelines (Guidelines) at WAC 173-26 (Part Three). The updated master program provides locally tailored shoreline management policies, environment designations, regulations, and administrative provisions, as well as local ordinances Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Critical Areas Regulations) incorporated as part of the SMP. Additional reports and supporting information and analyses noted throughout this document were considered by Ecology during review of the City's submittal. NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT The proposed amendment is needed to comply with a statutory deadline requiring a comprehensive update to local Shoreline Master Programs pursuant to RCW 90.58.080, and for compliance with planning and procedural requirements of WAC 173-26 and 27. This SMP update is also needed to address land use changes that have occurred along city's shorelines since the most recent County SMP amendment in October 2000. The proposed amendment also ensures the SMP is consistent with land use management policies and environmental protections provided by the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the May 2016 Critical Areas Regulations (Ch. 23.40-23.90, Ordinance 4026). SECTION 2: FINDINGS OF FACT AMENDMENT HISTORY, LOCAL REVIEW PROCESS The City indicates the proposed SMP amendments originated from a local planning process that began in October 2005. The record shows that the Edmonds Planning Board held nine meetings open to the public on June 22, July 27, August 24, October 12, November 11, and December 14, 2011, January 25, May 9, and October 24, 2012. The Planning Board also conducted a public hearing on November 14, 2012. The Edmonds City Council held nine public meetings in December 4, 2012, February 26, March 26, April 23 October 8 and December 17, 2013 and September 2, 2014. Affidavits of publication provided by the City indicates notice of the hearings was published in the Everett Herald on October 31'Y 2012. The Edmonds City Council held eight public meetings on December 4, 2012, February 26, March 26, April 23 October 8 and December 17, 2013, September 2, October 21, 2014. The City Council also conducted two public hearings on June 4, 2014 and September 16, 2014. Affidavits of publication provided by the City indicates notice of the hearings was published in the Everett Herald on May 19, 2013, and September 4, 2013; all public meetings and hearings were advertised on the City of Edmonds web site. After adoption of Resolution #1326, on November 18, 2014, Edmonds City Council authorized staff to Packet Pg. 931 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update forward the proposed amendments to Ecology for approval. The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete on January 21, 2015. Finding Ecology finds that Edmonds satisfied the SMP-Guideline standards related to the local public process, (WAC 173-26-090, -100, and-201(3) b)J, and submittal of the SMP to the Department for review (WAC 173-26-110). INVENTORYAND CHARACTERIZATION (WAC 173-26-201) Documentation of current shoreline conditions is a key part of the SMP development process and addressing the no net loss standard of the state SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-186). As the first step on addressing this requirement, Edmonds developed a final Inventory and Characterization Report dated November 2007. This report documents existing shoreline conditions and informs development of the City's SMP (environment designations, policies and regulations) and restoration plan. In addition to an inventory and characterization of environmental conditions, the City's Characterization report, together with the Cumulative Impact Analysis, address Ecology's other analytical requirements (WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(iii) — (ix). For example, Chapter 4 of the Characterization report provide a shoreline use analysis [WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(ii)], as well as public access opportunities [WAC 173-26- 201(3)(d)(v)]. The City's Inventory and Characterization Report and companion map portfolio provides an ecosystem - wide (watershed) and shoreline segment -level analysis of existing shoreline environmental and land use conditions. Ecosystem -wide processes are presented in addition to near shore physical and biological characteristics. Nine shoreline segments are further analyzed based in part on previous habitat assessments of biological, geomorphologic, hydrological and landscape characteristics. The map portfolio encompasses land use, biological and geologic elements of the city's shoreline. Descriptions of current shoreline conditions below are categorized into three geographic marine shoreline planning reaches and Lake Ballinger. Edmonds has no rivers or streams that meet minimum state shoreline jurisdiction. Edmonds has five miles of Puget Sound shoreline and 3947 feet of Lake Ballinger shoreline. Edmonds Marsh: additional analysis was required for the Edmonds Marsh due in part to new information which became available later in the SMP process. This additional information which is discussed in section three, led to a tidal classification of the marsh as a Shoreline of the State due to saltwater tidal influence. Finding Ecology finds that the City's 2007 Inventory and Characterization report provides a sufficient assessment of existing shoreline environmental and land uses conditions consistent with State Guideline requirements of (WAC)173-26-201 (3) (c) and (d). The analysis provides the SMP update process an adequate basis for developing shoreline environment designations, policies and regulations, and future protection and restoration opportunities in city shoreline jurisdiction. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS (WAC 173-26-211) Ecology guidelines at WAC 173-26-211 require local governments to classify shoreline areas into environment designations based on the existing use pattern, biological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed in the comprehensive plan. The Packet Pg. 932 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update Inventory and Characterization Report is used to determine the relative degree of impairment and biophysical capabilities and limitations for individual shoreline reaches. Based on this assessment, along with consideration of anticipated future development, zoning and other regulatory overlays, jurisdictions may apply the designation criteria provided in WAC 173-26-211 to determine which shoreline environment designation should be assigned, or develop their own tailored designation criteria. Edmonds current 2000 SMP has six designations (natural, urban mixed use, conservancy saltwater and freshwater, urban railroad and suburban residential shoreline residential environment). The city's updated SMP used Ecology's recommended designations with sub -designations under Shoreline Residential for unique communities, as follows: Proposed Designation % of total' Natural (Edmonds Marsh /Shell Creek) 3 n/a Conservancy 1% Shoreline Residential 1 2 32% Shoreline Residential 11 2 3% Shoreline Residential 1112 (Lake Ballinger) 13% Urban Railroad 37% Urban Mixed Use 15% Aquatic I & II n/a s Percentage estimate of total linear shore land area z The SMP includes three residential and three urban mixed use sub -designations 3Natural designation includes only wetlands Consistent with Ecology's guidelines, each designation includes a purpose statement, designation criteria, management policies and regulations. Edmonds did an excellent job incorporating shoreline inventory and characterization information for delineating shoreline environments. The parallel designations of Urban Railroad and Shoreline Residential encompasses nearly 70% of the City shoreline. The presence of the Burlington Northern railroad dominates the City's Puget Sound shoreline. The 100 feet of shoreline jurisdiction bordering Puget Sound is the railroad right of way, while the upland 100 feet is shoreline residential I and 11. Residential sub -designations are divided based on lot zoning for marine shoreline and Lake Ballinger (Residential III). The Urban Mixed Use Environment is divided into four sub -designations based in part on city zoning and predominant land uses. The urban center shorelines west of the railroad tracks are predominantly Packet Pg. 933 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update water oriented uses (marina), while the urban mixed shorelines east of the railroad are more mixed use commercial and residential development. Ecology has included one recommended change to the use table that would provide more flexibility within the mixed use environment. Adopting this change would preclude the need for future SMP amendments should the city modify zoning for that area. The Aquatic Environment is divided into Aquatic I (low intensity) and Aquatic II (high intensity), with Aquatic 11 covering the marine waters adjacent to water dependent uses (marina and ferry terminal). Aquatic I borders the marine shoreline south of the marina and the railroad/residential shoreline and Lake Ballinger. As described in the SMP Shoreline development table (24.40.080) permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses are established for each shoreline environment designation in a manner that limits impacts to ecological functions while allowing for appropriate development. Several land uses are prohibited in certain shoreline designations due to their potential to have substantial impacts to shoreline ecological functions or public health and safety. For example commercial uses and parking are prohibited in the residential environment. Conditional uses are activities that may be allowed in specific instances as long as the impacts of the use do not result in an overall degradation of the shoreline environment. Some of the shoreline designations outline a variety of conditional uses including but not limited to aquaculture, dredging, groins and jetties. These uses warrant a higher level of scrutiny due to variations in project proposals, location, and their potential for impacts to shoreline ecological functions, public health, and safety. In comparison the current Edmonds SMP shoreline development table outlines more general use and modification categories for all shoreline environments. The table structure is similar to the SMP update. The new SMP update outlines more distinct use and modification categories. For example, boating and moorage facilities have five subcategories under the new SMP while the current SMP only defines moorage structures and facilities singularly. Aquaculture is not included in the current SMP use table, and new SMP requires a Conditional Use Permit. Finding Ecology finds the City conducted a comprehensive process for developing Shoreline Environment Designations, using relevant information from the Inventory and Characterization Report. Ecology finds that with the exception of required change identified in Attachment e, the city's proposed designations and use and modifications classification table (24.40.080) are consistent with WAC 173-26-211. GENERAL MASTER PROGRAM PROVISIONS (WAC 173-26-221) The SMP Guidelines in WAC 173-26-221 list general use provisions that are intended to apply broadly to all of types of shoreline development regulated by master programs. Edmond's general provisions are located primarily under General Policies and Regulations (Section 24.40). Critical area regulations are adopted by reference in Section 24.40.020. These include regulations for wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Frequently flooded areas are addressed under 24.40.030. The Shoreline Use and Development Regulations (Section 24.40) also address Ecology's general requirements for archaeological sites and public access. These provisions must be met by any use, development, or activity regardless if a shoreline permit is required or not. For example: If vegetation removal is necessary, the regulations require minimization and compensatory mitigation. Packet Pg. 934 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update The City's Cumulative Impact Analysis analyzes the adequacy of SMP policies and regulations to address future development. It includes a table of potential shoreline alterations, associated ecological impacts and outlines specific SMP policies and regulations that addresses impacts. It also explains how the regulations address mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize and compensate for impacts. SMP Sec. 24.40.090 (Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards) outlines setbacks by shoreline environment and use, maximum impervious surface limits and height limitations are also key standards. Edmonds shoreline is mainly built out with minimal existing vegetative buffers. Bulk and dimensional standards overlaid with the vegetation conservation regulations (24.40.50) are key measures to ensure no net loss of ecological functions in the city's suburban and commercial shorelines. Finding Ecology finds that with the exception of required changes identified in Attachment B, the general policies and regulations are consistent with WAC 173-26-221. SHORELINE USE PROVISIONS (WAC 173-26-241) The SMP Guidelines in WAC 173-26-241 are intended to both recognize existing uses and ensure that future development will be appropriately managed consistent with the underlying policies of the SMA. Avoidance of use conflicts through coordinated planning and prioritization of "preferred" shoreline uses is a primary tenant of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020). Updates to local SMPs are intended to support these goals through development of appropriate master program provisions, based on the type and scale of future shoreline development anticipated within a particular jurisdiction. Edmond's SMP update regulates shoreline uses under Section 24.60. Consistent with WAC 173-26- 186(5), the City master program reflects the principle that the regulation of private property needs to be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. As described under "Environment Designations" above, the updated SMP includes varying degree of flexibility within each shoreline environment especially with the use of sub -designations for residential and mixed use commercial shorelines. The natural and conservancy environments though small in size tend to have the most restrictions when it comes to allowed uses with many uses simply either not allowed or not applicable to these shoreline environments. The SMP Use matrix addresses applicable uses required by Ecology guidelines, and also includes subsets of the more prevalent uses such as boating facilities (marinas, ramps) and water dependent and non -water dependent commercial uses. Finding Ecology finds that with the exception of required changes identified in Attachment B, including modifications to aquaculture use provisions, the City has established a system of use regulations consistent with WAC 173-26-241 and related environment designation provisions that accommodate preferred and priority uses, protect property rights while implementing the policies of the SMA, reduce use conflicts, and assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS (WAC 173-26-231) The SMP Guidelines in WAC 173-26-231 define "shoreline modifications" as: "...generally related to construction of physical elements such as a pier, floating structure, shoreline stabilization, dredged basin, or fill..." WAC 173-26-231(2)(b) states (as a general principle) that master programs should: "Reduce the adverse effects of shoreline modifications, and as much as possible, limit shoreline modifications in number and extent." These shoreline modification principles and standards contained Packet Pg. 935 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update in WAC 173-26-231 are reinforced through associated requirements for mitigation sequencing (WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) and the no net loss of shoreline ecological function standard (WAC 173-26-186). Edmond's SMP regulates shoreline modifications under Section 24.50, and address shoreline stabilization, moorage facilities (docks, piers and floats); filling, dredging and breakwaters, jetties and groins, and habitat restoration and enhancement. The primary changes from the existing SMP address are defined pier and dock dimensional standards consistent with Federal and other State resource agencies guidance; and more prescriptive shoreline stabilization regulations for new and replacement structures. The SMP update incorporates the fundamental mitigation strategy required by Ecology guidelines by requiring applicants for stabilization proposals to demonstrate first that the project is needed to protect existing structures. The section also prioritizes soft shore stabilization over hard stabilization options, and requires a site -specific geotechnical report for new stabilization. Report requirements are also outlined in the regulations. Where stabilization is needed, the least impacting alternative type must be used. The SMP requires that construction will not substantially disrupt littoral drift or near shore ecological functions. "Soft shore" approaches such as upland drainage control, vegetation protection, relocation of structures or improvements, or beach nourishment are a priority over hard stabilization options (bulkheads). Finding Ecology finds that with the exception of required changes identified in Attachment B, the City's Shoreline Modification standards are consistent with mitigation sequencing principles provided for in WAC 173-26- 201(2)(e), requirements in WAC 173-26-231, relating to shoreline modifications, and the Boating Facilities requirements of WAC 173-26-241(c). CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Addressing no net loss of ecological functions is a critical element in any SMP update. WAC 173-26- 201(2)(c) (Protection of Shoreline Ecological Functions) requires that: "Master programs shall contain policies and regulations that assure at minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources." A cumulative impacts analysis documents how an SMP update addresses no net loss of ecological functions. Upon completion of the final draft SMP in 2014, Edmonds finalized its cumulative impact analysis (CIA) to assess potential impacts resulting from anticipated future development allowed by the updated SMP. The City CIA outlines ecological functions at risks and connects them to shoreline alterations and new applicable SMP regulations and policies. Impaired ecological functions and reasonable foreseeable development is outlined for each shoreline segment. As described in the sections above, proposed general regulations and the integrated Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) address most commonly expected future impacts to ensure regulations achieve no net loss of ecological functions. The CAO standards have been reviewed and revised for compliance with SMA and SMP guidelines requirements. A shoreline use and modification matrix provides shoreline environment -specific classifications of permitted and prohibited activities. A shoreline bulk and dimensional standards table standards outlines shoreline setbacks, height and impervious surface limits and for various uses. More stringent stabilization and pier/dock standards are other key SMP elements. Edmonds also relies on non -regulatory incentives, intergovernmental coordination, and enforcement in their multi -faceted approach to managing shorelines. Packet Pg. 936 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update Finding Ecology finds that the City's Cumulative Impact Analysis presents an adequate analysis of shoreline uses and modifications per WAC 173-201(3)(d)(iii). RESTORATION PLAN Pursuant to WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) and (f), local governments are directed to identify restoration opportunities as a component of the SMP-update process, as well as establish implementation goals that coordinate and facilitate appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects. Edmonds prepared a November 2014 shoreline restoration plan. The plan is a multifaceted approach to restoring shoreline ecological functions. It includes policies which link the plan to the shoreline master program. The plan outlines restoration programs at the regional and city level including on- going projects. The plan also includes a comprehensive table of possible restoration opportunity areas. Projects are tied to restoration objectives and timelines. Projects vary from beach nourishment, creosote pier removal, nearshore and riparian enhancement, and culvert replacement. Implementation strategies include project evaluation, monitoring and adaptive management. Potential funding opportunities are also outlined. Finding Ecology finds that the Final Shoreline Restoration Plan is based on appropriate technical information available to the City during the SMP update. The plan fulfills the requirements of WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) and (f). OTHER STUDIES OR ANALYSES SUPPORTING THE SMP UPDATE Ecology reviewed a large number of reports, studies and information related to the City SMP update, all of which are included in the master file record, or are listed as "references" at the end of this document. Key supporting documents include the: • April 2006 public participation plan, • August 2007 shoreline inventory and characterization, • November 2014 cumulative impacts analysis, • November 2007 shoreline use analysis, and • November 2014 restoration plan. CONSISTENCY REVIEW Consistency with the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58): The proposed amendments have been reviewed for consistency with the policy and procedural requirements of RCW 90.58.