Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2016-08-16 City Council - Full Agenda-1737
1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7. o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 AUGUST 16, 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 August 2, 2016 2. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2016 3. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2016 4. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Bruce White (amount undetermined). 5. Approval of claim checks. 6. June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report 7. Senior Center Lease Agreement Amendment PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. Office of Neighborhoods Presentation on Homeless Outreach by Sgt. Ian Huri of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department (15 min.) 2. Presentation of National Citizen Survey Results (20 min.) 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 and Resolution to Designate Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District as Residential Targeted Area (20 min.) 8. ACTION ITEMS 9. 10. 11. 1. Presentation and Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement with HWA GeoSciences for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project (10 min.) 2. Authorization to join the King County lawsuit regarding Ronald Wastewater District service area (10 min.) 3. Shoreline Master Program Update (60 min.) MAYOR'S COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) Edmonds City Council Agenda August 16, 2016 Page 1 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda August 16, 2016 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 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: Cm080216 Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 2, 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 Al Compaan, Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Don Anderson, Assistant Police Chief Alan Hardwick, Police Sergeant 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 Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 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. N 2. ROLL CALL 000 0 E City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. v c 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA z COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED Q UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested Item 8 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2016 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a 2. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 4. APPROVE ENGAGEMENT OF NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL ADVISORS FOR 2016 FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES 5. APPROVE OF ENGAGEMENT OF FOSTER PEPPER FOR BOND COUNSEL SERVICES FOR 2016 6. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR POLICE COVERAGE AT ATHLETIC EVENTS 7. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE 2016-2017 ITEM 8: ORDINANCE ADDING PUBLIC INDECENCY SECTIONS TO ECC 5.38 (OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS) Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it appears more work needs to be done on this ordinance. She offered to work with Council President Johnson, City Attorney Jeff Taraday and Assistant Police Chief Lawless and Councilmember Buckshnis and she invited the public to provide input. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO WORK WITH STAFF ON REVISIONS TO THE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the citizens who have contacted her regarding the ordinance, commenting it is an interesting, social and quality of life issue. She invited citizens to continue providing input to the Council to ensure the ordinance addresses the issues. Mayor Earling invited the public to provide comment on this issue. Brian Potter, Edmonds, said according to the July 26 Council agenda narrative, the newly proposed cfl definitions of public indecency and nudity are meant to allow the police greater ability to control bikini c barista stands. Nudity, as defined in the ordinance, is equal in stature to actions such as engaging in public c intercourse, masturbation or defecation. That definition includes revealing the pubic area which E technically extends upward to the navel, any exposed buttock cleavage, the side of a women's breast below the top of the areola or any man whose genitals are "discernibly turgid." These criteria are violated every summer day in Edmonds by people in swimsuits, halter tops or bike shorts as well as on the covers z of women's health magazines sold at QFC. Avoiding seeing something that one dislikes is not a right or guarantee in society. The police do not approach every person who is technically nude; selective a application of any law leads to charges of racial or gender discrimination, disparate impacts or civil rights harassment. As a church -trained human sexuality educator for 14 years, he said one of the biggest challenges in the class is dealing with body image among women who have been taught their bodies are shameful and they are at fault if they dress immodestly and a male verbally or physically accosts them. The ordinance states the mere exposure of the areas mentioned is criminal. The ordinance's definition of obscenity cites contemporary community standards; he asked what those are, anticipating even the seven Councilmembers' standards vary every more variance among the greater Edmonds community. The language breaks apart the community it claims to represent and bind together. The people patronizing bikini barista stands are members of the community. He suggested the definition of nudity be simplified to exposed genitals. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a Robert Stivers, Edmonds, expressed his opposition to the proposed ordinance because its specificity takes away freedoms. Public nudity is legal in Washington State; subsection A.3 of the proposed ordinance would abolish that freedom. The intent criteria of this section extends to those not wanting to cause reasonable affront or alarm. The definitions listed in subsection C impose a dress code, some of which are either unenforceable such as C.Lb or require subjective judgment by the enforcing officer such as in subsection C.l.d. These could also be cause for discrimination, allowing only one kind of female endowment to be skin emphasized and perhaps penalizing black men more than those of other races. He has served in the armed forces defending the freedoms we enjoy and is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union for the same reason. Freedom is precious and any encroachment must be opposed. Washington State law is reasonable and sufficient with regard to indecent exposure and indecent liberties. He cited a city where he was employed for 25 years where complaints resulted in a report forwarded to the City Attorney; he suggested this practice for Edmonds. Washington State law also covers prostitution, allowing full enforcement by any police force. Edmonds is fortunate to have an excellent police force that contributes to having an Edmonds Kind of Day; he urged the Council to keep it that way. Mark Daniels referred to the list of public indecency violations and asked how many complaints had occurred in the past 1-2 years outside of complaints regarding bikini barista stands. Mayor Earling explained the Council and staff do not respond to questions from the public during the meeting. He offered to have a police officer contact Mr. Daniels to respond to his question. Mr. Daniels said if enforcement is complaint -driven, how many complaints and complainants are required before enforcement action is taken against an individual or business. Mayor Earling requested Assistant Police Chief Anderson contact Mr. Daniels tomorrow. PRE SENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. OATH OF OFFICE/SWEARING IN CEREMONY -POLICE SERGEANT ALAN HARDWICK Police Chief Al Compaan commented this is an opportunity to celebrate the achievement of a Police Department member. An oath is an important public recognition of personal achievement and a personal pledge to the highest legal, ethical and professional standards critical to the law enforcement mission. He described Sergeant Hardwick's law enforcement experience; he was hired as a lateral police officer on September 16, 2001 and will celebrate his 15th anniversary with Edmonds next month. Prior to Edmonds, N he had 10 years' police experience with Ada County, Idaho, Sheriff's Office and the Boise Police w Department. During his time at Edmonds, he spent eight years as a detective including seven years E assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. He continues to stay abreast of domestic security and v terrorism events and information and continues as a liaison for the department with the FBI. Sergeant Hardwick has had a major impact on the department as a trainer, serving as a Field Training Officer for 7 E new officers in the last 18 months. FTOs guide new officers from academy graduation to their release to solo duty. Sergeant Hardwick was also a trainer for the department's transition to New World, the a countywide public safety dispatch and records management system. Sergeant Hardwick also works as an emergency vehicle operations course instructor. Sergeant Hardwick introduced his family including his wife Kristin and his five children: Logan and his wife Bethany and their daughter Nora; Devin; Gavin; and Breann; his daughter Kaylin is in Wisconsin. Chief Compaan commented on the importance of family to law enforcement officers. Chief Compaan administered the oath of office to Sergeant Hardwick. Sergeant Hardwick's wife, Kristin, pinned his badge. Chief Compaan presented Sergeant Hardwick a framed Certificate of Promotion. Sergeant Hardwick said this is more than a dream come true; he will celebrate 25 years in law enforcement in December. He was excited and honored to be promoted to sergeant. He thanked Chief Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 Compaan and the community for their support. He introduced his father-in-law Duane McIntyre, members of his band Ricardo Venezuela and his wife Annette, and Mark Pendalino; sister-in-law Kim; and his half-sister whom he found this past year, Melissa Nelson. He also offered thanks to Steven Dean, retired FBI. He thanked his crew and other law enforcement officers who were present. Numerous police personnel and cadets were present in the audience. 3 to 01 OW1413011101 Iu I OWN 1ki Cindy Easterson, President, Pilchuck Audubon Society, said their region includes Edmonds and their largest contingency is from Edmonds. Audubon speaks for birds, ubiquitous creatures that offer fleeting moments of color and character and who captivate the imagination with their ability of flight and brighten the day with sound and song. Other birders have testified regarding the great diversity of birdlife seen at the marsh. Various bird species hold a unique collective memory or place; this memory is a piece of the puzzle that drives migration and that brings birds back to the same nesting grounds year after year. It is what helps protects important birding areas and establish safe flyways for migration. The birds we want to 3 inhabit and utilize the marsh; their collective memory brings them back in search of resources that once were. When they land and find a place impacted by development and disturbance, they do not stay long. a She relayed the Pilchuck Audubon's request for the City to establish a 100-foot buffer and 50-foot S setback at the marsh, a renewed effort to daylight Willow Creek, alternative management of the tide gate to allow saltwater and tidal influence into the wetland, restoration alternatives to the pathway on the north side of the marsh and the engagement of a public/private coalition to provide expert recommendation and to support future decisions related to the marsh. If the Council allows an encroaching, built environment 0 and human disturbance in the marsh, it will not be without birdlife as birds are drawn to open spaces. The 0 City may welcome a healthy population of American Crows, European Starlings, pigeons and gulls. 0 Where birds thrive, people prosper; she requested the Council act to protect and preserve the marsh because people and birds' lives will be richer. a n Darlene Stern, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Police Foundation, invited the Mayor, Councilmembers Q and citizens to join in the celebration of the Edmonds Police Foundation's 20th anniversary open house, a joint event with the Edmonds Police Department on August 3 in the parking lot and the police station. Refreshments donated by local businesses and friends of the Police Foundation will be served from the Police Department's Support 7 mobile unit in the parking lot. Display areas will include of Edmonds Police support vehicles, a K-9 demonstration, a SWAT team, dive team, crime scene response vehicle, c information regarding distracted driving provided by Campbell -Nelson and Allstate Insurance. Displays E and information will be available inside the station regarding child internet safety, burglary and crime v prevention, domestic violence violence awareness and resources, and recruiting as well as a guided tour of the police station. Raising funds for department equipment is part of the mission of the Edmonds z Police Foundation; raffle tickets are available for baskets containing items donated by local businesses as well as two K-9 ridealong experiences and a simulator experience. Coloring pages are available at several a locations; each child that provides a colored page will receive a small item. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, requested a clarification regarding temporary signs, pointing out in the proposed sign code, the definition of a temporary sign is not to exceed 60-calendar days. Four sign types have been given permanent status so they can be displayed for 365 days. She pointed out the definition of temporary sign no longer includes "portable sign." She requested the ordinance list the temporary signs that now exist and have a 60-day requirement. She questioned how the 60-calendar day requirement would be enforced. She described her appeal of a sign that fell under the 60-day requirement; it could not be enforced because there was no record of when it was established. Even with a permit that establishes a day for a temporary sign, there is no date when it terminates and she doubted there would be enforcement for every sign in that category. She requested the definition be changed to consecutive days instead of calendar days to make it enforceable. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a Todd Zackey, Edmonds, Marine and Nearshore Program Manager, Tulalip Tribes, provided an overview of the Tulalip Tribes' perspective related to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. The Environmental Division of the Natural Resources Department of the Tulalip Tribes does research, monitoring, permit review and restoration. Edmonds is within the treaty area where multiple tribes can fish, hunt and gather. One of his responsibilities is to review SMPs, permits, etc. for this area. Although in a highly developed area, the Edmonds Marsh, a pocket estuary, is rare in the area as most saltwater marshes have been filled. The SMP needs to consider that the Edmonds Marsh is the last valuable place, ecologically speaking, and Edmonds must be considered in the context of greater Puget Sound and Salish Seas and its connectivity such as providing a stopping point for salmon and other species. Drainage issues are also an important consideration and are difficult to address with infrastructure outside of filling or pumping due to high tides. He encouraged the City to think outside the box with regard to preserving and expanding the ecological function, yet allowing for economic development. He offered to work with the City and provided written information regarding pocket estuaries and small streams. Robert Stivers, Edmonds, thanked the Council for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed public indecency ordinance. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, commented on the value of disappearing estuaries, marshes, etc. in Puget Sound. The Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58, was adopted in 1972 to protect the shoreline natural resources including the land and its vegetation and wildlife and the waters of the State and their aquatic life. The SMA promotes public access but focuses on being consistent with the overall best interests of the State and the people generally. It is to encourage water dependent uses that are 'o consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are unique to v or dependent upon use of the State shorelines. Historically the shoreline of the Snohomish Delta was C 120.6 kilometers long; by 2011 it was reduced to 95.3 kilometers. The shoreline is being lost and > wetlands are being sacrificed to development and other harmful influences such as industry and dairy a farms. The total area of wetlands was historically 84.64 square kilometers; in 2011 the area was reduced to 18.33 square kilometers. She recognized positive efforts are being made including stormwater Q management; a new rain garden keeps pollution from flowing into Willow Creek which enters the marsh and eventually Puget Sound. Regarding the proposed buffers, the 2004 rating system was updated in 2014 using the rapid assessment method which is a time and cost saving method. The update was designed to cfl differentiate between wetlands based on specific attributes such as rarity, sensitivity and disturbance and c functions. She urged the Council to retain the 100 foot buffer and 50 foot setback. c E Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the ordinance regarding public indecency and the definition of the v state of nudity and how far that line extends on a bathing suit. He felt the definition was excessive, commenting according to the ordinance, the act of a baseball player scratching could be considered z obscene. He questioned who had drafted the ordinance and whether the goal was to moralize everyone's behavior. He concluded the ordinance, intended to address a limited problem with bikini baristas, was a overdone. Barb Drake, Seattle, a conservationist, urged the City to conserve one of the last urban estuarine marshes so that current and future generations can experience its immense beauty, living history, tribal cultural and ecological significance. Much like a historical monument that is preserved, the marsh has a long, rich history that dates back hundreds of years when Salish villages lined the shores of the Salish Sea. Without a minimum 150-foot buffer and setback, this historic treasure may become endangered to a type of economic development that serves only a few and wreaks havoc on the marsh and its living history and the valuable functions it provides by bringing significant amounts of impervious surfaces, noise, lighting, erosion, floods, toxic pollutants and sediment buildup, destroying its historic present and future significance for people and wildlife. She urged the Council to continue working with DOE to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 4.1.a reconsider its disastrous recommendations in favor of a minimum 150-foot buffer and setback and protect and to preserve the living history of the Edmonds Marsh in its natural state. Val Stewart, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their careful review of the CAO update as well as the SMP update. A Planning Board Member, but speaking as a citizen, she has done a great deal of study regarding the watershed and Puget Sound ecosystem. She is a co -leader of the Students Saving Salmon Club at Edmonds-Woodway High School and her co -leader, Joe Scordino, started the Stream Team with students, which does monitoring. In light of her education and experience, she has changed her mind with regard to recommendations she made at the Planning Board level; she is more conservative about the marsh and wants to protect and restore this treasure. Leaving this valuable ecological asset to future generations will take careful thought and she encouraged the Council to carefully determine the appropriate category for the marsh. A biology class at Edmonds-Woodway High School taught by John Cook in the 1970s investigated the marsh when it was in danger of being filled by Unocal and found evidence of marine life. Following a hearing, the marsh was saved from being filled. She encouraged the Council to leave a similar legacy. She thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for being a champion of the marsh and expressed appreciation for the Council's support of the marsh. She commented on the importance of the determining the ordinary high water mark. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a retired fishery biologist, urged the Council to consider the science and facts related to the SMP update, ensure they are getting the best information and asking the right questions. For example if someone makes a statement that the principle problem in the marsh is stormwater, the Council should be asking for the data, reports and evidence to substantiate it. In his opinion, the buffer needs to be increased for a number of reasons. The principle reason is all wetland marshes have four functions, one is wildlife habitat. Anything that is done to constrict the edges of the marsh will constrict wildlife habitat. Some birds in the marsh, Yellowlegs for example, are constricted enough and will leave if the buffers are reduced. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION (CHAPTER 18.30) OF TITLE 18, EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, and Craig Dubberstein, CPD Solutions, a subconsultant to Herrera, who is assisting the City in making changes required by the State in the Stormwater Management section of the ECDC. Staff presented an overview of the changes to the Council in June; the proposed changes have now been drafted and public comment is invited on the changes. Mr. Dubberstein reviewed the history of the City's Stormwater Code: • 1977: First code • 1980: Code revised • 1995: Code revised • 2009: Code rewritten • 4/20/2010: Current version adopted He described why the code is being updated: • Mandated by Department of Ecology • Compliance with 2013-2018 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Permit) required Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 N 0 w 0 E c.� c a� E z U 2 a 4.1.a Compliance with 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology' Manual) required (Edmonds is essentially implementing identical requirements as 87 "NPDES Phase II" municipalities across western Washington) Mr. Dubberstein reviewed what changes can be expected: • Most substantial change has to do with new Low Impact Development requirements ("Minimum Requirement (MR) #5" in the Permit) o Affects small projects (> 2,000 sq. ft. of impervious) o More complex site assessment requirements o Additional City review requirements Mr. Dubberstein provided examples of Stormwater Management (SWM) — MR #5: Implementation • Category 1 project sites (trigger MR #1-5): List #1 or modeling (LID Performance Standard) • Category 2 project sites (trigger MR #1-9): List #2 or modeling (LID Performance Standard) He explained List 1 and List 2 provide options or best management practices (BMP), established by Department of Ecology, for managing stormwater runoff on a project site related to lawn and landscaped areas, roofs, and other hard surfaces (driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.). Separate lists must be followed for each type of surface. In design, all SWM options must be considered in the order listed. The first option that is considered feasible is to be used: • Lawn and Landscaped Areas 1. Soil quality and depth • Roofs c 1. Full dispersion or downspout full infiltration 2. Rain gardens [or bioretention] c 3. Downspout dispersion systems n 4. Perforated stub -out connections a 5. Detention pipes or vaults (City -specific standard) • Other Hard Surfaces e 1. Full dispersion 2. Permeable pavement [or rain gardens or bioretention] N 3. Sheet slow dispersion, or concentrated flow dispersion c w 4. Detention pipes or vaults (City -specific standard) c E c.� Mr. Dubberstein continued his review of changes that can be expected: • City will not require historical tracking of impervious surface area on individual properties E • Stormwater management of at least 25% of existing unmanaged impervious surfaces, but no more than area equal to proposed new plus replaced area (retrofitting). a He reviewed five example scenarios: Scenario #1 — Existing unmanaged surfaces — retrofit • Project includes an existing "unmanaged" parking lot, and an existing structure o Project will tear down and rebuild the structure, but will not alter the parking area. o Project discharges to the City's storm system • Triggers MR # 1-5 plus retrofit requirement o Project site contains existing hard surfaces that do not drain to an approved stormwater management facility and will not be modified as part of the proposed project • List No. 1 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 4.1.a o Existing hard surfaces: Use any BMP from List No. 1 to manage at least 25% of existing unmanaged surface area. BMPs are not required to be evaluated in priority order or document infeasibility • MR #5 applies for replaced structure o New/replaced surfaces: see details on requirements in Project Scenarios 2-5 Scenario #2 — Category 1 Project • This project results in 3,000 square feet of new plus replaced hard surface area and discharges to the City's storm system. • Triggers MR # 1-5 o Results in 2,000 square feet or greater of new plus replaced hard surface area or o Has land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater • List No. 1 or Modeling (LID Performance Standard) Scenario #3 — Category 2 Project • Project removes and replaces structures and pavement totaling 12,000 square feet of area and discharges to the City's storm system Triggers MR # 1-9 o Results in 5,000 square feet or greater of new plus replaced hard surface area, or o Converts 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or o Converts 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture List No. 2 or Modeling (LID Performance Standard) Scenario #4 — Direct Dischargeget Sound (and located in Edmonds Way Basin) • Project located in a direct discharge basin and includes specific requirements for the Edmonds Way basin. o Results in 3,000 square feet of new plus replaced hard surface area • Triggers MRs #1-5 (Category 1 Project) o Direct Discharge to Puget Sound ■ Only a subset of List #1 applies o If project is also located in the Edmonds Way basin ■ Provide peak flow control for all remaining project site runoff Scenario #5 — Does Not Discharge to the City's Storm System • The project removes and replaces structures and pavement totaling 6,000 square feet and does not discharge to the City's storm system. • Triggers MRs #1-9 (category 2 project) o Discharge to Downstream property ■ Approval from downstream owner(s) o Discharge on -site to List #1 BMP (not required to be evaluated in priority order or document infeasibility ■ Geotech required per review fee o Pump on -site runoff to City's storm system ■ Quantitative downstream analysis Mr. Dubberstein reviewed the schedule/status June 14 City Council study session June 20 Public meetings August 2 City Council public hearing August 16 City Council action item (seeking approval 2017) of code with effective date of January 1, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 N O 00 O E c.� c a� E z U M a Fall 2016 Completion of stormwater addendum. Development of implementation tools (e.g. review checklists) Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the concern she had mentioned to Mr. Williams with regard to the speed with which this has gone through Council due to its complexity. She requested staff provide the PowerPoint presentation and a redline version of the code. She pointed out the additions include differences in authority, exemptions, administration, access, etc. and she found it difficult to determine exactly what had changed without a redline version. She referred to Scenario 5 and asked why the project could not install a drywell for the stormwater. She referred to a drywell she installed on property in Oregon due to the age of the city's stormwater systems. Mr. Dubberstein answered downspout infiltration, a trench with gravel which functions very similarly to a drywell, is one of the options under List #1; Ecology does not call it a drywell. A geotechnical assessment would be required if the project was in an erosion landslide hazard area. Councilmember Buckshnis said she may have additional questions after reviewing the presentation. Council President Johnson requested staff summarize the public meetings including attendance and general concerns. City Engineer Rob English answered two meetings were held on July 20; one for developers and engineers; three people attended, two engineers and one developer. There were a lot of good questions regarding how the new code will affect them and their clients. Overall they understand the requirements as other cities are implementing a similar code. The second meeting was for the general public; three people attended. There were also good questions asked regarding how a potential change in impervious surface or a project would affect them and their treatment of stormwater. Overall both meetings were positive. Council President Johnson referred to the process outlined in the agenda memo, Council approval will not occur until the Washington Statement Department of Commerce has reviewed the changes to the > Stormwater Code and the State's review period will begin in August and be completed within 60 calendar a days. Mr. William explained Development Services Director Shane Hope interpreted the State law on issues related to land development as requiring review by the Department of Commerce who circulate it Q to other State departments and comments are submitted to the City. Ms. Hope will confirm that that review is required and if required, ample time is available in the schedule for the review and incorporating any suggested changes into the final draft prior to final Council approval. All code changes must be cfl completed by the end of 2016; these are only the stormwater specific changes. c w 0 Council President Johnson stated the 1,000-page regulation promulgated by the Department of Ecology is v standard across western Washington. She was interested in seeing the addendum that is specific to Edmonds. She inquired about the review process for the addendum. Mr. Williams answered the 1,000- page document is the manual, a source document for cities. The addendum will highlight differences; the z goal with this update was to retain the best parts of the code while adding the new requirements that the State has imposed on all Phase II cities in western Washington. a Councilmember Teitzel referred to language in 18.30.060.D.4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls, in the draft code, "To demonstrate compliance with this core requirement, all projects shall submit a qualitative analysis downstream from the site to the receiving water. If an existing problem (or potential future problem after development) is identified, mitigation will be required to prevent worsening of that problem. A quantitative analysis may be required for any project deemed to need additional downstream information..." He felt that wording was somewhat loose and asked what is included in the qualitative analysis, who performs it and what happens if a problem is identified later. Mr. Dubberstein answered that requirement exists in the current stormwater code in MR 10 and was added to MR 4 so it parallels changes to MR 5. Qualitative and quantitative downstream analyses are in the current City code and are described in the addendum; most descriptions will remain the same with minor tweaks Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 4.1.a to address site assessment requirements required now for MR 5. He summarized the description of qualitative and quantitative will be in the addendum as it is currently and will be used by developers and staff to determine if the appropriate downstream analysis was performed. Councilmember Teitzel asked what is included in the qualitative analysis and who performs it. Mr. Dubberstein answered qualitative analysis is performed by the project proponent working with the City to identify known flooding problems, culvert capacity issues, etc. a non -engineering, non -modeling approach to look at downstream issues. The analysis can be done by a non -engineer; the intent is to look downstream using available data to determine if problems exist that need to be addressed. Quantitative analysis includes modeling, engineering, sizing, pipes, etc., a more engineered solution and approach. Councilmember Mesaros observed the goal to reduce stormwater runoff. Using development that has occurred in the last 12 months, he asked how much runoff would be reduced if these requirements were in place. He suggested multiplying that over 5-6 years would illustrate the anticipated success level of implementing these regulations. He asked whether quantifying the improvement had been considered, Mr. Dubberstein answered the process at the State level was amazing as was the interest of environmentalists, developers, municipalities and other experts. The optimist in him says this is the best of all the approaches and desires considered to reach the goal of reducing stormwater impacts, protecting creeks and streams and Puget Sound. Councilmember Mesaros asked the percentage of improvement by applying the requirements to the projects in Edmonds over the past 12 months. Mr. Williams answered the faster the pace of development, the more change could be seen between existing conditions and after. The City has had a fairly rapid pace of development over the past 12 months; the City's existing code, which he noted was nothing to be ashamed of, has been applied to new projects over the last several years. Addressing peak flows and water quality benefits have been achieved with development that has occurred recently. The idea of LIDs includes site development, retention of onsite vegetation, etc. early in a project to ensure runoff is addressed. He did not know the impact long term as it will depend on the rate of development. Councilmember Mesaros said it would be interesting to know the percentage of gain from these requirements which admittedly will complicate some people's lives but the tradeoff is a percentage improvement over time. Mr. Williams referred to Councilmember Mesaros' earlier comment that the goal was to reduce runoff, commenting infiltrating into the ground does reduce runoff but there are other goals such as water quality. There may be the same amount of runoff but over a longer period of time. Councilmember Tibbott asked to what extent the ordinance addressed runoff from a State -run facility such as SR 104 and what the State's responsibility is with regard to handling stormwater. Mr. Dubberstein answered the City is a Phase 11 permittee; WSDOT is one of seven Phase I permittees (WSDOT, Seattle, Tacoma, Pierce, King, Snohomish and Clark County) who were required to meet these same Ecology requirements at the end of 2015. As a Phase I permittee, WSDOT's facilities are essentially required to meet the same requirements. If Ecology found there was a deficiency in the way WSDOT was handling stormwater, Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was anything that would trigger an improvement based on this code. Mr. Dubberstein answered yes, violation of water quality standards would trigger additional requirements. Permits are updated every five years and a draft permit will be out next year. If a problem were found with a WSDOT project, Ecology would have recourse to discuss improvements with them. Mr. Williams answered the requirements are triggered by new and replaced impervious surfaces. The SR-104 has been the same width and likely will remain the same width for a long time; if WSDOT added impervious surface such as widening the roadway, adding sidewalks, expanding the intersection, etc., the new square footage would be subject to these new regulations. Repaving done by the State does not create new square footage. Councilmember Tibbott concluded unless Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a there was a change, no one would be responsible. He echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' request for a redline version of the changes. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Val Stewart, Edmonds, thanked the staff and consultant for their work on the stormwater code update, recognizing it was incredibly complicated. As the open house was not well attended, she suggested another, better publicized open house due to the wide ranging impact of the update. She referred to her experience five years ago when trying to design a five-star built green residence and infiltrate 100% of the rainwater on site to avoid a connection to the City's stormwater system. The City required she install a redundant system and that cost was one of the factors of the project's failure. She pointed out there was little reference in the presentation to green building techniques, noting there were few green building projects in Edmonds, due in part to barriers to building green. Vegetated roofs are a wonderful way to infiltrate stormwater at least partially; she recalled a 50% credit for green roof. Her rain gardens were designed to address 100% of the runoff. She did not see any incentives in the code for using natural systems and green building techniques. Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, reported he attended the public meeting in July and found the presentation by City staff and the consultant very thorough and they capably answered the public's questions. He thanked staff and the consultant for the work they have done on the stormwater code update. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Johnson advised this is scheduled for Council action on August 16. Mayor Earling requested Council refer any additional questions to staff prior to August 16. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested a 30-minute discussion on next week's agenda as well as staff providing the Council a redline version of the proposed code changes. Mr. Williams said staff will provide a strikethrough/underline version but the changes are quite significant at this point. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SIGN CODE Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this is a continued discussion from the July 26 meeting. He highlighted two changes to the ordinance that were voted on by Council and reflected in Exhibit 1: 1. Add a 2-1/2 foot maximum width to the allowed dimensions for pedestrian signs. 2. Insert the following language in ECDC 20.060.050 (insertion underlined): "l.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 must be placed within two feet of the building. Any deviations from this standard must be submitted to the Architectural Design Board for review and approval per 20.60.015(B)(1)." Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested establishing an automatic review of the sign code in nine months to review how it is being implemented as the revisions have been fairly controversial. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the sign code will be presented to Council again within the next year as part a more comprehensive consideration of the Reed versus Town of Gilbert case and the Council could address portable signs at that time. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that was acceptable to her. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 N O w 0 E V c d z U 2 a Councilmember Teitzel referred to Ms. Shippen's concerns with temporary signs and how the start date of the 60-day period was determined and whether further revision to the sign code was required. Mr. Chave answered it was his understanding Ms. Shippen was talking about other temporary signs, not pedestrian signs, which are typically new business signs, for lease signs, etc. that are placed in windows or on buildings. The code does not specify start dates and does not require a permit or registration; typically, the City would not be aware when they were put up. On occasion, code enforcement has followed up on a complaint but without a permit or registration, those signs are not tracked. That could be addressed as part of the legal review that Mr. Taraday mentioned; it may be problematic to add at this point. Councilmember Buckshnis said Ms. Shippen was addressing section 20.60.080 Temporary Signs, and the removal of portable, free-standing signs and that 60 days does not state consecutive dates. Mr. Chave reiterated a permit is not required so there is no way to track the 60 days. The reason pedestrian signs were removed is they are no longer treated as temporary. Temporary signs cannot be portable signs; they must be affixed to a building or structure in some way which necessarily limits them. As temporary signs include things like grand openings or for lease, the challenge with a 60-day consecutive time period is the potential for the space to be leased more than once in a year. Councilmember Buckshnis said the WWU students will be considering a mobile app which she felt was the way to go and could eventually result in removing pedestrian signs. Mr. Chave said there haven't been any problems with temporary signs on buildings to this point; the issue has been the number of temporary signs such as for lease signs in every window of a block -long building which can be addressed via enforcement because it obviously doesn't comply. Businesses typically do not display grand opening or for lease signs for a long period of time. Councilmember Nelson thanked City staff, Planning Board, citizens, businesses, councilmembers for all their work to revise the sign code. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4039, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S SIGN CODE AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 20.60 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Council President Johnson asked how the new sign code will be implemented. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered all property owners and businesses within the district where this applies will be notified and provided information so the can voluntarily comply. At a certain point, property `.- p Y Y pY p �p p Y N owners and businesses who have not complied will be notified and some patrolling will be done, w especially in the early stages. Council President Johnson observed this is a joint effort between business Q owners who have temporary signs which are now permanent signs and the City's code enforcement. She v encouraged businesses who have these signs to work closely with the City to take the steps necessary to make their signs legal. E z MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c° a 2. WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING RCO AUTHORIZATION Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite requested Council authorization for the Mayor to sign a grant submittal to RCO for funding of Willow Creek daylight. Due to the dual benefit, this is a joint project with Parks and Stormwater. The City hired Keely O'Connell as the project manager. Keeley O'Connell explained in this case, daylighting means converting a 1400+ foot pipe and vault system that connects the marsh to Puget Sound to an open channel to directly connect the marsh to Puget Sound. The project began in 2011 with the City's first successful application to the State for a combination of salmon recovery funding and Puget Sound restoration funding to do project feasibility. This is an incredibly rare opportunity in Puget Sound; very few systems like the 28-acre Edmonds Marsh Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 4.1.a exist because systems like this were often filled and developed in the past. Using funding from the 2011 grant, three different alternatives for the daylighted channel were considered; 1) north into Olympia Beach, 2) into the marina, and 3) south across Marina Beach. The only alternative determined to be feasible was from the southwest corner of the marsh through the Unocal property, under the BNSF railroad tracks and across Marina Beach Park. Ms. O'Connell explained the City successful applied in 2013 for State salmon recovery funding and Puget Sound restoration funding to finalize feasibility. Last year, the feasibility of daylighting Willow Creek was coordinated with the Parks Master Plan for Marina Beach Park to assess how the park could be redesigned to accommodate all the current uses plus a new creek channel to allow salmon access into the marsh. The final feasibility study also considered the potential need for a flood gate to replace the very outdated tide gate buried in a vault system with a self-regulating flood gate that would close infrequently, reducing the timeframe salmon would not have access to the marsh. Ms. O'Connell explained the City was again successful in 2014 applying through RCO for salmon recovery to fund the current phase, preliminary design. Preliminary design includes the proposed alternative to the south, flood gate and Marina Beach Master Plan that includes the creek channel. Tonight staff is requesting authorization for the 2016 application to RCO for Puget Sound restoration dollars to take the project to 60% design, the next phase of the project. This phase will include preparation of all permits required for the project; funding will be awarded at the end of 2017 for 2018 and 2019. Councilmember Nelson asked when the project will be completed if the City receives the grant funding. Ms. O'Connell advised design would be nearly complete by 2019; additional funding would need to be secured to finalize design. It can take up to a year to secure permits from state, federal and local entities. A robust funding package will need to be compiled to fund implementation and construction for this very complex project in an urban environment. Throughout this timeframe, efforts have been underway to determine that funding package which will be a combination of federal, state and local funding. Ms. Hite said parallel to that process, final design for Marina Beach Master Plan will need to be accomplished as well as funding for that effort. Councilmember Teitzel referred to language in the resolution that states the City will only request payment from RCO after incurring eligible and allowable costs and pay them. He asked how much money cfl that represented and whether reimbursement by the granting agency of funds the City had already spent c was unusual. Ms. Hite answered all RCO grants are reimbursable. The City pays upfront, expedites the c billing and RCO reimburses the City. Councilmember Teitzel asked how much the City may pay prior to E reimbursement. Ms. Hite estimated cash flow on this project at $20,000/month. Once the City requests reimbursement, RCO releases payment in 1-2 weeks. E z Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Ms. O'Connell provide the Council a visual presentation regarding the daylighting process to date. a COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1366, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING RCO GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN REVISED GOODS & MATERIALS AGREEMENT FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF STONE CLADDING, PAVING AND SITE FURNISHINGS FOR THE VETERAN'S PLAZA FROM COLDSPRING Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled the Council's unanimous approval on July 19 of a sole source agreement with Coldspring. Following that approval, Coldspring requested a few changes in the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 4.1.a agreement; they requested the warranty and indemnification follow Minnesota law as they operate in Minnesota as well as a change in the time for material delivery. The City Attorney has approved the change in the language. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A REVISED GOODS & MATERIALS AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kemen Lien advised the City has not received a response to its preliminary/initial response requesting more time. Similar to Ecology's recommended changes to the CAO, he recommended the Council consider and make a decision on each of Ecology's recommended changes. Mr. Lien explained 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 altemative(s) submitted for consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by Ecology with the Shoreline Management Act. He summarized Ecology's required changes: • Five critical area integration changes • Three UMU IV Required Change o Setback/buffer o Interim Designation o When buffer establishment triggered • Recommended change to consider residential in UMU IV Mr. Lien reviewed Ecology's required changes individually: Ecology Required Change 1Update Critical Area Ordinance reference • Council approved SMP references Ordinance 3527 dated November 23, 2004 • Required change to reference Ordinance 4026 dated May 3, 2016 • Same version of critical area regulations will apply within and outside shoreline jurisdiction Council President Johnson referred to Mr. Lien's suggestion for the Council to vote on accepting Ecology's recommended changes, noting the agenda memo states staff will return with a revised version. Mr. Lien answered Council decisions tonight would provide guidance to staff. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ecology's comment that Edmonds' CAO was the basis for their buffers. Mr. Lien explained the COA adopts the 2014 Department of Ecology wetland rating system. Neither the CAO nor the SMP determine the categorization of the marsh, they only adopt the rating system. If the Council approves this recommended change, the same version of the critical area regulation will apply within and outside shoreline areas. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGE 1 IN CONCEPT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ecology Required Change 2 — Replace Appendix B Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 4.1.a • Current Appendix B is the version of critical area regulations adopted in 2004 under Ordinance 3527 • Required change is to replace Appendix B with the critical area regulations adopted in 2016 under Ordinance 4026 (minus exceptions) • Extension of Change 1 • Same version of critical area regulations will apply within and outside shoreline jurisdiction COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGE 2 IN FORM AND CONTENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ecology Required Change 3 - Critical Area Provisions Requiring Shoreline Variance • Council approved SMP lists specific critical area regulations that may only be implemented through a shoreline variance process (SMP 24.40.020.C) • Required change would eliminate SMP 24.40.020.0 • Critical area provisions listed in SMP 24.40.020.0 modified during CAO update to an extent that a shoreline variance is no longer required Councilmember Teitzel asked whether a property owner could apply for a variance to reduce the buffer of up to 25%. Mr. Lien answered a variance would not be required because that is allowed as long as they follow the provisions in the critical area regulations. A shoreline variance would be required if the property owner wanted to go below 25%. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGE 3. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ecology Required Change 4 — Critical Area Exceptions a • SMP 24.40.020.D lists critical area regulations that do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction a • Required change would modify list to only except critical area variance (ECDC 23.40.210) and geologically hazardous areas allowed activities (ECDC 23.80.040.B) • Shorelines has its own variance process • Allowed activities in ECDC 23.80.040 may be allowed under SMA without requiring a variance N O 00 With regard to allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas, Mr. Lien explained this was previously in the variance section but moved to the exceptions section because some activities would not require E shoreline substantial development permit, for example, a fence. A single family residence is an activity in the shorelines that does not require a shoreline substantial development permit. A fence would be considered an appurtenant structure; rather than a fence requiring a shoreline variance, it was removed z from the critical area section and the shoreline regulations determine the allowed activities. a Councilmember Tibbott asked whether allowed activities were listed in the SMP or CAO. Mr. Lien answered the specific provision ECDC 23.80.040.B is excepted out of the CAO and will not be applicable within shoreline jurisdiction. Using a fence as an example, Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would be on a list of exceptions and asked where the list of exceptions can be found. Mr. Lien answered the list of exceptions is in the SMP. The two provisions of the CAO that do not apply in shoreline jurisdictions are variances (23.40.210) and geologically hazardous areas allowed activities (23.80.040.B). The remainder of the critical area regulations that apply outside the shoreline jurisdiction would apply within shoreline jurisdictions except for those two provisions because they are covered in other areas of the SMP and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Councilmember Buckshnis summarized in laymen's terms, the variance is being removed from the COA because it is already covered in the SMP. Mr. Lien agreed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGE 4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ecology Required Change 5 — SMP Wetland Section • SMP 24.40.0201 contains wetland regulations for shoreline jurisdiction based on Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities • Required change would remove SMP 24.40.020.17 • Updated critical area regulations wetland section is based on Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities • Physically Separated/Functionally Isolated Buffer For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien said a physically separated functionally isolated buffer is called an interrupted buffer in the CAO. The required change from Ecology would take the physically separated functionally isolated buffer out of the SMP and the provision adopted in the CAO would apply in the shoreline area. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities was what staff provided Council last week that defines categories, buffer and setback widths, etc. Mr. Lien answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Appendix L was used previously. Mr. Lien explained Appendix L did not define wetland buffers; Appendix L was an appendix to a funding guidance document for three very specific water quality grant funds which is not the same as Guidance for Small Cities. Council President Johnson recalled a new Ecology publication was issued in June/July related to the same subject. Paul Anderson, Wetland Specialist, Washington State Department of Ecology, explained the document, Critical Areas Ordinance Guidance, was released in June due to recommendations and principles in the Small Cities Guidance that applied to other jurisdictions such as counties. Council President Johnson asked whether that new guidance needed to be incorporated into the SMP or CAO. Mr. Anderson answered there are arguments on both sides; because the City is so far into the process, Ecology does not recommend it at this time. Councilmember Nelson clarified his understanding of Mr. Anderson's statement that Ecology was not recommending using best available science (BAS) because the City was so far along in the process. Mr. Anderson clarified Ecology was not recommending adopting the standards in the CAO Guidance. cfl Councilmember Nelson observed the Critical Area Ordinance Guidance was the current BAS. Mr. N 0 Anderson agreed it was, the standards go back to the 2005 BAS Fresh Water Wetlands in Washington. c E Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the City wanted to use the latest and greatest BAS by v incorporating that document in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered the City adopted the CAO a couple weeks before the new guidance came out. The new document is Critical Areas Ordinance Guidance; the old z document was Ecology Guidance for Small Cities. There are some small changes; if the new Critical M Areas Ordinance Guidance is used in the SMP, one version of wetland regulations would apply within a shoreline jurisdictions and another version of regulations would apply outside shoreline jurisdiction and the new guidance would need to be incorporated into the SMP. Council President Johnson commented it was difficult to proceed without seeing that information. She preferred to rely on the best guidance from Ecology rather than an 11-year old document but it may require updating the CAO. She asked the process and timeframe for adopting the CAO. It was her understanding it was not reviewed or approved by Ecology but was used to coordinate the City's CAO and State's SMP. Ms. Hope referred to the process for adopting a CAO amendment which includes public hearings, Planning Board review and review by State agencies. Unlike the SMP, State agencies can comment on the CAO and if they strenuously object to something, they can appeal it. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a Mr. Lien observed this change may require further discussion. He offered to provide a comparison of the two documents at a future meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in reviewing the Critical Areas Ordinance Guidance released in June. Councilmember Mesaros concurred. Ecology Required Change 6 — UMU IV Interim Desi ng ation • UMU IV shoreline environment established as an interim designation • Required change would eliminate the interim designation • Changing interim designation would require an SMP amendment • If Council proposes to keep interim designation, a clear purpose and specific timeline should be developed with stakeholders Councilmember Buckshnis said she has been a proponent of this and has been involved since March 2013. Her concern was Ecology did a 180, stating the City has had enough time; however, the City has not had enough time to talk to the Port, Chevron, Unocal, the Tulalip Tribes, or do its own analysis of the marsh when it is downgraded to a Category 11. The City has sufficient information to support an interim designation but does not have a work plan because Ecology did not inform the City that was necessary. She was willing to participate on a team to develop a purpose and timeline. a Councilmember Tibbott asked what the disadvantage would be of keeping the interim designation, either from Ecology's perspective or application of the SMP. Mr. Lien answered it is an interim designation in name only and simply means the City is going to look at it in a shorter timeframe than the usual eight year — SMP update process. One problem with the existing interim designation in the SMP is it does not have a c clear purpose and specific timeline. If the Council wants to retain the interim designation, he strongly �00� suggested the alternative submitted to Ecology clearly identify a work program and what would be done c during the interim period. 0 Councilmember Tibbott provided a hypothetical situation, a granting agency was interested in a 200-foot a buffer; with the interim designation, the City could not indicate the exact buffer. He concluded the interim Q designation could be a disadvantage when pursuing grant opportunities. David Pater, Regional Shoreline Planner, Washington State Department of Ecology, responded it is not a disadvantage as restoration is a voluntary part of the SMP process; a property owner could decide to restore and expand a buffer regardless of the regulations. Ms. Hope said one possible disadvantage is the term interim continues some uncertainty for the two-year period. Councilmember Tibbott commented there are a c number of stakeholders with whom the City would like to consult and there may be advantages to 0 maintaining flexibility in this language. He asked whether that was an advantage in implementing the rest v of the SMP or was it too arbitrary. Ms. Hope said the term interim could be useful for internal discussions, but practically it is interim in name only as Mr. Lien stated. The designation stays in effect aa) until/if the Council choses to adopt something different. Mr. Pater said if Ecology agreed to retain the z term interim, at some point the City would need to go through a SMP amendment which could be considered a disincentive to retaining it. a Councilmember Nelson agreed with Mr. Lien that if Council proposes to keep interim designation, a specific timeline should be developed along with identified stakeholders to include neighboring property owners, scientists, agencies, the public, etc. If the Council agrees to allow the interim designation of UMU IV to remain for a period of time and hires an expert to assess the marsh, Councilmember Teitzel said one of the things that expert may consider is whether the marsh has been disturbed which is one of the key factors in categorizing the marsh. An expert could potentially say the marsh is undisturbed for the past 30-year period; Ecology would say the marsh is disturbed because it has been diked and filled, SR-104 runs through it, and a train track runs along it. He asked what Ecology would do if an expert determined it should be a Category I wetland because using Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a that definition, it was not disturbed. Mr. Anderson answered Ecology would consider that in light of the rating system and whether they agreed with the City's interpretation. Mr. Lien said if a strong stakeholder group was established and the stakeholders agreed at the end of the two-year period on what they wanted for the area and the marsh, that would carry a lot of weight with Ecology's review. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for clarification that the interim designation amendment would only be for the UMU IV. Mr. Lien answered the process is the same but it can be focused on UMU IV environment and the area around the marsh. Mr. Pater said all the steps are the same; the process could be much quicker because the focus is much narrower. Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for Councilmember Nelson's suggestion, noting he could support retaining the interim designation if there was a plan and a timeline. He suggested staff develop a recommendation regarding the time period. Mr. Lien said that effort may also require some budget. Council President Johnson asked if there was anything in the SMA that allowed for an interim designation. Mr. Taraday answered the SMA has authority for interim official controls which are allowed to last up to six months at a time. That is different from what the interim designation was originally contemplated to be. There is no clear express authority in the SMA for a two-year long interim designation. If all the stakeholders are on board with the concept of an interim designation, whether it is interim in name only or by consensus may not matter if the Port, City, Ecology and everyone agrees a two-year period for an interim designation makes sense. If there was pushback on having an interim designation, someone could make an issue of the fact that there is no express authority in the SMA. Mr. Pater said the legislative intent regarding an interim designation is different than the SMA which refers to moratorium requirements which includes six month timelines and check -ins. The Council will ultimately need to determine the designation. Council President Johnson said it sounds like the City needs to know whether all the stakeholders are interested in participating. She suggested the City needed to investigate further by asking the Port, Unocal, Ferries whether they were interested in having the City pursue this. Councilmember Buckshnis said if all stakeholders need to be involved, she assured Chevron was not interested; they will not even allow the Stream Team onto their property. She referred to Mr. Pater's cfl suggestion to use Everett's urban conservancy agricultural interim. c w 0 Councilmember Mesaros relayed he was in a meeting with several Chevron leaders last week and they E were eager to have a conversation with the City. He acknowledged they would not necessarily agree with the City but they were willing to have a conversation. E z Mayor Earling relayed his understanding the Council was interested in having this brought back for consideration for up to two years. He requested Council staff or the Council President do the outreach to a the stakeholders and report back to the Council as soon as possible. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Due to the late hour, Council agreed to continue review of Ecology's required changes at a future meeting. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a Mayor Earling reported on the Edmonds Center for the Arts' very successful loth anniversary celebration on Saturday, noting Councilmember Mesaros was also in attendance. It was a great celebration, particularly for those who were around at the beginning of the formation of the ECA. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the community has again been impacted by a tragedy involving children; a shooting in Mukilteo took the lives of three 19-year olds who graduated from Meadowdale High School last year. Six children have been lost in this community in the last two weeks; she suggested parents and the community pay closer attention to what's occurring as there were signals or signs in both incidences that something was not right. Councilmember Teitzel added to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' remarks, commenting he was heartsick about the events in Mukilteo. He was tired of saying his thoughts and prayers go out to people in Dallas, Orlando and now in Mukilteo. In each incident the murder weapon was an AR-15 assault rifle which is designed to kill the maximum number of people in a very short time. He recommended taking action soon and planned to contact his state and federal legislators to encourage them to take action to do something about assault rifles. He appreciated the Second Amendment issue but in his opinion there is no reason for citizens to have AR- 15s in their possession. Councilmember Mesaros said one of the joyful things in the community is the Pacific Little League won the State championship and hopefully will repeat that at regionals. Councilmember Mesaros reported on the ECA I Ott' anniversary celebration, remarking the City is blessed to be a city of arts. Councilmember Mesaros encouraged everyone to attend the 20th anniversary of the Edmonds Police Foundation tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. inside and outside the Public Safety building. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. C0 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN N EXECUTIVE SESSION w 0 This item was not needed. chi c 14. ADJOURN z With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 9, 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: Cm080916 spec mtg Packet Pg. 23 4.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2016 The City Council Special Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The Council then convened in the Jury Meeting Room. Elected Officials Present Kristiana Johnson, Council President Mike Nelson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Tom Mesaros, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Mayor Earling Others Present Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I). The City Council adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(i). I\ 13 Lei i1:1►1 O The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 24 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 9, 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: Cm080916 Packet Pg. 25 4.3.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 9, 2016 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT N. Haughian, Police Officer Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Earling spoke about a former Edmonds Mayor Harve Harrison who passed away last week at the age of 96, a fine person known by many. Mr. Harrison was the mayor from 1967 to 1983, the longest continuous time anyone has been mayor in Edmonds' history. He was a very effective leader who served quietly with great dignity and got things accomplished for the community. Mayor Earling commented it was a thrill to have Mr. Harrison attend the City's 125`h anniversary celebration last year. Although he had to be coaxed into it, he did an interview, attended lunch with other past mayors and participated in the ceremony. Mr. Harrison was a man of dignity and had a fabulous sense of humor. A service for him will be held Saturday from 2:00 to 4:00 pm. at Beck's Funeral Home. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council a, Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. At his request, tonight's meeting was dedicated to Harve c Harrison. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. E 0 2. ROLL CALL c d E City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Q COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved is as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT DIRECT DEPOSIT, CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 26 4.3.a 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. PRESENTATION OF RECENT ACTIONS & ACTIVITIES OF THE EDMONDS CLIMATE PROTECTION COMMITTEE Cynthia Pruitt, Co -Chair, Mayor's Climate Protection Committee (CPC), referred to a 2015 & 2016 Activity Report that lists the committee's accomplishments. She assumed the Council had some familiarity with the committee and their work supporting staff and the City in reducing heat -trapping gases in this community and elsewhere. Committee members were appointed by either Mayor Earling or previous mayors. Committee members include Josh Thompson, Larry Pierce, Sandra Distelhorst, Hank Landau, Tony Marzano, Gary Ocher, Barbara Tipton and Janis Freeman. The CPC was formed in 2006 as the result of then -Mayor Haakenson signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The commission's mission is outlined in the Activity Report. In 2009, the committee published the Climate Protection Plan. She identified the chapters in the plan and provided key strategies: • Transportation and Land Use o Strategy 3: Encourage a mix of land uses designed to increase accessibility to service, recreation, jobs and housing • Lifestyles o Strategy 1: Reduce material consumption, waste generation and resource depletion • Buildings o Strategy 2: Improve the energy efficiency of and within buildings • Environment o Strategy 1: Enhance our urban forest and landscapes o Strategy 2: Adopt solar access and tree policies • Economy o Strategy 1: Support environmentally beneficial businesses and job creation • Community Outreach and Empowerment o Strategy: Increase community education and commitment towards sustainability efforts The plan is available on the City's website. She reviewed CPC activities related to the plan: • Supported solarize South County effort. • Worked with staff on a Zero Waste Resolution • Reviewed and commented on the Comprehensive Plan • Provide support related to zero waste at events • Cheered staff on as as they designed and installed green resource room • Had conversations with the Tree Board; Tree Board members have attended committee meetings, recognizing the nexus between the Climate Protection Committee and the Tree Board • Clearing house for community events • Completed four sustainable heroes interviews regarding their successes with reducing heat trapping gases. • Invited businesses to take the Sustainable Business Pledge. Business that have taken the pledge are posted on the City's website She recognized Co -Chair Steve Fisher for creating the Activity Report and memo to Council. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is a very fun, informative committee. She suggested publishing articles in the local media so citizens understand the importance of the CPC. Ms. Pruitt agreed. She recalled one of the sustainable heroes interviews was a retired engineer whose goal was to become Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 27 CD 0 w 0 E c.� c a� E z U 2 a completely carbon neutral and found that was possible in a 1970s house via insulation and weather stripping and further enhanced by solar panels. Councilmember Teitzel observed one of goals of the CPC was to enhance access to solar energy. Recognizing that many residential areas have a lot of trees, he asked how that goal fit with goals of the Tree Board to protect trees in Edmonds. Ms. Pruitt referred to Strategy 1 in the Environment chapter: Enhance our urban forests and landscapes, and Strategy 2: Adopt solar access and tree policies. She explained the strategies are high level at this point and is one of reasons the CPC is having conversations with the Tree Board including the right tree in the right place. Neither the Tree Board nor the CPC have specifics now but will be happy to work on it. Councilmember Nelson said the CPC was his first City government involvement and will always be near and dear to his heart. One of the CPC's missions is to work with the City Council to implement ideas. He suggested the City Council do a better job in the coming months and year because protecting the climate is the priority for the environment. Ms. Pruitt recognized Councilmember Buckshnis, Mayor Earling, Shane Hope, Rob Chave, Jennifer Leach and Jen Machuga for their assistance with the CPC. Council President Johnson said she also had the pleasure of working with the CPC and Mr. Fisher including volunteering for food recycling at the Taste of Edmonds. She encouraged Councilmembers to contact Mr. Fisher and volunteer to work at the Taste. Mr. Fisher advised volunteers are still needed on Sunday. Mayor Earling commented he has been impressed over the last 4%2 years with the CPC's dogged devotion to developing small answers to big questions and the progress they have made. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Tom Nuitt, MD, shared his experience with p6tanque in an effort to familiarize the City Council. When E he came to Edmonds in 2005, he purchased a condominium across the street. In 2010 a neighbor introduced him to p6tanque, a silly game where players throw a heavy ball against small wooden ball. He got hooked and has found it the most pleasant game/sports activity he has ever done. The first year when the City only had one court, he learned how people share and invite others to play. The membership grew because it is so easy to get hooked on the game. By the second or third year, the P6tanque Club was c formed and seven members went to France to play in the nationals. P6tanque is vital to the community c and attracts people from all over state and the US. It is a beloved game and needs to be a large part of the E City. c d Mike Martin, Edmonds, former superintendent of schools for Kings Schools, displayed the gold medal z that Michelle won last week in Port Townsend at the Regional Women's Triples Tournament. He recognized Dr. Nuitt who is playing a competitive sport at age 92, commenting the ability for seniors play a competitively is amazing and many with serious physical handicaps are able play p6tanque successfully. He recalled a suggestion at a planning meeting not to have an isolated place for seniors play. He pointed out p6tanque is not limited to seniors; his 14-year old grandson is an active p6tanque player. Edmonds' demographics favor seniors and people who are retired have more time to play. In his opinion, the p6tanque courts are the most used facility in any of the City's parks; there are always people playing and two evening games were recently added. The Edmonds P6tanque Club has attracted tournaments to Edmonds, with as many as 80 people playing which benefits the restaurants, merchants and the Saturday Market. The Club has also donated to the food bank. He relayed a story of his 93-year old neighbor, Andy, who was forlorn after losing his wife. After inviting him to play p6tanque, Andy became a successful player and relayed to him that p6tanque saved his life, a story he has heard from other players. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 28 4.3.a Paul Dever, Edmonds, said a lot of people are interested in p6tanque and he encouraged the City Council, as the final decision makers of where the courts are located, to keep them on 6th Avenue. He described how he got involved with p6tanque; he and his wife would often walk downtown along 6th Avenue and saw people playing p6tanque. His wife was interested but he preferred golf. The players invited his wife to a clinic; she began playing, encouraged him to play and they have found it to be a fabulous game. He emphasized if the courts had not been on 6th Avenue with easy access to people walking by, they would never have become involved. The Club's food bank tournament has contributed over $18,000 to the food bank in the last 4-5 years and they are involved with the Boys & Girls Club. He encouraged the City to keep the courts as close as possible to 6th Avenue and said they do not need a buffer zone. Marlin Phelps, Edmonds, commented on the contrast between Seattle's homeless population and Edmonds, commenting he did not recall ever seeing a homeless person's tent or a panhandler in Edmonds. Edmonds is a lot like Medina, Hunts Point or Mercer Island, except for Highway 99. He believes the reason there are no homeless in Edmonds is because the police department is a very brutal criminal organization and that Sergeant Barker who is in his 32nd year, gaining full retirement at 30 and now working for free, is keeping the lid on it. What the police department has done to him, they have done to others. He planned to submit a public record request tomorrow to determine the number of missing persons' reports filed in Edmonds for the past 32 years. In the past he has been denied information via a public records request, but the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department has been recently fined for doing what the Edmonds Police Department has done to him. People in the homeless community talk to each and are fearful. He did not disrespect wanting to have a nice community, but did not want a blind eye turned to what has gone on in the police department. To know what the police department has done to people makes the Council culpable for what they have done. He summarized Sergeant Barker is a murderer and he planned to prove it. Yvonne Mansson, Edmonds, said she also plays p6tanque. As the result of several ladies' requests, a a ladies -only evening game on Wednesdays at 6 p.m. was established where 10-16 ladies often play. After playing, the ladies usually go downtown for coffee or wine and socialization. She urged the City to retain Q the p6tanque court because it serves the community and makes Edmonds the best little city on the west coast. They are also teaching children from the Boys & Girls Club to play p6tanque a couple times a week in the afternoon. cfl CD 0 Jeanie Bly, Edmonds, said she finds the p6tanque courts the most inviting place to be when feeling c alone, a place to meet people and be social and she enjoys it very much. She hoped the courts would E remain on 6th Avenue. v c a� Jerry Fireman, Edmonds, a member of Edmonds Ntanque club, expressed support for including the z p6tanque courts and urged the City to give serious consideration to adding something in the park with an international flavor, diversity or multicultural. He has not seen that reflected in any plans. a Ferrell Fleming, Edmonds, Executive Director, Senior Center, said Harve Harrison was seen a lot in his later years before his health did not allow it. He was a great friend to the senior center; the City's ownership of the center, reconstruction of the center, etc. all happened on his watch. Mr. Harrison took office in 1967 because in those days the mayor was elected on Tuesday and took office on Wednesday. When Mr. Harrison was shown the very preliminary drawings for the new center, he found old drawings of the center in his garage. Mr. Fleming expressed the senior center's appreciation for the Council's unanimous approval of the schematic drawings for the new center, a crucial step. With regard to the request to add a year to the lease, he explained the State grant that the center applied for demands some form of site control, the option to lease and the new ground lease. The State also wanted an existing lease of at least 15 years from the time the grant was due, August 4, 2016; at that time the existing lease was 14 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 29 4.3.a years 4 months. The request is to extend the existing lease 1 year so there is a 15-year lease. The grant documents have already been submitted, but the State staff knew changing the lease would take an act of Council and gave the center until early September to accomplish it. Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he had never bought coffee from an espresso stand, finding it too expensive, but recently visited the stand on 238"' twice. The ladies were very nice looking and wearing a bra and thong. At both visits, when he asked the lady if he could have "more goodies" if he gave her $100, she acted offended. It seemed to him the Council was spending an inordinate amount of time on an ordinance related to indecent exposure when any day of the week a person could drive from here to California and find people dressed the same way these ladies were dressed. This espresso stand is hard to find; if a person wants to see a scantily dressed person and pay $5 for coffee, that is their business, not the City Council's or Police Department's business unless they are offering other services. He urged the Council to leave well enough alone. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. SENIOR CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite referred to Mr. Fleming's comments, explaining this is a request to authorize the Mayor to sign a lease amendment to add a year to the current lease with the senior center so that they are eligible for a State grant for the rebuild of the senior center. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO MOVE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXTEND THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE SENIOR CENTER FOR ONE YEAR TO NEXT WEEK'S CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CITY'S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Council has had several discussions regarding a; the City Council's role in the quasi-judicial decision making process. In June, Councilmembers expressed interest in getting away from being the quasi-judicial decision maker on a number of types of land use issues that the Council is currently charged with doing under the City code. She recalled the Council requested information from the City Attorney regarding absolute versus qualified immunity. The packet CD includes background materials as well as a resolution that could be placed on the next Consent Agenda 0 that provides direction when the Development Code is updated in near future to remove that discretionary v quasi-judicial process from the City Council's responsibility. d Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council considered this six years ago and four years ago she voted to return rights to appeal land use decisions, overturning previous Council actions that took away citizens' voice. She recalled whenever the City Council has reviewed a quasi-judicial matter in the past, a they have worked out correctly. She did not support changing the Council's role in quasi-judicial hearings because she believed citizens should have a right to voice their opinion to Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also did not support moving the Council out of quasi-judicial land use hearings. When the Council moved back to holding quasi-judicial hearings, the Council was not sure how that would work out; she has been involved in several quasi-judicial hearings in the past 6'/z years and it has been a good use of Council time and resources and allows citizens to appeal to the Council. In most cases the Council upheld the Hearing Examiner's decision. This provides a second step for citizens without the cost of going to court at a cost of $500-$5000 depending on whether an attorney is hired. She concluded this was a basic standard for citizen rights and shows the City Council is supportive of citizens. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 30 4.3.a Council President Johnson said in general the City has made progress by using a Hearing Examiner instead of a citizen board of appeals. To the greatest extent possible, she preferred to rely on the Hearing Examiner process and the Superior Court of Snohomish County to adjudicate any questions. She felt there was too much risk on the City if the Council makes a mistake. For those reasons she supported the proposal. She asked when this would be addressed in the code update. Ms. Hope answered in a few months. Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the proposal; he did not believe that he, as a Councilmember, had enough training in the law to make a proper legal decision. The Council's role as legislators is to establish code, listen to citizens and ensure the code is clear so it can be interpreted properly. The proper place for interpreting a legal question and appeal issues is via the court system. He agreed with Council President Johnson that the Hearing Examiner process was working, there is an appeal process is place and available to citizens and it is not the Council's role to interpret the law. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there has been no risk to the City for nearly seven years and unless the Council interpreted things incorrectly, there was no risk to the City. She felt it was part of the Council's job to represent the citizens of Edmonds. Citizens should not have to appeal to court when that can be done by the Council. Councilmember Nelson recalled his personal experience on the one and only quasi-judicial hearing he participated in, commenting he did not enjoy it. However, just because he did not like something did not mean it was not necessarily good for the City or citizens. In reviewing the decisions the Council has made in past quasi-judicial hearings, there are more incidents where the Council has provided an oversight and check system to help citizens and he felt there was a role in the process for Council. He appreciated the City Attorney's research regarding immunity, relaying it was clear the only way Councilmembers were personally liable was if they went off the well -established legal path and felt it was well worth that risk. Council President Johnson said as legislators, the Council has many opportunities to help citizens including conversations with them, speaking on their behalf before the Hearing Examiner, discussing any Q inequities in the codes or law and taking a legislative action. It was not necessary for the Council to be in a quasi-judicial role. She has been very uncomfortable in the quasi-judicial role because Councilmembers are unable to communicate directly with citizens and help them with issues. She felt the risk was real and cfl asked the City Attorney to speak to the subject of risk. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed it was a real c risk. He distinguished between risk to the City versus risk to Councilmember personally, stating it was c true Councilmembers have to go off the rails to find themselves personally liable, a high hurdle for a v plaintiff to clear. The real risk is to the City. The City is a member of an insurance pool; if there were a significant plaintiff judgment against the City, while WCIA may come to the City's short term rescue, there is a long term cost to the City when WCIA considers it a risky city. z c� Mr. Taraday referred to a recent judgment rendered against the City of SeaTac, explaining while not a quasi-judicial, it was a land use case. When land use judgments go bad, they can get into the stratosphere in terms of costs; the judgment against SeaTac was $18 million. SeaTac is appealing the judgment but it will spawn litigation and risk for SeaTac and their insurance pool. He was aware of one other lawsuit where the reinsurer of CIAW (SeaTac's insurance pool) was essentially claiming they would not cover and defend because the actions of the City officials in that matter went off the rails, beyond what they considered a covered event. While the City can look to its insurance for coverage, there are instances that will not be covered and taxpayers are left holding the bag. In his five years as city attorney, he could think of at least one land use decision that while it did not translate into a dollar loss, he was not comfortable with the risk assessment after that decision was made. The Council did things in that case that it probably should not have done; the specifics could be discussed in executive session. In that situation there was real risk to the City and the City was fortunate to get out of it without significant cost or judgment against Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 31 4.3.a the City. He summarized the Council should not think quasi-judicial land use decision making is carefree; they are playing with big dollars. Mr. Taraday said the problem when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is Councilmembers will be tempted to fix their constituents' problems because the Council represents them, citizens voted for them, made campaign contributions, etc. If a Councilmember through that temptation crosses the line even a little bit, while probably not personally liable, could mean a multimillion dollar judgment against the City for reading something into the code that is not there for example. Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Taraday should not be using SeaTac's $18 million judgment as an example to scare Councilmembers because it was not quasi-judicial. In her six years on the Council, she can think of one instance where she took issue with how things progressed, but felt they progressed correctly. Issues arose as part of that because a Councilmember was part of process, a unique situation. She felt Mr. Taraday was trying to scare the Council; if the Council follows the process and the record, this process should be allowed to continue especially since situations like SeaTac have not arisen. Mr. Taraday said his point in using SeaTac as an example was to quantify the risk and to point out millions of dollars can be at stake in land use decisions. He was not telling the Council they could not retain this decision making authority; the Council has been doing it for years. He simply wanted the Council to do so with their eyes wide open about the nature of the risk. Councilmember Teitzel commented he was elected to represent the citizens of Edmonds and did not agree moving away from this quasi-judicial role was a disservice to citizens. He reminded if the Council felt the Hearing Examiner's decision was incorrect, the Council can request the City Attorney file an appeal to Superior Court and testify on citizens' behalf. He intended to use that process if he found an error in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Council President Johnson recalled this discussion when she was on the Planning Board many years ago. a The City Attorney at that time, Scott Snyder, strongly recommended the Council not be in a quasi-judicial role. She recalled Mark Laughlin, WCIA, also strongly advised the Council not to participate in a quasi- Q judicial role and a person from MRSC gave the same advice. She asked Ms. Hope, Mr. Chave and Mr. Taraday for their best advice regarding the Council's involvement in quasi-judicial decision making. Ms. Hope responded because of the risks involved and the complexity of some issues, because the Council has cfl a clear legislative role to assist and give direction on policies and if the Council is not in a quasi-judicial c role, has the ability to appeal decisions and take the constituent's side, she believed moving away from c the quasi-judicial role is prudent and still allows the Council to help citizens. v Mr. Chave pointed out over the years more details and specifics in have been added to the code. The key aa) reason for that is to avoid too much indefensible discretion which the courts dislike. Regardless of the z Council's decision, that trend should be recognized. He summarized the value of retaining the appeal is outweighed by the potential value the Council can add by closer involvement with citizens. a Mr. Taraday emphasized his recommendation is insignificant; he will defer to and do whatever the Council wants to do. To the Councilmembers who were interested in the status quo, his only recommendation was he believed the Council could better serve constituents by getting early notice of pending quasi-judicial actions that are coming to the Hearing Examiner, getting involved with and talking with constituents during the process, working with him to advocate for a particularly position in front of the Hearing Examiner and if necessary, direct him to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision if the Council did not agree with it. The Council can do more to advocate on behalf of constituents via those techniques versus sitting as judge. If the Council tries to advocate for citizens while sitting as a judge, they can be sued. The Council cannot do both, be an advocate for constituents and a judge at the same time. If the goal was to represent constituents, he recommended getting involved earlier at the Hearing Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 32 4.3.a Examiner level, talking to constituents, establishing a process whereby the Council is notified of items going to the Hearing Examiner, testifying at Hearing Examiner hearings, organizing people to rally for or against a project, etc. As the longest serving Councilmember present, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas disputed some of what has been said. Neither she nor Councilmember Buckshnis have ever had a citizen approach her wanting them to do something about their case. She recognized Mr. Taraday was uncomfortable with risk, pointing out the Council incurs risk every day; every decision incurs some level of risk. Although she appreciated what Councilmember Teitzel had to say, she pointed out six months as a Councilmember did not qualify him to understand the process as well as Councilmembers who have been on the Council longer and have been involved in previous cases. She pointed out Council President Johnson has been opposed to this ever since she got on the Council and has asked this question of everyone who interviewed for an appointment to Council. Council President Johnson raised a point of order; Roberts Rules of Order state a person is not to make arguments that are personal, are not to name people or be argumentative. She objected to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas identifying what each Councilmember has said and arguing that point. Mayor Earling ruled that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas may continue her testimony, however, she was not to bring up individuals' names. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said some Councilmembers are passionate about making this change. She believed citizens needed to have a voice, and not the costly voice of appealing to court. She questioned whether all Councilmembers fully understood the original reason the Council moved into the quasi-judicial role. There is passion behind allowing citizens the ability to come to Council for a decision. She did not mean to offend any Councilmembers but wanted the facts to be clear. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, a TO MOVE RESOLUTION 1367 TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, A RESOLUTION OF CITY Q COUNCIL CITY OF EDMONDS EXPRESSING INTENT TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL PERMIT PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW UPON ADOPTION OF THE REVISED EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Council President Johnson said this vote is just showing intent and the Council will have an opportunity Q to make a final decision in several months when the code is brought to the Council. G E 0 Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr. Taraday's comment about crossing the line and the risk in these decisions. He asked if Mission Springs v. City of Spokane was a good example. Mr. Taraday answered yes. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to describe the Mission Springs case. Mr. Taraday explained Mission Springs involved a grading permit and the City Council disregarding legal advice given to them during a public meeting, advice that should have been given in executive session. That City a Attorney said publicly something to the effect that the Council needed to approve the permit and Council did not and got sued. Councilmember Nelson read from the Supreme Court case, where a Councilmember asked "If we direct staff not to issue permits until the tunnels were improved, what would happen? The City Attorney responds, "What would happen is that would be the genesis for a cause of action by the developer against the city for unlawfully interfering with the issuance of a building permit and that is essentially the same basis that we're presently in federal court on, a civil rights violation." The City Attorney goes on to say "It's a charter violation, the Council has no administrative authority, the Council act through ordinances and sets policy and administrative staff is charged with following ordinances." The City Attorney clearly Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 33 4.3.a tells the Council what they are doing is not right and the Council ignores his advice, a very clear, bright line. Mr. Taraday agreed it was a clear, bright line in that case; it is not always. Councilmember Nelson recalled WCIA has also routinely brought up Mission Springs as an example of what can go wrong. He clarified it was not something the Spokane Council did not understand or was surprised by, it was very clear what would happen. When talking about these kinds of risks, it was important to put it in context. Mr. Taraday said he would not give advice in a public meeting; if that situation ever arose, he would take the Council into executive session, advise of the consequences and the Council would need to take a vote in public without the public's knowledge of the City Attorney's advice. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to take a vote tonight as Councilmembers have stated their positions and it likely would be pulled from the Consent Agenda. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 3. CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled a kick off meeting was held to launch the Master Plan process in early May. Since then there have been stakeholder interviews, an open house, a virtual open house, project advisory meetings and an update to the Planning Board two weeks ago (draft minutes are included in the packet). She introduced five members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) who were present including Council President Council President Johnson, Councilmember Teitzel, Pat Woodell, John McGibbon and Alex Witenberg. She recognized the PAC for their help. Chris Jones, Principal and Landscape Architect, Walker I Macy, said this update is not to present � alternatives but to report on the public involvement process to date and what they have heard so far from Q the community related to the park program and existing uses on the site. He used the metaphor for this Q project, it's like removing a temporary tree. He reviewed existing Park Program (activities) v • Events o Taste of Edmonds 0 4th of July Fireworks o Wenatchee Youth Circus (concluding operation 2016) o Sports tournaments Q o Arts Festival (parking) • Existing Structures o Boys & Girls Club (Field House) ■ Interested in remaining on site and expanding footprint to 18,000-25,000 square feet ■ Historic Preservation Committee pursuing listing of site and field house as historic o Grand Stand • Parking • Storage • Active Recreation o Soccer o Tennis Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 34 4.3.a o Lacrosse o Skate park o Basketball o Baseball o Football o Track o Playground o P6tanque Mr. Jones displayed an aerial photograph of the project site and identified areas where deed restrictions exist and areas with no deed restrictions (2 acres). Discussions at the open house have included three significant categories: civic, passive and active. He described potential activities in each category: • Civic o Plaza o Cafe o Water feature o Performance space o Permanent art o Temporary art o Promenade o Covered market space o Museum display o Restrooms • Passive o Multi -use lawn o Horticultural gardens o Stormwater gardens o Berms o Shade trees o Picnic areas o Strolling paths o Shade pavilion • Active o Exercise path o Creative play o Seasonal games o Classes o Activities clubhouse o Concessions • Events o Theater performances o Markets o Music o Culinary events o Art installations o Fun -runs Mr. Jones described information provided at the in -person and online open houses: • Informational boards o Background o Context Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 35 4.3.a Le o Site o Scales of similar parks Interactive boards o Which activities should continue? o What might you like to see? o What types of activities should be prioritized in the renovated park? o General comments Modeling Stations o Attendees placed programmatic elements on an aerial photo o Six models were prepared Open House Results o June 23 In Person ■ 131 signed in ■ 141 attended o June 24-July 7 online statistics ■ 1,350 total page views ■ 180 responses received Themes In -Person Votes Online Votes Total Active 53 21 74 Passive 50 12 62 Civic 20 3 23 Mr. Jones thanked Mayor Earling for his comments at the open house and My Edmonds News for their c article. He applauded the Council and the community for their involvement, remarking he had not seen 0 this much community involvement in the design of a downtown park. He displayed a list of activities and c in -person, online and total votes for numerous activity types and a list of stakeholder meetings. He a reviewed the schedule: Q August 24: Open House 2 (Master Plan Alternatives) a; September 1: PAC Meeting September 14: Planning Board Briefing September 27: City Council Briefing CD 0 Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding that the Boys & Girls Club wants to remain on the site 0 but feel the existing building is insufficient to meet their needs. He asked how many kids the Boys & v Girls Club served today, how many they would like to serve and how much additional space they need. Mr. Jones answered they've heard the Boys & Girls Club is looking for a total of 18,000 — 25,000 square feet total. He did not know how many kids they serve; during his two visits, there were 12-30 kids present. The existing building is less than 10,000 square feet. Ms. Hite advised the Boys & Girls Club is much more active in the summer with day camps. In talking with the Boys & Girls Club Director today, a she indicated they have about 150 kids and find it difficult to fit summer programs in the space and utilize the outside area quite a lot. During the school year, the use is more after -school type programs which also use the park. Councilmember Tibbott found the PAC summary very helpful. His kids were very involved with using the park when they were young and he expected it to remain an active area. He liked the concept of multiuse active areas and would like to see that pursued. hi reading the comments, there was a great deal of interest in removing the fence as much as possible. He was uncertain whether that could be accomplish with landscaping but would like to see a better flow through area. He asked how many music venues exist in the City and whether they could be better utilized. He recognizing there is City Frances Anderson Center which seems to be underutilized, and City Park. Mr. Jones said he had not heard much about using Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 36 4.3.a Civic Field as a music venue other than the Taste of Edmonds. There have been comments about potentially preserving the grandstands for music events but not specific to music events. Ms. Hite said the City currently has concerts at City Park and the Hazel Miller Plaza and movies in the park at Frances Anderson Center. Once the bandshell at Frances Anderson Center is replaced this fall, it will have much more potential. Councilmember Nelson agreed it was a great open house and wonderful to see the amount of input. He acknowledged the second most popular activity on the list, following restrooms, was p6tanque. He hoped p6tanque could be accommodated in the park. The third most popular activity was a jogging/walking path which he found encouraging and an overwhelmingly strong response. He asked whether photographs of the models that attendees at the first open house developed will be available. Mr. Jones anticipated those would be shown at the next open house as part of summarizing the feedback. The model is a great tool; there was a lot of consistency in what people included in the models which will also be summarized. Councilmember Buckshnis encouraged the Council to think about what they wanted the future City to look like and how that is determined through this park. She suggested providing information regarding the City's existing parks and what each one offers. She pointed out there are not many fields in Edmonds. If the City wants to keep kids active, there needs to be activity centers for kids and adults. She referred to Charlotte, North Carolina, where there is an artistic passive walking park connected to a ballfield. She recognized there was not a lot of space on this site but suggested that could be accommodated on a smaller scale. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Boys & Girls Club serves over 600 kids/year in before and after 'o school care, leagues and clubs, and day camps. She agreed they are interested in more space. With regard V to the Taste of Edmonds, she said that event has evolved from a small event with mostly Edmonds C restaurants with a beer garden, booths and music to an event with fair food, booths and bouncy houses. > She asked what the public said about keeping the Taste of Edmonds. Mr. Jones answered the sentiment is a mixed; people who live adjacent to the park do not have a lot of great things to say about the Taste and would rather take a vacation during that weekend; others, who do not live next to it, love it. The Taste is a Q financial financial generator for the community, eliminating the Taste is a conversation outside master planning the park. He relayed comments that a majority of the people attending the Taste do not live locally, it is a regional attraction, and the beer garden is an alumni event. cfl CD 0 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed comments from the Chamber that there is very little spill over c from people at the Taste to restaurants and shopping downtown and in fact use their parking and prevent v people from visiting downtown businesses. Something that cannot be quantified is people who see Edmonds while going to the Taste and and return another day. Ms. Hite said they have also heard in conversations and at the open house that a majority of citizens want the Civic Field planned for the 360 z days that it is not used for a festival, not to reconfigure the footprint so much to accommodate a large festival but build what people want and figure out how to fit the festival in it. She relayed the Police a Department has witnessed spill over into the bars at 10 p.m. when the Taste closes. The Taste is one of busiest nights of the year for the Police Department. Council President Johnson referred to the third most popular possibility, a jogging/walking path which got 71 votes, strolling paths which got 47 votes and a formal track which got 40 votes. The challenge is how to decide what to keep and what to expand upon. There is currently a track at Civic Field but she questioned whether it should be the main feature of a new park and whether other paths could be incorporated. Mr. Jones said they have been exploring opportunities; if the track remained, it could be a 200-meter track, half the size of the current track, and still serve SnoKing, the Boys & Girls Club, the community as a whole and jogging and walking paths could circle the site. People are interested in a more casual walking/jogging walkway rather than a formal track but many are still supportive of a formal track. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 37 4.3.a Councilmember Mesaros referred to information in the Beacon, My Edmonds News and from the Mayor. He commented on the Taste and accommodating that activity on the site. He encouraged Mr. Jones to research a Boys & Girls Club that was incorporated into Thompson Peak Park in north Scottsdale, Arizona. With regard to providing more playfields, he felt this was not the place for that. He pointed out there are number of undeveloped fields within city limits such as Edmonds Elementary, Westgate Elementary and Sherwood Elementary where there would be opportunity to develop playfields in partnership with the school district. Council President Johnson suggested consideration be given to accommodating the Boys & Girls Club in other facilities such as the Frances Anderson Center, Edmonds Center for the Arts, etc. It may be may be possible to shift activities at the Frances Anderson Center to the old Public Works building. tau EV03:i(Y40]0V lu 1 Biel R Mayor Earling reported Edmonds is entertaining students from Hekinan and he cooked hotdogs and hamburgers for them today at lunch. He thanked Council President Johnson for attending the welcome dinner last Friday. The students will be in town through this week and he was hopeful Councilmembers would have an opportunity to interact with them. Mayor Earling reminded of the Taste of Edmonds this weekend and described its history: the first Taste was cancelled when it was realized organization occurred too late. The cancellation was announced, yet one bus loaded with people still came. The event was successful the next year; 6-7 restaurants on 5tn Avenue between IGA and Girardi's. Many of the restaurateurs were worried because they had spent a lot of money; fortunately, it was a great success. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Tibbott reported he attended the Police Foundation open house this week where he and others had the opportunity to learn about what the police do and their equipment. He was present when they demonstrated launching the drone; a video is posted on his Facebook page. Councilmember Tibbott reported he had a conversation with Development Services Director Shane Hope a, regarding the Shoreline Master Program and clarifying an interim buffer, the appeal process and c stakeholders. He found it very helpful and requested Ms. Hope provide the Council a summary of their E conversation in preparation for next week's discussion. One of the takeaways from their conversation was v clarity regarding Kemen Lien's comment that setting an interim buffer is really a defacto buffer. Mayor Earling said he met with Ms. Hope and she will prepare a summary by the end of this week or Monday. E z Councilmember Mesaros reported Pacific Little League continues to win; they won their first game 15-1 and the second 8-2 and play Thursday at noon on ESPN. He introduced the concert in the park on Sunday; a 250 people attended and it began raining halfway through the last song. He encouraged the public to attend the three remaining concerts as well as concerts on Tuesday and Thursdays at Hazel Miller Park. Councilmember Mesaros encouraged the public to continue donating to the Veteran Plaza; they are $400 short of raising $500,000. He exclaimed over the wonderful response from citizens to honor veterans which will enable elements to be included that were removed due to uncertainty about fundraising. Councilmember Teitzel said he lives very close to Civic Playfield and has received dozens of requests from people living near the playfield to do something about the noise from the beer garden. He has heard that the volume from the bands last year was the loudest ever. He contacted the Chamber President Greg Urban who said he's received those comments as well and committed to doing something about the noise Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 38 4.3.a including reorienting the speakers away from the nearby residential areas, installing additional sound deadening material on the fence and being more diligent about monitoring sound levels using a dB meter to ensure the sound remains at a reasonable level. He expressed his appreciation for Mr. Urban's help and anticipated the sound would be better this year. He encouraged citizens to attend the Taste which is the biggest revenue generator for the Chamber to raise funds for the 4t'' of July fireworks. Council President Johnson reported she enjoyed the Hekinan delegation's welcome dinner and advised the students prepare native Japanese foods for the farewell diner this Friday. Also on Friday, she will be scraping food scraps into the proper receptacles at the Taste of Edmonds. She challenged Councilmembers to join that effort on Sunday. Council President Johnson reported the Council will continue its discussion regarding the Shoreline Management Program at next week's meeting with the hope of concluding that process fairly quickly. She announced a series of presentations will be made to the Council on the issue of homelessness, one of the main issues identified at the Council retreat. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the citizens who spoke to the Council about the p6tanque courts and said she may come down on Wednesday to play with the ladies. She thanked Maria Montolvo for her article in the Beacon about Off Leash Area Edmonds. A sculptor has been selected for the K-9 statute in the Veteran's Plaza; a rendering is available on the Off Leash Facebook page. They have raised $8,000, the amount needed. She wished Harve Harrison rest in peace. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reports she had the opportunity to observe the Hekinan students having a great time playing p6tanque yesterday. She attended the Police Foundation open house and saw the drone, noting it was used recently on a case. Councilmember Nelson reported he and his family attended the Police Foundation open house. He commented it was great to see the closeness the community and citizens have with the Police Department and vice versa. He was happy to meet K-9 Officer Hobbs in a relaxed setting and to chat with the men and women who serve the community. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 39 CD 0 w 0 E c.� c d E z U 2 a 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Bruce White (amount undetermined). Staff Lead: Linda Hynd Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Linda Hynd Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Narrative Bruce White 11724 80th Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98034 (amount undetermined) Attachments: White Claim for Damages —Redacted Packet Pg. 40 CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Please take note that &U6f. IrV4(TE- A 1l IEe�,��!t�� fi[Ia� mailing address 4.4.a Date Claim Form ived by City Re 1-I4 who currently resides at - / 172 1/ dO AW A L-- ,&X (rvA- 1 TO u- home phone # y.',) W-/ 4T 2 'c�i+�k phone # , and who resided at at the time of the occucrepce and whosQ 5 date of birth is claiming damages against *e P FL i AJ in the sum of $ aD re"rm� sing out of the following circumstances listed below. Ci* pF- DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 0 % 2 J TIME: 114111 LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: I 7 �] vy `"' 5 740 Z� DESCRIPTION: (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. -- AP f k rci _ Gh i/Q/li /k SDI _7 pl w �cbr tzq;i cBS - 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair, 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: Yes k No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * License Plate # % 61-7 S & Driver License # MENNEN__ Type Auto: ?- d 1 to L 6LiALt oft) (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: C OWNER: Address: I-'? { 40 4V N£, Address: 0 33 Phone#: �] 2 S Phone#: Passengers: Name: P141NV 1 Name: Address: I6ylq .2. a/ 111) Address: Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 41 RECEMD/`�01 4.4.a AUG 20% OTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED EDMONDS CITY CLM I. &uct W �A ✓ , 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 di closure pursuant to JRCW 42.56. X 91 State of Washingt n r County of✓if7�u4r+��� Signature of Claimant(s) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ►We-e " is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 8 - V- a 016, Signature 61e✓ �0 N� �� �o k Title �•y�' N% My appointment expires: 7 - 2 c - 2,0 !Q { #p�NR Y � Pua�' y � orw Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 42 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Approval of claim checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #221204 through #221350 dated August 11, 2016 for $1,072,325.01. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Financial Impact Claims $1,072,325.01 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 08-11-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-11-16 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 1 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221204 8/11/2016 075717 5 CORNERS PLUMBING LLC BLD20161007 REFUND OF OVERCHARGE ON PLI REFUND OF OVERCHARGE ON PLI 001.000.257.620 90.0( Total: 90.0( 221205 8/11/2016 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 371387 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 82.3: 371448 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 137.2E Total: 219.6( 221206 8/11/2016 065568 ALLWATER INC 080516021 WWTP: 8/5/16 DRINKING WATER S 8/5/16 Water services (plus 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 26.Z Total: 26Z 221207 8/11/2016 073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL 1305925 PS - PEST CONTROL BI/MO MAINT PS - Pest Control Bi/Mo Maint 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.7( Total: 108.7( 221208 8/11/2016 001528 AM TEST INC 93749 WWTP: ICP+MERCURY SCANS ICP+MERCURY SCANS 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 75.0( Total: 75.0( 221209 8/11/2016 070976 AMERESCO INC 5 WWTP: PROJECT C457 PH 4 ENEF ECM Mechanical & Owner CO#01 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 79,685.9' Retainage - Pymt #5 423.100.223.400 -3.628.6£ Page: 1 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221209 8/11/2016 070976 AMERESCO INC 221210 221211 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 5 FINAL 8/11/2016 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 11502 PO # Description/Account WWTP: PROJ. C457 PH 4 ENERGY Basic Services--Audit/ESP, Design, 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 Basic Services --Construction Mgmt & 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 9.8% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 9.8% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 Total SPRAY PARK NOZZLE, ORING, SCF SPRAY PARK NOZZLE, ORING, SCF 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 8/11/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988618521 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.5.a Page: 2 Amoun N 10,735.9E t 3,312.0z 1,052.1, u 4- 0 324.5E 5 91,481.9, L a Q. Q 313.8E LO 30.7( 344.6, r 0 0 N 2.6E E 10.01 .� 10.01 c m E 10.0 u r r 10.01 Q 10.1( 0.2( N• Page: 2 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221211 8/11/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.9E N 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 a� 0.9� 9.8% Sales Tax E 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.9E 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.9E o 1988710732 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS o L 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 24.9( a 9.8% Sales Tax Q 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.4z N 1988721340 WWTP: 8/3/16 UNIFORMS, TOWEL; U*) wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.1( co wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 110.9E r 9.8% Sales Tax o 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.5( Y 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.8E . 1988721341 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE ; 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.7: 1988725311 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: t U 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' r Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 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. 46 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221211 8/11/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 221212 8/11/2016 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' w PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 a� 6.0£ 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1E 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6( o 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6( 0- 9.8% Sales Tax a 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6( Q 9.8% Sales Tax N 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6( u' 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.5£ m 1988725312 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS r 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 6.4( o FLEET DIVISION MATS N 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 17.3, 9.8% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.6< 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 c 1.7( m Total: 331.11 E U 43144 ROUGH BOX-THOMAS Q ROUGH BOX-THOMAS 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 460.0( 44805 ROUGH BOX -RAY ROUGH BOX -RAY 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 460.0( Total: 920.0( Page: 4 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221213 8/11/2016 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 10785 221214 8/11/2016 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON 21087 TAEKWON-DO 21091 TAEKWON-DO 221215 8/11/2016 012005 BALLAND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2O15-196 221216 8/11/2016 071348 BERGERABAM 221217 8/11/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 2015-197 315583 9459 PO # Description/Account 2016 SERVICE AWARD 2x 20 YEAR SERVICE AWARDS 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 1x PLATE FOR OWN PLAQUE W/EN 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 Total 21087 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOl' 21087 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOl' 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 21091 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOl' 21091 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOl' 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total INV 2015-196 EDMONDS PD - PRE I PRE -EMPLOY EXAM - MATTHEWS 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 INV 2015-197 PRE -EMPLOY EXAM - PRE -EMPLOY EXAM - POLAND 8/3/ 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Total E4MB.SERVICES THRU 7/15/16 E4MB.Services thru 7/15/16 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total FLEET AUTO PROPANE 650 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 650 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Total 4.5.a Page: 5 Page: 5 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 6 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221218 8/11/2016 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 12112 E4FB.SERVICES THRU JULY 2016 E4FB.Services thru July 2016 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 1,289.0( Y 12115 E5GA/E5JA/E4GB.SERVICES THRU ESGA.Services thru July 2016 t 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 14,882.4( ESJA.Services thru July 2016 •@ 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 5,080.8� u E4GB.Services thru July 2016 0 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 13,080.9: 12118 E6FB.SERVICES THRU JULY 2016 0 E6FB.Services thru July 2016 a 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 4,496.0( Q Total : 38,829.21 N 221219 8/11/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR 19458 INV#19458 - EDMONDS PD - VARIO S/S SHIRT - FALK m 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 59.0( 7 L/S SHIRT - LIM r 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 128.0( c S/S CONTEMPORY SHIRT - LIM N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 164.0( o EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRT - FAL E 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 8.0( c° EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRTS - LI 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.0( y UNIFORM PANTS - BARD E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.0( U UNIFORM PANTS - LIM r 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.0( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 6.5 1 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 57.1; Total: 713.7( Page: 6 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 7 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221220 8/11/2016 075280 BYRUM, RICHARD 5/3-7/28 SR SB LIMP 5/3-7/28/16 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMf 5/3-7/28/16 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMf 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 800.0( Total: 800.0( 221221 8/11/2016 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 21054 ART CAMP 21054 ART CAMP INSTRUCTION 21054 ART CAMP INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 582.0( Total: 582.0( 221222 8/11/2016 075092 CASCADE BICYCLE CLUB ED FNDN 40089 E3DC.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2016 E3DC.Services thru June 2016 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 1,471.6( Total: 1,471.6( 221223 8/11/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC 9433654629 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 143.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 14.0( Total: 157.5E 221224 8/11/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN07161024 HELIUM TANK RENTAL GYMNASTIC HELIUM TANK RENTAL GYMNASTIC 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 12.7E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 1.2E RN07161025 WWTP: 7/31/16 CYLINDER RENTAL 7/31/16 nitrogen, oxygen, carbon 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 64.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.2 1 Total: 84.2 , 221225 8/11/2016 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E4GB.ENG20160238 E4GB.ENG20160238 ROW PERMIT E4GB.ENG20160238 ROW Permit Page: 7 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 8 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221225 8/11/2016 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS (Continued) 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 295.0( Total: 295.0( 221226 8/11/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 12386 INV#12386 CUST #47 - EDMONDS F PRISONER R&B FOR MAY 2016 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 230.0( Total: 230.0( 221227 8/11/2016 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP: 5/10-7/8/16 FLOW METER 2 5/10 - 7/8/16 WWTP: FLOW METER 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 15.3z Total: 15.31 221228 8/11/2016 074255 COAL CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC 120902-14 WWTP: 5/22-7/30/16 TASK ORDER 5/22 - 7/30/16 Task Orders 1-5 - 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,467.4: Total: 1.467.41 221229 8/11/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW289443 PM: ECOGREEN TWL PM: ECOGREEN TWL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 NW2883613-1 PM: 2 GL TANK SPRAYER PM: 2 GL TANK SPRAYER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 NW2894837-2 PM: DISNF CLEANER PM: DISNF CLEANER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 221230 8/11/2016 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 53893 EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONI Page: 8 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 9 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221230 8/11/2016 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO (Continued) EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONI 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 704.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 69.0z Tota I : 773.51 221231 8/11/2016 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC AUG-16 C/ACITYOFED00001 Aug-16 Fiber Optics Internet Connect 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.1( Total: 406.1( 221232 8/11/2016 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JULY 2016 DRY CLEANING JUNE-JULY 2016-El CLEANING/LAUNDRY JUNE/JULY'1 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 428.6, Total: 428.6, 221233 8/11/2016 073423 CREATIVE SERVICES OF D16-11725 INV#D16-11725 - EDMONDS PD 3,000 JUNIOR OFFICER BADGE-- 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 229.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 19.9E Total: 248.9E 221234 8/11/2016 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3312037 ESGA.INVITATION TO BID ESGA.Invitation to Bid 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 518.7( 3316079 BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD IN D. Business recruitment ads in DJC July 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 800.0( Total: 1,318.7( 221235 8/11/2016 074444 DATAQUEST LLC CIEDMONDS-20160731 INV CIEDMONDS-20160731 EDMON CREDIT CHECK - BRUGGMAN 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.0( Total: 20.0( Page: 9 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 10 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221236 8/11/2016 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2017-WAR045513 STORMWATER PERMIT #WAR0455 Stormwater Permit #WAR045513Cod 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 29,793.0E 2017-WAR303846 E1CA.STORMWATER CONSTRUCTi El CA.Stormwater Construction Perm 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 630.0( 2017-WAR304120 E3DD.STORMWATER CONSTRUCT E3DD.Stormwater Construction Perm 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 630.0( Total: 31,053.0E 221237 8/11/2016 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2016070048 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for July 2016 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,231.4( Total: 1,231.4( 221238 8/11/2016 007253 DUNN LUMBER 4123298 PM: PLYWOOD, LUMBER PM: PLYWOOD, LUMBER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 259.7( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.4E Tota I : 285.2' 221239 8/11/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 64300 WWTP: NON-CLOR BRK PTS CLN NON-CLOR BRK PTS CLN 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 47.8E 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.6� Total: 52.5 , 221240 8/11/2016 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 08082016 REIMBURSEMENT OF LTAC FUNDS Reimbursement of award from LTAC i 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 2,500.0( Total: 2,500.0( 221241 8/11/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001706 PM: HOME DEF KILLER, PLIERS, P/ Page: 10 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 221241 8/11/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC (Continued) 221242 8/11/2016 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 221243 8/11/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 221244 8/11/2016 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 221245 8/11/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 001707 001712 2016-08-01 8-40000 21012 DANCE EDH644839 EDH713544 PO # Description/Account PM: HOME DEF KILLER, PLIERS, P/ 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: HMP MARINE TEX RAPID SET PM: HMP MARINE TEX RAPID SET 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: HM FOUNTAIN REPAIR PM: HM FOUNTAIN REPAIR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 08/16 RECREATION SERVICES COP 08/16 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 Total HICKMAN PARK STORM DRAIN & U HICKMAN PARK STORM DRAIN & U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total 21012 FRIDAY NIGHT DANCE 21012 FRIDAY NIGHT DANCE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total E3DB.INVTATION TO BID (CANCELL E3DB.Invitation to Bid (Cancelled but 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 CITY NOTICES PUBLIC HEARING 4.5.a Page: 11 Page: 11 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 12 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221245 8/11/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD (Continued) CITY NOTICES- 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 116.9( Total: 223.6( 221246 8/11/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU40664 PM: 3/8 X 3 1/2 HX LAG S/S PM: 3/8 X 3 1/2 HX LAG S/S 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.2z 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.0£ WAMOU40688 FISHING PIER CABLE & PARTS FISHING PIER CABLE & PARTS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,006.1( 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 98.6( WAMOU40725 PM: S/S FW 1/4X5/8, 1/4-20X 1/2 HC PM: S/S FW 1/4X5/8, 1/4-20X 1/2 HC 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.9( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.8 1 WAMOU40825 WWTP: NEMESIS & AB -NYLON INS 1 NEMESIS & 80 AB -NYLON INSER- 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 34.4 , 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.3£ Total: 1,175.7( 221247 8/11/2016 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 260.9z TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY Ai 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 260.9: 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.9, 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHOI` Page: 12 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 13 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221247 8/11/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHOI` _ 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 91.6' vi PARKS MAINT IP LINE (10 + TAX) U 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.9£ t 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI U E LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.2E 6 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( o SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.9( o 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI L Q- LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC Q 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.2� N 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 m Total: 892.2E 221248 8/11/2016 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 005721914 1NV#005721914 ACCT1 00 1074529 E r o0 CORPORAL CHEVRON COLLAR PIP 0 N 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 7.0( cYi 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 0.6£ c° Total: 7.65 c 221249 8/11/2016 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 20993 TAEKWON-DO 20993 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOP E 20993 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOP U 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 170.0( Total: 170.0( Q 221250 8/11/2016 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC 4463 WATER - 5 CORNERS - REBUILD Al. Water - 5 Corners - Rebuild Altitude 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 11,279.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 1,105.3z Page: 13 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 14 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221250 8/11/2016 011210 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC (Continued) Total: 12,384.31 221251 8/11/2016 072001 GOOD EYE DESIGN 201617 PA BROCH PA BROCH 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 332.5( Total : 332.5( 221252 8/11/2016 072515 GOOGLE INC 3361388272 BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908 Google Apps - Jul-2016 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.0( Total: 31.0( 221253 8/11/2016 012199 GRAINGER 9184674522 PM: CAUTION TAG, BULLDOG CLIP PM: CAUTION TAG, BULLDOG CLIP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 85.4 1 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.3£ 9184674530 PM: SUMP PUMP PM: SUMP PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 309.6( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.3z Total: 433.7$ 221254 8/11/2016 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 986443960 WWTP: NEWARK ELEMENT 14 77K7813 Newark Element 14 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 91.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8.9. Total: 99.91 221255 8/11/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY 10035401 WWTP: ROSOLICACID,PETRI DISF ROSOLIC ACID, PETRI DISH, WHIR 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 902.3' Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 52.7 1 Page: 14 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 15 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221255 8/11/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 93.5� 10047612 WWTP: HACH395434 PARTNERSHI HACH395434 PARTNERSHIP RENE' 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,482.1 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 243.2z Total: 3,774.0° 221256 8/11/2016 070437 HARDIE, MARYANN 5.16.16 2016 TERM 5- TUITION REIMBURSE 2016 Term 5- Tuition reimbursement 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 518.0( Total: 518.0( 221257 8/11/2016 068499 HARDWICK, ALAN 07-16 HARDWICK EXPENSE CLAIM FOR DEPT PHOT( 15 - 11X20 PHOTOS FOR DEPT HAL 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 114.8' Total: 114.8' 221258 8/11/2016 074164 HARDY, JOHN 5/3-7/30 SR SB LIMP 5/3-7/30/16 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMf 5/3-7/30/16 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMf 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 1,377.0( Total: 1,377.0( 221259 8/11/2016 074814 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 32058 E3DB.SERVICES THRU 6/30/16 E3DB.Services thru 6/30/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 2,213.8� Total: 2,213.8� 221260 8/11/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3595274/80303 WWTP: SOAP/WELLNESS EVENT: WELLNESS EVENT SUPPLIES FOR 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 13.1 < Soap Supplies - picked up at Seattle 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 37.9z 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 15 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 221260 8/11/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total : 221261 8/11/2016 075119 HOPE, SHANE Ju12016 MILEAGE REIMBURSMENT- SHANE MILEAGE REIMBURSMENT- SHANE 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 Total 221262 8/11/2016 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 26643 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 4/23/16 E4JB.Services thru 4/23/16 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 26795 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 6/27/16 E3FH.Services thru 6/27/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Total 221263 8/11/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2833406 RIBBONS FOR CALCULATORS Industrias Kores Nylon Ribbon - 6 ea 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2833960 MINUTE BOOK & PAGES MINUTE BOOKAND MINUTE REFILI 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 2834092 LYSOL DISINFECTING WIPES Lysol Disinfecting Wipes - 3 pk 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2835565 OFFICE SUPPLIES- DSD Office Supplies- DSD 4.5.a Page: 16 Page: 16 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 17 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221263 8/11/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 38.7z _ Total: 368.1; 0 221264 8/11/2016 068712 INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES LLC E4GB.Pmt 1 E4GB.PMT 1 THRU 7/30/16 w t E4GB.Pmt 1 thru 7/30/16 423.200.75.594.35.65.00 401,989.8E .� E4GB.Ret 1 423.200.223.400 -18,305.5E c Total: 383,684.X 221265 8/11/2016 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 906-612495 FLEET -TRACTOR CREEPER SEAT a Fleet -Tractor Creeper Seat for Shop Q- Q 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 142.4� 9.8% Sales Tax LO 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 13.9( 906-613411 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES .. Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 239.4, r 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 23.4( N Total: 419.3: E 221266 8/11/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10010575 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES M Fleet Shop Supplies 0 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 95.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.3E t 300-10010637 UNIT 4 - SHOP SUPPLIES U Unit 4 - Shop Supplies r Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 246.1' 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 24.1, Total: 374.9E 221267 8/11/2016 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 201026868 07-16 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SE Page: 17 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 18 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221267 8/11/2016 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN (Continued) Jul-2016 Off site data storage service 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 171.0E Total: 171.0E 221268 8/11/2016 069366 ISSAQUAH HONDA KUBOTA 639641 CEMETERY DECK PIN, ROLLER, BL CEMETERY DECK PIN, ROLLER, BL 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 750.4< 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 71.Z Total: 821.7, 221269 8/11/2016 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 4078 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC Aug-16 Fiber Optics Internet Connect 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 49.0( Total: 549.0( 221270 8/11/2016 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 696569 WWTP: 8/8/16 HYPOCHLORITE SOI 8/8/16 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,981.3' Total: 3,981.3' 221271 8/11/2016 075279 JOHNSON, RONALD 5/3-7/30 SR SB LIMP 5/3-7/30/16 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMf 5/3-7/30/16 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMf 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 200.0( Total: 200.0( 221272 8/11/2016 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC 21172 KINDERMUSIK 21172 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTIOP 21172 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTIOP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 191.4( 21178 KINDERMUSIK 21178 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTIOP 21178 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTIOP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 287.1' 21181 KINDERMUSIK 21181 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTIOP Page: 18 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 19 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221272 8/11/2016 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC (Continued) 21181 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTIOP _ 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 159.5( 6 Total: 638.0' u a� t 221273 8/11/2016 070255 KAR-GOR INC K1071610 TRAFFIC - 4 CAMERA & SUPPLIES Traffic - 4 Camera & Supplies E 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 M 2,000.0( 6 9.8% Sales Tax c 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 196.0( Total: 2,196.0( p L Q 221274 8/11/2016 067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC ESGA.Pmt 1 ESGA.PMT 1 THRU 7/31/16 Q ESGA.Pmt 1 thru 7/31/16 423.200.75.594.35.65.00 138,479.8' ESGA.Ret 1 423.200.223.400 -6,306.0( Total: w 132,173.8: 221275 8/11/2016 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300051118 INV#300051118 ACCT#100828 - EDP 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPEF 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 N 234.7( HANDLING FEE E 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 55.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.0( Total: 312.7( t 221276 8/11/2016 066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC 1633 UNIT E109PO - CONSOLE U a Unit E109PO - Console r Q 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 78.7: Total: 78.7' 221277 8/11/2016 066585 KINNEY, DON JULY 2016 EXPENSE CLAIM - CAR RENTAL FC CAR RENTAL - OKLAHOMA BACKGI 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 147.1: Page: 19 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 20 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221277 8/11/2016 066585 066585 KINNEY, DON (Continued) Total: 147.1: 221278 8/11/2016 016600 KROESENS INC 33657 INV#33657 ACCT#1320 - EDMONDS MOTORCYCLE HELMET BADGE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 103.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.12 Total : 113.6� 221279 8/11/2016 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 06102016-01B CITY CAR WASHES City Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.02 06102016-03 CITY CAR WASHES City Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.0z 07052016-03 CITY CAR WASHES City Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.0z 09082015-01 B CITY CAR WASHES City Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.0� Total : 20.1E 221280 8/11/2016 070120 L E A D S.ONLINE INC 237307 INV#237307 CUST#EDWAPD - EDM 1 YR SEARCH SERVICE PKG-RENE 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,428.0( Total : 1,428.0( 221281 8/11/2016 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 37503 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 7/2/16 E3FH.Services thru 7/2/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 879.0( Total : 879.0( 221282 8/11/2016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4487711 INV#4487711 ACCT#2185-952778-8' SHRED 3 TOTES @ $4.56 7/27/16 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 13.9E Page: 20 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 21 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221282 8/11/2016 075016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING (Continued) Total: 13.9'. 221283 8/11/2016 075492 LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 1631826 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO FIX Professional Services to fix 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,125.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 110.2E Total: 1,235.2E 221284 8/11/2016 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 964200 PM: FUEL, PRO HEA PM: FUEL, PRO HEA 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.1' 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.9: Total: 44.0E 221285 8/11/2016 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 723396-00 TRAFFIC CONTROL - SUPPLIES Traffic Control - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 71.3� 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.0( Total: 78.3$ 221286 8/11/2016 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 16728 SCANNING- STREET FILES SCANNING- STREET FILES 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,959.2' Total: 1,959.2' 221287 8/11/2016 073504 MIKE EVANS CMDV 538511 UNIT 62 - HONDA 6000 WAT GENEF Unit 62 - Honda 6000 WAT Generatoi 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 3,900.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 382.2( Total: 4,282.2( 221288 8/11/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 241497 STREET - REPLACEMENT SPOOL 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 21 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 22 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221288 8/11/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC (Continued) 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 2.1 E Street - Replacement Spool vi 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 21.9( 241904 PM: TRIMMER HEAD, BLADES t PM: TRIMMER HEAD, BLADES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 66.8£ 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.5E o Total: 97.41 16- 0 221289 8/11/2016 074979 MITEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC 99143028 TELEPHONE SYSTEM ANNUAL MAI a Telephone system annual maintenan( Q• Q 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 431.7E Telephone system annual maintenacE � 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,017.5( 9.8% Sales Tax m 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 142.0z Total: 1,591.2$ r 221290 8/11/2016 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC 09783 07-16 NETGUARD MONTHLY SERVI ob NetGuard Monthly Service Building N 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 36.0( E NetGuard Monthly Service City Clerk M 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Communit c 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 6.0( E NetGuard Monthly Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 U 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Developm, r Q 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Engineerir 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 84.