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090. Consistency with applicable guidelines (WAC 173-26): The proposed amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the applicable Shoreline Master Program guidelines (WAC 173-26- 171 through 251 and -020 definitions). This included review of a SMP Submittal Checklist, which was completed by the City. Consistency with SEPA Requirements: The City submitted evidence of compliance with RCW 43.21C, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in the form of a SEPA checklist and issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposed SMP amendments on August 22, 2014. Notice of the SEPA Packet Pg. 937 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update determination was published in the Everett Herald on August 26, 2014. Ecology did not comment on the DNS. SECTION 3: DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REVIEW PROCESS The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete on January 21, 2015. This action initiated formal state review of the proposed SMP. Notice of the state comment period was distributed to state task force members and interested parties identified by the City on February 19, 2015, in compliance with the requirements of WAC 173-26-120. The state comment period began on February 25, 2015 and continued through March 27, 2015. SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED DURING THE ECOLOGY PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS Ecology received 143 comments from 31 citizens and 3 government agencies, one tribe and one corporation. Consistent with SMP-Guideline review requirements in WAC 173-26-120, Ecology provided the City with a summary of comments. The Responsiveness Summary (Attachment C) includes responses by the City to SMP topics raised by the comments pursuant to WAC 173-26-120(6). The following is a summary of the most common issues raised and both the City of Edmonds responses. Summary of Comments: The majority of comments focused on the size of the proposed Edmonds marsh buffer and setback and the associated Urban Mixed Use IV Interim Shoreline Environment Designation. The majority of citizen comments were in support of the City's 100 foot buffer (50 ft.) and setback (50 ft.). Some requested clarification about the previous 150 ft. buffer/setback proposal. Most comments expressed concerns with the long term ecological health and future restoration of the marsh, its wildlife habitat value and importance as a community amenity. Another common issue of concern is with possible Port of Edmonds redevelopment plans for Harbor Square and tall buildings being located close to the marsh. Most agency and corporation comments were not in favor of the 100 foot marsh buffer and setback and recommended a 50 ft. or 25 buffer with no setback. Comments expressed concerns that the proposed buffer /setback was not supported by the most current scientific or biological information. A few comments expressed that the proposed 100-foot buffer/setback was derived from a Department of Ecology grant funding guidance document (Appendix Q. Other agency comments challenged the validity of the interim designation for Urban Mixed Use IV environment. Concerns with impacts to future site development of the Harbor Square and UnoCal clean-up site bordering the Edmonds Marsh were also expressed. Tribal comments questioned the intention of the Urban Mixed Use IV interim designation, the finalization process and its potential to undermine future restoration. Concerns with the accuracy of the shoreline jurisdiction boundaries of stream mouth estuarine areas were also stated. Summary of City Response to comments: The City of Edmonds SMP was developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement. Packet Pg. 938 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the Edmonds SMP: Shoreline Use Policies (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; the marsh is a high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP 24.20.060.C.1; the City should work to maintain the marsh); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; the marsh should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (channel improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan. Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the City's proposed SMP included "interim standards" for development around the marsh. The city adopted an "Interim" Urban Mixed Use IV environment for an area where there is no preexisting shoreline regulation because the area is new to the shoreline jurisdiction. The City noted the absence of any language about expiration in the regulation. The city's use of "interim" in this context was not intended to be construed as an interim official control under RCW 90.58.590 but ratheras an expression of legislative intent to revisit this environment within the two-year period and adopt some kind of amendment, either by removing the "interim" descriptor if no substantive changes are desired or by adopting a substantive amendment to the regulations for this environment. Because one of the city's main restoration strategies is to qualify for grant funding, the city believed the SMP needed to be consistent with funding guidelines in Appendix L. The City's proposed 100-foot setback was intended as a regulation designed to restore ecological functionsand also for its indirect effect on the city's ability to obtain grant funding to restore the marsh. The City noted that their proposed 100-foot setback regulation only has direct effect if and when redevelopment occurs near the marsh. The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be subject to the City's SMP. SUMMARY OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY ECOLOGY AS RELEVANT TO ITS DECISION Ecology has reviewed the locally adopted SMP for consistency with applicable SMP-Guideline requirements, and considered the city's response to issues raised during Ecology's public comment period (Attachment D). The following topics are issues relevant to Ecology's final decision on updates to the Edmonds SMP. Required or recommended changes to address each of the following topic areas are included in Required Changes (Attachment B). EDMONDS MARSH SHORELINE JURISDICTION DETERMINATION The 2007 Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization only included the Edmonds Marsh within shoreline jurisdiction as an associated wetland. Additional information gathered in 2010 indicated that a portion of the marsh has tidal inundation. This resulted in inclusion of the uplands bordering the western part of the marsh within shoreline jurisdiction. In late 2010 Ecology staff conducted water level, salinity and hydraulic continuity assessments at the Edmonds Marsh. Based on these assessments, it was concluded that the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Puget Sound extended well into the western portion of the West Marsh (midpoint between SR 104 and the railroad right-of-way; the West Marsh lies to the west of SR 104), including the day - Packet Pg. 939 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update lighted portion of Willow Creek to the west of the railroad tracks (Figure 1). Based on this, portions of the marsh should be classified as a shoreline of the state. The determination was based on the predominance of salt -tolerant vegetation (salt grass [Distichlis spicata] and pickleweed [Salicornia depressa]), tidal fluctuations, and a continuous and contiguous water surface within this portion of the marsh (Figure 1). The salinities measured and dominant plants seen in the western portion of the marsh in December 2010 confirm, as well as aerial photographs and a previous marsh characterization, that tidal exchange is a current and ongoing process in this portion of the marsh. WAC 173-22-030(a)(ii) defines the OHWM in low energy tidal environments as the landward limit of salt -tolerant vegetation; tolerant of salinities >_ 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). Saltgrass and pickleweed are tolerant of salinities greater than 30 ppt. OF } Figure 1. Approximate location of Edmonds Marsh water elevation stations, January 2011 shown on 2002 aerial photograph. Highest observed tidal height at Seattle (11.54 feet) produced a 0.5 foot elevation rise at western monitoring station (blue dot), while no change in water levels was registered at the two eastern stations (red dots). Note tidal channels and mud flats in western portion of marsh and transition to more salt -sensitive vegetation to the east of tidal channels. A number of studies have been done at the marsh, as well as the former UnoCal site, and these assessments have found no surface water connection (except for flexible pipes) between the former UnoCal detention pond and the marsh proper or Willow Creek. Based on these assessments, Ecology does not recommend this pond be designated as an associated wetland. Packet Pg. 940 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update The portion of Edmonds Marsh east of SR 104 (East Marsh) should be designated as an associated wetland. The East Marsh is associated due to proximity and influence to the West Marsh. Primarily, the hydraulic continuity to the West Marsh is via the Shellbarger Creek culverts. EDMONDS MARSH BUFFERS Edmonds Marsh is a relatively important shoreline wetland that includes estuarine and freshwater wetland communities, as well as Willow Creek, which discharges to Puget Sound immediately downstream from the marsh. A stand of intact forest is found to the southeast of the marsh between State Route 104 and Pine Street. Scattered trees are also found along the eastern and northern edges of the marsh. For terrestrial species, the habitat potential for Edmonds Marsh and adjoining buffers is significantly constrained by the intense urban development surrounding the marsh. There are virtually no intact habitat corridors linking the marsh to other large blocks of habitat (Figure 2), which limits access for large mammals. This also limits the habitat suitability as breeding habitat for large birds such as raptors. The ongoing discharge of inadequately treated storm water to Edmonds Marsh, as well as Puget Sound immediately downstream, is currently the greatest ecological threat to the marsh. Harbor Square on the north side of the marsh generates a considerable amount of storm water. Upgrading storm water treatment at Harbor Square and impervious surfaces that drain to the marsh is an important and necessary step in improving water quality in the marsh and Willow Creek. While restoring the buffer at Harbor Square could contribute to improving water quality, retrofitting the storm water treatment system would provide a much greater ecological lift and require a smaller footprint. Unfortunately, the habitat benefits of a wider buffer are limited by the marsh's relative isolation within a highly developed urban landscape. A densely planted strip of trees and shrubs would provide a visual and physical screen and some additional habitat for birds, although planting trees on the levee between the Marsh and Harbor Square may not be compatible with levee maintenance requirements. Packet Pg. 941 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update Figure 2. Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek west of SR 104 with intact buffers outlined in red. Note tidal channels draining the western portion of the marsh. Figure 3 depicts the proposed shoreline jurisdiction for the Edmonds Marsh. The extent of tidally - influenced salt marsh (i.e. salt -tolerant vegetation) is shown with the pink line. East of this line the marsh is classified as associated wetland. Packet Pg. 942 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update 2006 Salt Marsh Boundary 4 .i Figure 3. Approximate extent of salt marsh (and OHWM) in 2006 in West Marsh. Due to the degraded condition and constraints on the Edmonds Marsh, Ecology has classified the marsh as a Category II wetland within the locally adopted Shoreline Master Program (SMP; Section 24.40.020 (2)): Category II wetlands are: 1) estuarine wetlands smaller than I acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; 2) inter-dunal wetlands larger than 1 acres; 3) disturbed coastal lagoons or 4) wetlands with a moderately high level offunctions (scoring between 51-69 points). Category II wetlands have standard buffer width of 75 feet. SMP-required change number three requires a 50-foot buffer with a minimum 15-foot structural buffer setback. A 50-foot buffer is consistent with existing conditions on the intensely developed north side of the marsh and present constraints. As discussed above, the presence of the levee also limits the water quality benefits that a buffer would provide. Packet Pg. 943 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update The main benefit of restoring a buffer on the marsh would be some increased habitat area for urban - tolerant wildlife species, as well as providing a more natural barrier between the marsh and urban development at its edge. A minimum 15-foot building setback would help preserve the integrity of a restored buffer. A larger setback may encourage intensive uses such as parking, which is incompatible within a buffer setback. In summary: Ecology considers the Edmonds Marsh to be classified as a class II wetland under the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO; see wetland classification, ECDC 24.40.020). This estuarine wetland has been significantly disturbed by urban development (significant reduction in size due to fill, fragmentation, and isolation from adjacent wetlands, chronic storm water, and hydraulic separation from Puget Sound). The CAO wetland buffer table prescribes a 75-foot buffer for a class II wetland. The City CAO also requires a 15-foot buffer setback (ECDC 24.40.280, Building Setbacks). The recommended Ecology buffer setback is consistent with the CAO. The recommended 50-foot buffer is less than the CAO wetland classification. Ecology's analysis concludes that a 50-foot buffer is appropriate for Edmonds Marsh given the environmental impact issues outlined above and the current configuration of the Harbor Square Business Park. URBAN MIXED USE IV SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION (SMP 34.30.070) Proposed required changes to this SMP section remove the classification of the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an "interim" designation, and delete the accompanying rationale. The interim designation is no longer necessary given the proposed 50 foot marsh buffer and 15 foot buffer setback (Changes 2 and 3). The changes are consistent with the Planning Commission draft SMP which is tailored to existing conditions. The changes are consistent with the guidelines requirement to base master programs on available scientific and technical information [WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)]. One of the original objectives of the interim designation was to provide time to secure buffer enhancement grant funding for the proposed 100 foot marsh buffer /setback. An August 19, 2015 letter from Ecology's Water Quality Program (attachment F) clarifies that the buffer enhancement grant eligibility for the Edmonds Marsh is a minimum 35 foot buffer width. Further marsh studies can continue with an SMP that incorporates the required changes. Redevelopment of the Harbor Square and the Chevron sites (Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal) are more likely to occur along with needed buffer enhancement and storm water treatment improvements which will improve the ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh. Note that Ecology included a recommended change to the SMP use table that would provide the city with zoning flexibility within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment (see Appendix C). Adopting this change would preclude the need for future SMP amendments should the City modify zoning for that area. SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted and all comments received, Ecology concludes that the City's SMP proposal, subject to and including Ecology's required changes (itemized in Attachment B), is consistent with the policy and standards of RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and .020 definitions). This includes a conclusion that the proposed SMP, subject to required changes, contains sufficient policies and regulations to assure that no net loss of shoreline ecological functions that is anticipated to result from Packet Pg. 944 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update implementation of the new master program amendments [WAC 173-26-201(2)(c)]. Ecology has also provided a recommended change in Appendix C the City may consider. Ecology concludes that the City has chosen not to exercise its option pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)(ii) to increase shoreline jurisdiction to include land necessary for buffers for critical areas located within shorelines of the state. Therefore, as required by RCW 36.70A.480(6), for those designated critical areas with buffers that extend beyond SMA jurisdiction, the critical area and its associated buffer shall continue to be regulated by the City's critical areas ordinance. In such cases, the updated SMP shall also continue to apply to the designated critical area, but not the portion of the buffer area that lies outside of SMA jurisdiction. All remaining designated critical areas (with buffers not extending beyond SMA jurisdiction) and their buffer areas shall be regulated solely by the SMP. Ecology concludes that those SMP segments relating to shorelines of statewide significance provide for the optimum implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy (RCW 90.58.090(5). Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 regarding the SMP amendment process and contents. Ecology concludes that the City have complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.130 and WAC 173- 26-090 regarding public and agency involvement in the SMP amendment process. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the purpose and intent of the local amendment process requirements contained in WAC 173-26-100, including conducting open houses and public hearings, notice, consultation with parties of interest and solicitation of comments from tribes, government agencies and Ecology. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act. Ecology concludes that the City SMP amendment submittal to Ecology was complete pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-26-110 and WAC 173-26-201(3)(a) and (h) requiring a SMP Submittal Checklist. Ecology concludes that it has complied with the procedural requirements for state review and approval of shoreline master program amendments as set forth in WAC 173-26-120. DECISION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Based on the preceding, Ecology has determined the proposed amendments are consistent with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act, the applicable guidelines and implementing rules, once required changes set forth in Attachment B are accepted by Edmonds. As provided in RCW 90.58.090(2)(e)(ii) the City may choose to submit an alternative to all or part of the changes required by Ecology. If Ecology determines that the alternative proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of Ecology's original changes and with RCW 90.58, then the department shall approve the alternative proposal and that action shall be the final action on the amendment. The master program will take effect fourteen days from the date of Ecology's written notice of final action to the local government. Packet Pg. 945 8.2.h Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update SECTION 5: REFERENCES City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Public Comment Summary, June 2015 (Attachment C) Department of Ecology Water Quality grant funding guidance document (Appendix L) from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance (Attachment D) Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, Ben Rau correspondence to Edmonds, August 19, 2015 (Attachment E) Packet Pg. 946 ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326) 8.2.h Attachment B: The following changes are required to comply with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and the SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III). ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; stiaffikethiceug4-deletionsl ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE 1. 24.40.020 Critical Areas Critical Areas B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40 The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the Ordinance through 23.90 ECDC (dated N1Avem"eri3, 20"^mod. 352:7May 3, 2016, Ord 4026)- City Council on May 3rd 2016. Correct referencing is Referencing are herein adopted as a part of this Program, except for the specific subsections needed to acknowledge the change. listed below in ECDC 24.40.020.D. All references to the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance in this Program are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.D, shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B) of this Master Program), the regulations identified in this section also apply to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance and this Shoreline Master Program, provisions of the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. 2. Appendix B SMP Critical Replace Appendix B containing the critical area regulations dated November 23, The SMP Incorporates the revised critical areas Area 2014, Ordinance 3527 with the critical area regulations (minus exceptions noted in ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 3, 2016. Regulations item 4 below) dated May 3, 2016, Ordinance 4026. 3. 24.40.020 Critical Areas CAO 1. Wetlands: ECDC 23.50.040-P.3. AnY hatprepeses The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the a. Shoreline project g-G� provisions began 'I 25, through the mechanisms described OR ECDC red City Council on May 3rd 2016. The stricken CAO sections a -h''ff^r CtiO triggered by a 24.^�Q2would require variance. No variance is required f^r have been updated within the new CAO. New CAO -a shoreline shoreline v.;etla^P' Ted C-t+eRce isterit with ECDC provisions do not trigger a shoreline variance. variance b. ECDC 2 n3J-gv.0 0.A.I.h 17, n 2: Qiiffer recI i.- 6OR and alterat*er,r 3. Cish.vJiiaiifc Habitat Conservation Areas ECDC 23.90.040.D2: Reduced and a. h ffPer y.f0 d+hr, h )R n.. +Art structures cxistin-Wit in stream u ers .FCDC .on .nnn .nrT4,HPaI 4. 24.40.020 Critical Areas CAO D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the Exceptions shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction. City Council on May 3rd 2016. The stricken CAO sections have been updated within the new CAO. Many of the 1. General Provisions: previous CAO exceptions no longer need to be acknowledged within the SMP. aD c a� 0 n a r Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 947 ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326) 8.2.h ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; stFil(ethFewgI4-deletions] DrAwms;mAPS f ehapter )R nn GC}�n,C relatiRg ter ahl f ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE tFPTyW rtY-with sheFeliRe jWiSd+EtieR� Specifically ECDC prep 72 nn nnn a.P.PI Crnr c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance e. €CSC �3..n0cRQ: E-Eemtoens 2. Geologically Hazardous Areas: a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas 1A1 tl-,r.a.-- - Grnr 23 50 910 n• W tland Rating h. ECDC 3.§9.n�P1: StaAdard Ruffer Widths Grnr �� n nnn F.4: WeTlan� Baffer Width A �cccc c.cv-v�v. �vera-g!Rg. d-. ECDC 23.50.nnn C 4 h: Passive Recreati9n e. €Ejj'D�C �23.50.040.k €xe}}mom} i�ORS } �c f. ECDC _2_2.5��5Q..F- M tigait7lRTTQTCaties g ECDC 23 Cn nCn r• \.Netl@pd_s Cr.haReemeRt @S MitigatiGR 5. 24.40.020 Critical Areas Wetlands Delete 24.40.020.F (1) — (4). The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the Deletions are not shown in strike -through here to save space. City Council on May 3rd 2016. The stricken CAO sections have been updated within the new CAO. 6. Part III Shoreline B. Urban Mixed -Use IV: The Urban Mixed -Use IV designation is being established as Changes to this regulation remove the classification of Environments Designation an Ont r;m shoreline designation. is appropriate for those areas bordering T the the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an "interim" 24.30.070 Criteria Edmonds Marsh. g The marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state is new designation, and delete the accompanying rationale. Urban Mixed Use 5. Urban to this SIVIP update and was identified as a sheFeline of the st late in the The interim designation is no longer necessary given the Mixed Use IV planning process... , W-with properties within 200-feet of the salt influenced proposed 50 foot marsh buffer (Changes 2 and 3). The portions of the marsh now under shoreline jurisdiction (where they had not changes are consistent with the Planning Commission previously been so designated). Specific review of the effects of establishing a draft SMP which is tailored to existing conditions. The the be changes are consistent with the guidelines requirement sheFelene enviFenment en existing and prepesed uses around FnaFsh must Q to a� 0 0 0 L c m E R a m Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 948 ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326) 8.2.h ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; stFikethFeugl4-deletions] ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE stud+ed. to base master programs on available scientific and technical information [WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)]. The south side of the marsh has been identified as the future site of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal which underwent significant environment review with a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in 2004. On the north side of the One of the original objectives of the interim designation Marsh is the Harbor Square commercial development owned by the Port of was to provide time to secure buffer enhancement grant Edmonds. ;he SMD bipdate piceeess was delayed +^ -,II.,,., the °„r+ Af WpApAd'; funding for the proposed 100 foot marsh buffer time to submit a IeRg - warheic Squa ^ "rite~ Pap f.,r ^ Rt Feview /setback. An August 19, 2015 letter from Ecology's plappe by the C+tf €daseHaFbeia Squaice-N;aste� °was Water Quality Program clarifies that the buffer -fQsed „I+;^^atel„ Ret adopted by the City enhancement grant eligibility for the Edmonds Marsh is a minimum 35 foot buffer width. The Edmonds Marsh is also being studied for potential restoration projects including the daylighting of the Willow Creek outlet as well as the marshes role in Further marsh studies can continue with an SMP that the flooding problem at the Dayton Street/State Route 104 intersection and the incorporates the required changes. Redevelopment of role the marsh and play in a solution to the flooding problem. the Harbor Square and the Chevron sites (Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal) are more likely to occur along with needed buffer enhancement and storm water theCity, OR €eeleg treatment improvements which will improve the a�I c:e9peFatieR with picepei:ty ewReFs, , sc:ieRtists ageRc+es�ogaR+teRseeersthe te eaFefully ev+ee€fess ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh. developmeRt well the role the EdMORIEIS Marsh and plaRRed as as ecological plays 0R the City Edie.}d3 TheCityiRteRGISW issues th., of study SUFFOWRdiRg Edmonds Marsh related UrbaR Mixed Use IV des*gnat*E)R fer twe frem and years the P-1-ate this SIVIP. At the the the City will effective ef end of study period, adopt whether the entire aFea should have the same .Je& n time , 7. Part IV General Policies and Regulations Development Standards Shoreline Area Designation The required changes align with SMP provisions from the planning commission draft recommended approach to Urban Mixed Use IV Table buffers and setbacks on the Edmonds Marsh, which are 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Urban Mixed Use IV tailored specifically to existing conditions. The required changes are consistent with the record developed during Commercial and Light Industrial Development Standards the SMP. Changes are required for consistency with Shore 65 50 Shore Setback Setback RCW 90.58.100 and WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) and (e) (D _ 0 U) a) ti M _ aD t Q r 0 L a a Q 0 �a _ 0 CU Y) a� 0 0 0 W O r C 0 E V_ R Q d w r 0 x W c aD E 0 Q Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 949 ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION No. 1326) 8.2.h ITEM SMP PROVISION Topic Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; stFikethF96igI4-deletions] ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE (protection of ecological functions and environmental impact mitigation). Ecology acknowledges the City Council amendments to the Planning Commission draft were based on a concern that buffers would be need to be 100 feet to be eligible for Ecology water quality grants. As noted in a letter from Ecology's Water program, a restoration project would be eligible based on the science -based planning commission setback of 50 feet (see letter from Ben Rau to Shane Hope, August 19, 2015). g, Part IV General Policies Development 18. Setback for new buildings and expansion of buildings Rew development within The 15 foot buffer setback is consistent with the SMP and Regulations Standards the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 499 65 feet. Redevelopment of greater integrated critical areas regulations ECDC 24.40.280 Table than 50% for the Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction and (Building Setbacks). Also see rationale for change 2. 24.40.090 Shoreline development of the site on the south border of the marsh within shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Footnotes jurisdiction require the establishment of a 50-foot vegetation buffer adjacent to Standards the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent, in combination with a 15 foot structural setback . a� ti Cl) U) c as U 0 r a 3 0 L a a a c 0 �a c 0 U rn 0 0 0 W 0 r c m E ca a m C 00 r t K W C N E t U 2 r Q Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 950 ATTACHMENT C -DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROPOSED SMP AMENDMENT (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326) 8.2.h Attachment C: The following changes are required to comply with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and the SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III). 1. 24.40.080 Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation as c - as L Urban Mixed Within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment, change prohibited (X) to SDP, in the row for This recommended change would provide the city with zoning Use IV allowed "Attached or stacked residential (multifamily)" under the subheading "Residential." flexibility within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. uses. Adopting this change would preclude the need for future SMP ti amendments should the city modify zoning for that area. Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 951 8.2.h City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program — Comment Summary WA Department of Ecology public comment period: February 25 through March 27, 2015 Summary prepared by David Pater, April 13, 2015. City of Edmonds response to comments added June 11, 2015. Comment # Topic and format INNEEk- Commenter WSpecific Comment Edmonds Response 1. Edmonds Marsh Ken Reidy Clarify SMP Edmonds Marsh l 00-foot buffer Chapter 11 of the SMP Handbook notes, "Shoreline setbacks are the distances buffer/setback Edmonds WA /setback combination. separating two features such as a structure and the water, or a structure and (email) the buffer." The SMP handbook also notes, "Some local governments with intensely developed shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation conservation is required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious weeds and invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat improvements are required for new or expanded development. These measures meet the requirements of the SMP Guidelines to protect ecological functions, as buffers do." In the City's SMP the definitions for buffer and shore setback are: 24.90.01O.P "Buffer" means the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values. 24.90.050.A. "Shore setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline ordinary high water marl By definition, the buffer is adjacent to the critical area or shoreline and the setback is measured from ordinary high water mark, so if there is both a buffer and setback, they will necessarily overlap. Packet Pg. 952 8.2.h As mentioned above, the SMP handbook notes, "Some local governments with intensely developed shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation conservation is required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious weeds and invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat improvements are required for new or expanded development." This is essentially the approach taken in the Urban Mixed Use IV Environment. The Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards in 24.40.090 (pgs. 54 - 56) in the SMP list the shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV designation as 100150 with a reference to footnote 18 which states, "Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment is 100 feet. New development activities with the Urban Mixed Use IV environment require the establishment of a 50-foot vegetative buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent." Additional vegetation conservation measures are included in 24.40.050 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation as well as 24.40.020 - Critical Areas. 2. Edmonds Marsh Ken Reidy Is the total of 150-feet buffer/setback supported by The total setback/buffer distance in for the Urban Mixed Use IV designation in buffer/setback Edmonds WA the following excerpt from a Memorandum to the the draft SMP is 100 feet. The excerpt referenced is from the Director's (email) Edmonds Planning Board dated October 22, 2014? update to the Planning Board describing the current (as of the drafting of the memo for the October 22, 2014 Planning Board meeting) status of the SMP before the City Council. At the October 21, 2014 Council meeting, the Council revised the SMP to the current 100150 foot setback/buffer combination. 3. Shoreline Ken Reidy A shoreline buffer is an area that is to be maintained The referenced language and comment are regarding Frequently Asked buffers (email) Edmonds WA in an undisturbed state yet allows some development Questions from the Department of Ecology's website and is not language in most situations. How can something be maintained contained in the City of Edmond's SMP. in an undisturbed state, yet allow some development in most situations? 4. Defining Ken Reidy Please provide a definition of shoreline area. Does Edmonds SMP 24.90.050.B "Shoreline areas " and "shoreline jurisdiction " shoreline areas Edmonds WA the shoreline area include the buffer? means all "shorelines of the state " and "shorelands " as defined in RCW (email) 90.58.030. RCW 90.58.030 (d) "Shorelands" or "shoreland areas" means those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c a� E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 953 8.2.h horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be designated as to location by the department of ecology. (i) Any county or city may determine that portion of a one -hundred -year - flood plain to be included in its master program as long as such portion includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two hundred feet therefrom. (ii) Any city or county may also include in its master program land necessary for buffers for critical areas, as defined in chapter 36.70A RCW, that occur within shorelines of the state, provided that forest practices regulated under chapter 76.09 RCW, except conversions to nonforest land use, on lands subject to the provisions of this subsection (2)(d)(ii) are not subject to additional regulations under this chapter; (g) "Shorelines of the state" are the total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide significance" within the state; (e) "Shorelines" means all of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except (i) shorelines of statewide significance; (ii) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes; (f) "Shorelines of statewide significance" means the following shorelines of the state: (i) The area between the ordinary high water mark and the western boundary of the state from Cape Disappointment on the south to Cape Flattery on the north, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets; d c `o M CO a� ti M N c a) E M U 2 r a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c a) r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 954 8.2.h (ii) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the ordinary high water mark and the line of extreme low tide as follows: (A) Nisqually Delta --from De Wolf Bight to Tatsolo Point, (B) Birch Bay --from Point Whitehorn to Birch Point, (C) Hood Canal --from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff, (D) Skagit Bay and adjacent area --from Brown Point to Yokeko Point, and (E) Padilla Bay --from March Point to William Point; (iii) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to the Canadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide; (iv) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark; (v) Those natural rivers or segments thereof as follows: (A) Any west of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point where the mean annual flow is measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or more, (B) Any east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point where the annual flow is measured at two hundred cubic feet per second or more, or those portions of rivers east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream from the first three hundred square miles of drainage area, whichever is longer; (vi) Those shorelands associated with ()9(1), (ii), (iv), and (v) of this subsection (2); r a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as r_ 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 955 8.2.h A buffer may be included within the shoreline area. An instance where a buffer would not be within the shoreline area is the buffer on an associated wetland where shoreline jurisdiction ends at the boundary of an associated wetland. 5. EPA and NMFS, Ken Reidy Believes the Edmonds Marsh is classified as a According to the 2004 Best Available Science Report prepared for the City's Minimum Buffer Edmonds WA category c wetland under table L-I (EPA NMFS 2004 Critical Area Ordinance update, the Edmonds Marsh is a Category 1 Requirements for buffer requirements) because the water body is wetland. Surface Waters impeded by a man-made structure (e.g. culvert, dam, (email) etc.) which prevents anadromous or ESA listed fish The mapping program associated with Appendix L identifies the two streams access. that run through the marsh in the Category C column. 6. EPA and Ken Reidy Is a 100' setback the same thing as a 100' minimum In the City's SMP the definitions for buffer and shore setback are: NMFS, Minimum Edmonds WA riparian buffer? Buffer 24.90.010.P "Buffer" means the area adjacent to a critical area and/or Requirements for shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/or Surface Waters. structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary (email) depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values. 24.90.050.A. "Shore setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline ordinary high water mark. 7. EPA and Ken Reidy Is a 50' riparian buffer within a 100' setback the same See responses to Comment #1 and Comment #6. NMFS, Minimum Edmonds WA thing as a 100' minimum riparian buffer? Buffer Requirements for Surface Waters. a JA 0 0 V w 0 c as E r_ M Q. as c 00 x w c as E r a Packet Pg. 956 8.2.h (email) 8. Federal and Ken Reidy Edmonds Marsh: does there have to be a setback from The SMP was developed to be consistent with the SMA. There are many grant state grant funding Edmonds WA the edge of the riparian buffer to meet federal and opportunities and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer requirements state funding guidelines? guidelines in Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines (email) for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs (Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program). This specific funding guidance document does not mention a setback on buffers. 9. Best Available Ken Reidy Does Best Available Science require a setback from Best Available Science is not a regulation that has specific requirements, rather Science Edmonds WA the edge of a riparian buffer? BAS is used to inform decision making. One reason for including a setback (email) from a buffer is the setback protects the buffer from the impacts related to uses outside of the buffer, such as maintenance on structure. 10. Grant funding Ken Reidy Can the Edmonds SMP just require a 100 ft. riparian The Edmonds SMP could establish a buffer without a setback requirement and guidelines and best Edmonds WA buffer with no setback from the buffer? Question be consistent with the SMA and best available science. The SMP was available science. applies to both funding guidelines and best available developed to be consistent with the SMA. There are many grant opportunities (email) science. and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer guidelines in Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs (Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program). This specific funding guidance document does not mention a setback on buffers. 11. Buffer Ken Reidy Does some law or other requirement also require a The SMP was developed to be compliant with the Shoreline Management Act Setbacks (email) Edmonds WA setback from the edge of the buffer? and the Shoreline Management Act does not require a setback from the edge of buffers. 12. US Army Ken Reidy Concerned about the authority the United States While Ecology does administer the Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification, half Corps of Engineers Edmonds WA Army Corps of Engineers has to issue permits to of the federal Clean Water Act authorizations, the review and approval of the wetland permitting applicants to work in and next to the valuable and Sec. 404 authorization is administered by the Corps. There are circumstances, authority fragile resources located along the shorelines of such as the Thuessen wetland, when the Corps can determine that a project (email) Edmonds covered under the Edmonds Shoreline also meets water quality standards and that no further coordination with Master Program. Ecology is required. The Corps is administering federal law and does not have a regulatory role in SMA decisions; the Sec. 404 process is independent of shoreline permitting review by the local jurisdiction and Ecology. a 0) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c m E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 957 8.2.h 13. US Army Ken Reidy Concerned that public notification related to permit For projects that do not qualify for a nationwide permit the Corps does provide Corps of Engineers Edmonds WA applications the United States Army Corps of an opportunity for public comment. Concerns with the Corps' Sec. 404 review wetland permitting Engineers receives, processes, and grants have not process would need to be discussed with the Corps. authority (email) been provided in the past. 14. US Army Ken Reidy Concerned that public comments have not been All shoreline substantial development, conditional use, and variance permits Corps of Engineers Edmonds WA allowed to be made in the past related to permit will have a public comment period. All shoreline conditional use and variance wetland permitting applications the United States Army Corps of permits will require a hearing before the City of Edmonds' Hearing Examiner authority (email) Engineers receives, processes, and grants. as will those substantial development permits that trigger a public hearing in accordance with SMP 24.80.100. Shoreline exemptions do not require a public comment period. 15. US Army Ken Reidy Concerned that there appears to be no specific appeal The SMP does not establish an appeal procedure for Army Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers Edmonds WA process related to permits issued by the United States permits. Appeal procedures for Army Corps of Engineers permits are detailed wetland permitting Army Corps of Engineers to work in and next to the in 33 CFR Part 331. Appeal procedures for city issued shoreline permits are authority valuable and fragile resources located along the contained in SMP 24.80.110.C. (email) shorelines of Edmonds covered under the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. 16. US Army Ken Reidy Based on the United States Army Corps of Engineers The Washington State Shoreline Management Act and Edmonds Shoreline Corps of Engineers Edmonds WA historic behavior in the City of Edmonds, I believe Master Program do not have the authority to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Wetland permitting the role the U S Army Corps of Engineers can play Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is governed by federal authority addressed related to the valuable and fragile resources located regulations. within SMP along the shorelines of Edmonds should be covered update. (email) under the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. SMP 24.10.030.A Uses, developments and activities regulated by this Chapter may also be subject to the provisions of the city of Edmonds comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Edmonds City Code, and various other provisions of local, state, and federal law, as may be amended. Project proponents shall comply with all applicable laws prior to commencing any use, development or activity. 