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 42.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Finance Page: 22 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 23 Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221290 8/11/2016 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC (Continued) 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 6.0( _ NetGuard Monthly Service Human Re vi 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 6.0( U NetGuard Monthly Service Informatioi t 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 60.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Mayor's O M 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 6.0( 6 NetGuard Monthly Service Parks o 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 12.0( 5 NetGuard Monthly Service Police L 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 222.0( a NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water Q 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 30.0( N NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water 'n 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 3.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water w 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 3.0( IL NetGuard Monthly Service PW Sewei r 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 30.0( o NetGuard Monthly Service PW Storm Y 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street E 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 c 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin E 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.1( um NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin r Q 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.6( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.1( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 0.6( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin Page: 23 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221290 8/11/2016 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 0.6( _ NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street vi 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street t 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service WWTP M 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 30.0( 6 Total: 642.0( o 221291 8/11/2016 075277 MONSON, JAMES 5/3-7/28 SR SB UMP 5/3-7/28/16 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMf > 0 5/3-7/28/16 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMf a 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 525.0( Q Total: 525.0( N 221292 8/11/2016 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1605 -14 WATER SUPPLY OPERATION EVALI Water Supply Operation Evaluation .. 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,171.5( 14-1605-13 WATER SUPPLY OPERATION EVLA r Water Supply Operation Evlautaion 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 873.6( N Total: 2,045.1( E 221293 8/11/2016 075608 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER INC 5988 NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY COMP M Completion of National Citizen Surve) 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 4,360.0( Total: 4,360.0( 221294 8/11/2016 067912 NATL TACTICAL OFFICERS ASSOC 205 INV#205 - EDMONDS PD (NO SOUK t U HOSTAGE RESCUE TRAINING (SW, r Q 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 26,093.2( Total: 26,093.2( 221295 8/11/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 13 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR1 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR1 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 812.5( Page: 24 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 25 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221295 8/11/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING (Continued) WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING GR 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 906.2E Total: 1,718.7E 221296 8/11/2016 063034 NCL 376310 WWTP: CELITE AGENT, BOD STAN Lab supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 471.1 E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 28.3( Total: 499.5' 221297 8/11/2016 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1032963 UNITS E118PR, E119PR - FLATBED; Units E118PR, E119PR - Flatbeds, 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 22,921.6, 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 2,246.3, Total: 25,167.91 221298 8/11/2016 070319 NORTHWEST ASSESSMENT SVCS 1654 INV 1654 - CRITICAL INCIDENT DEE CRITICAL INCIDENT DEBRIEF FOLL 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 175.0( Total: 175.0( 221299 8/11/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 674460 INV#674460 ACCT#520437 250POL- KLEENEX TISSUES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 40.6' POST IT NOTES 5X2 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.8( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.11 Total: 57.5E 221300 8/11/2016 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-323705 FLEET RETURNS Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -79.01 Page: 25 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 26 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221300 8/11/2016 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -7.5' 2-349559 UNIT 455 - RACK & PINION Unit 455 - Rack & Pinion 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 557.4: 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 54.6: 2-350522 FLEET RETURNS g Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -137.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -13.4£ Total: 374.5: 221301 8/11/2016 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2, 338.1, 0060860 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/ HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/ 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 98.7, Total: 2,436.81 221302 8/11/2016 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 22789 YOST CHEMICALS YOST POOL SUPPLIES: 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 225.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.1( Total: 247.6( 221303 8/11/2016 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00080531 UNIT 47 - RUBBER GASKETS Unit 47 - Rubber Gaskets 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 42.3, Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.9( 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 26 Packet Pg. 69 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 27 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221303 8/11/2016 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.3( Total: 70.51 221304 8/11/2016 075715 PACER SERVICE CENTER 4043774-Q12016 COURT RECORDS COURT RECORDS 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 27.4( Total : 27.4( 221305 8/11/2016 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 19005088 UNIT 335 - BATTERY Unit 335 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 118.8z Core Fee 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.4' Total: 150.2E 221306 8/11/2016 075535 PCM SALES INC 0168699718 WWTP: WIRELESS MOUSE+DUAL I WIRELESS MOUSE+DUAL LIFT STP 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 200.3E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 27.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 22.2E Total: 249.6: 221307 8/11/2016 069633 PET PROS 0014164-IN INV#0014164-IN - EDMONDS PD - H NU HI ENDURANCE CHICHEN -HOE 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 89.9E 9.9% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 8.9' Total: 98.8$ 221308 8/11/2016 074793 PETDATA INC 5218 INV#5218 - EDMONDS PD - JULY 2a 14 1-YR PET LICENSES @ $3.90 Page: 27 Packet Pg. 70 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 28 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221308 8/11/2016 074793 PETDATA INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 54.6( 1 REPLACEMENT TAG @ $3.90 _ vi 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3.9( U 5 LATE FEES @ $2.50 t 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 12.5( U Total: 71.0( c� 221309 8/11/2016 008350 PETTY CASH 8/5 PARKS PETTY CASH 8/5/16 PARKS PETTY CASH o RANKINS; DOLLAR TREE: SAND SC @ 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 13.1 1 p COLLEY: FRED MEYER: DTF FROG a 00 1.000.64.571.23.3 1.00 6.5E Q MCRAE: WALMART: SOAP FOR RO 00 1.000.64.571.22.3 1.00 1Z � COLLEY: WALMART: STATION SUR 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 9.6E m DEARN-TARPLEY: GMART: CAMP S 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 13.3, r COLLEY: FRED MEYER PAPER BAC 00 0 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 2.0, N STEELE-SMITH: JO-ANN: CRAFT St cYi 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 46.5E E RANKINS: AL-AZADI: RUG FOR CAP c° 001.000.64.571.26.31.00 45.0( ; Total: 139.51 y E 221310 8/11/2016 008475 PETTY CASH 081016 WELLNESS COMMITTEE - PRESEN U WELLNESS COMMITTEE - PRESEN r 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 r 37.9' Q PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 43.7E FAC MAINT - MILEAGE 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 14.4. STREET - PHOTO DEV 111.000.68.542.31.49.00 41.7 , Page: 28 Packet Pg. 71 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor 221310 8/11/2016 008475 PETTY CASH 221311 8/11/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 221312 221313 8/11/2016 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) J949585 21200 LEGO CAMPS 21201 LEGO CAMPS 8/11/2016 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 281333 4.5.a Page: 29 PO # Description/Account Amoun WATER - CAKE - RETIREMENT LIN[ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 50.9E Y WATER - PARTS SVC'D 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 a� 125.0( WATER - BOOT ALLOWANCE BALA E 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 10.4: SEWER - CDL REIMB T HARRIS 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 102.0( o Total: 426.2$ > 0 WWTP: TYN HELAFLEX & HWP a TYN HELAFLEX & HWP Q' Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 187.2E 9.8% Sales Tax � 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 18.3E le Total : 205.6( m 21200 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION r 21200 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION o0 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,340.0( 0 N 21201 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION Y 21201 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION E 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,820.0( .m Total: 4,160.0( c INV#281333 - EDMONDS PD m t TSR X26P CLASS III TASERS 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 4,553.7E r PERFORMANCE POWER MAGAZIN Q 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 55.1 E EXTENDED PERFORMANCE MAG 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 257.0z X26P LEFT HAND HOLSTER 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 154.5( X26P RIGHT HAND HOLSTER Page: 29 Packet Pg. 72 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 30 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221313 8/11/2016 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT (Continued) 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 103.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 502.M Total: 5,625.5, 221314 8/11/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2422756 ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIE ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 202.0: 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 51.1' Tota I : 253.1 221315 8/11/2016 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 21037 FELDENKRAIS 21037 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 21037 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 435.0( Total: 435.0( 221316 8/11/2016 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-3049 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,767.5( Total: 3,767.5( 221317 8/11/2016 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 1606089 E3FE/E6FA.SERVICES THRU 6/3/16 E3FE.Services thru 6/3/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 830.4, E6FA.Services thru 6/3/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 2,491.2E Total: 3,321.E , 221318 8/11/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 151.3( 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 30.M Page: 30 Packet Pg. 73 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 31 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221318 8/11/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 114.3z vi PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 a� 114.3z PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 114.3z PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 114.3z o PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 114.3< o 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : a FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 160.8 1 N 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 'n CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.5. w Total: 983.41 r 221319 8/11/2016 075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC E7AC/E2AD.Pmt 13 E7AC/E2AD.PMT 13 THRU 7/31/16 0 E7AC.Pmt 13 thru 7/31/16 Y 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 105,870.3: E2AD.Pmt 13 thru 7/31/16 E 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 1,218.3 , Total: 107,088.7( ; c 221320 8/11/2016 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-009683 UNIT 129 - BATTERY m E Unit 129 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 U 116.9E 9.8% Sales Tax r Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.4( 5-009778 UNIT 451 - BATTERY Unit 451 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 85.4z 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.3 1 Page: 31 Packet Pg. 74 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221320 8/11/2016 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 221321 8/11/2016 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 221322 8/11/2016 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 5-009913 UNIT 31 - 30SI Unit 31 - 30SI 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5-009979 UNIT EQ96PO - BATTERY Unit EQ96PO - Battery 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Units 681, 447 - Batteries 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 CROA219285 FLEET OVERPAYMENT INV 5-0077C Fleet overpayment Inv 5-007706 Che 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total: 36750 CRAZE FALL PRINTING CRAZE FALL PRINTING 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 CRAZE FALL PRINTING 117.100.64.573.20.41.40 JULY 2016 221323 8/11/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-1002210 Total INVOICE DATED 7/31/16 ACCT#700 #194227 - 2 NPC - 7/1/16 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 #192140 - 8 NPC - 7/21/16 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 Total UNIT 28 - FILTER KIT, SUPPLIES Unit 28 - Filter Kit, Supplies 4.5.a Page: 32 Page: 32 Packet Pg. 75 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221323 8/11/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 33 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 71.4 1 9.8% Sales Tax vi 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.0( 0 S3-960721 UNIT 454 -- RINGS t Unit 454 -- Rings 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 131.2E •= 9.8% Sales Tax 6 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.8( o S3-962084 UNIT 452 - COOLING BLOWER Unit 452 - Cooling Blower L 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 46.1' 0- 9.8% Sales Tax Q' Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.5, N S3-963400 UNIT 131 -THERMOSTAT U*) Unit 131 - Thermostat 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.6: m 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.3z r S3-964240 UNIT 454 - PARKING BRAKE SHOE 00 0 Unit 454 - Parking Brake Shoe Y 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.9E 9.8% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.2E 5 S3-965497 UNIT 105 - TENSION PULLEY ; Unit 105 - Tension Pulley y 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 53.3E E 9.8% Sales Tax U 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.Z r Q S3-966026 UNIT 49 - OIL, FILTER Unit 49 - Oil, Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 67.9: 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.6E S3-970142 UNIT 88 -FUEL FILTER Page: 33 Packet Pg. 76 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221323 8/11/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 34 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Unit 88 - Fuel Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.2( Y 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 a� 0.3. S3-970517 UNIT 7 - BATTERY, SUPPLIES E Unit 7 - Battery,Supplies pp 'ca 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 206.7( 6 9.8% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.2( S3-971148 UNIT 453 - TRANS OIL o Unit 453 - Trans Oil L a Q. 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 98.1( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 N 9.6, S3-971858 UNIT 88 - FILTER Unit 88 - Filter m 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.1( 9.8% Sales Tax r 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.0� o S3-974640 LINT 7 - TRANS FLUID N Unt 7 - Trans Fluid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 41.8E . 9.8% Sales Tax c° 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.1( ; S3-975970 FLEET RETURNS m Fleet Returns E 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 t -108.9E u 9.8% Sales Tax r Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -10.6f S3-976390 UNIT 29 - VALVE SUPPLIES Unit 29 - Valve Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.8 1 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.4,e Page: 34 Packet Pg. 77 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 35 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221323 8/11/2016 066964 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued) Total: 750.6i 221324 8/11/2016 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 16-3912 STORM - OVERHAUL KIT Storm - Overhaul Kit 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 180.5E 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 17.7( 16-4281 CEMETERY: OIL SEAL KIT, 4 NOZZI CEMETERY: OIL SEAL KIT, 4 NOZZI 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 84.7( 9.8% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 8.3' Total: 291.2E 221325 8/11/2016 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 3670-0 PM: MR FRAME, MINI RL, ROL CLE/ PM: MR FRAME, MINI RL, ROL CLE) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.0E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.8 0 Total: 20.9E 221326 8/11/2016 074086 SIGNON 3547 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 170.0( Total: 170.0( 221327 8/11/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0203245-IN UNIT E109PO - CONSOLE, ARMRE: Unit E109PO - Console, Armrest 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 444.6( Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 16.8( 0203353-IN UNIT 42 - AMBER DOME Unit 42 - Amber Dome 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 57.6( 0203431-IN UNIT 25 - AMBER L10 HIGH DOME Unit 25 - Amber L10 High Dome Page: 35 Packet Pg. 78 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 36 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221327 8/11/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 393.6( 0203519-IN UNIT EQ96PO - BLUE, RED ION LE[ Unit EQ96PO - Blue, Red Ion LED Li( 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 191.9£ Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10.0E 0203771-IN UNIT 959 - BLUE LENS Unit 959 - Blue Lens 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.0( Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.1' 0203773-IN UNIT E109PO - CUP HOLDER, FILL[ Unit E109PO - Cup Holder, Filler 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 135.2z Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 17.6: Total: 1,303.61 221328 8/11/2016 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0776487 FLOWER PROGRAM PERENNIALS FLOWER PROGRAM PERENNIALS 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 122.9' 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 11.6£ Total: 134.55 221329 8/11/2016 060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/ 29519039 FLEET - COIL ADAPTER Fleet - Coil Adapter 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 32.9� Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 14.9E 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 4.7( Tota I : 52. & 221330 8/11/2016 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1 16-111 Q2-16 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE Page: 36 Packet Pg. 79 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221330 8/11/2016 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 221331 8/11/2016 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 1535 221332 8/11/2016 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS 221333 8/11/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 1536 CR000028 1000409913 2001-2487-3 2003-2646-0 2005-9488-5 2006-5085-1 2011-0356-1 PO # Description/Account Q2-16 Ambulance billings & postage 001.000.39.522.70.41.00 Total REIMBURSEMENT FOR SOUND ME REIMBURSEMENT FOR SOUND ME 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXP REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXP 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total OVERPAYMENT ON ACCOUNT Overpayment on Account 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 E5CA/E6CA.SERVICES THRU MAY ESCA.Services thru May 2016 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 E6CA.Services thru May 2016 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Total TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI 4.5.a Page: 37 Page: 37 Packet Pg. 80 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221333 8/11/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 38 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 37.3 , w 2011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W t 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 25.4( 2013-2711-1 PINE ST PARK PINE ST PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.6( o 2013-8327-0 CITY PARK GAZEBO CITY PARK GAZEBO p L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.7: 0- 2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F Q' Q LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 N 17.6 1 LO 2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING CEMETERY BUILDING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 99.1( 2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA r TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA 00 0 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 28.2: Y 2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 29.7: 2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ ; STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 m 743.1 , E 2017-6210-1 415 5TH AVE S U 415 5TH AVE S r 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 24.9� Q 2021-1448-4 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.1: 2021-6153-5 CEMETERY WELL PUMP CEMETERY WELL PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 349.3 Page: 38 Packet Pg. 81 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221333 8/11/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 39 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- _ PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212' vi 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 16.2� 0 2022-5063-5 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M t 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.6E 2023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W p 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.8 1 2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ L STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ a 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3,036.3� Q 2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 ul 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 120.4, 2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C m STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15,058.4, r 2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 c STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 Y 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 360.9� V 2025-7952-0 WWTP: 7/1-7/31/16 ENERGY MGMT E 7/1-7/31/16 WWTP ENERGY MANAC f° 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.4, .. 2042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST m E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 78.3' U 2044-6743-5 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA r HAZEL MILLER PLAZA Q 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 45.2E 2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 4.8z 2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 Page: 39 Packet Pg. 82 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 40 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221333 8/11/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 107.6' 2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 Y STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 56.7' t 2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 E STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 14.4: 6 2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 p STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 195.6E p 2051-8438-5 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV a LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / IV Q' Q 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 25.6 , 2053-0758-0 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING � DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 119.E 1 2207-9275-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME r 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 128.3' c Total: 20,950.4( u) 221334 8/11/2016 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 68811 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES E PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES c� 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,198.0( CODE ENFORCEMENT DUMP FEE: c 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 44.0( E Total: 1,242.0( u a 221335 8/11/2016 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER July 2016 Crime Victims Court Remittance r Q Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 631.9, Law Library Remittance 001.000.237.140 7.9: Justice - Superior Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 8.5: Page: 40 Packet Pg. 83 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 41 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221335 8/11/2016 070167 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER (Continued) Total: 648.4, 221336 8/11/2016 075495 SOFTWARE ONE US-PSI-501656 ADOBE ACROBAT PROFESSIONAL vi Adobe Acrobat Professional DC Y 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 306.4z 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 30.0< .E Total: 336.41 221337 8/11/2016 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC 1160730-3 WATER SUPPLY PROJECT 7/23-7/3, 4- WATER SUPPLY PROJECT 7/23-7/3, > 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5,040.0( a Total: 5,040.0( O 221338 8/11/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N le 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.6E = 103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( tO 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.Z 103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,152.4 1 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.8E 0M Total: 3,392.71 Q 221339 8/11/2016 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 2824571 BIRD NETTING, AZAMAX, SOAP BIRD NETTING, AZAMAX, SOAP 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 343.8( 9.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 31.2� Page: 41 Packet Pg. 84 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221339 8/11/2016 040250 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 221340 8/11/2016 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 20920 BEACH CAMP 20928 BEACH CAMP PO # Description/Account Total 20920 BEACH CAMP 20920 BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 20928 BEACH CAMP SLEEPOVER 20928 BEACH CAMP SLEEPOVER 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total 221341 8/11/2016 071827 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC BO 1356474 OUTDOOR MOVIES 2016 OUTDOOR MOVIES 2016 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 OUTDOOR MOVIES 2016 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 Total: 221342 8/11/2016 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53022 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEU 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US53294 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISI ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISI 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US53301 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. ANDE ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANC[ 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US53869 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC C ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC C 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 4.5.a Page: 42 Amoun 375.0$ N 13,588.0( E 10,732.5( TU 24,320.5( o 0 a 315.0( O 350.0( � 665.0( m 351.3 , 0 34.4< E 1,247.1: c 122.2, t U r 1,134.0' Q 111.1< 1,148.5z Page: 42 Packet Pg. 85 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 43 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221342 8/11/2016 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 112.5( 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: 4,563.1' 221343 8/11/2016 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-164779 WATER - ZERO CONSUMPTION AL) Water - Zero Consumption Alarm fron 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,000.0( Total: 1,000.0( 221344 8/11/2016 074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 20933 UK ELITE 20933 UK ELITE SOCCER 20933 UK ELITE SOCCER 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,772.0( Total: 2,772.0( 221345 8/11/2016 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WF 0678366-WA FACILITIES PRE-EMP. DT FACILITIES -MAINTENANCE PRE-EK 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 64.0( Total: 64.0( 221346 8/11/2016 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 117000694 INV#I17000694 EDM301 - EDMOND: BACKGROUND CHECKS - JULY 201 001.000.237.100 226.5( Total: 226.5( 221347 8/11/2016 075718 WEIS COMMUNICATIONS 4804 HOME OCCUPATION BUSINESS RE Home occupation research services e 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,781.4( Total: 2,781.4E 221348 8/11/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7120 COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS O 4-CASES OF X-9000 COPY PAPER 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 137.3( Page: 43 Packet Pg. 86 vchlist 08/11 /2016 9:37:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.5.a Page: 44 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 221348 8/11/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax _ 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 13.4( vi Total: 150.8; U w t 221349 8/11/2016 064213 WSSUATREASURER 392 JULY SOFTBALL OFFICIALS JULY SOFTBALL OFFICIALS E 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2 2,765.0( U Total: 2,765.0( c 221350 8/11/2016 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR JULY 2016 YAKIMA JULY INMATE HOUSING IN YAKIMA > JULY HOUSING - 3 INMATES - 67 D) o a 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 3,668.2E Q Total: 3,668.2E .. 147 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : N LO 1,072,325.0' 147 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,072,325.0' m r O O N Y V E V a+ C d E L V R r r Q Page: 44 Packet Pg. 87 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC a) v STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC E STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA o SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC > 0 SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA Q. a STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB Q WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB CN WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 v STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC o rn WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC y WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB E WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA ? 0 SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA d WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 m rn STIR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD >, STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB y 0 WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 L STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC LL STIR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD r STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB a� v STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA Q STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STIR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STIR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STIR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STIR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 88 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) 4.5.b Funding Project Title Protect Engineering Accounting Project Number Number WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 89 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project 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 STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA STIR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STIR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STIR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STIR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STIR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/l06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STIR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STIR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA ui U m t v E 2 U 0 0 L a a N u0 Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 90 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STIR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STIR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E21FA 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 STIR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STIR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STIR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S 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-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STIR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E41FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 91 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System y STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming y t STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program v E WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis p L STM E51FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects Q STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects Q STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) LO STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E51FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study o WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications y WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects j_ 3 WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) Z O WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating d FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers m N UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates STIR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program 3 a WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays L u_ SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan v ca STM E61FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive Q STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update WTR E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 92 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 93 4.5.