17. Edmonds Finis Tupper Concerned about how the setback and buffer I believe the reference is to the October 21, 2014 Council meeting. Marsh Urban Edmonds WA 98020 requirements in the Urban IV area (Edmonds Marsh) Mixed Use IV were changed by the City Council on October 31, The City concurs that the SMP update was a long process. It is within the City buffer/setback 2014, 864 days from the Planning staff original Council's authority to make appropriate changes to the SMP (or anything else (email) presentation and after public comment and within their legislative authority) prior to adopting the SMP. As noted in the participation with no scientific support of lesser response to number 20 below, the use of scientific information in the SMP is amount of 50 ft. setback from the 50 ft. buffer. guided by WAC 173-26-201(2)(a). The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c a� E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 958 8.2.h Ecology consistent with WAC 173-26-201. 18. Ecology SMP Finis Tupper The SMP handbook clearly defines setbacks and See response to Comment #1. handbook buffers as two separate requirements not one (email) requirement that can be combined. Dept. of Ecology response: Concur with Edmonds response. In addition the SMP handbook Ch.I 1 (pg. 2-4) also explains the function of a structural setback from a buffer. A setback from a buffer protects the buffer from the impacts related to use of a structure. This is a very common approach other local SMP use to further protect the integrity of shoreline buffer ecological functions. 19. SMP process Finis Tupper The City staff presentation at the October 21, 2013 I believe the reference is to the October 21, 2014 Council meeting. clarification for Council Meeting and proposed SMP update had a 150 defining Edmonds ft. setback with 50 ft. buffer that equaled 200 feet. Staff advised the Council of the difference between buffers, setbacks, and Marsh buffers and This was the dimension measurement after all the shoreline jurisdiction at several Council meetings (2/26/13, 3/26/13, 6/4/13, setback meetings and public comment. What is confusing, is 12/17/13, 9/2/14, 9/16/14, and 10/21/14). How the vegetative buffer is located (email) this was the first time public was advised the two within the setback was specifically discussed at the December 17, 2013 measures are not separate but combined measurement Council meeting, which is the first time the setback/buffer combination was of both buffer/setback dimensional requirements. The discussed. The images used to show the combination buffer/setback provision setback measurement is from OHWM and not from for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment clearly showed the buffer is to be the 50 ft. buffer line. contained within the setback. 20. Availability of Finis Tupper October 21, 2013 Council Meeting: Councilmember I believe the reference is to the October 21, 2014 Council meeting. marsh buffer Buckshnis apologized to staff for her related documents misunderstanding of the setback/buffer measurements Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water (email) calculation. She went on to say, she was member of Quality Financial Assistance is a publicly available document. The funding WRIA-8 Board and all the Native Americans want is guidelines are not one of the SMP documents, but was used as other available a 100 ft. setback. She claimed to have a NOAA grant information in determining the size of buffers/setbacks for the Urban Mixed document and offered to supply it to Councilmember Use IV shoreline environment. The funding guidelines and Appendix L was Petso in support of the measurement change in the emailed to the City Council on October 22, 2014. SMP update. City staff noted this document was not available on any of the SMP documents or to the public prior to closing comment. 20. Best Available Finis Tupper I have always thought the Shoreline Management The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Science Plan updates are required to use "Best Available Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was (email) Science" and not Grant funding opportunities to developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP determine the best measurements for setback/buffer submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. that protect and preserve natural water/wetland a JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c a� E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 959 8.2.h features and habitats. With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes: (a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and, where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant information is available and unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines and the use of which is required by the act. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available... The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173- 26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within the City's SMP. 21. Edmonds Finis Tupper The Port of Edmonds, owners of Harbor Square The existing uses and structures at Harbor Square would be nonconforming Marsh Development that abuts the Edmonds Marsh, would uses subject to the requirements of SMP 24.70.000 — 24.70.050. buffer/setback be grandfathered and suffer no damages with a 50 ft. (email) buffer and 150 ft. setback from the vegetation buffer. The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 960 8.2.h 10 Although the Port has passed a Master Plan that if buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP approved by the City Council would intensify use and becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be development that could possibly affect the ecology of subject to the City's SMP. Marsh and proposed day lighting of Willow Creek. 22. Edmonds Finis Tupper I would hope that the Department of Ecology requires Edmonds response: The interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV Marsh Edmonds to clear up this confusion and determine if a shoreline environment establishes a 100-foot buffer with the requirement to buffer/setback 50 ft. vegetation buffer and 150 ft. setback for any establish a 50-foot vegetative buffer within the setback. See the response to (email) new development is and was appropriate comment Number 1. measurement for Urban IV area. This is the setback/buffer measurement public believed to be Ecology response: As part of their final review of the Edmonds SMP the Dept. necessary for compliance with the Shoreline of Ecology will evaluate the Urban Mixed Use IV Environment buffer /setback Management Act, it is also the measurement used by for protection of Edmonds Marsh. many counties and cities in Washington. 23. SMP Page 41 Finis Tupper This section of the Edmonds SMP defeats the entire Buffer width averaging is a common practice supported by the Department of item #4: purpose of having a buffer requirement for wetlands Ecology. Department of Ecology's Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Restricting wetland and shorelines. The proposed process is not open and Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002) notes: intrusion and transparent to the public. In fact, the authority solely disturbance. bestowed upon the Director constitutes an Buffer Averaging 24.40.020 17.21. administrative variance without public notice, public Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain Wetland Buffer hearing and impartial legal decision -making. circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. Width Averaging Edmonds and the environment would be better served The width of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of (email) by requiring any deviation from the buffer wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a requirement be heard and ruled on by the City parcel. Hearing Examiner with appeal to City Council. We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report. The report should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the current functions of the wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be taken to ensure that there is no loss of wetland function due to the buffer averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point after averaging should be no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer. The City of Edmonds, at the direction of Ecology, incorporated the wetland Guidance for Small Cities into the SMP and the provisions are consistent with the guidance from the Department of Ecology. 24. Edmonds Finis Tupper The Department of Ecology should require the City of The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 961 8.2.h 11 Marsh Edmonds Shoreline Master Plan require a 100' buffer Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP buffer/setback, and delete the word setback to satisfy the buffer guidelines. Urban Mixed Use requirement of Appendix L and Table L-1 of the IV (email) Riparian Restoration Guidelines and adopted by your department, EPA and NOAA. 25. Edmonds Barbara Tipton Friends of the Edmonds Marsh believe Edmonds The Edmonds SMP recognizes the importance of the Edmonds Marsh as Marsh (email) Edmonds WA 98026 Marsh represents a unique opportunity for the evidenced by three specific policies in the SMP relating to the marsh and three community to create a wildlife and recreational area marsh related projected being identified in the Restoration Plan. that attracts visitors to our city. 26. Edmonds Barbara Tipton The Port of Edmonds took issue with the proposed The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new Marsh buffer 100 foot setback from the shoreline of the Edmonds buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP /setback (email) Marsh in the proposed in the SMP. The Port becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be Commission firmly supports the current 25 foot subject to the City's SMP. setback. They view the setback as "an arbitrary taking of property rights." Yet I haven't seen any proposed development drawings or data that would substantiate the Port's argument that they would suffer financial doom. 27. Edmonds Barbara Tipton All of the hard work will be for naught if the 25-foot The SMP was developed to be consistent with the SMA. There are many grant Marsh buffer Port of Edmonds setback is upheld. State and Federal opportunities and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer /setback (email) funding will be in jeopardy if we are not in guidelines in Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines compliance with the SMA. The Edmonds Marsh is for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs subject to the jurisdiction of the SMA based on (Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and Washington State Code 173-22-040. Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program). 28. SMP and Diane Buckshnis and We are in total support of the Shoreline Master Noted. Urban Mixed Use Steve Tholl Program for the City of Edmonds which includes the IV Interim Edmonds WA 98020 interim designation of a hundred foot setback/buffer designation (email) in the Urban Mixed Use IV category. 29. Port of Phil Lovell The Port of Edmonds proposed Harbor Square Master Noted. Edmonds proposed P.E., MASCE Plan developed, vetted, and published in 2012 Harbor Square Edmonds, WA 98026 enjoyed universal acceptance and approval by all in Master Plan terms of buffers, setbacks, etc. in conjunction with the (email) Marsh, knowing full well that plans are in the works to restore the Marsh starting with the day lighting of Willow Creek. 30. Edmonds Phil Lovell The current 25 foot 'border zone' and 50 ft. 'no -more- WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 962 8.2.h 12 Marsh build' buffer contained within those plans and upheld minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline buffer/setback within the original Planning Board -approved version natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where (email) of the City SMP are just fine'marsh-preservation they have been impaired." wise', both currently and for the future. While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum standard of no net loss. The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP 24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan. Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for restoration and enhanced ecological functions. 31. Edmonds Phil Lovell The temporary and/or permanent 100 ft. Edmonds See response to comment number 45. Marsh Marsh buffer/setback passed by the City Council is buffer/setback totally unnecessary, unwarranted, and insults the (email) Port's expressed desires and intentions to fully participate in the well-being of the Marsh. 32. Edmonds A Dexter Chapin The Port of Edmond Commission argues against the Noted. Marsh Edmonds, WA 98020 SMP buffer zones and setbacks. When the SMP was buffer/setback being developed there was a great deal of research, (email) thought, and discussion put into it. The result is based on science and popular will. 33. Port profits vs. A Dexter Chapin The Port's position seems to be based on a short-term The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new marsh impacts profit motive. They cannot contract with builders to buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP (email) make a huge profit in six -story condos that once sold becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be will generate little income. Short-term income vs. subject to the City's SMP. long-term damage; which will it be? a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c a� E r_ 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 963 8.2.h 13 34. Edmonds Marsh buffer/setback (Letter and attachments) Robert McChesney Executive Director Port of Edmonds Objects to imposition of expanded buffers and setbacks on Edmonds Marsh and encroachment upon Port's Harbor Square property. Noted. 35. Edmonds Port of Edmonds Record shows existing 25 ft. buffer meets SMA no WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at Marsh buffer net loss criteria, no science to support larger buffers. minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline /setback (letter natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where and attachments) they have been impaired." While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum standard of no net loss. The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP 24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan. Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for restoration and enhanced ecological functions. 36. Edmonds Port of Edmonds SMP proposed 100-foot marsh buffer/setback would Establishing the 100-foot setback/buffer requirement as an interim designation Marsh buffer diminish the value of the Port's Harbor Square will ensure restoration opportunities are maintained while a permanent /setback (letter property for future redevelopment and lost marsh designation and regulations are studied. As the SMP notes: and attachments) restoration opportunities. Establishing the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an interim designation will allow the City, in cooperation with property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested agencies/organizations, and members of the public, to carefully review effects of establishing a new shoreline jurisdiction for the area around the marsh on existing and planned development as well as the ecological role r a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 964 8.2.h 14 the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds. 37. Edmonds Port of Edmonds SMP proposed 100-foot marsh buffer/setback would See response to 36. Marsh buffer foreclose Edmonds Marsh restoration (buffer /setback (letter enhancement, storm water mgt. upgrades) for lack of and attachments) Harbor Square redevelopment economic feasibility. 38. Edmonds Port of Edmonds SMP record demonstrates flaws in City's justification The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Marsh buffer for proposed 100-foot marsh buffer/setback and Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was /setback critical gaps in its determination. The Port believes developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP justification the expanded buffers/setbacks as presented in their submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. (Letter and SMP is arbitrary, capricious and completely attachments) unnecessary. With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes: (a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and, where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant information is available and unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines and the use of which is required by the act. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available... The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173- a 0) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. a� c a Packet Pg. 965 8.2.h 15 26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within the City's SMP. 39. Edmonds Port of Edmonds The Port requests that DOE consider all the facts The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the Marsh and issues as required by law, and that DOE overrule Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP buffer/setback the City in this particular instance to maintain the guidelines. Justification existing marsh buffer and/or setback to a total of 25 (Letter and feet. attachments) 40. Edmonds Port of Edmonds The SMP proposes a 50-foot buffer and overlapping A careful review of the city's SMP reveals that the buffer and setback serve Marsh (K & L Gates) 100-foot setback, without the City substantiating this different purposes. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a) does not require that only buffer/setback buffer/setback area with any valid applicable scientifically purposes be served by the SMP. While there is some underlying Justification scientific information required by the WA State scientific justification behind the 100-foot setback, its primary purpose is to (Letter and Shoreline Management Act, 90.58 RCW (SMA) and put the city in a better position to receive grant funding to restore the marsh. attachments) applicable SMA implementing regulations. The Department of Ecology "has increased the minimum requirements for riparian buffers to protect and restore salmon fisheries and achieve water quality standards. These new requirements apply to funding for projects that address nonpoint pollution problems, including Section 319 grants, Centennial Clean Water Fund grants or loans, and the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund loans." Department of Ecology Funding Guidelines, Appendix L. In Western Washington, these funding guidelines require a 100-foot minimum buffer for Perennial, intermittent and ephemeral waters that are identified as being accessed or were historically accessed by anadromous or ESA listed fish species. It was proper for the city to take these funding guidelines into account as economic and other pertinent data under WAC 173- 26-201(2)(a) and RCW 90.58.100. 41. Edmonds Port of Edmonds Because the 100-foot buffer/setback is unlawful and The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the Marsh buffer / (K & L Gates) invalid under applicable SMA standards, Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP setback The Port requests that Ecology identify a 25-foot guidelines. Justification buffer as necessary to comply with the relevant (Letter and provisions of the SMA (with no additional setback). attachments) a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. a� c a Packet Pg. 966 8.2.h 16 42. Summary of Port of Edmonds The 100-foot buffer/setback is unsupported RCW 90.58.100(1) states: "In preparing the master programs, and any SMP violations of (K & L Gates) by the most current accurate and complete amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall to the extent the SMA and scientific information available. feasible:... (e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, applicable geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data...." Ecology SMA Regulations Further elaborating on the statutory requirement, WAC 173-26-201(2)(a) (Letter and states: "The requirement to use scientific and technical information in these attachments) guidelines does not limit a local jurisdiction's authority to solicit and incorporate information, experience, and anecdotal evidence provided by interested parties as part of the master program amendment process. Such information should be solicited through the public participation process described in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(b). Where information collected by or provided to local governments conflicts or is inconsistent, the local government shall base master program provisions on a reasoned, objective evaluation of the relative merits of the conflicting data." Read together, these provisions allow the city to solicit and incorporate not only scientific and technical information but also economic information and other pertinent data. The city has some discretion to balance these various sources of information in crafting its program. So, the latest scientific data is not the sole factor to be considered by the City. 43. Summary of Port of Edmonds The 100-foot buffer/setback is not supported by See response to Number 42. SMP Violations of (K & L Gates) scientific or biological information and fails to the SMA and meet the SMP regulatory requirement that it be Applicable based on "most current, accurate, and complete Ecology SMA scientific or technical information available." Regulations WAC 173-26-20I (2)(a). (Letter and attachments) 44. Summary of Port of Edmonds The 100-foot figure was derived from a grant The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management SMP Violations of (K & L Gates) funding guidance document (known as Appendix Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was the SMA and L) that applies to different types of water bodies developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP Applicable and different ecological functions and values, submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. Ecology SMA inapplicable to the ecological conditions present at Regulations Marsh. (See Ex. A.) Appendix L is applicable to With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes: (Letter and streams, not wetlands, and does not contemplate (a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements a 0) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 967 8.2.h 17 attachments) the ecological functions and values at issue here. for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and, where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant information is available and unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines and the use of which is required by the act. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available... The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173- 26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within the City's SMP. 45. The SMP Port of Edmonds The current SMP hinders redevelopment of Harbor WAC 173-26-186(8)(c) states: "For counties and cities containing any prevents improve- (K & L Gates) Square (see Ex. B), and therefore inhibits and shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include ments to the interferes with the "unique opportunity," (Stockdale goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological Ecology of the DOE letter to Mayor Earling 3/11/2014) functions.... These master program elements regarding restoration should Marsh (Letter and make real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies attachments) and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as r_ 0 Q. a� c a Packet Pg. 968 8.2.h 18 regulations and mitigation standards." This comment from the Port may be mooted in large part by the Port's recent improvements to the existing Harbor Square improvements. On April 7, 2015, Port Commissioner Fred Gauge provided an update to the City Council regarding Harbor Square, noting the Master Plan has been shelved by the Port Commission. Commissioner Gauge recounted that in the last year, the Port spent nearly $1 million for roofs and new HVAC systems in buildings 1, 2 and 5. In 2015 the Port plans to replace the roofs and HVAC on buildings 3 and 4 at a cost of approximately $750,000. Commissioner Gauge suggested that the Port made these 20-year improvements believing that the current zoning would not make redevelopment feasible. Harbor Square includes approximately 102,000 square feet of office space and is currently about 83% occupied. Considering that the Port has mothballed its redevelopment plans, it would appear that the most effective policies and programs to restore ecological functions are the ones that involve grant funding, which makes the inclusion of the 100-foot setback entirely appropriate. The approach to restoration planning may vary significantly among local jurisdictions, depending on, among other things, the availability of grants. WAC 173-26-201(f). 46. The SMP Port of Edmonds As Ecology acknowledged in its March 2014 Letter See response to number 45. prevents improve- (K & L Gates) on the SMP, "redevelopment activities in urban ments to the environments can be a 'friend of the environment' Ecology of the and can generate some of the funding necessary to Marsh (Letter and improve the ecological functions of wetlands and the attachments) critical areas they border." 47. The SMP Port of Edmonds The SMP and the City's process failed to analyze See response to number 45. prevents improve- (K & L Gates) the negative impact of the 100-foot buffer/setback ments to the on redevelopment of Harbor Square, and the Ecology of the resulting improvements to the Marsh which Marsh (letter and would flow from redevelopment in the form of attachments) funded mitigation, as required by WAC 173-26- 186(8)(c). Such redevelopment would include upgrading the property's storm water runoff controls, thereby improving the conditions at the Marsh. a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ M Q. as c a Packet Pg. 969 8.2.h 19 48. The SMP Port of Edmonds The SMP fails to consider indirect restoration See response to number 45. prevents improve- (K & L Gates) effects that may flow from a 25-foot buffer; WAC ments to the 173-26-186(8)(c) requires SMPs to consider Ecology of the "restoration effects that may flow indirectly from Marsh (letter and shoreline development regulations." In addition, attachments) imposing buffers on developed property is inconsistent with the Shoreline Guidelines. 49. The setback is Port of Edmonds This additional 50-ft. setback area functions as no See response to number 40. a buffer in disguise (K & L Gates) more than a "buffer in disguise". The concept of a (letter and "setback" arose in the City's deliberations only after attachments) it became clear that scientific information did not support the City's prior proposal. 50. The setback is Port of Edmonds The City has not articulated a substantive See response to number 40. a buffer in disguise (K & L Gates) difference between the functions of the buffer and (letter and the setback area in its SMP, and the record shows attachments) that the City seeks to comply with only the letter of Ecology's 50-foot buffer recommendation. This result violates the SMA requirement that SMPs be based on the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available. a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c m E r_ 0 Q. m c Q Packet Pg. 970 8.2.h 20 51. The buffer/ Port of Edmonds The City has not complied with the SMA's With an interim official control adopted under RCW 90.58.590, it is setback is invalid (K & L Gates) statutory requirements regarding interim controls. contemplated that such an interim measure would sunset automatically after as an interim SMA interim controls are limited to six-month six months if not replaced with a permanent regulation or renewed for another measure under the intervals (RCW 90.58.590), but the City proposes six month period. By default, such expiration would ordinarily leave the SMA (letter and an interim buffer/setback control for a two-year preexisting shoreline regulation in place. With the Interim Urban Mixed Use attachments) duration. The current SMP is legally defective and IV environment, there is no preexisting shoreline regulation because the area is will be void for failure to comply with RCW new to the shoreline jurisdiction. Note the absence of any language about 90.58.590. expiration in the regulation. So, the city's use of "interim" in this context should not be construed as an interim official control under RCW 90.58.590. Rather, it should be construed as an expression of legislative intent to revisit this environment within the two-year period and adopt some kind of amendment, either by removing the "interim" descriptor if no substantive changes are desired or by adopting a substantive amendment to the regulations for this environment. By using this language, the city is signaling its intent to update this environment six -years sooner than the normal eight -year update cycle. RCW 90.58.590 is not applicable here. 52. Edmonds Port of Edmonds An economic analysis of the impacts on Harbor See response to Number 45. Marsh (K & L Gates) Square redevelopment concludes a 100-foot buffer/setback M a r s h buffer/setback would significantly impede if redevelopment not preclude redevelopment of the property, impacts (letter and preventing mitigation and wetlands improvement attachments measures that would be funded by redevelopment. item II) 53. Interim Urban Port of Edmonds The City has styled the 100-foot buffer/setback as See response to Number 51. Mixed Use IV (K & L Gates) an interim measure applicable for two years. designation ((letter However, minutes of Council meetings reveal that a and attachments full amendment to the SMP would be required to Item II) modify the buffer/setback. 54. Incorporation Port of Edmonds The City is required to "base master program See response to Number 42. of most current (K & L Gates) provisions on an analysis incorporating the most information (letter current, accurate, and complete scientific or and attachments) technical information available." WAC 173-26- (Item III) 201(2)(a) 55. Incorporation Port of Edmonds RCW 90.58.020 requires local governments to See response to Number 42. of most current (K & L Gates) comply with RCW 90.88.100, which requires use of information (letter all available information regarding hydrology, a JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 971 8.2.h 21 and attachments) geography, topography, ecology, economics and (Item III) other pertinent data. If conflicting data is encountered, or the public participation process reveals experience or anecdotal evidence that is contrary to the scientific information, the City is required to "base master program provisions on a Reasoned, objective evaluation of the relative merits of the conflicting data." WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a)(iii) 56. No net loss of Port of Edmonds Master programs "shall include policies and The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management ecological (K & L Gates) regulations designed to achieve no net loss of ... Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was functions (letter [shoreline] ecological functions." WAC 173-26- developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP and attachments) 186(8)(b) submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the (Item III) guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement. 57. Buffer and Port of Edmonds The City is not making a meaningful distinction See response to Number 40. Setback (K & L Gates) between "buffers"and"setbacks"— the only source distinctions (letter cited is Appendix L (funding guidance for water and attachments) quality grant programs), which does not (Item IV) recommend setbacks, only buffers. 58. Appendix L Port of Edmonds The Appendix L information relied on by the City See responses to Number 40 and 44. (funding guidance (K & L Gates) was prepared not for purposes of protecting for water quality shoreline -related ecological functions and values grant programs) of wetlands, but for streams in another context (letter and (i.e., grant funding eligibility). The City has attachments) inappropriately applied Appendix L to the SMP. (Item V) 59. Appendix L Port of Edmonds The City has misapplied the Appendix L guidelines See response to Number 44. (funding guidance (K & L Gates) even to the stream that is mapped within the Marsh. for water quality Ecology maps reveal streams that do pass through grant programs) certain portions of the southern and eastern areas of (letter and the Marsh —Willow and Shellabarger Creeks. But attachments) the closest mapped stream passes more than 100' (Item V) from Harbor Square. a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 972 8.2.h 22 60. Proposed 100- Port of Edmonds The City has failed to meet its scientific burden See response to Number 42. ft. buffer/setback (K & L Gates) with respect to the Edmonds Marsh buffer/setback, not based on the and the SMP lacks a scientific basis on which to "most current, base a 100-foot buffer/setback from the Marsh. accurate and complete scientific ... information". WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a) (letter and attachments) (Item V) 61. Imposition of Port of Edmonds Imposition of development regulations (i.e., buffers The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management development (K & L Gates) and setbacks) on developed property is inconsistent Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was regulations (letter with the Shoreline Guidelines. Master Programs developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP and attachments) must include "regulations to achieve no -net -loss of submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the (Item V) functions". WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement. 62. Restoration Port of Edmonds S MP uses regulations to try to achieve restoration in Because one of the city's main restoration strategies is to qualify for grant (letter and (K & L Gates) a manner inconsistent with the SMP Guiding funding, the city's SMP must be consistent with the funding guidelines in attachments) Principles, which omit shoreline regulations as a Appendix L. Hence, the 100-foot setback cannot be looked at merely as a (Item V) tool for forcing restoration under WAC 173-26- regulation designed to restore ecological function. It must also be viewed 186(8) (c). through its indirect effect on the city's ability to obtain grant funding to restore the marsh. It should be noted that the 100-foot setback regulation only has direct effect if and when redevelopment occurs near the marsh. And, as noted above, the Port's recent actions and statements suggest that redevelopment could be twenty years away. 63. Buffer Port of Edmonds City Council minutes fail to reveal why 50 feet See response to Number 40. justification (K & L Gates) should be justified as a setback, and not a buffer. (letter and attachments) (Item V) 64. Marsh setback Port of Edmonds Ecology should view the entire 100 feet for what it The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 973 8.2.h 23 role (letter and (K & L Gates) is, an attempt to establish a buffer by another name. Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP attachments) Allowing regulation by relabeling would set a guidelines. (Item V) dangerous precedent and undermine the purpose of the SMA. 65. Buffer Port of Edmonds Landau Associates has concluded that the existing See responses to comment Numbers 35, 42, and 44. expansion (K & L Gates) buffer width at Harbor Square of 25 feet meets the justification (letter "no net loss" criteria. (Ex. A at 4.) The City has and attachments) failed to establish any scientific basis to support (Item V) expanding the buffer/setback area beyond that limit. 66. SMP precludes Port of Edmonds The City was required to "appropriately consider the See response to Number 52. beneficial marsh (K & L Gates) direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or non - mitigation and regulatory programs under other local, state, and failed to consider federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that restorative effects may flow indirectly from shoreline development (letter and regulations and mitigation standards". WAC 173-26- attachments) 186(8)(c) (Item VI) 67. SMP precludes Port of Edmonds The City should have considered that a 100-foot See response to Number 52. beneficial marsh (K & L Gates) buffer/setback would impede Harbor Square mitigation and redevelopment as an indirect effect of its regulation, failed to consider while a 25-foot buffer would allow restoration. restorative effects (letter and attachments) (Item VI) 68. A two-year Port of Edmonds The SMP is required to limit interim controls to See response to Number 51. interim designation (K & L Gates) six-month durations, and further requires is prohibited by the compliance with the procedures and standards set SMA (letter and forth in RCW 90.58.590. The City has not complied attachments) with this statutory provision, and accordingly, the (Item VII) two-year "interim" buffer/setback designation is invalid as a matter of law. 69. Conclusion Port of Edmonds The Port respectfully requests that Ecology The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the (letter and (K & L Gates) specify a modification to the SMP requiring a 25- Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP attachments) (Item foot buffer, and no additional setback, surrounding guidelines. VII) the Edmonds Marsh. a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 974 8.2.h 24 70. Edmonds Port of Edmonds Based on a review of available information from the The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Marsh buffer/ (Landau Associates) City and the Ecology chapter 11 SMP Handbook, no Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was setback scientific or technical information or logical process developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP inconsistent with is available that supports the City Council's submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. Ecology SMP application of a 100-ft setback for the Edmonds handbook (letter Marsh. With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes: and attachments) (a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements (Item A) for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and, where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant information is available and unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines and the use of which is required by the act. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available... The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173- 26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within the City's SMP. 71. Edmonds Port of Edmonds The recommended 100-ft buffer/setback is The SMP handbook notes, "Some local governments with intensely developed Q a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 975 8.2.h 25 Marsh buffer/ (Landau Associates) inconsistent with Ecology recommendations within shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation setback chapter I I of the SMP Handbook for areas with conservation is required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious inconsistent with similar highly developed conditions. weeds and invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat improvements Ecology SMP are required for new or expanded development." This is essentially the handbook (letter approach taken in the Urban Mixed Use IV Environment. The Shoreline Bulk and attachments) and Dimensional Standards in 24.40.090 (pgs. 54 - 56) in the SMP list the (Item A) shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV designation as 100150 with a reference to footnote 18 which states, "Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment is 100 feet. New development activities with the Urban Mixed Use IV environment require the establishment of a 50- foot vegetative buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent." Additional vegetation conservation measures are included in 24.40.050 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation as well as 24.40.020 - Critical Areas. 72. The 100-ft Port of Edmonds Justification for the proposed setback does not Edmonds Response: See response to Comment #70. setback proposed (Landau Associates) follow a logical process outlined by Ecology by the City guidance (chapter I I SMP Handbook). Ecology Response: Concur with Edmonds response. In addition the Urban Council is Mixed Use IV Environment buffer/setback will be evaluated within Ecology's inconsistent with final SMP review, this will include review of the referenced supporting the requirements of scientific and technical information outlined in WAC 173-26-201 (2) (a). WAC 173-26- 201(2)(a) (letter and attachments) (Item A) 73. The 100-ft Port of Edmonds Appendix L of the Funding Guidelines is The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management setback proposed (Landau Associates) associated with grant funding for water pollution Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was by the City control projects and specific to riparian buffers. It is developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP Council is not applicable scientific or technical information for submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. inconsistent with development of the City's SMP as referenced in the requirements of Ecology SMP technical assistance documentation. With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes: WAC 173-26- Furthermore, it is not applicable to the Edmonds (a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements 201(2)(a) (letter Marsh, which is a wetland. for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local and attachments) governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master (Item A) program development and amendment process. a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c a� E r- 0 Q. as c 00 x w c as E r a Packet Pg. 976 8.2.h 26 First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and, where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant information is available and unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines and the use of which is required by the act. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available... The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173- 26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within the City's SMP. 74. Current 25-ft. Port of Edmonds Based on the P o rt' s knowledge of the physical WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at buffer meets no net (Landau Associates) characteristics of the Edmonds Marsh and the minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline loss of ecological adjacent Harbor Square properties, and review of the available documentation and testimony from the Port natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where functions (letter of Edmonds, City staff, and Ecology they have been impaired." and attachments) correspondence, it is our opinion that the existing (Item A) 25-ft buffer meets the state "no net loss" criteria. While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum standard of no net loss. The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 977 8.2.h 27 24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan. Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for restoration and enhanced ecological functions. 75. Land Value Port of Edmonds An additional 75 feet of buffer /setback applied to "The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for and Ground Rent (Macaulay & Harbor Square reduces the developable footprint conflict." WAC 173-26-176. One of these policy goals is to "Protection and (letter and Associates) by 2.2± acres, the reduction in land value to the restoration of the ecological functions of shoreline natural resources." WAC attachments) Port of Edmonds is over $3.1 million. The cost to 173-26-176(3)(c). Another one of these policy goals is to "Recognizing and (Item B) the Port in ground rent due to this proposal is protecting private property rights." WAC 173-26-176(3)(h). There is obvious approximately $250,000 per year. tension between these two policy goals because it is not likely that former can be achieved on a voluntary basis without any regulation. Assuming for the sake of argument that the port's property interests should be viewed the same way as private property rights, concern for these rights must be balanced with the city's desire to restore the ecological functions of the marsh. The city believes that these regulations achieve that balance. 76. Development Port of Edmonds Harbor Square is constrained by rezoning limitations, See response to Number 75. Potential (letter (Macaulay & building height, parking and high water table, the and attachments) Associates) p r o p o s e d 10 0 f t. buffer/setback adds further (Item B) constraints to development flexibility, which impacts the ability of the Port to attract a development partner. 77. Development Port of Edmonds The prevailing trend in this area has been for See response to Number 75. Potential (letter (Macaulay & developers to construct as much building as and attachments) Associates) physically possible while staying w i t h i n z o n i n g (Item B) code requirements. Structural parking costs are ten times more expensive than surface parking which means the 50 outer setback would be used for parking if Harbor Square is redeveloped. a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 978 8.2.h 28 78. Effect on Tax Port of Edmonds The reduced building area f r o in t h e 10 0 - See response to Number 75. Base (letter and (Macaulay & f t . buffer / s e t b a c k would cost $930,000 to attachments) Associates) $1,460,000 million in non -recurring revenues to (Item B) affected governments and public agencies, and the estimated cost to the City of Edmonds is $121,000 to $167,000. For recurring revenues, the annual costs are $261,000 to $314,000 overall, and $56,000 to $64,000 to the city. 79. Effect on the Port of Edmonds Not including jobs from new construction and Job creation is not a policy goal of the Shoreline Management Act. Economy (letter (Macaulay & multiplier effects, a new 50,800 SF commercial and attachments) Associates) building would directly add at least 135± jobs to (Item B) the local economy. At a state -level multiplier of 1.9, the total economic impact is 257 jobs to the city. 80. Effect on the Port of Edmonds With the existing 25-foot buffer, the property is See response to Number 75. Environment (Macaulay & more marketable and enhancements like upgraded (letter and Associates) storm water treatment would occur sooner than attachments) otherwise. (Item B) 81. Effect on the Port of Edmonds With the proposed 100-ft. buffer/setback, See response to Number 75. Environment (Macaulay & the time horizon is indefinitely lengthened for (letter and Associates) attracting a developer to improve storm water attachments) detention and make other ecological enhancements (Item B) as part of redevelopment. 82. Overall impact Port of Edmonds The public is less served by buildings that are See response to Number 75. of delaying Harbor (Macaulay & nearing the ends of their economic lives at a Square Associates) prime gateway location that is poised for new and redevelopment improved uses, and these uses would be more (letter and aligned with the Edmonds community and better attachments) serve its commercial needs. (Item B) 83. Edmonds Kojo Fordjour, AICP A Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed The 100-foot setback/buffer in the Edmonds SMP from the Edmonds Marsh is Marsh Urban Environmental and Edmonds Crossing ferry terminal project dated July consistent with the ROD for the Edmonds Crossing Project as depicted on Mixed Use IV Permitting Manager 2005 was issued with a 100 feet buffer zone for the Figure 2-3 Modified Alternative 2. 100-foot setbacks associated with Willow buffer/setback Washington State Edmonds Marsh. However, the proposed 100 foot Creek would impact the Edmonds Crossing Project. It should be noted that the (letter) Ferries setback for the marsh in the SMP will limit WSF's existing critical area regulations (proposed to be incorporated in the SMP) also a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. a� c 00 x w c as E r a Packet Pg. 979 8.2.h 29 Seattle, WA 98121 ability to implement the mitigation and buffer require a 100 buffer from the ordinary high water mark of Willow Creek. enhancements proposed in the ROD. The SMA and Edmonds SMP allow for a variance from the SMP provisions which is ultimately decided by the Department of Ecology. The ROD could be used as support for a variance application. Transportation facilities such as ferry terminals are permitted consistent with the requirements outlined in SMP 24.60.080 84. Edmonds Kojo Fordjour WSF The City's proposed 100 foot setbacks would It has been more than 10 years since the FEIS for the Edmonds Crossing was Marsh Urban increase the Edmonds Crossing project impacts to issued. Once development permits are submitted for an actual project, Mixed Use IV Edmonds Marsh, and create a need for additional SEPA/NEPA documents should be reviewed for changed circumstances and buffer/setback mitigation or project redesign. Requiring a National updated as needed. (letter) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) re-evaluation and possible supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, in addition to updates to other required State, Federal and local permits. 85. Edmonds Kojo Fordjour WSF Creating a setback of 100 feet around Edmonds The 100-foot setback/buffer in the Edmonds SMP from the Edmonds Marsh is Marsh Urban Marsh and Willow Creek would jeopardize WSF's consistent with the ROD for the Edmonds Crossing Project as depicted on Mixed Use IV ability to develop the new ferry terminal on the Figure 2-3 Modified Alternative 2. 100-foot setbacks associated with Willow buffer/setback Unocal site. This has the potential to preclude the Creek would impact the Edmonds Crossing Project. It should be noted that the (letter) siting of the Edmonds Ferry Terminal, an essential existing critical area regulations (proposed to be incorporated in the SMP) also water dependent public facility on the Unocal Site. require a 100 buffer from the ordinary high water mark of Willow Creek. The SMA and Edmonds SMP allow for a variance from the SMP provisions which is ultimately decided by the Department of Ecology. The ROD could be used as support for a variance application. Transportation facilities such as ferry terminals are permitted consistent with the requirements outlined in SMP 24.60.080 86. Edmonds Kojo Fordjour WSF WSF therefore asks the City to either grandfather Washington State vesting laws specifically vest land use control ordinances at Marsh Urban the Edmonds Crossing Project or only keep the the time a complete building permit is filed (RCW 19.27.095). The 100-foot Mixed Use IV existing 100 foot- buffer dimension for the Edmonds buffer/setback associated with the Edmonds Marsh is consistent with the r a 0) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. a� c a Packet Pg. 980 8.2.h 30 buffer/setback Marsh. Edmonds Crossing FEIS. As noted in response to Comments Nos. 83 and 85, (letter) transportation are permitted consistent with SMP 24.60.080 and there is a process available to WSDOT to achieve the preferred alternative discussed in the Edmonds Crossing FEIS. 87. Edmonds Kojo Fordjour, WSF WSF recommends that the baseline for the "no -net- In accordance with the SMA, the baseline for no -net -loss is the Shoreline Marsh Urban loss" of ecological functions of the marsh and its Inventory and Characterization. Also as noted in a number of comments, no Mixed Use IV environs at the Unocal site be based on the 2005 net is a minimum standard for SMPs. buffer/setback ROD and associated environmental studies, (letter) documents, mitigation agreements, plans, and design. 88. Edmonds Kojo Fordjour, WSF WSF believes that the proposed project is The City concurs. As noted in the comments above, the 100-foot Marsh Urban consistent with the regulatory requirements of the buffer/setback from the Edmonds Marsh is consistent with the 100-foot buffer Mixed Use IV Shoreline Master Program, ECDC from the marsh associated with the Edmonds Crossing project. buffer/setback 24.40.020.F.2.c, which addresses required (letter) measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. 89. Edmonds Chris Koser Please do not allow The Port of Edmonds to proceed The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA 98020 with their request to permit any new buildings closer buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP Mixed Use IV to the Edmonds Marsh than the 100 feet that the City becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be buffer/setback of Edmonds Council approved in the past few years. subject to the City's SMP. (email) 90. Edmonds Sheri and Dave Urge you to please establish the setbacks/buffers at The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Marsh Urban Buelow the Edmonds Marsh at the maximum amount possible Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was Mixed Use IV Edmonds, WA 98020 for the following reasons: developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP buffer/setback -The Marsh is a local and regional treasure. submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the (email) -The Port proposed 60 ft. buildings next to the Marsh guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of in order to have setbacks along Dayton Street ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in -Harbor Square proposal did not provide study of support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss potential of bird strikes nor reflective heat associated requirement. with 55' walls of southern exposure reflective glass on the Marsh and animal inhabitants. The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be subject to the City's SMP. 91. Marsh no net Sheri and Dave The Port's no -net -loss concerns about the 100 ft. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP loss issues (email) Buelow buffer/setback are largely unfounded. documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement. a JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. as c 00 x w c as E r a Packet Pg. 981 8.2.h 31 92. Marsh Sheri and Dave The Port is not going to suffer real negative financial Noted. buffer/setback Buelow impact with larger setbacksibuffer, rather it is a impacts on the Port reduction from valuations contrived by their own of Edmonds calculations which are based on past problems of their (email) own making, and wishful valuations based on zoning changes no one else in the City could get, or likely would even ask for. 93. Edmonds Sheri and Dave The Marsh is being made a pawn in a quest for Noted. Marsh (email) Buelow enhanced development rights. While the Port's words portray a love for the Marsh, their actions are the opposite. 94. Edmonds Donald E. Mohs As you review proposals to restore the Edmonds The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA Marsh, please consider that, at a minimum, a setback Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was Mixed Use IV of 100 feet is needed. Anything less will cause great developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP buffer/setback harm to the marsh. I ask for your support in restoring submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the (email) this wonderful natural resource. guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement. 95. Edmonds Tere Ryder This is an exciting time for our community to have a Noted. Marsh Urban Edmonds WA 98020 chance on moving forward in restoring this beautiful Mixed Use IV environment here at our marsh. We have an buffer/setback opportunity to put best science and statutory and rule (email) requirements first with all that our science shows us now and we can fully protect this very special and fragile environment for our children and future generations. 96. Edmonds Stephen A. Bernheim I'm not sure what you can do about the 40 trains that The City's SMP has an Urban Railroad shoreline environment that provides Marsh impacts Edmonds WA 98020 blare their way right through the middle of the marsh regulations for the railroad right-of-way within the City of Edmonds shoreline (email) every day: I hope something. jurisdiction. 97. Edmonds Stephen A. Bernheim Supports the 100 foot setback. Please support the 100 Noted. Marsh Urban foot setback from the marsh to ensure the cleansing Mixed Use IV marsh remains intact and is no longer encroached buffer/setback upon. We have lost acres of wetlands in Edmonds, (email) even away from the shoreline, over the past decades. a JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 982 8.2.h 32 98. Edmonds John Reed I urge you to approve the City recommended changes Noted. Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA 98020 related to the Marsh 100 ft. buffer/setback and deny Mixed Use IV the request by the Port of Edmonds. buffer/setback (email) 99. Edmonds Randy Hayden Not enforcing a 100' setback from the marsh would The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Marsh Urban Edmonds WA 98020 be very harmful and a step backwards. The loss of Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was Mixed Use IV Federal funds to help with the cleanup of the area and developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP buffer/setback to bring the creek back to ground level would be put submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the (email) on the Edmonds taxpayers' shoulders, and this project guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of would be put on the back burner and most likely ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in never addressed. Preserve the marsh for future support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss generations. requirement. There are many grant opportunities and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer guidelines in Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs (Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program). 100. Edmonds Natalia Fior I wish to see the Edmonds Marsh restored and salmon Edmonds Marsh studies have been identified as high priority in the Edmonds Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA return to spawn which will bring back other wild life SMP and the marsh is also identified for restoration projects in the Restoration Mixed Use IV and help our suffering orca population. Please hold Plan submitted with the Edmonds SMP. buffer/setback and the line and maintain a 100 foot setback from the restoration (email) marsh to ensure this vital resource, which cleans our One of the requirements for the SMP is that it result in no net loss of shoreline water before entering the Puget Sound, remains intact ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in and is no longer encroached upon. Please save the support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss marsh. We have already lost too many acres of requirement. wetlands in Edmonds over the past decades. 101. Edmonds Anne- Marie Sykes I'm hoping that you have the power and legislation to The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new Marsh Urban Edmonds WA 98020 stop the Port of Edmonds from violating their original buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP Mixed Use IV plan of the last few years, not to build closer than 100 becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be buffer/setback feet from the wetlands. subject to the City's SMP. (email) a JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. a� c a Packet Pg. 983 8.2.h 33 102. SMP Aquatic Shoreline Environment (email) Hugo Flores Aquatic Resources Division WA Dept. of Natural Resources PO Box 47027 Olympia, WA 98504 The Department of Natural Resources strongly supports the City of Edmonds inclusion of the Aquatic Environment (Aquatic I and Aquatic II) shoreline designation into its SMP. DNR believes that this action recognizes the existence of state-owned aquatic lands. This will increase better coordination managing these areas between DNR and the City of Edmonds. Noted. 103. Edmonds Brian J. Kelley Objects to the City's proposed 1 00-foot setback Noted. Marsh Urban Chevron USA from the Edmonds Marsh, combined with an Mixed Use IV Business & Real interior 50-foot vegetative buffer. Also recognizes buffer/setback Estate Services Port of Edmonds and WADOT objections. (letter) Brea, CA 92821 104. Proposed Brian J. Kelley The City of Edmonds has not satisfied legal The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management marsh Chevron USA requirements cities must meet when adopting Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was buffer/setback regulations under the Shoreline Management Act. developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP inconsistent with Under these requirements, a city must base submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. WAC 173-26-201 proposed regulations on "the most current, accurate (2) (email) and complete scientific or technical information With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes: available". WAC 173-26-201 (2) (a). References (a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements Port of Edmonds applicable comments. for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and, where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant information is available and unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an r a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c m E r_ 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 984 8.2.h 34 element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines and the use of which is required by the act. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available... The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173- 26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within the City's SMP. 105. Edmonds Brian J. Kelley The Port has submitted analysis of scientific Ecology and City response Marsh Urban Chevron USA information that concludes a 25-foot setback is Mixed Use IV sufficient to ensure no net loss of shoreline WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at buffer/setback ecological functions. Ecology has recommended minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline (letter) (3/11/2014 letter) to the City that it adopt a "50-foot natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where enhanced buffer" in lieu of the 100-foot setback. they have been impaired." While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum standard of no net loss. The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP 24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan. Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 985 8.2.h 35 around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for restoration and enhanced ecological functions. 106. Edmonds Brian J. Kelley Chevron is asking the Department of Ecology to Ecology Response: The Urban Mixed Use IV Environment buffer/setback will Marsh Urban Chevron USA condition approval of the Edmonds Shoreline be evaluated within Ecology's final SMP review, this will include review of Mixed Use IV Master Program on reduction of the setback the supporting scientific and technical information outlined in WAC 173-26- buffer/setback requirement to 25 feet, with the ability for 201 (2) (a). (email) enhanced buffer requirements up to 50 feet in width if found to be required to avoid net loss of shoreline ecological functions in the context of review of specific redevelopment plans. Believes this approach is consistent with current scientific and technical information. 107. Edmonds Doug Swartz A 100-foot setback/buffer combination is the One of the requirements for the SMP is that it result in no net loss of shoreline Marsh Urban Kathleen Rapp minimum acceptable for the Edmonds marsh. The ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in Mixed Use IV Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds Port Commission wanting a 25-foot setback support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss buffer/setback and spending our money to lobby for it is an example requirement. (email) of a government agency using taxpayer funds to promote an idea that the citizens of Edmonds strongly don't want (i.e., the 25-foot setback so they can do development right next to the marsh). 108. Edmonds Evie Jenner Please do not permit the Port of Edmonds to move The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA 98026 forward with their request to permit any new buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP Mixed Use IV buildings closer to the Edmonds Marsh than the 100 becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be buffer/setback feet allowance that the City of Edmonds Council subject to the City's SMP. (email) approved over the last few years. Allowing any changes to this setback will severely impact the wildlife of this extremely sensitive area. 109. Edmonds Gary Bloom Strongly backs a minimum of 100 feet of a setback Noted. Marsh Urban Edmonds WA /buffer zone for the Edmonds marsh. As I understand Mixed Use IV it, it is the minimum in order to receive State funding The SMP was developed to be consistent with the SMA. There are many grant buffer/setback to restore the marsh. The Port Commission's desire to opportunities and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer (email) minimize this setback is not in the interests of current guidelines in Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines and future Edmonds residents. for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs (Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program). 110. Edmonds Gayle Ketzel I would like to see the Edmonds Shoreline Master The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management a JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 986 8.2.h 36 Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA 98020 Plan updated to incorporate best science, statutory Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was Mixed Use IV and rule requirements for a full setback and buffer developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP buffer/setback along the perimeter of the marsh. Supports protection submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. (email) of the Edmonds Marsh. With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes: (a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and, where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant information is available and unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines and the use of which is required by the act. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available... The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173- 26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within the City's SMP. 111. Edmonds George Murray Edmonds needs the 100-foot setback for the long term The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Marsh Urban Edmonds WA eco-friendly future of Edmonds itself. Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 987 8.2.h 37 Mixed Use IV developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP buffer/setback submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement. 112. Edmonds Jacqueline Williams I think it is dreadful that there is a new possibility of The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA 98020 buildings within 100 feet of our Edmonds Marsh. We buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP Mixed Use IV the electorate have said NO on this already. Please do becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be buffer/setback not allow this to happen to our marshes, and the subject to the City's SMP. (email) wildlife that will be disturbed. 113. Edmonds Jenny Anttila Please do not allow The Port of Edmonds to proceed The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA 98020 with their request to permit any new buildings closer buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP Mixed Use IV to the Edmonds Marsh than the 100 feet that the City becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be buffer/setback of Edmonds Council approved in the past few years. subject to the City's SMP. (email) 114. Edmonds Joan Bloom Supports the proposed Edmonds Shoreline Master Noted. Marsh Urban Edmonds, WA 98020 Program (SMP), interim 50-foot riparian buffer, and Mixed Use IV 100-foot setback, measured from the ordinary high buffer/setback water mark (OHWM). A total of 100 feet of (email) separation from the Marsh, for any development. 115. Edmonds Joan Bloom Originally, City Council was considering a total of a The SMP recommended to the City Council from the Planning Board included Marsh Urban 150-foot marsh buffer/setback. I believe this was a 50-foot setback from the marsh. As noted in the response to Comment No. Mixed Use IV meant to include a 100-foot riparian buffer, and a 50- 19, various buffer and setback options were considered by the City Council. buffer/setback foot development setback from this buffer. It appears Ultimately, the Council settled on the 100-foot setback/buffer that is contained (email) that the proposed 100-ft. marsh buffer/setback was within the SMP. The primary intent of the setbacks and buffers established in meant to be a compromise to the Port's position that the SMP is to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values. the city maintains the current 25-foot setback from the Marsh. 116. Port of Joan Bloom The Port of Edmonds commissioners allocated Noted. Edmonds funding $25,000 of taxpayer money to support retaining the in support of existing 25-ft. marsh, without openly informing the retaining the Marsh taxpayers of the Port district that they were doing so. 25-ft. existing I am both an Edmonds resident, and a resident of the buffer (email) Port of Edmonds. I find this lack of transparency of serious concern. a 0 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 988 8.2.h 38 117. SMP Page 41, Joan Bloom Strongly opposes this passage of our SMP which Buffer width averaging is a common practice supported by the Department of Wetland Buffer allows discretionary authority to "the director" and Ecology. Department of Ecology's Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Averaging (20.40 keeps the Council, and thus the public, completely out Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002) notes: .020 (2) (f). of the decision making loop. In Edmonds, many highly disturbing abuses of the environment have Buffer Averaging (email) occurred, even WITH a significant amount of public Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain involvement. circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. The width of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a parcel. We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report. The report should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the current functions of the wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be taken to ensure that there is no loss of wetland function due to the buffer averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point after averaging should be no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer. The City of Edmonds, at the direction of Ecology, incorporated the wetland Guidance for Small Cities into the SMP and the provisions are consistent with the guidance from the Department of Ecology. 118. US Army Joan Bloom Disturbing damage that has been done to an isolated While Ecology does administer the Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification, half Corps of Engineers wetland by the developer. The city of Edmonds and of the federal Clean Water Act authorizations, the review and approval of the wetland permitting the Army Corps of Engineers allowed this abuse, of Sec. 404 authorization are administered by the Corps. There are authority (email) one of our few remaining isolated wetlands, to occur. circumstances, such as the Thuessen wetland, when the Corps can determine that a project also meets water quality standards and that no further coordination with Ecology is required. The Corps is administering federal law and does not have a regulatory role in SMA decisions; the Sec. 404 process is independent of shoreline permitting review by the local jurisdiction and Ecology. 119. SMP approval Joe Scordino Approve the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Noted. support (email) Edmonds, WA 98020 Update that the Edmonds City Council unanimously approved in November 2014. The most important aspect of the SMP is the 50 ft buffer and 100 ft setback for the shoreline area of the Edmonds Marsh. a 0) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 989 8.2.h 39 120. Opposition to Joe Scordino The Port of Edmonds stated interest is to redevelop The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new Port of Edmonds the Harbor Square area as close to the edge of the buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP 25 ft. Edmonds Marsh as possible, which I believe is in contravention becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be Marsh buffer to the intent of the Shoreline Management Act subject to the City's SMP. proposal (email) (SMA). It is NOT in the best interest of the State or the citizens of Edmonds to only have a 25 foot buffer as suggested by the Port of Edmonds. 121. Edmonds Joe Scordino It would be tragic to have the Edmonds Marsh There currently are no applications for constructing new buildings at Harbor Marsh restoration subjected to additional shoreline development while Square or on the south side of the marsh. Once the SMP becomes affective, all (email) the City is in the midst of restoring for salmon habitat new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be subject to the City's through such efforts as the Willow Creek day lighting SMP. proj ect. 122. Edmonds Judy Gutton Please do not allow the Port of Edmonds to proceed The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new Marsh building Edmonds WA 98020 with their plan permitting buildings even closer to the buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP setback (email) Edmonds Marsh than the 100' that the Edmonds City becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be Council has already allowed. The Marsh is precious subject to the City's SMP. to the birds' habitat, and to the people and City of Edmonds. 123. Edmonds Karen Wiggins The Edmonds Shoreline Master Plan should set the The SMP would not require the removal of existing development within the Marsh building Edmonds WA 98020 setback from the Edmonds Marsh to 100 ft away from shoreline setback. Existing development within the shoreline setbacks will be setback (email) development, but should not have to remove any subject to the Nonconforming Development provisions in the Part VII of the buildings and parking areas that are currently within SMP (24.70.000 — 24.70.050). that setback, just do not allow anything else to be built that would be within that 100 ft. setback. 124. Edmonds Val Stewart Supports the proposed Edmonds Shoreline Master Noted. Marsh Urban Edmonds WA Program including the two-year interim -Urban Mixed Mixed Use IV Use IV designation for the Edmonds Marsh which buffer/setback includes the provision of a 50-ft buffer and 100-ft (email) setback. 125. Edmonds Val Stewart If the proposed full setback were treated as a buffer it The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Marsh buffer would not only trap pollutants and sediments entering Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was /setback (email) the Marsh but could also accommodate passive developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP recreation such as a walking path or boardwalk. This submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the would be a great asset that would compliment any guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of development in Harbor Square. It would increase ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in public access to the marsh; an important goal of the support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. as c 00 x w c as E r a Packet Pg. 990 8.2.h 40 Shoreline Management Act. This combined with requirement. educational opportunities would enable us to showcase the Marsh and its overall benefits to the greater community; a model for the region. 126. Tribal Treaty Val Stewart Continued development and lack of enforcement There currently are no applications for constructing new buildings at Harbor Rights (email) protecting habitat is continuing to take away natural Square or on the south side of the marsh. Once the SMP becomes affective, all resources that are guaranteed in the treaties with new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be subject to the City's Tribes. This "taking" of resources by destroying the SMP. habitat that is necessary for the salmon to be sustainable is essentially a breach of the treaty. 127. Edmonds Val Stewart Edmonds Marsh is a category I wetland and is The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Marsh Building classified by the State as a priority habitat. Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was setback (email) Promoting intense development too close to an developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP already compromised estuarine marsh ecosystem is submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the not going to improve conditions enough for guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of anadromous fish to complete their lifecycle. ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement. 128. Edmonds Val Stewart With ready funding available and appropriate policies The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the Marsh Restoration and regulations in place, the City should take Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; high priority (email) seriously this stewardship opportunity to preserve and for studies); Conservation Element (SMP 24.20.060.C.1; should work to restore salmon habitat and ecological functions in maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP Edmonds Marsh. 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan. Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for restoration and enhanced ecological functions. 129. SMP Val Stewart Requests Ecology approval of the Edmonds SMP Noted. Approval (email) update with the two-year interim Urban Mixed Use IV designation which includes a 50-ft buffer and 100- ft setback. I do not believe we should depend on redevelopment for appropriate restoration. a JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. as c 00 x w c as a Packet Pg. 991 8.2.h 41 130. Edmonds Val Stewart Our City needs to impose strong policies and See response to Comment No. 128. Marsh policies and regulations for development along our sensitive regulations (email) estuarine marsh shoreline in order to secure the As noted in SMP 24.10.000, one of the purposes of the SMP is to: natural benefits consistent with the general welfare of our citizens and the environment. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a guide and regulation for future development of the shoreline resources of the City of Edmonds. 131. Edmonds Val Stewart Edmonds City Council voted for an expanded Marsh WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at Marsh buffer buffer/setback which goes beyond "no net loss" and minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline /setback; going restores the Marsh to where it will once again be natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where beyond no net loss viable. My understanding is that jurisdictions can go they have been impaired." of ecological beyond state mandates to address conditions in their functions (email) unique environments. While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum standard of no net loss. 132. Edmonds Rebecca J. Wolfe Strongly supports the restoration of the Edmonds Noted. Marsh Restoration Edmonds, WA Marsh with the interim 100-foot buffer and setback. (email) 133. Edmonds Rebecca J. Wolfe The Edmonds salt marsh has a high regional and local The Edmonds SMP recognizes the importance of the Edmonds Marsh as Marsh Restoration significance for wildlife, fisheries, recreational, evidenced by three specific policies in the SMP relating to the marsh and three (email) aesthetic, and educational values that have been marsh related projected being identified in the Restoration Plan. seriously compromised along our Washington state seashore. With a restored Edmonds Marsh, our city would have a more dynamic waterway system and a higher quality of life for our residents. 134. SMP approval Richard 1. Senderoff, Supports the proposed Edmonds Shoreline Master Noted. support (email) Ph.D. Program (SMP), interim 50-foot riparian buffer, and Commissioner- 100-foot setback, measured from the ordinary high Edmonds Citizens water mark (OHWM) for the Edmonds Marsh. Economic Development a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 c as E r- 0 Q. as c 00 x w c as E z r a Packet Pg. 992 8.2.h 42 Commission Steering Committee - Community Backyard Habitat of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98026 135. Edmonds Richard I. Senderoff, All the Edmonds City Council has done in Edmonds Response: Marsh Restoration Ph.D. establishing the interim buffer/setback is to secure the See responses to Comments Nos. 62 and 72. (email) possibility of future grants. I presume the 100 foot setback recommendation is based on the best Ecology Response: The Urban Mixed Use IV Environment buffer/setback will available environmental science? Supports day be evaluated within Ecology's final SMP review, this will include review of lighting Willow Creek, salmon recovery and the supporting scientific and technical information outline in WAC 173-26-201 improving marsh ecological functions.. Presumes (2) (a). the Department of Ecology is interested in such goals? Ecology does support salmon recovery goals and protection and improvement of the Edmonds Marsh Ecological functions. These factors will be taken into consideration during the SMP final review. 136. Edmonds Richard I. Senderoff, Any support for day lighting Willow Creek and other There are no current development plans to redevelop the Harbor Square Marsh Restoration Ph.D. Edmonds Marsh restoration activities would be property. (email) considered additional (or unnecessary) costs that developers would resist. There is no developer that currently has plans to redevelop Harbor Square under current zoning. 137. Shoreline Richard I. Senderoff, The Port of Edmonds purchased the Harbor Square Noted. regulatory risks. Ph.D. property with full knowledge of its proximity to the (email) Edmonds Marsh Wildlife Preserve. As such, they assume those responsibilities and regulatory risks. 138. Edmonds 'Dawna Lahti Supports the 100' setback for the Edmonds Marsh, but Noted. Marsh setback Edmonds, WA I have read enough and been aware of disaster preparedness to know that the more marsh we have preserved, the better off we are in event of the tsunami we will one day surely have, as well as to absorb rising sea level (which "hardscape" cannot do). 139. Shoreline Todd Zackey The proposed Edmonds SMP didn't utilize the best The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization did identify the presence of eel assessment, use of Tulalip Tribes available information when generating their maps for grass and kelp beds along the Edmonds shoreline noting: a 0) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r- 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 993 8.2.h 43 best available Tulalip, WA 98271 assessing shoreline sediment and substrate and Kelp science and eel grass resources. A Snohomish County Surface The Puget Sound shoreline in the City does retain large areas of functioning Water Mgt. intertidal shoreline survey should have eelgrass and kelp beds in the littoral zone (lower intertidal to shallow subtidal been incorporated into the SMP analysis for physical elevations). Eelgrass is distributed in patchy narrow bands along the City and ecological conditions assessments. waterfront south of the marina to Point Wells, and north of Shell Creek to Picnic Point (KC DNR WTD 2003) (Figure 1). Dense patches are present in some areas, including north and south of the Lynnwood outfall (near Meadowdale Creek), and north and south ofLaebugten's Wharf. Proposed projects within the OWHM of the Puget Sound will be required to conduct eelgrass and kelp habitat surveys thus provide up-to-date site specific information on eelgrass and kelp habitat and projects are required to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to ecologically functions including critical resources such as eelgrass and kelp beds. A sampling of policies addressing eelgrass and kelp beds from the SMP included SMP Sections 24.50.030.B.4, 24.50.060.D.2.b, 24.60.010.B.4 24.60.010.C.3, and 24.60.010.D.l.b.xi. 140. Edmonds Todd Zackey The Edmonds Marsh Urban Mixed Use IV interim Approval of a final designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV will follow the Marsh Urban Tulalip Tribes designation determination is ambiguous and the state mandated approval process for amendments to a SMP as provided in the Mixed Use IV designation process is not well defined. Will the final Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and Ecology's procedural rules interim designation designation go though the same approval process as (WAC 173-26, Part I1) . the current SMP? The process needs to be clearly defined. 141. Edmonds Todd Zackey Use of the Urban Mixed Use IV interim designation One of the guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no Marsh Urban Tulalip Tribes still allows development despite the fact that the final net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis Mixed Use IV designation may not allow development. A submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no interim designation moratorium on development until the final net loss requirement. (email) designation is determined makes sense to unsure that Edmonds Marsh restoration is not undermined The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP 24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan. a a) 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c as E r_ 0 Q. as c a Packet Pg. 994 8.2.h 44 Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for restoration and enhanced ecological functions. The interim Urban Mixed Use IV designation is consistent with the requirement of the SMP and preserves restoration opportunities with the marsh. 142. SMP Todd Zackey Edmonds staff should revisit SMP jurisdiction Lund Creek is not within the City of Edmonds jurisdictional boundaries. estuarine Tulalip Tribes boundaries to determine if all estuarine areas near jurisdiction (email) stream mouths have been included. Particular The SMP has provisions for the discovery of shoreline areas that are not concerns with Lund Creek. identified on the shoreline environment maps in Appendix A of the SMP. Specifically SMP 23.40.020 notes: B. The purpose of the official shoreline maps in Appendix A is to identify Shoreline area designations. The map does not necessarily identify or depict the lateral extent of shoreline jurisdiction. Where uncertainty or conflict may occur in the exact location of jurisdictional or shoreline designation boundary line, the shoreline Administrator shall rely up the criteria contained in RCW 90.58.030(2) and chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to determinations of shorelands, as amended, rather than the incorrect or outdated map. C. In the event that new shoreline areas are discovered (e.g. associated wetlands) that are not mapped and/designated on the official shoreline map, these areas will be designated in the following manner. 1. If a newly discovered shoreline area is adjacent to a single shoreline area environment, then the newly discovered shoreline area will be assigned the same shoreline designation as the adjacent shoreline area. 2. If a newly discovered shoreline area abuts more than one shoreline area environment, the shoreline area environment that is most restrictive shall be assigned to the newly discovered shoreline area. a JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c m E r- 0 Q. a� c a Packet Pg. 995 8.2.h 45 143. Edmonds Marsh buffer /setback (email) Susan Paine Edmonds, WA Urges review of the environmental concerns for the plan with an eye to preserving as much Marsh buffer as possible, at least 100 feet. The marsh has been impacted by petroleum, railroad and construction activities, it needs stronger protections than what are requested by the Port of Edmonds. The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement. r Q JA 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r c m E r- M Q. m c Q Packet Pg. 996 OUIIaaoyS : 6L£0 s;uauayoe;;V 4;inn IenoiddV 1euoi1ipuo3 s.ABoloo3 lo;uampedea - 9;igigx3 :;uauayoe;;V s rn N M 00 6 IL m .�c IL Appendix L. Riparian Restoration and Planting The following are requirements when implementing a riparian restoration or riparian planting project. Environmental Protection Agency and National Marine Fisheries Sewice buffer requirements Ecology has increased the minimum requirements for riparian buffers to protect and restore salmon fisheries and achieve water quality standards. These new requirements apply to funding for projects that address nonpoint pollution problems, including Section 319 grants, Centennial Clean Water Fund grants or loans, and the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund loans. In July 2011, Western Washington Treaty Tribes released the "Treaty Rights at Risk" paper. The paper stated treaty -reserved rights to harvest salmon and steelhead are being impaired by ongoing salmon habitat loss. To address concerns outlined in the paper, tribes approached federal government agencies that fund environmental work to improve salmon habitat and restore sustainable salmon fisheries to levels that meet treaty rights. In response to tribal concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notified the Department of Ecology that it must take additional actions to protect salmon and salmon habitat. The EPA is requiring Washington State to include conditions on federal pass -through grants to be consistent with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) buffer guidance to help protect and recover Washington's salmon runs. Ecology is attaching the new, special conditions. to grant funds to increase levels of riparian protection to both protect and restore salmon fisheries and help achieve water quality standards. Conditions of the funding agreement All restoration activities must also be consistent with the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines, available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01374/wdfw01374.pdf and the requirements below. EPA and NRnFS riparian buffers The minimum buffer size for surface waters (on each side) will be consistent with Table L-1 and additional guidance provided below. Table L-1 was developed from information provided by NMFS. Buffer widths must be measured starting from the ordinary high water mark. Funding Guidelines Page 99 s N 00 au118a04S : 6L£O s;uauayoe;;V 4;IN► lenoaddV leuoi}lpuoO s,ABolo03 jo;uaw:pedea - 8;lglyx3 :;uauayoejjV Table L- 1: Minimum Buffer Requirements for Surface Waters Minimum Buffer Minimum Buffer Category Functions Width West of Width East of Cascades Cascades A. Constructed Ditches, Intermittent Water quality, shade, 35' minimum 35' minimum Streams and Ephemeral source control and Streams that are not identified delivery reduction. as being accessed and were historically not accessed by anadromous or Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed fish species B. Perennial waters that are not Water quality, shade, 50' minimum 50' minimum identified as being accessed and source control and were historically not accessed delivery reduction. by anadromous or ESA listed fish species C. Perennial, intermittent and Water quality, large 100' minimum 75' minimum ephemeral waters that are wood debris (LWD) for identified as being accessed or cover, complexity and were historically accessed by shade and microclimate anadromous or ESA listed fish cooling, source control species and delivery reduction. D. Intertidal and estuarine streams Water quality, habitat 35'-75'minimum, or N/A and channels that are identified complexity more as necessary as being accessed or were to meet water historically accessed by quality standards anadromous or ESA listed fish species Additional guidance • To determine which buffer category applies to a water body, EPA and Ecology have developed a mapping tool available on the FY2015 funding page at vvww.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ftindin /g_cycles/FY2015/index.htmi. o If surface water is present on a property but not shown on the map, a 35 foot minimum buffer width will apply. o If a water body is identified as "Category B" in the above table, the grant recipient must contact the regional Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) or tribal fish biologist to confirm that the water body is not currently or historically used by anadromous or listed fish. If the fish biologist informs the recipient of fish presence, then the buffer width must meet "Category C" requirements. o If a water body is impeded by a man-made structure (e.g. culvert, dam, etc.) which prevents anadromous or ESA listed fish access, then the buffer width must meet "Category C" requirements. ■ WDFW Fish Biologist Contact Information: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/fish district bios.pdf ■ WA State Tribes and Tribal Reservations Map (with links): www.ecy.wa.gov/services/ isg /maps/state/tribal res.pdf Funding Guidelines Page 100 OUIIaaoyS : 6L£0 s;uauayoe;;V 4;inn IenoiddV 1euoi1ipuo3 s.ABoloo3 lo;uampedea - 9;igigx3 :;uauayoe;;V s N 00 • The buffer table above establishes minimum requirements for funding eligibility purposes. Projects that include buffers that are larger than the minimums are preferred, especially when stated in a TMDL or other watershed improvement plan. To maintain fully functional riparian ecosystems and provide sufficient habitat to meet the needs of fish and wildlife, it is recommended that the recipient use Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife buffer widths table whenever those recommendations are larger. • As stated in the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines, if the 100-year floodplain exceeds these widths, the riparian buffer width should extend to the outer edge of the 100-year floodplain. • Recipients are required to plant the buffer established by the fencing setback with native trees and shrubs to provide a higher level of water quality improvement. Grass filters strips are not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. • When buffers are established in forested areas, the buffer width must also be consistent with Forest Practices Rules. • Buffers established as part of a Water Quality Program grant may not violate county Critical Area Ordinances, county Shoreline Rules, or other state and local regulations. • Ecology may allow a conditional exemption from the minimum buffer width requirements where the presence of a structure impedes the ability to meet the conditions. The recipient must submit an adequate justification as to why these cannot be met and an alternate written plan to Ecology's Project Manager for review and written approval. Riparian plantings • The recipient must develop site -specific plans for all riparian buffers prior to implementation which include plant locations and species. The plan must be based on an assessment of native plant associations and community types. • The recipient must only plant species that are riparian in nature and indigenous to the primary watershed where the buffer is being established. • The recipient must use, to the greatest extent possible, genetically appropriate plant materials collected from the primary or secondary watershed where the buffer is to be established. • The recipient must utilize, to the greatest extent possible, plant species that are early successional within the primary watershed. Early successional species are those whose characteristics are such that they are first to colonize after a disturbance. Streambank protection • Streambank protection projects must not stand alone, but be part of a larger riparian buffer project. The project must include the buffer and planting requirements listed above. • Rock should not be used to armor a bank against the erosive forces of a stream or river unless a bridge, road, or other manmade structure cannot be protected by any other means. In any situation where rock is to be used, the RECIPIENT must submit the design to Ecology's Project Manager for an evaluation. Funding Guidelines Page 101 OUIIaaoyS 6L£0 s;uauayoe;;V 4;inn IenoiddV Ieuoi;ipuoa s,i(6oloo3Io;uampedea - 9;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;V o s o 0 N 0 IL r aD Y V R • Streambank protection designs must be consistent with the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines: a Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines document which can be found at http://wdfw.wa. og_v/publications/00046/. Relevant definitions Anadromous fish Fish that live their adult lives in the ocean but move into freshwater streams to reproduce or spawn (e.g., salmon); see: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ lg ossary_htm#anadromous. Constructed ditch A regularly maintained man-made trench or furrow dug in the ground for the primary purpose of conveying or draining surface water, storm water or irrigation water, that may or may not, contain water at all times of the year. Ephemeral stream A stream or portion of a stream which flows briefly in direct response to precipitation in the immediate vicinity, and whose channel is at all times above the groundwater reservoir. ESA listed fish species The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed on December 28, 1973, and provides for_ the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA replaced the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969; it has been amended several times. A "species" is considered: 1) endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 2) threatened if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. There are approximately 2,100 total species listed under the ESA. Of these species, approximately 1,480 are found in part or entirely in the U.S. and its waters; the remainder are foreign species. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally, USFWS manages land and freshwater species, while NMFS manages marine and "anadromous" species. NMFS has jurisdiction over 94 listed species. hltp://www.m-nfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/ Exclusion fencing A constructed barrier to livestock, wildlife or people for 1) dividing pasture for rotational grazing; 2) fencing livestock out of a riparian area; and 3) facilitating the application of conservation practices that treat the soil, water, air, plant, animal, and human resource concerns. Floodplain Any lowland that borders a stream and is inundated periodically by the stream's waters. Funding Guidelines Page 102 aullaaogS 6L£6) s;uauagoe;;V q;Inn lenoiddV leuol;lpuoa s.Moloo3lo;uampedea - 9;Iglgx3 :;uauagoe;;V s o 0 N 00 6 IL r aD Y V Intermittent stream a A stream where portions flow continuously only at certain times of the year, for example when it receives water from a spring, ground -water source or from a surface source, such as melting snow (i.e. seasonal). At low flow there may be dry segments alternating with flowing segments. These streams are also defined as no measurable flow during thirty (30) consecutive days in a normal water year. Ordinary high water mark (0)HWM The point on the sides of streams or lakes which is historically or normally at water's edge, as identified by a visible change in vegetation and/or soil. It is also generally, the lowest point at which perennial vegetation grows on the streambank. The ordinary high water mark can usually be identified by physical scarring along the bank or shore, or by other distinctive signs. Perennial stream A stream or portion of a stream that flows year-round, is considered a permanent stream, and for which base flow is maintained by ground -water discharge to the streambed due to the ground- water elevation adjacent to the stream typically being higher than the elevation of the streambed. Riparian buffers Riparian buffers are generally recognized as a "separation zone" between a water body and a land use activity for the purposes of protecting ecological processes and water quality. The riparian buffer usually extends from the stream's ordinary high water line to the outer edge of the floodplain. Riparian buffers provide essential functions for river and stream ecosystems, including cover and shade, a source of fine or coarse woody material, nutrients, and organic and inorganic debris that maintain stream ecosystem function. As used here, riparian buffers are defined as separation zones that are relatively undisturbed by humans and contain native vegetation consistent with the potential of the site. Figure L-1 provides a diagram depicting a typical stream showing the active floodplain, the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), the riparian zone, and the top of the bank. Typical Stream %Sank flvaFloodplain Top o(0) HWM Top of Bank Riparian Zone -�-- Riparian Zone ' Figure L- 1: Diagram of a Typical Stream. Figure is a reproduction of a figure obtained from Fisheries and Oceans Canada at http://www. pac. dfo-mpo.gc. ca/habitat/Glossary-glossaire-eng. htm. Funding Guidelines Page 103 �tsg, ss,irE o� 8.2. h S � � O STATE Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 a Olympia, WA 98504-7600 0 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service, Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 August 19, 2015 Ms. Shane Hope, Director City of Edmonds Development Services Department 7110210'sSt. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Ms. Hope: We received your request for clarification of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance (Ecology Pub. No 13-10-041). Our finding guidelines are set up to encourage the implementation of large riparian buffers, in recognition that wider buffers are needed to protect water quality. At the same time we recognize that not every project needs the same size buffer to achieve our water duality goals. In an attempt to balance these two objectives, we have set minimum buffer width requirements for different types of water bodies. These grant eligibility requirements are intended to ensure that our grant funds go to projects that meet a minimum level of protection, while recognizing differences on the landscape. We appreciate your city's consideration of our funding guidelines, and your concerns around making sure projects can be eligible for future funding. Our understanding is, the Edmonds City Council is concerned that if the city's Shoreline Master Program does not include 100 foot buffers on Edmonds Marsh, the city will not be eligible for grants for restoration work in the marsh. This conclusion was based on an interpretation of Table L-1 in Appendix L, Riparian Restoration and Planting requirements (page 100). We understand why the city may have reached this conclusion because Table L-1 describes Minimum Buffer Requirements for Sw face Waters. It appears the city may have been interpreting Edmonds Marsh as a Category C waterbody, which has a default minimum buffer width of 100 feet. However, as Ecology's regional wetland staff have confirmed, the Edmonds Marsh meets the criteria as a Category D estuarine channel, with a minimum buffer width of 35 feet. Additionally, please note that even for stream projects raider Category C, Ecology's guidance clarifies that "Ecology may allow a conditional exemption from the minimum buffer width requirements where the presence of a structure impedes the ability to meet the conditions (page 101)." The Port's commercial facilities are the kinds of structures that could allow a project to be granted an exemption from the buffer width eligibility requirements. We hope this clarification is usefiil to the city as you continue work on updating your shoreline master program. Please contact me if you have any further questions at ben.rau@ecy.wa.gov or (360)407-6551. Sincerely, Ben Rau, Nonpoint program coordinator Water Quality Program cc; David Pater, Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, NW Regional Office. Packet Pg. 1002 8.2. i � WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT Of ECOLOGY SM P Final Review and the Edmonds Marsh Paul Anderson Wetland Specialist David Pater Shoreline Planner Packet Pg. 1003 3 77 CD 0 OL) M < C-) OL). O O CD r+ O m 3 zT CD v v �> G)��m U)O O _. O -1 0 QL U 0 _. CD —U) _. zT CD _0 0 m 0-0 O 0 = � --1 : 'k< U) CD CD 0 O -0 < � (D � � 0 � � CD ��U) �Z �o � o CD U) CD _. U) < n U) CD E� 0 C: CD CD 3 3CD � -- CD -I Cn CD O �•: cn CDn �• FD'CD o 0- WX Q CD �G (D 3 CD Q 3 CD r+ n p N m � n o m CD O 0 CD — CD � O �C O .. 0 O � O w < < 3 O O — CD (n CD (■Q l< O .. < CD 3 CD CD cn O 0 CD 3 co O 3 CD (n 3 CD m O T 3 CD 0 (C) CD Q. �o CD r-+' (� � O -0 � CD CD CD. 0 CD CD O h zT E 0 c� CD QL cD CD 3 :- CD w cD CD Cn - cn C: cr 3 �m CD CD m 0 O O c� 0 n 0 0 CD CD CD I O 0 CD MMI O 0 O U) CD QL 0 C� /CD CD ■ m 0 O O cc l< U) QL CD C� to - O CD CD 11 O 0 CD U) V m 3 (n w O 0 m 0 0 O O CD w CD cn r-4-T r CD CD CD 0- m 3 0 Q D CD CD 'NI. 0 0- CD CD o� 0- 02 Rk Q. 0 0 h CD m 0 0 5- (C) 0 cD CD 0. 0 A U) 11 0 3 CD o m 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 h -11 CD 0 0 m 0 0 lk< 8.2.1 Urban Mixed Use IV, 100/50 Setback / Buffer SMP sec. 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards. SMP 24.40.090: Establish a redevelopment threshold for buffer enhancement. Urban Mixed Use IV Interim Shoreline Environment Designation SMP sec. 24.30.070 SMP reconciliation with new critical areas regulations. M��'fTiTiT- .L•MAr•1• 65/50 foot proposed setback/buffer, more consistent with Edmonds Marsh category II wetland classification. Propose a 50% redevelopment threshold for buffer enhancement on adjacent Edmonds Marsh properties. The 65/50 proposed setback/buffer is the appropriate setback/buffer, Therefore the interim designation is no longer needed. Remove updated critical area L elements from the SMP sec. 24.40.020. Applicable sections are part of the new CAO. Packet Pg. 1008 I �q d a I` ca v CD 0 00 zT 0 Co Co v 3 CD rF D 0 q- 0 cc r--F• m0 D� �CD O0- ZC c� QL E a) > a) DQoQ� �o p� C o Z CD� V D p m o..q :3 > m�rn * � v)� A my �� m CDx C� CD I U) n IN O O 11 QL CD v I cn v U) O CD QL U) V O a) CD c) (n CD 3 V 9 w CD I 3 0 x 3 v CD 0 Cil 00 CD zT 0 cD (D CD c� 3 CD 0 q- 0 cc U) � CD (n CD O CO • � �l 3CD CD CD Ml •IL n O n =3 — n _ Q_ O =I � O < CL B a :3 CD W 0 CD 3 m `� w CD : :3 0 O =r O mml CD C.. CD CD CD CD V cn D 0 x 3 w 5 O N � E CD o N n O� Z O1--� � O to E -U -O cn O U L C L U N Co L E E � O -N U)= _ N cm O c:= � 0-,, O O > O E C: 3: O J O --+ 4- , 4-0 _ �� 0 O-ou) toE U -- O Q ._ O LO .C:_ �0O U -UO O N�.�. 4-0 � �� (D c6 C: O L O U O � 0)� O 0 0 a� 0 0 co 0 N ti • lvivm:j 01:4 r • z�+ k 01 C' Packet Pg. 1013 4— 70 O M O CL T � U W m W co L O W ^, W ° O 4-1 m ° E q- L W X (D U) V! ^.- ■ > •C: (� a N > ry a _a E � I �• it � � � h y 3rd Ave s and P-Z any lasunS - any jasunS sg N �E r � ql `V W I I 4 0111101010 Wedatid iianie or tiitniber CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetiand Type Category Check off ony criteria rho apply to rho wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are rrier, SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands noes the wetiand meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity Rreater than 0.5 ppt Yes —Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-351? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetiand unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? JE —The wetland is relativel undisturbed has no diikin ditching, fiIlin cultivation grazing, and has less Y � & S, g, , 8 g, than 10% cover of non-native plant species, (If non-native species are Sparrino, see page 25)Cat. I At least%of the landward edge of the wetiand has a 100ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. II — The wetiand has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II Packet Pg. 1016 SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value 0111101010 IL N yam• "-#. T 1 `wry. s� � 5 t 4, ��, * • , _ _ f � 0 50-fk Buffer ` '-'FI `�` ' w 100-f# Buffer 150-ft Buffer ry. UG' .370:F'ee �y1t Packet Pg. 1017 R .;. � . 0 ` 7 �F ` CD _0 �! U m . « _ E a } . a z CD . py�� 7 - XD",- 7/ - �* . . +�\ . .. CD Attachment: A■ahment:Exhibit 9-Department of Ecology July 1$ 2016 Power Point Presentation • 0 • Buffers Intact buffers need to be well vegetated Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion (emphasis in original). Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version, 2nd Revision October 2012 owl" a rI Packet Pg. 1019 Buffers State Supreme Court ruled that under GMA, no requirement to restore degraded buffers "...we cannot require farmers within Skagit County to replant what was long ago plucked up." Swinomish Indian Tribal Com "ty v. Western Washington Grow . Management Hearings Board (Case No. 76339-9) Same principal applies to Edmonds Marsh and Harbor Square: no requirement to restore degraded buffers rp a Packet Pg. 1020 v v ♦ _. v,) CD CD CD CD�x� CnC.Q� n �-CD + c C) � r r* O c c CL) -CIE CEEE W rt o CD —h CL C� O CD CD c� (DCD = �U) < � O -0r+ � N 0 0 0, O 1 0 —CD �� O CD'0 0 r00 CDC O �0a) �� o3cD CD �, (0 -0 CD-0n r-� O O � W n _. _ —%%wmwool CD r+ :3 o NOMINEE O -•CD 0 �. ( O _. CD CD CD O r♦ w =r =3 r-f CD ca. 0 Y-A" r� m v _ CL _ <, a FL . , CL ui (e-) W (D A ;< o iQ a CL O m n, r ro rn� < 13 A O OD rD � rt -rn � n � o rt A :r M O O cQ � July 20, 2016 Maia D. Bellon WA State Department of Ecology Attention: Director's Office PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-6700 Re: City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update — Department of Ecology's Conditional Approval and City Response Dear Ms. Bellon, The City of Edmonds has begun reviewing the Department of Ecology's Conditional Approval of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. As you are aware, Ecology's conditional approval included eight required changes and one recommended change. Please accept this letter as the initial response required by RCW 90.58.090(2)(e). The City of Edmonds agrees with the changes related to incorporating the recently adopted critical area regulations into the Shoreline Master Program. However, additional time is necessary to evaluate the proposed changes related to the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment. The Urban Mixed Use IV changes apply to the area surrounding the Edmonds Marsh, which is an important feature (ecologically and socially) of the Edmonds waterfront area. More time than the 30 days provided by RCW 90.58.090(2)(e) is necessary to sufficiently evaluate and respond to Ecology's proposed changes for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. We understand that an additional 30-60 days is acceptable for a fuller response. The City of Edmonds appreciates the efforts of David Pater and Paul Anderson in this update and will continue to work closely with Ecology staff as the City prepares a formal response to the proposed changes by Ecology. Sincerely, David Earling Mayor Cc: Edmonds City Council David Pater, Ecology Joe Burcar, Ecology Packet Pg. 1023 C' r A b a S CO N Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program CO N Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program 00 N Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program CO N Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program a� n X m cQ O N 00 Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program 00 N 00 N Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program 00 N Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program 00 N Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program 00 N Attachment: Exhibit 11 - Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1379 : Shoreline Master Program