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 E21FA 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 E3J13 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 E4J13 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 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 94 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study y STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project y t STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program v E STM E51FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects O WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects p L STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System Q STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming Q STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) LO WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers o General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis y STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility E PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza Z O WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications d WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) m N STM E51FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements 3 a SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II L u_ STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays E STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program v ca WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays Q SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STM E61FA iol 1 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 95 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 96 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM 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 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E61FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE 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-1 05th/1 06th 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 Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 97 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W 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 ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB 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 E1 DA 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 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide Cl PP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates 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 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 98 4.5.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 8/10/2016 Packet Pg. 99 4.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation No action needed; informational only. Narrative Presentation will be given for the June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report at the 9/6/16 meeting. Attachments: June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report Packet Pg. 100 C. z M N 0 o� 0 C D M �o r vo C v 0 M D �o mn z D z 0 D r X M MU O 70 0 O mn M v O z v 00 0 Attachment: June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report (1446 : June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report) 0 ►�-Tt I 4.6.a I Page I of I C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received 001 GENERAL FUND $ 39,276,670 $ 18,922,673 $ 20,334,355 $ 18,942,315 520 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 278,770 139,484 139,584 139,186 500 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 6,660 4,285 4,200 2,460 630 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 28,110 22,594 7,283 20,827 260 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 234 233 (233) 00 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,000 3 2,526 2,474 510 C. 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,005,000 237,914 591,195 1,413,805 d 290 OC 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 153,000 11,276 68,661 84,339 450 v 111 STREET FUND 1,760,500 907,722 989,658 770,842 560, 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1 8,314,697 805,704 3,779,444 4,535,253 450 LL 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 102,410 37,748 29,531 72,879 i 299CD 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 110 74 74 36 670, ca 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 82,150 30,743 34,503 47,648 420 CY 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 21,390 8,598 8,119 13,271 380 cp 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 5,550 189 71 5,479 1° N 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 27,530 10,402 11,649 15,881 420 _ 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2 1,108,000 531,403 625,801 482,199 560 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 2 1,102,000 530,078 626,412 475,588 570 W 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 46,900 34,538 28,386 18,514 610 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 280 159 158 122 570 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 177,260 96,753 94,494 82,766 530 Q. 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTIONFUND3 2,552,240 131,214 1,079,454 1,472,786 d 420, 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 630 631 628 2 1000 v 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 19,880 12,091 12,086 7,794 610 C 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 12,010 3,611 5,772 6,238 480, LL 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 682,500 339,276 350,193 332,307 51° L 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 48,443 51,256 (51,256) d 00 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 9,718 773 13,627 50, 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 14,400 - - 14,400 00 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 677,380 75,464 70,301 607,079 100 N 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 949,540 9,201 936,429 13,111 990 C 7 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 12,880 83,251 (83,251) 00 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 4 8,443,460 3,260,676 4,041,301 4,402,159 480 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,131,780 2,043,886 1,946,923 2,184,857 47° 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 5 12,645,240 4,368,878 5,321,028 7,324,212 420, 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,900 337,210 667,446 1,322,454 r 340 Q 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,579,570 803,646 831,427 748,143 530 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 64,840 56,725 57,418 7,422 890, $ 88,279,757 $ 33,846,124 $ 42,832,027 $ 45,447,730 490,, 1 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to grant invoicing for various projects in 2016. 2 Real Estate Excise Tax revenues for both funds 125 and 126 is up a total of $185,110 from 2015. 3 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to a SnoCo grant, parks dona tionA and park impact fees 4 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is largely due to a substantial water connection fee and the 9%increase to water base rates 5 Differences are due to increases in invoicing and sewer connection fees in 2016, as well as a 9.5%increase to sewer base rates 1 Packet Pg. 102 I 4.6.a I Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 6 $ 40,929,107 $ 19,452,503 $ 19,669,418 $ 21,259,689 480/( 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 279,480 138,255 126,411 153,069 450/( 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - - 00/( 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 7 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 111 STREET FUND 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 9 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 132 PARKS CONSTRUCT ION FUND 9 136 PARKSTRUST FUND 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 6 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 800,000 400,000 800,000 00/c 5,400 3,750 - 5,400 0°/ 2,175,000 96,369 757,714 1,417,286 350/( 0 76,030 18,256 27,780 48,250 370/( 1,716,120 826,372 947,462 768,658 55% 8,327,792 900,067 2,394,938 5,932,854 290/( C 181,380 27,036 25,274 156,106 140/( LL - - - - 00/( �+ i 149,650 25,294 26,145 123,505 170/( 26,880 - - 26,880 00/( 3,000 1,341 835 2,165 280/( �p 31,500 5,501 9,543 21,957 300/( N 2,100,565 113,403 258,888 1,841,677 120/, C 2,595,320 28,845 498,915 2,096,405 190/( 44,950 12,631 33,140 11,810 740/( �p - - - - 0"/ 210,370 74,803 77,712 132,658 370/( 2,775,770 223,266 584,177 2,191,593 210/c 00. - - - - d 0% 12,500 10 2,636 9,864 210/( 682,500 367,211 350,193 332,307 5101( - 25,924 14,219 (14,219) C 00/( 14,400 - - 14,400 0% i d to 677,380 75,517 70,301 607,079 100/( Cy 949,540 9,201 936,429 13,111 990/( cfl 12,717,507 3,322,813 3,656,305 9,061,202 290/( N 7,613,450 1,315,116 1,557,839 6,055,611 200/( 7 17,921,050 4,187,306 4,202,354 13,718,696 230/( 1,990,920 358,261 667,442 1,323,478 340/( 1,971,820 584,355 928,227 1,043,593 47% 59,610 24,782 21,351 38,259 360/( $ 107,038,991 $ 32,618,187 $ 37,845,648 $ 69,193,343 r r� 350/t Q 6 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to final payment of 2014 debt. 7 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. 8 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to invoices for construction projects in 2016. 9 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to purchase of Civic Field in 2016. 2 Packet Pg. 103 1 4.6.a Page 1 of 3 C PIY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX $ 10,068,020 $ 5,309,480 $ 5,343,422 $ 4,724,598 53% EMS PROPERTY TAX10 3,688,090 1,802,797 1,955,463 1,732,627 53% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 949,540 492,243 504,076 445,464 53% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 11 6,144,400 3,140,830 3,295,015 2,849,385 54% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,800 3,743 3,365 6,435 34% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 626,700 305,477 327,165 299,535 52% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,451,800 871,282 913,790 538,010 63% GASUTILITYTAX 647,900 413,611 385,669 262,231 60% S SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 306,500 157,023 162,220 144,280 53% O WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 1,229,110 493,120 540,263 688,847 44% y SEWER UTFLIT YTAX 629,140 282,765 311,566 317,574 50% STORMWATERUTFLIT Y TAX 330,430 157,184 164,329 166,101 50% �p T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 846,000 423,940 425,407 420,593 50% t� TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,349,100 664,312 633,125 715,975 47% PULLTABS TAX 60,600 24,272 25,643 34,957 42% AMUSEMENT GAMES 40 - 141 (101) 351% LL LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 242,200 121,178 126,667 115,533 52% i 28,579,370 14,663,255 15,117,325 13,462,045 53% CD LICENSES AND PERNUTS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 250 215 190 60 76% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 - 200 100 67% PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI 630 - - 630 0% AMUSEMENTS 4,740 4,325 - 4,740 0% N FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 710,600 353,509 358,427 352,173 50% d FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 44,900 23,684 21,148 23,752 47% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER 100,900 49,706 50,705 50,195 50% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK 18,400 9,091 8,172 10,228 44% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 268,000 134,672 138,558 129,442 52% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 116,000 88,922 76,241 39,759 66% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 42,000 23,090 26,515 15,485 63% " NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 70,400 27,850 42,900 27,500 61% C RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 15,000 5,388 44,623 (29,623) 297% Q. BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 12 525,000 310,690 402,155 122,846 77% W ANIMAL LICENSES 38,800 15,135 9,792 29,008 25% ea STREET AND CURB PERMIT 42,100 12,757 21,432 20,668 51% OTR NON -BUS LIC/PERMITS 13,100 6,715 8,987 4,113 69% _ 2,011,120 1,065,749 1,210,044 801,076 60% C INTERGOVERNMENTAL: M FEDERAL GRANT S-BUDGET ONLY - - - - 0% �+ DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 11,970 1,472 6,920 5,050 58% y USDA FOREST SERVICE - - - - 0%' ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 3,000 - - 0% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II 6,000 5,250 - 6,000 0% WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - - 995 (995) 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 5,287 2,273 5,227 30% o HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 - 2,663 337 89% M DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - - 614 (614) 0% C WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT 300 300 - 300 0% 2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT - 1,000 - - 0% +; WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT - - 251,859 (251,859) 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 192,500 - - 192,500 0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 10,000 5,215 5,441 4,559 54% t JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -SPATE 13,000 8,189 9,150 3,850 70% CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 36,980 19,160 19,893 17,087 54% +�'+ DUI - CITIES 7,240 3,512 3,166 4,074 44% Q LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 65,200 44,733 96,625 (31,425) 148% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 357,800 175,055 174,541 183,259 49% MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE 13 - - 75,757 (75,757) 0% INTERLOCAL GRANTS 383,330 - - 383,330 0% VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 2,000 2,000 (2,000) 0% 1,094,820 274,174 651,896 442,924 60% 10 2016 EMS Property Taxrevenues are $152,666 higher than 2015 revenues. 11 2016 Local Retail Sales/Use Taxrevenues are $154,185 higher than 2015 revenues. Please also see pages 18 & 19. 12 2016 Building Structure Permits are $91,464 higher than 2015 revenues. 13 Difference between 2015 and 2016 revenues is due to funds received for closure of ESCA in 2016. 3 Packet Pg. 104 4.6.a Page 2 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 2,000 1,120 1,251 750 63% ATM SURCHARGE FEES 250 67 86 164 34% COURT RECORD SERVICES - - - - 0% D/M COURT REC SER 50 7 7 43 13% SHARED COURT COSTS - - - - 0% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 400 270 284 116 71% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 - - 100 0% CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,100 25,100 0% _ BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 600 - - 600 0% t' PHOTOCOPIES 2,000 1,111 540 1,460 27% 00. POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 2,179 1,772 2,228 44% d ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 180,350 108,952 139,289 41,061 77% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES - - - - 0% SNO-ISLE 58,000 29,757 33,996 24,004 59% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 15,000 10,085 11,100 3,900 74% C POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 1,365 8,757 17,243 34% Li OCDETF OVERTIME - - - - 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 12,300 3,782 2,873 9,427 23% i WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 39,500 20,030 20,907 18,593 53% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 - - 1,500 0% to DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 300 230 - 300 0% FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FORDUI - - 31 (31) 0% �p FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 45,000 27,223 28,234 16,766 63% G LEGAL SERVICES - - 159 (159) 0% N ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 31,359 36,610 23,390 61% C BOOKINGFEES 6,000 3,397 2,081 3,919 35% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 8,000 11,293 14,119 (6,119) 176% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 15,000 5,587 4,460 10,540 30% �p EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 14 822,100 407,087 487,513 334,587 59% Iq CRIM CONV FEE CT - - - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CN - - - - 0%+ FIBER SERVICES 9,200 4,590 6,095 3,105 66% 0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,200 3,600 3,600 3,600 50% y FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 1,800 993 876 925 49% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,000 1,556 184 5,817 3% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 75,000 47,198 47,321 27,679 63% PLAN CHECKING FEES 425,000 259,285 231,123 193,877 54% to FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 3,000 5,265 6,255 (3,255) 209% E PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,250 750 1,740 (490) 139% U- S.E.P.A. REVIEW 7,000 5,715 1,220 5,780 17% i CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 9,920 10,590 4,410 71% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,000 4,747 5,560 4,440 56% �p SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES - - - - 0% Cy GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES 7,800 4,109 6,578 1,222 84% LOCKER FEES - - - - 0% SWIM CLASS FEES - - - - 0% N PROGRAM FEES 861,700 497,941 596,167 265,533 69% 0 TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 19,130 75,715 881 18,249 5% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM - - - - 0% WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 5,000 - 25 4,975 1% C BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 950 180 190 760 20% d INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 2,964,600 422,095 1,107,179 1,857,421 37% E 5,743,180 2,008,559 2,819,651 2,923,529 49% V 14 2016 EMS Transport User Fees are $80,426 higher than 2015 revenues. 4 ca Q Packet Pg. 105 1 4.6.a Page 3 of 3 C TTY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND FO RFEITURES : PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 8,000 3,497 3,632 4,368 45% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,000 15,950 99,153 (74,153) 397% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 260,000 149,533 31,109 228,891 12% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 24,600 12,653 10,353 14,247 42% SPEEDING DOUBLE - - - - 0% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,300 902 38,628 (37,328) 2971% OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 1,000 316 1,068 (68) 107% P ARKING INFRACT ION P ENALT IES 43,000 22,980 12,645 30,355 29% PR -HANDICAPPED - - - - 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 1,300 1,064 1,820 (520) 140% DWI PENALTIES 6,000 2,476 14,581 (8,581) 243% DUI - DP ACCT 2,500 1,408 1,420 1,080 57% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 300 292 274 26 91% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN - - - - 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 15,996 16,805 16,195 51% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 1,900 1,221 1,396 504 73% CRIM CONV FEE CT 2,300 1,019 962 1,338 42% OT HER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 130 91 - 130 0% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 9,000 6,445 4,659 4,341 52% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 900 522 283 617 31% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 1,900 914 939 961 49% CRIM CONV FEE CN 900 316 267 633 30% CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENTS 60,000 31,836 15,430 44,570 26% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 33,000 15,457 12,823 20,177 39% BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT - - 2,935 (2,935) 0% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 256 65 35 65% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 5,000 12,810 10,050 (5,050) 201% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 720 240 760 24% 522,130 2989675 281,536 240,594 54U/U MISCELLANEOUS : INVESTMENT INTEREST 38,600 15,772 24,758 13,842 64% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 5,700 1,728 3,332 2,368 58% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 2,868 2,697 2,303 54% PARKING 14,000 7,786 7,899 6,101 56% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 128,000 53,925 65,334 62,666 51% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 2,120 3,160 1,840 63% LEASESLONG-TERM 218,100 88,218 90,087 128,013 41% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 50,000 1,969 2,769 47,231 6% OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES 4,500 3,300 1,800 2,700 40% DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 5,000 - - 5,000 0% PARKSDONATIONS 9,500 9,282 4,250 5,250 45% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 1,200 700 250 74% 125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS - 1,700 - - 0% VOLUNT EER P ICNIC CONT RIBUT IONS - - 1,201 (1,201) 0% POLICE CONT RIBUT IONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 - 324 (174) 216% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 896 4,770 (2,770) 239% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0% OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT 2,000 58 3,801 (1,801) 190% POLICE JUDGMENT SIREST IT UT ION 200 10 276 (76) 138% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - (87) 161 (161) 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 1,000 8,376 6,439 (5,439) 644% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 20 16 34 33% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 30 - 120 0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 330 174 140 190 42% FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 0% US BANK REBATE 6,000 1,829 4,153 1,847 69% 500,210 2019174 228,068 272,142 46% TRANSFERS -IN: PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT - - - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 800,000 400,000 - 800,000 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 25,840 11,088 25,835 5 100% 825,840 411,088 25,835 800,005 3% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 39,276,670 $18,922,673 $ 20,334,355 $18,942,315 52% O a d OC R C t0 C LL i d cv O Cl m O N d C 7 c0 O Q d <0 C to C LL L d R 7 Cy 0 N O C 7 C d E t V M r Q 5 Packet Pg. 106 I 4.6.a I Page 1 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 14,010,590 $ 6,343,286 $ 6,703,094 $ 7,307,496 48% OVERTIME 423,510 240,823 232,475 191,035 55% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 217,790 1,543 2,349 215,441 1% BENEFITS 5,356,460 2,355,934 2,543,636 2,812,824 47% UNIFORMS 89,290 42,017 43,398 45,892 49% SUPPLIES 393,950 176,111 161,232 232,718 41% SMALL EQUIPMENT 155,480 81,268 57,399 98,081 37% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,600,403 879,502 1,294,297 2,306,106 36% COMMUNICATIONS 211,890 76,661 74,771 137,119 35% TRAVEL 46,210 20,056 15,499 30,711 34% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 - 1,699 4,801 26% ADVERTISING - 1,546 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 916,390 456,373 456,537 459,853 50% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% UTILITIES 457,800 201,261 201,160 256,640 44% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 425,530 230,990 123,090 302,440 29% MISCELLANEOUS 400,094 175,977 210,608 189,486 53% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 10,384,010 7,116,666 5,246,967 5,137,043 51% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2,909,320 526,556 1,739,021 1,170,299 60% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 14,777 - 40,000 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 168,300 - 168,300 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - 0% OTHER DEBT - 33 - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 46,150 27,460 23,454 22,696 51% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 40,929,107 19,452,503 19,669,418 21,259,689 48% LEO FF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS CONTINGENCY RESERVEFUND (012) INTERFUND LOAN INTERFUND SUBSIDIES HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 178,720 $ 89,604 $ 80,462 $ 98,258 45% 100,480 48,376 43,491 56,989 43% - - 1,286 (1,286) 0% - - 447 (447) 0% 280 275 725 (445) 259% 279,480 138,255 126,411 153,069 45% 0% $ - $ - $ $ - 0% 800,000 400,000 800,000 0% 800,000 400,000 800,000 0% $ 100 $ - $ $ 100 0% 200 3,750 200 0% 5,100 - 5,100 0% 5,400 3,750 5,400 0% $ - $ 1,834 $ 1,756 $ (1,756) 0% 80,000 79,741 161,272 (81,272) 202% 2,062,000 14,487 35,390 2,026,610 2% - - 546 (546) 0% 33,000 307 169,691 (136,691) 514% - - 389,059 (389,059) 0% $ 2,175,000 96,369 757,714 1,417,286 35% $ 3,000 $ 785 $ 647 $ 2,353 22% 5,000 - - 5,000 0% 2,230 1,069 877 1,354 39% 800 - - 800 0% 20,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25% 45,000 11,402 21,257 23,743 47% 76,030 18,256 27,780 48,250 37% O Q. d R C co C LL i d O CJ co O N d c 7 co qq st O d C O C LL L d co O Cl co 0 N O C O r-� C d E t V ca Q 6 Packet Pg. 107 4.6.a Page 2 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 515,160 $ 272,252 $ 291,347 $ 223,813 57% OVERTIME 18,400 7,428 10,757 7,643 58% BENEFITS 265,870 135,865 149,949 115,921 56% UNIFORMS 6,000 4,927 3,745 2,255 62% SUPPLIES 240,000 62,821 167,167 72,833 70% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 9,243 545 25,455 2% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 5,006 4,146 9,904 30% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 2,011 1,850 1,650 53% TRAVEL 1,000 300 - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 190,950 94,725 94,581 96,369 50% INSURANCE 87,620 81,386 97,912 (10,292) 112% UTILITIES 270,170 124,057 113,801 156,369 42% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 14,248 8,470 36,530 19% MISCELLANEOUS 24,250 1,349 1,430 22,820 6% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 - 896 2,104 30% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,420 - 3,420 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERIVCE COSTS - - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,730 925 865 865 50% $ 1,716,120 $ 826,372 $ 947,462 $ 768,658 55% COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,850,420 $ 393,387 $ 654,883 $ 1,195,537 35% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 358,240 40,956 40,908 317,332 11% LAND 438,000 82,247 132,896 305,104 30% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,605,502 307,832 1,490,654 4,114,848 27% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 100% INTEREST 3,410 3,444 3,396 14 100% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - - 0% $ 8,327,792 $ 900,067 $ 2,394,938 $ 5,932,854 29% MUNICH'AL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS $ 4,400 $ 520 $ 132 $ 4,268 3% 1,500 - 150 1,350 10% 166,500 24,943 22,232 144,268 13% 80 - 11 70 13% - - - - 0% 2,000 - 2,000 0% 300 - - 300 0% 6,600 1,573 2,750 3,850 42% $ 181,380 S 27,036 $ 25,274 $ 156,106 14% $ 77,500 $ 23,212 $ 24,080 $ 53,420 31% - - - - 0% 8,150 82 65 8,085 1% 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 50% 60,000 - - 60,000 0% $ 149,650 $ 25,294 $ 26,145 $ 123,505 170% $ 1,790 $ - $ $ 1,790 0% 25,090 25,090 0% $ 26,880 $ $ $ 26,880 0% $ 3,000 $ 1,341 $ 835 $ 2,165 28% $ 3,000 $ 1,341 $ 835 $ 2,165 28% $ 28,300 $ 4,228 $ 8,282 $ 20,018 29% - - - - 0% 3,200 1,273 1,260 1,940 39% $ 31,500 $ 5,501 $ 9,543 $ 21,957 30% O a d OC i0 Z C t0 C M i d cv O CJ m 0 N d C co O lZ d <0 C cC C LL L d R 7 CJ O O N O C 7 C d E t 0 M Q 7 Packet Pg. 108 I 4.6.a I Page 3 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 30,508 $ 42,366 $ (21,366) 202% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 186,788 77,199 47,575 139,213 25% RENTAL/LEASE - - 2,790 (2,790) 0% UTILITIES - - - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 140,000 5,696 12,605 127,395 9% MISCELLANEOUS - - 181 (181) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,752,777 153,371 1,599,406 9% REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC (126) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OTHER DEBT & DEBT SERVICE COST S INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CEWEIERY MAINTENANCE%IMPRO VEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 2,100,565 $ 113,403 $ 258,888 $ 1,841,677 12% O $ 212,050 $ $ $ 212,050 0% CD - 1,200 - - 0% W 139,430 18,263 17,213 122,218 12% W 692,180 4,000 476,669 215,511 69% 1,521,700 - - 1,521,700 0% 19,890 - 19,890 0% C - - - - 0% LL 10,070 5,382 5,033 5,037 50% �+ $ 2,595,320 $ 28,845 $ 498,915 $ 2,096,405 19% d $ 13,110 $ 1,271 $ 1,005 $ 12,105 8% 7 6,000 273 6,300 (300) 105% Cy 25,840 11,088 25,835 5 100% $ 44,950 $ 12,631 $ 33,140 $ 11,810 74% N d $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% r- $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ 108,410 $ 39,267 $ 40,451 $ 67,959 37% 3,500 1,388 963 2,537 28% 44,500 16,595 17,524 26,976 39% 1,000 197 - 1,000 0%' 7,000 1,286 745 6,255 11% 0 CL 20,000 7,238 9,096 10,904 45% � 4,200 719 594 3,607 14% 1 1,410 729 499 911 35% 5 500 - - 500 0% _ - - - - 0% 11,550 4,992 5,775 5,775 50% LL 3,800 434 300 3,500 8% >% 500 - - 500 0% C 4,000 1,958 1,765 2,235 44% $ 210,370 $ 74,803 $ 77,712 $ 132,658 37% 7 Cy $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 225,000 41,931 30,809 194,191 14% C 500,000 - 475,710 24,291 95% N 2,050,770 177,136 77,659 1,973,111 4% C - 4,200 - - 0% 7 $ 2,775,770 $ 223,266 $ 584,177 $ 21191,593 21% r-� C $ 2,000 $ - $ 98 $ 1,902 5% 4,500 - 2,515 1,985 56% t 6,000 10 23 5,977 0% $ 12,500 $ 10 $ 2,636 $ 9,864 21% Q $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 100% 680,000 364,711 347,693 332,307 51% $ 682,500 $ 367,211 $ 350,193 $ 332,307 51% 8 Packet Pg. 109 I 4.6.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent BUSINESS EMPROVEVIENTDISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES $ - $ 14,726 $ 789 $ (789) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 11,164 12,536 (12,536) 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 35 894 (894) 0% - 25,924 14,219 (14,219) 0% LID FUND C O NTRO L (211) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 14,400 $ - $ $ 14,400 0% $ 14,400 $ - $ $ 14,400 0% $ 536,270 $ - $ - $ 536,270 0% 140,610 75,464 70,301 70,309 50% 500 54 - 500 0% $ 677,380 $ 75,517 $ 70,301 $ 607,079 10% $ 933,210 $ - $ 933,208 $ 2 100% 16,330 9,201 3,221 13,109 20% $ 949,540 $ 9,201 $ 936,429 $ 13,111 99% $ 795,220 $ 364,575 $ 387,645 $ 407,575 49% 24,000 9,072 11,046 12,954 46% 372,550 164,407 181,285 191,265 49% 4,000 2,032 1,517 2,483 38% 151,000 78,804 52,790 98,210 35% 1,600,000 623,442 695,668 904,332 43% 143,000 71,827 48,285 94,715 34% 11,000 8,072 2,087 8,913 19% 1,793,286 315,687 532,814 1,260,472 30% 30,000 15,832 14,523 15,477 48% 200 - - 200 0% 340,000 155,645 189,240 150,760 56% 100,750 47,697 49,367 51,383 49% 58,920 70,904 52,335 6,585 89% 40,000 11,607 11,502 28,498 29% 17,000 16,612 5,328 11,672 31% 70,450 37,227 34,332 36,118 49% 30,000 16,173 18,423 11,577 61% 1,229,110 493,120 540,263 688,847 44% 731,220 119,415 219,326 511,894 30% 15,000 9,828 - 15,000 0% 4,551,921 511,166 453,681 4,098,240 10% 2,300 - - 2,300 0% 323,870 - - 323,870 0% 25,840 45,839 25,839 1 100% 256,870 133,799 129,008 127,862 50% - - - - 0% - 31 - 0% - - - - 0% $ 12,717,507 $ 3,322,813 $ 3,656,305 $ 9,061,202 29% O Q. d R C co C LL i d ca CJ co 0 N d C 7 co qq st O d 2 U C cc C LL L d R 7 Cy 0 N O C 7 C O t v O Q 9 Packet Pg. 110 I 4.6.a I Page 5 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent S TO RM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 640,470 $ 229,709 $ 263,505 $ 376,965 41% OVERTIME 6,000 7,374 6,750 (750) 113% BENEFITS 313,950 113,241 130,472 183,478 42% UNIFORMS 6,500 4,611 5,210 1,290 80% SUPPLIES 46,500 20,988 10,382 36,118 22% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 787 23 3,977 1% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,638,530 347,573 414,875 2,223,655 16% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 1,611 1,276 1,924 40% .� TRAVEL 4,300 - 300 4,000 7% t' EXCISE TAXES 55,000 35,155 27,043 27,957 49% 0 RENTAL/LEASE 252,990 106,168 124,000 128,990 49% INSURANCE 64,120 39,269 63,187 933 99% UTILITES 10,500 4,451 4,691 5,809 45% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 8,576 2,266 10,734 17% MISCELLANEOUS 94,950 26,456 25,800 69,150 27% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 62,065 83,369 1,631 98% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 330,430 157,184 164,329 166,101 50% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 410,080 20,254 91,782 318,298 22% i LAND 25,000 - - 25,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - - 0% to CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,168,330 - 22,583 2,145,747 1% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 83,800 - - 83,800 0% �p REVENUE BONDS 158,300 - - 158,300 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,070 32,063 32,063 8 100% N INTEREST 166,430 87,739 83,932 82,498 50% C DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 15 - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - 0% �p SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS DEBT ISSUE COSTS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 7,613,450 $ 1,315,116 $ 1,557,839 $ 6,055,611 20% qq $ 1,721,530 $ 820,648 $ 857,530 $ 864,000 50%, 100,000 48,118 39,997 60,003 40% p 771,920 358,199 385,485 386,435 50% 9,500 5,659 4,717 4,783 50% 420,200 117,367 125,809 294,391 30% 90,000 29,588 21,000 69,000 23% 'V 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 46,000 13,835 19,596 26,404 43% C 1,954,696 562,955 735,582 1,219,114 38% M 43,000 21,014 19,231 23,769 45% �+ 5,000 - 1,097 3,903 22% y 150,000 67,152 96,745 53,255 64% 182,670 98,489 89,518 93,152 49% M 96,630 139,648 105,637 (9,007) 109% Cy 1,056,660 510,417 344,354 712,306 33% 325,000 178,455 139,778 185,222 43% o 105,450 29,978 28,195 77,255 27% C14 150,000 74,786 82,285 67,715 55% C 629,140 282,765 311,566 317,574 50% 2,563,949 312,301 518,760 2,045,189 20% +; - 25,251 - 0% 6,999,825 266,110 54,182 6,945,643 1% t 130,140 - 130,140 0% 72,840 - 72,840 0% 170,620 156,729 157,034 13,586 92% 122,280 64,747 61,299 60,981 50% Q - - - 0% - 3,093 2,955 (2,955) 0% - 0% $ 17,921,050 $ 4,187,306 $ 4,202,354 $ 13,718,696 23% $ 655,010 $ - $ $ 655,010 0% - - - 0% 1,334,910 337,208 667,442 667,468 50% 1,000 21,054 - 1,000 0% $ 1,990,920 $ 358,261 $ 667,442 $ 1,323,478 34% 10 Packet Pg. 111 I 4.6.a I Page 6 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 224,880 $ 103,968 $ 110,075 $ 114,805 49% OVERTIME 2,000 384 - 2,000 0% BENEFITS 105,050 47,363 48,651 56,399 46% UNIFORMS 1,000 815 600 400 60% SUPPLIES 110,000 48,481 46,214 63,786 42% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 308,200 58,319 55,716 252,484 18% SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 14,698 4,462 53,538 8% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 44,000 520 696 43,304 2% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,006 1,194 1,806 40% TRAVEL 1,000 2,935 1,000 - 100% RENTAL/LEASE 19,440 7,207 9,786 9,654 50% INSURANCE 29,560 40,605 29,967 (407) 101% UTILITIES 14,000 6,103 6,175 7,825 44% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 20,569 31,687 28,313 53% MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 3,834 6,711 479 93% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 - 249 2,251 10% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 981,000 227,547 575,043 405,957 59% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% $ 1,971,820 $ 584,355 $ 928,227 $ 1,043,593 47% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 30,940 $ 11,527 $ 9,024 $ 21,916 29% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 27,470 13,255 12,112 15,358 44% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - 214 986 18% S 59,610 $ 24,782 $ 21,351 $ 38,259 36% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 107,038,991 $ 32,618,187 $ 37,845,648 $ 69,193,343 35% O Q. d R C co C LL d O M C'J co O N d C 7 co 11 Packet Pg. 112 4.6.a Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDTTURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL $ 295,500 $ 107,828 $ 98,095 $ 197,405 33% OFFICE OF MAYOR 260,250 123,379 127,277 132,973 490/c HUMAN RESOURCES 462,044 177,419 175,479 286,565 380/c MUNICIPAL COURT 909,270 400,792 435,326 473,944 480/c CITY CLERK 585,310 285,114 281,026 304,284 480/, 00. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,839,930 818,119 717,364 1,122,566 d 390/, CITY ATTORNEY 741,560 329,666 347,078 394,482 470/c v C NON -DEPARTMENTAL 14,956,000 8,369,406 7,828,525 7,127,475 520/c POLICE SERVICES 9,628,550 4,329,129 4,596,670 5,031,880 480X COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV. 493,580 188,019 232,729 260,851 470/c d DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,656,652 1,059,255 1,183,128 1,473,524 450/c PARKS& RECREATION 3,774,541 1,528,030 1,609,632 2,164,909 430/c PUBLIC WORKS 2,842,120 1,041,687 1,339,534 1,502,586 470X N FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,483,800 694,660 697,556 786,244 470/c $ 40,929,107 $ 19,452,503 $ 19,669,418 $ 21,259,689 480/, co O Q. C ITY O F EDMO NDS 4) EXPENDITURES - U ITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY C 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount C Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent Li WATER UTILITY FUND $ 12,717,507 $ 3,322,813 $ 3,656,305 $ 9,061,202 29% STORM UTILITY FUND 7,613,450 1,315,116 1,557,839 6,055,611 200/ SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,921,050 4,187,306 4,202,354 13,718,696 3 23% BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 358,261 667,442 1,323,478 340X o $ 40,242,927 $ 9,183,496 $ 10,083,940 $ 30,158,987 250/( C 7 C O t v Q 12 Packet Pg. 113 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEr'AIL Title 2016 Amended Budget 6/30/2015 Expenditures 6/30/2016 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 119,100 $ 62,169 $ 51,510 $ 67,590 43% OVERTIME 1,000 - - 1,000 0% BENEFITS 88,550 36,893 40,257 48,293 45% SUPPLIES 2,000 467 885 1,115 44% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 832 - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47,160 5,062 1,432 45,728 3% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,501 1,501 1,500 50% TRAVEL 6,700 483 1,277 5,423 19% p RENTAL/LEASE 490 296 219 271 45% = REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 500 - 15 485 3% MISCELLANEOUS 27,000 125 1,000 26,000 4% $ 295,500 $ 107,828 $ 98,095 $ 197A05 33% C� OFFICEOFMAYOR to SALARIES $ 197,160 $ 97,937 $ 98,741 $ 98,419 50% BENEFITS 48,190 22,346 24,042 24,148 50% LL SUPPLIES 1,500 352 635 865 42% i SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 764 1,191 809 60% ca COMMUNICATION 1,400 200 599 801 43% TRAVEL 3,000 149 538 2,462 18% �p RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,098 720 1,680 30% G REPAIR/MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% N MISCELLANEOUS 4,600 533 813 3,787 18% $ 260,250 $ 123,379 $ 127,277 $ 132,973 49% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 226,880 $ 103,878 $ 107,092 $ 119,788 47% OVERTIME - - 43 (43) 0% eF BENEFITS 73,380 33,959 36,467 36,913 50% SUPPLIES 2,300 624 2,306 (6) 100%' SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - - 300 0% Q. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,000 39,894 24,266 89,734 21% d COMMUNICATIONS 700 476 485 215 69% TRAVEL 1,000 482 416 584 42% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% _ RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,098 646 1,554 29% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 7,850 7,793 - 7,850 0% LL MISCELLANEOUS 33,434 (10,786) 3,759 29,675 11% >% $ 462,044 $ 177,419 $ 175,479 $ 286,565 38% y MUNIC H'AL C O URT C SALARIES $ 566,190 $ 259,843 $ 282,245 $ 283,945 50% cc 7 OVERTIME 600 1,469 419 181 70% Cy BENEFITS 222,750 87,659 101,792 120,958 46% SUPPLIES 9,930 6,627 4,263 5,667 43% N SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 1,360 262 2,538 9% 0) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 32,067 35,884 28,116 56% COMMUNICATIONS 1,800 1,006 1,272 528 71% TRAVEL 2,500 2,413 1,040 1,460 42% ++ RENTAL/LEASE 800 172 467 333 58% d REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,700 585 794 906 47% E MISCELLANEOUS 36,200 7,591 6,886 29,314 19% 0 $ 909.270 $ 400.792 $ 435.326 $ 473,944 48% 2 r� Q 13 Packet Pg. 114 Page 2 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 324,480 $ 170,547 $ 172,246 $ 152,234 53% OVERTIME - 742 1,509 (1,509) 0% BENEFITS 129,300 59,308 63,634 65,666 49% SUPPLIES 10,240 3,373 2,626 7,614 26% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 420 610 (610) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,310 14,773 11,331 16,979 40% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 16,308 7,093 42,907 14% TRAVEL 1,000 423 - 1,000 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 10,019 8,337 11,663 42% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,980 7,096 10,448 7,532 58% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,105 3,193 807 80% $ 585,310 $ 285,114 $ 28L026 $ 304,284 48% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 892,390 $ 388,906 $ 410,852 $ 481,538 46% OVERTIME 6,670 1,192 1,308 5,362 20% BENEFITS 305,800 130,850 139,652 166,148 46% SUPPLIES 43,050 3,756 2,538 40,512 6% SMALL EQUIPMENT 110,650 46,301 28,760 81,890 26% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111,400 34,614 17,762 93,638 16% COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 22,216 26,068 35,432 42% TRAVEL 2,900 540 833 2,067 29% RENTAL/LEASE 8,200 6,487 3,555 4,645 43% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 242,680 144,126 34,479 208,201 14% MISCELLANEOUS 15 14,690 24,354 51,555 (36,865) 351% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 14,777 - 40,000 0% $ 1,839,930 $ 818,119 $ 717,364 $ 1,122,566 39% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 741,560 $ 329,666 $ 344,942 $ 396,618 47% MISCELLANEOUS - - 2,137 (2,137) 0% $ 741,560 $ 329,666 $ 347,078 $ 394,482 47% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 34,500 1,444 1,037 33,463 3% SUPPLIES 3,000 1,888 2,089 911 70% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 643,420 170,076 233,976 409,444 36% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 1,546 1,699 4,801 26% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 69,010 46,746 48,223 20,787 70% INTERGOVT SERVICES 10,302,760 7,106,394 5,236,693 5,066,067 51% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2,909,320 526,556 1,739,021 1,170,299 60% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 168,300 - - 168,300 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - - 0% OTHER DEBT - - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 46,150 27,460 23,454 22,696 51% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - - - - 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES 33 - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - 0% $ 14,956,000 $ 8,369,406 $ 7,828,525 $ 7,127,475 52% O a d OC R C c0 C IL i d cv 7 CJ co O N d C 7 c0 14 O Q d !Y TO C ca C iL A i d O O Ct 0 N O C 7 C d E t V M r Q 15 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to Microsoft Office Windows Software Renewal in 2016. 14 r- Packet Pg. 115 1 I 4.6.a I Page 3 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENTIN DETAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 5,778,330 $ 2,612,850 $ 2,812,687 $ 2,965,643 49% OVERTIME 396,240 229,070 211,860 184,380 53% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 217,790 1,543 2,349 215,441 1% BENEFITS 2,220,940 1,010,101 1,090,825 1,130,115 49% UNIFORMS 80,310 36,063 39,223 41,087 49% SUPPLIES 86,730 43,669 33,652 53,078 39% SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,400 8,800 16,103 4,297 79% .-. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117,170 44,860 45,981 71,189 39% COMMUNICATIONS 26,210 11,120 12,897 13,313 49% d TRAVEL 17,310 13,998 6,674 10,636 39% p� ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 595,100 286,660 294,955 300,145 50% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 14,620 4,665 6,065 8,555 41% MISCELLANEOUS 46,850 20,458 18,124 28,726 39% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10 550 5 272 5 274 5 276 50% U- $ 9,628,550 $ 4329,129 $ 4,596,670 $ 5,031,880 48% �' i COMMUNITY SERVIC ES/EC 0 N DEV. d SALARIES $ 224,960 $ 109,166 $ 112,969 $ 111,991 50% R BENEFITS 67,430 31,283 34,424 33,006 51% CY SUPPLIES 7,000 192 280 6,720 4% �p SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - 125 676 16% C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 180,400 41,872 82,038 98,362 45% N COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 454 486 1,004 33% C TRAVEL 2,000 179 - 2,000 0% ADVERTISING - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,098 955 1,045 48% CO REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - 500 0% IV MISCELLANEOUS 7,000 3,774 1,453 5,547 21% $ 493,580 $ 188,019 $ 232,729 $ 260,851 47% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES /PLANNING C Q SALARIES $ 1,444,230 $ 668,256 $ 718,769 $ 725,461 50% 4) OVERTIME 1,300 72 6,052 (4,752) 466% BENEFITS 534,670 236,997 261,658 273,012 49% UNIFORMS 500 - 500 0% V C SUPPLIES 16,100 7,492 6,513 9,587 40% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,250 4,338 2,745 2,505 52% 'LL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 571,442 80,990 145,991 425,451 26% >, COMMUNICATIONS 8,500 2,034 2,523 5,977 30% 6- TRAVEL 4,250 517 3,945 305 93% 'C ADVERTISING - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 24,750 18,211 10,699 14,051 43% Cy REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 6,800 3,395 1,177 5,623 17% MISCELLANEOUS 38,860 36,953 23,056 15,804 59% N $ 2,656,652 $ 1,059,255 $ 1,183,128 $ 1,473,524 45% ENGINEERING � SALARIES $ 1,373,500 $ 610,990 $ 624,922 $ 748,578 45% OVERTIME 5,000 796 2,890 2,110 58% BENEFITS 561,900 239,095 249,286 312,614 44% d UNIFORMS 360 - 360 0% E SUPPLIES 79 (79) 0% tl SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 1,952 248 89% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 465,000 252,650 212,350 54% Q COMMUNICATIONS 11,800 3,693 4,691 7,109 40% TRAVEL 600 296 304 49% RENTAL/LEASE 26,370 7,440 11,717 14,653 44% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 2,600 - 2,600 0% MISCELLANEOUS 21,000 5,427 12,630 8,370 60% $ 2,470,330 $ 867,442 $ 1,161,113 $ 1,309,217 47% 15 Packet Pg. 116 Page 4 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENTIN DETAIL 2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 1,830,090 $ 823,210 $ 861,110 $ 968,980 47% OVERTIME 10,000 5,696 4,928 5,072 49% BENEFITS 695,310 304,482 328,840 366,470 47% UNIFORMS 5,370 4,537 2,643 2,727 49% SUPPLIES 117,500 63,638 71,171 46,329 61% SMALL EQUIPMENT 9,080 9,205 6,645 2,435 73% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 514,341 84,567 96,739 417,602 19% COMMUNICATIONS 30,140 9,974 9,492 20,648 31% TRAVEL 4,450 871 468 3,982 11% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 170,310 90,872 90,716 79,594 53% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 68,491 67,472 107,528 39% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 50,800 21,737 31,337 19,463 62% MISCELLANEOUS 91,450 35,749 33,069 58,381 36% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,700 5,000 5,000 65,700 7% $ 3,774,541 $ 1,528,030 $ 1,609,632 $ 2,164,909 43% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES $ 263,850 $ 127,495 $ 130,896 $ 132,955 50% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 81,750 37,926 41,455 40,295 51% SUPPLIES 7,600 1,997 1,410 6,190 19% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 1,479 - 1,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 27 39 162 19% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 290 315 1,035 23% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,640 2,952 3,072 4,568 40% PUBLIC UT ILITY 2,800 1,171 1,235 1,565 44% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 908 3,900 0% $ 371,790 $ 174,245 $ 178,420 $ 193,370 48% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 669,430 308,038 319,055 350,375 48% OVERTIME 2,500 1,785 3,465 (965) 139% BENEFITS 291,990 123,592 130,267 161,723 45% UNIFORMS 2,750 1,418 1,531 1,219 56% SUPPLIES 87,000 42,037 32,786 54,214 38% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 8,531 197 2,803 7% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 270 76 (76) 0% COMMUNICATIONS 14,000 7,388 7,350 6,650 52% TRAVEL - - 12 (12) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 52,530 26,368 26,878 25,652 51% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 131,599 132,454 147,546 47% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 78,500 41,594 38,775 39,725 49% MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 2,040 4,711 (2,611) 224% $ 1,483,800 $ 694,660 $ 697,556 $ 786,244 47% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 40,929,107 $ 19,452,503 $ 19,669,418 $ 21,259,689 48% O Q. d R C co C LL i d O M CJ co O N d C 7 co qq st O d C cc C LL L d R 7 Cy 0 N O C 7 r-� C O t t) O r� r� Q 16 Packet Pg. 117 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 1,918,825 $ February 4,636,071 March 6,895,675 April 10,557,110 May 18,448,540 June 20,425,003 July 22,546,548 August 24,735,497 September 26,741,970 October 29,963,416 November 37,305,043 December 39,276,670 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 1,918,825 $ 2,112,632 10.10% 2,717,246 4,307,339 -7.09% 2,259,604 6,797,209 -1.43% 3,661,435 10,797,010 2.27% 7,891,430 18,037,636 -2.23% 1,976,463 20,334,355 -0.44% 2,121, 545 2,188, 949 2,006,473 3,221,446 7,341,627 1,971,627 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2016 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 189,874 $ February 316,058 March 479,194 April 640,872 May 800,918 June 986,094 July 1,276,157 August 1,480,830 September 1,690,614 October 1,875,616 November 2,069,074 December 2,200,000 189,874 $ 216,395 13.97% 126,183 447,070 41.45% 163,136 551,728 15.14% 161,679 768,326 19.89% 160,046 977,560 22.05% 185,176 1,234,188 25.16% 290,062 204,673 209,784 185,002 193,458 130,926 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 118 1 Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: June 2016 Year -to -Date Total $3,295,015 Wholesale Trade 136,045 Corrnnwiications 122,075 Contractors 518,015 Misc Retail Trade 407,222 Health & Personal Care r- O 51,387 d OC Retail Eating & Drinking Accommodation 19,521 414,328 _ c0 Business Services 231,267 Gasoline Stations 15,819 LL Amusement & Recreation d 34,139 Automotive Repair 85,558 O Retail Food Stores 133,652 C'1 Retail Automotive 847,642 p Others 167,992 N d Clothing and Accessories 110,355 co Total Retail Automotive Misc Retail Trade Retail Eating & Drinking Business Services Retail Food Stores Others Amusement & Recreation Wholesale Trade Clothing and Accessories Accommodation Health & Personal Care Gasoline Stations Automotive Repair Communications Contractors ($100,000) Change in Sales Tax Revenue: June 2016 compared to June 2015 ($50,000) $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 r- O Q d R M c ii L d R 7 CY 0 N O _ 7 _ O E t V Q 18 Packet Pg. 119 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2016 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 471,315 $ 471,315 $ 539,867 14.54% February 1,055,135 583,820 1,204,754 14.18% March 1,506,759 451,624 1,693,551 12.40% April 1,936,463 429,704 2,173,926 12.26% May 2,478,856 542,394 2,754,132 11.10% June 2,960,731 481,875 3,295,015 11.29% July 3,457,813 497,082 August 3,998,806 540,993 September 4,517,576 518,770 October 5,055,818 538,242 November 5,626,862 571,044 December 6,144,400 517,538 Sales and Use Tax 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 too 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget mar Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2016 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 90,678 $ 90,678 $ 85,977 -5.18% February 190,868 100,190 176,574 -7.49% March 272,706 81,838 249,556 -8.49% April 346,987 74,281 311,852 -10.13% May 405,847 58,860 352,987 -13.02% June 445,893 40,046 385,669 -13.51% July 477,342 31,449 August 501,633 24,291 September 523,862 22,229 October 548,406 24,545 November 586,112 37,705 December 647,900 61,788 Gas Utility Tax 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget -0-- Prior Yeaz *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 19 Packet Pg. 120 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2016 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance January $ 125,356 $ 125,356 $ 91,384 -27.10% February 226,461 101,105 230,098 1.61% March 344,917 118,456 328,246 -4.83% April 457,974 113,057 432,105 -5.65% May 577,752 119,778 532,012 -7.92% June 685,900 108,148 633,125 -7.69% July 794,692 108,792 August 904,737 110,045 September 1,019,063 114,326 October 1,131,491 112,428 November 1,235,975 104,484 December 1,349,100 113,125 Telephone Utility Tax 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2016 1lectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly TrD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 155,396 $ 155,396 $ 177,383 14.15% February 311,244 155,848 348,280 11.90% March 463,906 152,662 509,702 9.87% April 612,759 148,854 674,873 10.14% May 749,676 136,917 801,429 6.90% June 854,497 104,821 913,790 6.94% July 956,312 101,815 August 1,049,934 93,622 September 1,145,581 95,647 October 1,239,871 94,290 November 1,346,584 106,712 December 1,451,800 105,216 Electric Utility Tax 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget --O-Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 20 Packet Pg. 121 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2016 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 573,717 $ 573,717 $ 553,882 -3.46% February 969,279 395,562 943,114 -2.70% March 1,534,923 565,644 1,529,160 -0.38% April 1,915,226 380,303 1,904,819 -0.54% May 2,481,868 566,642 2,446,538 -1.42% June 2,912,390 430,522 2,888,880 -0.81% July 3,586,469 674,079 August 4,157,711 571,242 September 4,946,125 788,414 October 5,503,014 556,889 November 6,162,012 658,998 December 6,572,750 410,738 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2016 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 238,091 $ 238,091 $ 238,442 14.15% February 750,139 512,049 750,909 11.90% March 988,469 238,330 988,089 9.87% April 1,200,403 211,933 1,195,226 10.14% May 1,439,120 238,718 1,432,240 6.90% June 1,651,173 212,053 1,642,773 6.94% July 1,891,010 239,837 August 2,403,804 512,795 September 2,641,727 237,923 October 2,853,622 211,895 November 3,092,120 238,497 December 3,304,340 212,220 Storm Water Sales 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dr,- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 21 Packet Pg. 122 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2016 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 571,975 $ 571,975 $ 566,825 -0.90% February 1,033,695 461,721 1,035,133 0.14% March 1,603,598 569,903 1,607,616 0.25% April 2,066,627 463,029 2,078,557 0.58% May 2,641,462 574,835 2,642,003 0.02% June 3,110,919 469,457 3,115,575 0.15% July 3,697,613 586,694 August 4,168,968 471,356 September 4,762,598 593,630 October 5,236,709 474,111 November 5,819,454 582,746 December 6,291,410 471,956 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 22 Packet Pg. 123 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 4,560,564 $ 4,560,564 $4,953,956 8.63% February 7,080,568 2,520,004 7,893,221 11.48% March 10,254,855 3,174,287 10,217,655 -0.36% April 14,282,463 4,027,609 14,305,106 0.16% May 16,470,117 2,187,654 16,509,045 0.24% June 20,252,645 3,782,528 19,669,418 -2.88% July 23,504,866 3,252,220 August 27,113,525 3,608,659 September 30,737,648 3,624,123 October 33,341,447 2,603,799 November 36,962,003 3,620,556 December 40,929,107 3,967,104 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2016 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 2,640,077 $ 2,640,077 $ 3,074,199 16.44% February 3,094,175 454,098 4,065,136 31.38% March 4,182,251 1,088,076 4,389,675 4.96% April 6,122,668 1,940,417 6,454,134 5.41% May 6,283,708 161,041 6,679,708 6.30% June 7,925,981 1,642,273 7,828,525 -1.23% July 8,993,121 1,067,140 August 10,291,465 1,298,344 September 11,817,373 1,525,908 October 12,249,051 431,678 November 13,411,675 1,162,624 December 14,956,000 1,544,325 Non -Departmental 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year —Budget —dm- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 23 Packet Pg. 124 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2016 City Council Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 19,588 $ 19,588 $ 13,340 -31.90% February 43,238 23,650 27,668 -36.01% March 68,617 25,379 44,120 -35.70% April 91,002 22,385 58,113 -36.14% May 115,388 24,386 71,981 -37.62% June 142,957 27,568 98,095 -31.38% July 169,613 26,656 August 194,018 24,404 September 218,163 24,145 October 242,646 24,484 November 268,263 25,616 December 295,500 27,237 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2016 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 22,161 $ 22,161 $ 21,296 -3.90% February 44,020 21,859 43,294 -1.65% March 65,603 21,583 64,319 -1.96% April 86,693 21,090 85,409 -1.48% May 108,016 21,323 106,249 -1.64% June 129,368 21,352 127,277 -1.62% July 151,400 22,032 August 172,781 21,380 September 193,702 20,921 October 217,172 23,470 November 239,237 22,065 December 260,250 21,013 Office of Mayor 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dr,- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 24 Packet Pg. 125 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2016 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 28,607 $ 28,607 $ 25,054 -12.42% February 66,541 37,934 61,145 -8.11% March 103,874 37,333 101,724 -2.07% April 155,321 51,448 146,484 -5.69% May 193,087 37,766 183,771 -4.82% June 227,738 34,651 232,729 2.19% July 269,744 42,006 August 309,552 39,808 September 353,224 43,671 October 396,203 42,979 November 438,246 42,044 December 493,580 55,334 City Clerk Community Services/Economic Development 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dp- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 50,489 $ 50,489 $ 44,524 -11.81% February 96,125 45,635 87,838 -8.62% March 145,204 49,079 142,107 -2.13% April 189,944 44,740 188,255 -0.89% May 234,027 44,083 234,593 0.24% June 281,576 47,549 281,026 -0.20% July 329,270 47,695 August 379,179 49,909 September 428,220 49,041 October 485,933 57,714 November 535,319 49,385 December 585,310 49,991 City Clerk 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget -dr- Prior Year O Q. d LL R C to C_ LL 21 i d O 7 to O N d C M co 0 a m C la C LL L d la M Cy Lfl O N O C 7 C O t t) to Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 25 Packet Pg. 126 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2016 Human Resources Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 34,273 $ 34,273 $ 28,007 -18.28% February 71,193 36,920 58,708 -17.54% March 115,298 44,105 90,412 -21.58% April 150,430 35,132 115,675 -23.10% May 189,556 39,126 146,734 -22.59% June 227,772 38,216 175,479 -22.96% July 266,108 38,336 August 302,589 36,480 September 344,265 41,676 October 381,533 37,268 November 414,723 33,190 December 462,044 47,321 Human Resources 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget t Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2016 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 67,768 $ 67,768 $ 67,346 -0.62% February 140,999 73,231 145,300 3.05% March 219,268 78,269 219,191 -0.04% April 293,243 73,975 290,918 -0.79% May 365,511 72,268 366,411 0.25% June 440,872 75,361 435,326 -1.26% July 515,865 74,993 August 594,541 78,676 September 669,574 75,033 October 750,559 80,985 November 828,307 77,748 December 909,270 80,963 Municipal Court 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 26 Packet Pg. 127 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2016 Information Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance % January $ 87,065 $ 87,065 $ 55,507 -36.25% February 163,617 76,552 158,620 -3.05% March 224,796 61,179 205,381 -8.64% April 281,617 56,821 242,036 -14.05% May 331,746 50,129 283,871 -14.43% June 381,470 49,725 325,732 -14.61% July 448,514 67,044 August 521,686 73,171 September 590,807 69,121 October 648,167 57,360 November 735,478 87,311 December 900,110 164,632 Finance Information Services 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year - Budget Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance % January $ 97,947 $ 97,947 $ 62,994 -35.69% February 174,402 76,455 130,335 -25.27% March 249,528 75,126 197,850 -20.71% April 330,097 80,569 265,012 -19.72% May 403,825 73,728 330,595 -18.13% June 478,183 74,359 391,632 -18.10% July 551,010 72,826 August 624,240 73,230 September 699,491 75,251 October 782,345 82,854 November 857,044 74,699 December 939,820 82,776 Finance 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Year - Budget -dP-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 27 Packet Pg. 128 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2016 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 61,797 $ 61,797 $ 60,070 -2.79% February 123,593 61,797 120,220 -2.73% March 185,390 61,797 162,968 -12.09% April 247,187 61,797 224,651 -9.12% May 308,983 61,797 286,857 -7.16% June 370,780 61,797 347,078 -6.39% July 432,576 61,797 August 494,373 61,797 September 556,170 61,797 October 617,966 61,797 November 679,763 61,797 December 741,560 61,797 Police 800,000 City Attorney 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Year - Budget -d�- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 742,439 $ 742,439 $ 771,955 3.98% February 1,500,827 758,388 1,527,193 1.76% March 2,270,564 769,738 2,295,467 1.10% April 3,024,634 754,070 3,078,848 1.79% May 3,778,474 753,839 3,832,659 1.43% June 4,596,174 817,700 4,596,670 0.01% July 5,361,301 765,126 August 6,134,061 772,761 September 6,899,091 765,029 October 7,695,105 796,015 November 8,764,862 1,069,757 December 9,628,550 863,688 Police 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -*--Current Year - Budget -*I,- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 28 Packet Pg. 129 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2016 Development Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 201,835 $ 201,835 $ 170,060 -15.74% February 411,018 209,184 361,353 -12.08% March 641,000 229,982 565,548 -11.77% April 849,674 208,674 764,404 -10.04% May 1,065,243 215,570 985,455 -7.49% June 1,271,014 205,771 1,183,128 -6.91% July 1,490,976 219,962 August 1,714,690 223,714 September 1,936,272 221,582 October 2,182,160 245,887 November 2,407,343 225,183 December 2,656,652 249,309 Parks & Recreation Development Services 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget t Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 243,592 $ 243,592 $ 252,899 3.82% February 505,386 261,794 502,972 -0.48% March 781,095 275,709 770,996 -1.29% April 1,058,904 277,810 1,041,241 -1.67% May 1,359,582 300,677 1,333,112 -1.95% June 1,677,232 317,651 1,609,632 -4.03% July 2,108,378 431,146 August 2,567,286 458,908 September 2,889,106 321,820 October 3,183,247 294,141 November 3,438,023 254,776 December 3,774,541 336,518 Parks & Recreation 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dm- Prior Year Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 29 Packet Pg. 130 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2016 Public Works Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 31,230 $ 31,230 $ 29,570 -5.31% February 62,130 30,900 59,034 -4.98% March 92,810 30,680 89,046 -4.05% April 123,243 30,434 118,682 -3.70% May 154,320 31,076 148,411 -3.83% June 185,380 31,060 178,420 -3.75% July 216,622 31,243 August 246,986 30,363 September 276,279 29,293 October 308,266 31,987 November 337,169 28,904 December 371,790 34,621 Facilities Maintenance Public Works 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FL MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --AP- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 115,588 $ 115,588 $ 116,661 0.93% February 236,621 121,033 240,595 1.68% March 365,554 128,934 357,601 -2.18% April 487,500 121,946 468,138 -3.97% May 604,005 116,504 595,677 -1.38% June 723,757 119,752 697,556 -3.62% July 857,071 133,314 August 967,719 110,648 September 1,099,287 131,567 October 1,211,418 112,132 November 1,335,849 124,431 December 1,483,800 147,951 Facilities Maintenance 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --#- Current Year -Budget --O-Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 30 Packet Pg. 131 1 I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2016 Engineering Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 198,055 $ 198,055 $ 160,475 -18.97% February 396,423 198,368 303,810 -23.36% March 597,281 200,858 521,251 -12.73% April 796,160 198,879 763,107 -4.15% May 1,001,003 204,843 922,959 -7.80% June 1,201,964 200,961 1,161,113 -3.40% July 1,401,670 199,706 August 1,603,612 201,942 September 1,807,951 204,339 October 2,023,470 215,519 November 2,232,307 208,838 December 2,470,330 238,023 Engine a ring 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget —dp-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 31 Packet Pg. 132 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY I 4.6.a I City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of June 30, 2016 (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Agency/Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Washington State Local Investment Pool Various $12,734,097 Various Government Investment Pool Snohomish County Investment Pool Various $30,533,049 Various Investment Pool FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 FH LMC Bonds 61 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 FFCB Bonds 36 1/25/2016 2,000,000 12/28/2018 FFCB Bonds 37 1/25/2016 2,000,000 1/25/2019 FNMA Bonds 61 9/19/2014 1,000,000 9/19/2019 FHLB Bonds 48 5/5/2016 2,000,000 3/30/2020 FHLMC Bonds 48 5/5/2016 2,000,000 4/28/2020 (a) To maturity. 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 TOTAL Investment Mix State Investment Pool Bonds Snohomish County Investment Pool Yield to Weighted Maturity Average O o_ 0.49% 0.12% 0.82% 0.46% v c cv 0.96% 0.02% LL 0.90% 0.02% m 1.42% 0.05% 1.23% 0.05% u' co 1.87% 0.03% o N 1.45% 0.05% 3 1.35% 0.05% m 0.85% 0.85% 0 to % of Total Rate Comparison Q 23.45% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.36% 20.31 % Current State Pool rate 0.49% .v 56.24% Blended Edmonds rate 0.85% 100.0% ii L d Interest Income r- ca Cl co 0 N m c 3 2012 r ■ 2013 m 2014 t ■ 2015 m 2016 Q Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 32 Packet Pg. 133 4.6.a GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND & SUBFUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016 6/30/2016 Q2 YTID _ o a 001-General Fund $ 9,359,436 $ 5,775,692 $ 10,024,373 $ 4,248,681 $ 664,93 ) 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 519,409 453,760 532,581 78,821 13,17, 011-Risk Management Fund 961,513 963,340 965,713 2,373 4,20( 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 4,677,030 1,667,653 4,684,313 3,016,660 7,28: c 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,487 56,594 56,720 126 23: L, 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 2,590 9,043 5,116 (3,927) 2,52E 016-Building Maintenance 118,086 133,260 (48,433) (181,693) (166,51$ 3 Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,551 $ 9,059,344 $ 16,220,385 $ 7,161,041 $ 525,83 0 0 N d C 3 t0 General Fund & Subfunds o a 20 m $15.69 $16.22 0 16 R c ii 12 21 c $9.06 8 Cl co 4 0 N d C 3 Dec2015 Mar2016 June 2016 r c m E t a *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 33 Packet Pg. 134 I 4.6.a I GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016 6/30/2016 Q2 YTD General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,551 $ 9,059,344 $ 16,220,385 $ 7,161,041 $ 525,83 Special Revenue 7,711,341 11,887,729 10,255,835 (1,631,894) 2,544,49, o a Debt Service 114,790 115,564 115,563 (0) 77 m W Total Governmental Funds $ 23,520,682 $ 21,062,636 $ 26,591,783 $ 5,529,147 $ 3,071,10 .f° c c u_ 2, L 20 16 ,12 0 8 4 Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund a Balances - Combined tO 0 N d C 30 $26.59 Iq 15.69 $16.22 General 24 $23.52 1= Fund & $21.06 0 Subfunds m d' t Special c 18 v - c $10.26 Revenue $9.06 u_ 12 21 7.71 Debt Service 3 Cl — 6 to T_ 0 N C 3 7 $0.11 $0.12 $0.12 - r Dec 2015 Mar2016 June 2016 Dec 2015 Mar2016 June 2016 a *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 34 Packet Pg. 135 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW I 4.6.a I GOVERNMENTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE; ACTUAL 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 68,732 $ 120,531 $ 109,613 $ (10,919) $ 111 - Street Fund 514,445 426,929 556,641 129,712 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 9,339 3,813,826 1,393,845 (2,419,981) 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 468,471 482,084 472,727 (9,357) 118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,919 17,953 17,993 40 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 153,884 164,509 162,241 (2,268) 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,480 71,765 72,599 835 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 15,469 15,173 14,705 (468) 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 84,567 86,486 86,674 188 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,629,535 1,874,258 1,996,449 122,191 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 2,239,007 2,042,221 2,366,504 324,283 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 265,924 284,615 261,169 (23,445) 129 - Special Projects Fund 38,393 38,466 38,551 85 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 137,256 142,169 154,038 11,869 132 - Parks Construction Fund 897,413 1,160,606 1,392,690 232,085 136 - Parks Trust Fund 152,249 152,538 152,877 339 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 883,729 889,731 895,815 6,085 138 - Sister City Commission 3,785 3,792 6,921 3,129 139 - Transportation Benefit District - 0 - (0) 140 - Business Improvement Disrict 66,744 100,076 103,780 3,704 Total Special Revenue $ 7,711,341 $ 11,887,729 $ 10,255,835 $ (1,631,894) $ 15 12 9 0 6 3 Dec 2015 Special Revenue Funds $11.89 Mar2016 $10.26 r L m4-- June 2016 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 40, 88' 42,19E 1,384,50E 4, 25E c Te m 8,35d 8,11� (76,e c�v 2,101 LL 366,91,e >, 127, 49 , (4, 75E ca 15£ 16, 78.- 495, 27 � N 62£ 12, 08E 3,13E 37, 03E 2,544,49,e 1: 0 a m c R c ii L m ca Cl to Special c Revenue N m c 3 7 a 35 Packet Pg. 136 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW I 4.6.a I ENTERPRISE FUNDS 421 - Water Utility Fund 422 - Storm Utility Fund 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 411 - Combined Utility Operation Total Enterprise Funds FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- $ 16, 750, 820 $ 15, 513,148 $ 17,135, 816 $ 9,695,327 10, 572, 881 10, 084, 412 43, 067, 458 43, 952, 248 44,186,132 - 843,964 4 - 47,129 83,251 $ 69, 513, 605 $ 70, 929, 369 $ 71, 489, 615 $ Enterprise Fund Balances as of June 30, 2016 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40, 000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $83,251 Combined Utility 17 $10,084,412 Storm CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- 1, 622, 668 $ (488, 470) 233,885 (843,959) 36,122 560,246 $ YTD a m 384,99( 389,08! 1,118, 67z L LL 83, 25' 1,976,01( C� r O N d C 7 7 W r r- 0 a m $44,186,4:32 c Sewer/WWTP LL m R CY � o Bond Reserve N *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. $4 36 Packet Pg. 137 SUMMARY OVERVIEW I 4.6.a I CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES ACTUAL CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- Governmental Funds $ 23,520,682 $ 21,062,636 $ 26,591,783 $ 5,529,147 Enterprise Funds 69,513,605 70,929,369 71,489,615 560,246 Internal Services Fund 7,645,840 8,273,556 7,549,040 (724,516) Agency Funds 203,101 191,835 239,169 47,333 Total City-wide Total $100,883,228 $100,457,398 $105,869,607 $ 5,412,209 Governmental Fund Balances as of June 30, 2016 J General Fund & Subfunds Drug Enforcement Fund Street Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Memorial Street Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Employee Parking Pennit Fund Youth Scholarship Fund Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Gifts Catalog Fund Special Projects Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Parks Construction Fund Parks Trust Fund Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Sister City Commission Transportation Benefit District $ (0) Business Improvement District L.I.D. Fund Control L.I.D. Guaranty Fund 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $ (0) Equipment Rental Fund Firemen's Pension Fund $1 $ 3,071,10- 1,976,01 (96,80( X am 36,06E W $ 4,986,37E c c ii `m c� $16,220,38. $109,613 $556,641 0 $1,393,845 N $472,727 3 $17,993 $162,241 $72,599 $14,705 $86,674 $1,996,4 9 $2,366, 04 $261,169 $38,551 $154,038 cv $1,392,690 9 $152,877 LL $895,815 L $6,921 $103,780 $10,428 $105,135 239,169 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. d ca sj co 0 N d c $7,549,04( r c $20,000,000 m E t tv a 37 Packet Pg. 138 4.6.a INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES ., ---- ACTUAL ---- - - ACTUAL ---- 0 FUNDS 0. 12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016 6/30/2016 0 2_ YTD M 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 7,645,840 $ 8,273,556 $ 7,549,040 $ (724,516) $ (96,80( c Total Internal Service Funds $ 7,645,840 $ 8,273,556 $ 7,549,040 $ (724,516) $ (96,80( c ii 21 L d CJ co Internal Service Fund Balances 0 N m c 10 $8.27 8 $7.65 $7.55 0 m 6 511- Equipment Rental Fund 0 � 0 c 4 ii Z. L �d+ L 2 R ry� V co - r O N Dec 2015 Mar 2016 June 2016 c 0 c m E v 0 Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 38 Packet Pg. 139 4.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Senior Center Lease Agreement Amendment Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History The City entered into a facility lease with the Sr. Ctr in 2008, with options to extend through 2030. The City entered into an option to lease the grounds of the current Sr. Ctr as well, in order to allow for a capital campaign and eventual rebuild of the center on the site. Council forwarded this to the consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign new facility lease amendment. Narrative The Senior Center is submitting a grant request to the State of Washington for assistance in rebuilding the center. The State has a requirement that an entity has to demonstrate at least fifteen years of control in order to be eligible. Because the Senior Center is still under the current lease, which technically expires in 2030, they have requested an additional year be added to this lease. This will give them the 15 year lease requirement required by the State. The amendment attached adds one year, and sets the potential expiration date of 2031. Attachments: Amendment 1 to Edmonds Senior Center Lease 7 29 16 Lease on 220 Railroad 12 108 Packet Pg. 140 Original Contract No. Amendment No. 1 Contract No. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER LEASE WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation ("Lessor"), and Edmonds Senior Center (formerly South County Senior Center, Inc.), a non-profit organization organized under the laws of the State of Washington ("Lessee"), entered into an underlying lease, dated December 1, 2008 ("Lease"); and WHEREAS, the Lease is for the location of a neighborhood facility pursuant to HUD File No. NFP-WA- 10- 19- 1001 and for recreational, education services and functions of the City of Edmonds, beginning January 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the initial term of the lease for an additional year, so that upon automatic renewals it may extend through December 31, 2031; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties to the Lease as follows: 1. The underlying Lease of December 1, 2008 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, is amended in, but only in, the following respect: 1.1 Term of Lease. Section 3 of the Lease shall be revised to read as follows: 3. Term. This lease shall be for a term of thirteen (13) years commencing on the 1st day of January, 2009, and ending on the 31 st day of December, 2021. The term of this lease shall be automatically renewable for two (2) additional terms of five (5) consecutive calendar year periods, commencing January 1, 2022 and ending no later than December 31, 2031, for a total of twenty-three (23) years from the commencement date of this agreement. So long as the premises are being used as represented and in accordance with neighborhood facility application to HUD File No. NFP-WA-10-19-1001 and subsequent grant agreements, renewal shall be automatic unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate the lease by November 1, 2018, the tenth year of the original agreement. Written notice of intent to terminate in order to renegotiate the terms of the lease may be provided in the same manner and shall be considered a notice to terminate. In addition to any other obligation set forth herein, the Lessee shall, pursuant to applicable regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as promulgated and applicable to neighborhood facilities, provide to Lessor an annual report of Lessee's budget and certification that Lessee's program(s) conforms with the representations made to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and in accordance with applicable regulations in respect to neighborhood facilities. In addition, the Lessee shall provide the programs and services required by annual funding agreements with the City of Edmonds, which are incorporated by this reference Packet Pg. 141 Original Contract No. Amendment No. 1 Contract No. 4.7.a as fully as if herein set forth. The annual funding agreement for 2009 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference. 2. In all other respects, the underlying Lease between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. DONE this day of CITY OF EDMONDS By: David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) 2016. EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER By: Farrell B. Fleming, Executive Director On this day of , 2016, 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: Packet Pg. 142 4.7.b LEASE (C(DPY THIS LEASE, made in triplicate this P l r day of DEc�,na E,� , 2008, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation, as Lessor, and SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER, INC., a non-profit organization organized under the laws of the State of Washington, as Lessee, WITNESSETH: 1. The Lessor does hereby lease to the Lessee, and Lessee does hereby lease from the Lessor, those certain premises situated in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, generally known as the SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER, located at 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, and described as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, which exhibit is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 2. Purpose. The subject property is to be used as a neighborhood facility pursuant to HUD File No. NFP-WA-10-19-1001; and for recreational, education services and functions of the City of Edmonds (the "City") as set forth below in Paragraph I I (B). Business or activities including use of such facility for fund raising and revenue producing purposes to meet the mission of the South County Senior Center may be undertaken on the premises only with the written consent of the Lessor. 3. Term. This lease shall be for a term of eleven (11) years commencing on the 1 st day of January, 2009, and ending on the 31 st day of December, 2020. The term of this lease shall be automatically renewable for two (2) additional terms of five (5) consecutive calendar year periods, commencing January 1, 2021, for a total of twenty-one (21) years from the effective date of this agreement. So long as the premises are being used as represented and in accordance with neighborhood facility application to HUD File No. NFP-WA-10-19-1001 and subsequent grant agreements, renewal shall be automatic unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate the lease by November 1 of the tenth year of the original agreement. Written notice of intent to terminate in order to renegotiate the terms of the lease may be provided in the same manner and shall be considered a notice to terminate. In addition to any other obligation set forth herein, the Lessee shall, pursuant to applicable regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as promulgated and applicable to neighborhood facility, provide to Lessor an annual report of Lessee's budget and certification that Lessee's program(s) conforms with the representations made to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and in accordance with applicable regulations in respect to neighborhood facilities. In addition, the Lessee shall provide the programs and services required by annual funding agreements with the City, which are incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. The annual funding agreement for 2009 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference. 3.1 Termination. This Lease may be terminated for cause by either party for failure to comply with the terms of this Lease on the City's annual funding agreements. (See Exhibit B and 3 above). A party shall provide ten (10) days written notice of breach. If the breaching party fails to cure the breach within ten. (10) days, the non -breaching parry may then terminate this agreement. { WSS706663.DOC;1/00006.900000/} I of 7 Packet Pg. 143 4.7.b 3.2 Non -waiver. Failure to strictly enforce any provision of this Lease shall not waive the provision nor bar either parry from strict enforcement of any term of the Lease. 4. Rental. Lessee covenants and agrees to pay the Lessor an annual rental of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in lawful money of the United States. That said rental money shall be payable on or before the first day of each annual rental period at the offices of the Lessor. 5. Maintenance and Repairs. A. Lessee shall be responsible for all utility charges, including heat, Iights, garbage, water and sewer which are attributable to Lessee's use of said premises. B. Lessor shall be responsible for maintenance and clean up all exterior areas of the premises. C_ Lessee shall be responsible for and pay the cost of all repairs and maintenance up to $500 per occasion. Any amount over and above such $500 shall be funded by the Lessor. Lessee shall give notice in writing to Lessor of necessary repairs and shall so notify Lessor immediately of the need for repairs and shall block off or prevent entry by the public into such areas as may be in need of repair. Lessee shall not permit any Iien or encumbrance of any nature upon said property or premises and has no authority to contract for or on behalf of Lessor for goods, services, labor or materials of any nature or for any purpose and shall not hold itself out to any person, firm or corporation as having such authority. The sums to be paid by Lessee under this section for necessary maintenance and repairs shall be subject to automatic readjustment at the anniversary of each five-year renewal period to make appropriate increases or decreases in the amount to be paid by Lessee to adequately reflect the increase or decrease in the cost of the necessary maintenance and repairs, taking into account inflationary factors. Unless notice of termination or notice of intent to renegotiate is provided on or before November 1 of the fifth year of the renewal term, the Five Hundred Dollar deductible amount herein provided for shall be automatically increased or decreased by the cumulative change in the CPI-U for the Seattle -Tacoma area for the preceding five (5) year period. D. Lessor shall provide public liability insurance for said premises in an amount not less than one million per occurrence and five million in the aggregate naming the Lessee as an additional named insured, and policies of general liability and automobile liability providing full coverage for its programs. Lessee further agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all claims not otherwise insured under this paragraph arising out of Lessee's activities and programs conducted on or about said premises unless such claims arise solely from the negligence of Lessor. To; but only to, the extent necessary to enforce this promise, the Lessee agrees to waive its immunity as created under RCW Title 51, relating to the workers compensation provision. 6. Relocation. {WSS706663_DOC;1/00006.9C00OD/} 2of7 Packet Pg. 144 4.7.b A. fn the event that this lease is terminated by the Lessor, it will assist with efforts, subject to the legislative discretion of the City of Edmonds, to relocate or rebuild the Senior Center within a reasonable period of time to a comparable alternative location which meets the letter and spirit of the South County Senior Center's purpose and activities and complies with the obligations of the underlying HUD grant and conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan and other zoning regulations. In the event, the City elects, in its sole discretion, to renovate or reconstruct the premises, the City will use its best efforts to provide in comparable alternative location as provided above. B_ Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the legislative discretion of the City of Edmonds nor to require the Lessor to displace other tenants or activities in order to accommodate the Lessee's operations. 7. Risk of Loss. The Lessor has been in control of the leased premises for a period in excess of twenty (20) years and has in that time become fully informed of the condition of the premises and all defects therein, if any. No defect which could potentially be hazardous to persons or property has been brought to the attention of the Lessor by the Lessees or its agents. All personal property on said leased premises shall be at the risk of the Lessee, Lessor or Lessor's agents shall not be liable for any damage, either to persons or property, sustained by Lessee, its employees, or others, caused by any defects now in said premises or hereafter occurring therein, or due to the building in which the leased premises are situate, or any part of appurtenance thereof, or any equipment, furniture or fixtures becoming out of repair, or caused by the bursting or Ieaking of water, gas, sewer or steam pipes, or from any act or neglect of employees, or any other persons, or due to the happening of any accident from whatsoever cause in and about said building. Lessee agrees to defend and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims for damages suffered or alleged to be suffered in or about the leased premises by any person, firm or corporation which are not otherwise covered by the insurance to be paid by Lessee as set forth in Paragraph 5(D) hereinabove. 8. Lawful Use. The Lessee covenants and agrees that the premises shall be at all times kept and used in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and other appropriate and applicable governmental agencies, and in accordance with all the directions, rules and regulations of health officers, fire marshals, building inspectors, or other appropriate officers at the sole cost and expense of the Lessee. The Lessee will permit no waste, damage or injury to the premises, and at Lessee's own cost and expense will keep all drainage pipes free and open and will protect water, heating and other pipes so that they will not freeze or become clogged, and will repair all leaks, and will also repair all damages caused by leaks or by reason of Lessee's failure to protect and keep free, open and unfrozen any of the pipes and plumbing. Lessee shall be responsible for the removal of ice and snow from the pedestrian areas in and about said premises. Lessee shall be liable, subject to the dollar limitations set forth in Paragraph 5(C) hereinabove, for each occurrence. 9. Alterations or Improvements. The Lessee covenants and agrees that it will make no alterations or improvements to the leased premises, fixtures or affixed equipment located or to be located on the premises subject to this lease without the prior written consent of the Lessor. {WSS706663.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 145 4.7.b 10. Liens. Lessee agrees that under no circumstances will it permit any liens for work performed, materials furnished or other obligations incurred by the Lessee to be placed on said premises and agrees to indemnify, hold Lessor harmless and pay any and all costs incurred by Lessor in removing said liens or encumbrances, including reasonable attorney's fees. 11. AssiRnment and Use. A. Lessee shall not without the written consent of the Lessor or Lessor's agent, let or sublet on a permanent basis the whole or any part of the subject premises, nor assign this lease or any part thereof, and agrees and stipulates that a material consideration for the execution of this lease is its personal acceptance of South County Senior Center, Inc. as Lessee. B. The Lessee covenants and agrees that it will not permit or tolerate the use of the subject premises by any group, organization, individual or legal entity other than the reasonable and necessary use by the Lessee, without the written prior permission of the Lessor. The parties acknowledge that subject to Paragraph 2 the Lessee may carry on various rental activities to supplement its activities and raise funds for its programs and purposes. C. It is expressly agreed and understood that Lessor shall have the right to use portions of the leased premises at such times and in such areas as do not conflict with the regular activities and programs of Lessee. 12. Fire and Other Casually. In the event the premises are destroyed or damaged by fire, earthquake or other casualty to such an extent as to render the same untenantable in whole or in a substantial part thereof, and after the happening of any such contingency, the Lessee shall give Lessor or Lessor's agents immediate notice thereof. It shall be optional with the Lessor to rebuild or repair the same in accordance with the underlying HUD Grant. Lessor shall have not more than sixty (60) days after date of such notification, to notify the Lessee in writing of Lessor's intentions to rebuild or repair said premises, or the part so damaged as aforesaid, and if Lessor elects to rebuild or repair said premises, Lessor shall prosecute the work of such rebuilding or repairing in accordance with the exercise of discretion of its City Council. 13. Notices and Rent Pa ents. All rental payments shall be paid at the business office on or before the first day of each year at the Edmonds Civic Center, 250 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA, 98020. All notices required by this lease or breaches thereof shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the Lessor at the address set forth above, and all such notices to the Lessee shall be sent by registered or certified mail and addressed to the Lessee at 200 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, Washington, and delivery of all such notices shall be conclusively presumed to be effective upon such posting in the United States mail, postage prepaid. 14. Default and Re -Entry. if Lessee shall violate or default in any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, then the Lessor may cancel this lease upon giving the notice required by law, and re-enter said premises. 15_ Costs and Attorney Fees. If by reason of any default on the part of the Lessee in the performance of any of the provisions of this lease, it becomes necessary for the Lessor to employ an {W55706663_DOC;1/00006.900000/) 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 146 4.7.b attorney, the Lessee agrees to pay all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees expended or incurred by the Lessor in connection therewith, if the court hearing the matter determines in its discretion that Lessor should be entitled to reimbursement for said fees, costs and expenses. The amount to be paid by Lessee in such event shall be determined by the court. Lessee shall also be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees in the event it shall prevail in any lawsuit to enforce its rights under this agreement. 16. Nan -Waiver of Breach. The failure of the Lessor to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of this lease, or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such provision, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and c as effect. E c 17. Removal of Lessee's Pro e . In the event of any entry in, or taking possession of, E the leased premises as aforesaid, the Lessor shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove a from the leased premises all personal property located therein, and may place the same in storage in a public warehouse at the expense and risk of the owners thereof. L 18. Warranjy of Non -Profit Status. Lessee warrants they are legally and properly (0 organized under the laws of the State of Washington for non-profit corporations and that the o representatives of Lessee signing this Iease are legally authorized to sign and bind Lessee accordingly. 00 DATED this sr o � day of D�'c.�.►�ec 2008. N CITY OF DMONDS: d"d ej� Gary aak son, ayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS O FORM: OFFICE & WCIT T W. Scott Snyder STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER., INC. o co By: r N N CD r f/J i (a a) J a W E a fWSS?06663.DOC;1/00006.900000/) 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 147 4.7.b I certify that T cnow or have satisfactory evidence that GARY HAAKENSON is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as Mayor of the City of Edmonds to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: /-7-0/--09 tA.y STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) ( ignature) (Print Name) NOTARY PUBLIC My appointment expires: -D I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 'T� C)-Ck- nor;, e Co we.Q is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as Pre & I d'e p't of the South County Senior Center, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: I /� 6 10 T- �. n 0- (Sioature) (Print Name) NOTARY PUBLIC My appointment expires: -7 ` 13 & 16 {WSS706663.D0C;1/00006.900000/) 6of7 Packet Pg. 148 4.7.b EXHIBIT A The following is a legal description of the property for the City of Edmonds Neighborhood Facility known as Senior Citizens Center: Parcel A Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of the Great Northern Railway Right-of-way with the South line of Government Lot 2, Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M., Thence Northeasterly on the said right-of-way line 450 feet; thence North 49' West 95.67 feet, more or less, to the Government meander line; thence South 51 °23' West on said meander line 288.33 feet to the True Point of Beginning of this description; thence from said point of beginning run North 51 ° 23; East along the Government meander line 288.33 feet; thence North 47°32' West 319.63 feet to the inner harbor line, thence South 45°00' West on the inner harbor line 250.13 feet to the most northerly corner of the land conveyed to S.T. Engebretsen and Bertha Engebretsen, his wife, as deed filed for record under Snohomish County Auditor's file No. 1087092; thence along the Northeasterly Iine of said Engebretsen land South 38°37' East 28794 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel B Commencing at a point on the West line of Seattle and Montana Railway Right-of-way (now Great Northern Railway) at its intersection with South line of Government Lot 2, Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M., thence in a northerly direction along West line of said right-of-way 150 feet to true point of beginning thence continue in a northerly direction along said Westerly line of said right-of-way 300 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles from the Westerly line of said Railway Right-of-way to Government meander line of the waters of Puget Sound; thence in a Southwesterly direction along said meander line to a point at right angles from the point of beginning, thence southeasterly to the point of beginning. {W55706663.DOC;1/00006.900000/) Packet Pg. 149 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Office of Neighborhoods Presentation on Homeless Outreach by Sgt. Ian Huri of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department (15 min.) Staff Lead: Andrew Pierce Department: City Council Preparer: Andrew Pierce Background/History The Snohomish County Office of Neighborhoods, lead by Sgt. Ian Huri, Was created to engage residents through outreach and events in a collaborative effort to make Snohomish County neighborhoods safe. As part of the Office of Neighborhoods Homeless Outreach the team works to identified, locate, and connect with homeless and vulnerable populations in Snohomish County. The goal is to foster long-term relationships and break cycles of homelessness, mental health, and/or chemical dependency in the county. Staff Recommendation <Type or insert text here> Narrative Sgt. Ian Huri of the Snohomish County Sheriff's department will present to Council to highlight the issues of homelessness in Snohomish County and Edmonds and how the Office of Neighborhoods is addressing vulnerable populations in the area. Packet Pg. 150 5.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Presentation of National Citizen Survey Results (20 min.) Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History Pursuant to City Council approval and allocation of corresponding funds, the National Citizen Survey was administered by the National Research Center (NRC) in Edmonds in June and July 2016. First, 2,200 households were randomly selected and mailed the survey instrument starting on 6/3/16, with a return date of 7/15/16. Second, an online version of the survey was made available to anyone in the community, which was publicized by the local media (including Everett Herald), City's website, and City's Facebook page. The online survey was open from 7/1/16 till 7/17/16. Responses to the randomized survey totaled 586, or 28%, which was well within the 20% to 40% range of normal response rate experienced by the NRC. With the addition of 320 online responses, total response to the survey was 906. Staff at the NRC analyzed and compared the survey results between the randomized survey and the online survey and found the closest match in responses between the two samples they had ever witnessed. For this reason, they recommended combining the two response samples for a higher confidence level of only 3% margin of error. Staff Recommendation No action required. Narrative Attached is a detailed Summary of the National Citizen Survey in Edmonds, Summer 2016. A presentation of this Summary will be made at the 8/16/16 City Council meeting. Final Summary Reports from the National Research Center, together with the Technical Appendices, will be sent to City Council Monday 8/15/16. Attachments: National Citizen Survey Summary-08-15-16 Packet Pg. 151 5.2.a SUMMARY OF FINDINGS National Citizen Survey in Edmonds Summer 2016 BACKGROUND The National Citizen Survey was administered by the National Research Center (NRC) in Edmonds in July 2016. First, 2,200 households were randomly selected and mailed the survey instrument starting on 6/3/16, with a return date of 7/15/16. Second, an online version of the survey was made available to anyone in the community, which was publicized by the local media (including Everett Herald), City's website, and City's Facebook page. The online survey was open from 7/1/16 till 7/17/16. Responses to the randomized survey totaled 586, or 28%, which was well within the 20% to 40% range of normal response rate experienced by the NRC. With the addition of 320 online responses, total response to the survey was 906. Staff at the NRC analyzed and compared the survey results between the randomized survey and the online survey and found the closest match in responses between the two samples they had ever witnessed. For this reason, they recommended combining the two response samples for a higher confidence level of only 3% margin of error. COMMUNITY LIVABILTY REPORT The NRC conducts a detailed analysis of the survey responses to draw qualitative conclusions from the quantitative data. They call this a "Community Livability Report" which has been provided by the NRC. This report organizes residents' responses within three pillars of community: • Community Characteristics • Governance • Participation and across eight central facets of the community: • Safety • Mobility • Natural Environment • Built Environment • Economy • Recreation and Wellness Packet Pg. 152 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 2 of 12 • Education and Enrichment • Community Engagement In addition to simply analyzing and reporting back from the response data, NRC benchmarked the data against nationwide response data within its database. Moreover, Edmonds added two additional services: 1. Benchmarking against 25 other cities within the Pacific Northwest, with populations of 20,000 to 60,000, and 2. Comparing and contrasting responses across five demographic cohorts: • Length of residency in Edmonds • Annual household income • Rent or own dwelling unit • Age • Gender Summary of Findings Highlights from the "Community Livability Report" are provided below: Overall almost all residents rated the quality of life in Edmonds as excellent or good. They also rated Safety and Economy as the two highest priorities for the Edmonds community over the next two years. Ninety-six percent of respondents rated Edmonds as an excellent or good place to live, much higher than responses in nationwide surveys and those from throughout the Pacific Northwest. Communitv Characteristics Throughout this section, Edmonds responses were very positive and within the ranges seen nationwide. Those aspects that exceeded national averages were: • Ease of walking • Traffic flow • Overall natural environment • Cleanliness • Air quality • Public places • Vibrant downtown area • Place to visit • Mental health care • Preventive health services • Health care Packet Pg. 153 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 3 of 12 • Cultural/arts/music activities • Adult education • Social events and activities Only one aspect ranked lower than national averages: • Affordable quality housing GovPrnAnrP Throughout this section, Edmonds responses were also quite positive and entirely within nationwide response ranges, with the exception of one aspect that far exceeded national averages: • Drinking water Participation Throughout this section, Edmonds responses were also positive and within national averages. While still within national averages, it is interesting to note, however, that the "Community Engagement" aspects related to involvement with civic events, contact with elected officials, etc., showed lower participation rates. Several aspects exceeded national averages: • Stocked supplies for an emergency • Walked or biked instead of driving • Recycled at home (98%!) • Did NOT observe a code violation • Attended a City -sponsored event (although it's not clear that respondents always know what may or may not be "City -sponsored") • Voted in local elections (91%!) Only two aspects saw lower -than -average responses: • Work in Edmonds (only 29% of respondents work in Edmonds) • Participated in religious or spiritual activities Special Topics In addition to the standard, nationally administered questions, Edmonds added five customized questions (shown here with favorable response totals ("strongly support" + "somewhat support"): Packet Pg. 154 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 4 of 12 1. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for the following transportation -related services in Edmonds: • Repair/replacement of existing sidewalks — 86% favorable • Repair and/or maintenance of City streets — 88% favorable • Construction of new sidewalks — 84% favorable • Expansion of bicycle facilities — 59% favorable 2. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for the following parks and recreation -related services in Edmonds: • Acquisition of parkland, beachfront — 77% favorable • Capital projects such as Civic Field, Marina Beach Park, etc. — 83 favorable • Upgrading Frances Anderson Center — 79% favorable • Upgrading maintenance levels of existing parks — 85% favorable 3. Please indicate whether or not you currently experience discrimination in Edmonds based on your: • Sexual orientation or gender identity — 2% • Disability-3% • Religion — 3% • National origin — 3% • Race — 4% • Gender-3% • Age — 5% NOTE: While low absolute figures, it is important to recognize that for some of these categories (sexual orientation, disability, national origin, and race) the portion of the Edmonds population who fall within those cohorts is mostly under 10% making these response rates more significant within each cohort (e.g., 2% of the population stating they experience discrimination based on sexual orientation, when approximately 5-10% of the population may be a member of this cohort, meaning that 20% to 45% of that cohort may be experiencing discrimination). 4. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding to enhance the following Edmonds Police -related services: • Domestic violence services — 89% favorable • Increased patrol presence for crime deterrence, detection and apprehension — 89% favorable • Crime prevention services — 89% favorable • Youth Services programs (High School Resource Officer, DARE, GREAT, etc.) — 74% favorable • Crime analysis — 82% favorable • Traffic enforcement-65% favorable Packet Pg. 155 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 5 of 12 S. Rate how much the following are regular source of information for you about City functions, activities, programs and events through the following channels ("major source" responses cited below): • Word of mouth — 36% • Posters, banners or other signage — 32% • Online media — 46% • Printed media — 43% • City website or Facebook page — 26% Conclusions As reported in the Conclusions at the end of the NRC's "Community Livability Report": • Edmonds is a great place to live, with 9 in 10 residents positively rating overall image, overall appearance and Edmonds as a great place to raise children, among other attributes. • Safety is an asset and a priority, with 9 in 10 residents stating they feel safe in Edmonds and also identifying safety as a priority to focus on in coming years. • The economy is important to residents and highly rated in Edmonds. About 8 in 10 residents rated the City's economic health as positive, although it is recognized that more jobs in Edmonds for Edmonds residents would be desirable as only 3 in 10 work in the city. • The City supports a culture of diversity and opportunities for citizen engagement. At least three-quarters of residents gave excellent/good ratings to opportunities for cultural/arts/events engagement. Also up to 6 in 10 felt that the City has high levels of community engagement and is open to people of diverse backgrounds. COMPARISONS BY DEMOGRAPIC SUBGROUPS This report by the NRC includes interesting information about how different demographic cohorts responded to the questions. The summary found on page 1 of this Report is reprinted here: • Within the pillar of Community Characteristics, residents with an annual household income of more than $100,000 tended to give lower ratings to ease of travel by public transportation in Edmonds and opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities compared to residents with a lower annual household income. Residents who rented their homes were more likely than those who owned to positively rate various aspects of Mobility, including ease of public parking, travel by public transportation and by bicycle in Edmonds but tended to give lower ratings to the overall ease of travel in the community. Residents aged 18 to 34 were more likely to positively rate opportunities to volunteer and participate in community matters when compared Packet Pg. 156 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 6 of 12 to their older counterparts while residents aged 55 or older were more likely to give positive ratings to the openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds. When differences emerged among the general aspects of Governance, residents who had lived in Edmonds for more than 20 years tended to give lower ratings to each item listed including the value of services for taxes paid and the overall direction that Edmonds is taking among others. When differences emerged by age, residents 18 to 34 tended to give higher ratings to general aspects of Governance. • Homeowners reported higher levels of Participation for many activities compared to those who rented their home, including contacting the City of Edmonds, making efforts to make their homes more energy efficient, being in excellent or very good health, participating in clubs and indicated that they were NOT under housing cost stress. Residents over the age of 55 were less likely to report that they felt the economy would have a positive impact on their income or that they worked in Edmonds. Edmonds residents whose income was less than $49,000 a year were much more likely to indicate that they were under housing cost stress, and much less likely to have attended a City - sponsored event. • Residents who had lived in Edmonds for 20 or more years, homeowners, people aged 55 or older, and men were less likely to support increased local public funding for the expansion of bicycle facilities compared to their counterparts. The same demographic, with the exception of older residents, were also less likely to support increased public funding for acquisition of parkland, beachfront. • Residents whose annual household income was under $49,000 tended to report greater rates of discrimination based on disability. Younger residents (aged 18 to 34) were more likely to report discrimination based on age. Selected Highlights from the Standardized Questions Selected highlights and/or interesting observations from the detailed report include the following: Edmonds as place to retire 95% of those residing here less than 5 years and 100% of those aged 18-34 rated this highly, with somewhat lower numbers from those residing here over 20 years (82%) and those over 55 (86%). Packet Pg. 157 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 7 of 12 Ease of public parking 61% of those residing here less than 5 years and 68% of those aged 18-34 rated this highly, while 38% of those residing here over 20 years and 41% of those over 55 did so. Ease of travel by public transportation 56% of those earning less than $49,999 rated this highly, while those earning $100,000 or more rated this at 24%. Variety of housing options Overall respondents indicated a positive view of the variety of housing options in Edmonds. Those earning less and/or renting rated this lower than other cohorts. Those earning less than $49,999 rated this at 48%, while renters rated this at 36%, compared with 62% for those earning more than $100,000 and 56% for home -owners. Overall quality of business and service establishments in Edmonds 73% of those aged 35-54 rated this favorably, while those younger rated it at 88% and those older at 81%. Recreational opportunities 65% of those under 35 rated this highly, while the two older cohorts rated this at 74% and 79% Opportunities to volunteer Those in the younger age cohort and older age cohort rated this particularly highly at at 94% and 84%, respectively, while those in the middle age cohort, 35-54, rated this at 76%. Opportunities to participate in community matters Similar to the category above, those in the younger age cohort and older age cohort rated this highly at at 83% and 76%, respectively, while those in the middle age cohort, 35-54, rated this at 67%. Governance While every category related to Edmonds municipal services scored high marks by all respondents no matter how long their Edmonds residency, two very interesting trends emerged: those residing here 5 years or less gave very high ratings (e.g., 91% to the "City of Edmonds" and 92% to "overall customer service by Edmonds employees"), while those residing here over 20 years gave lower ratings in each of these categories, with a low of 49% for overall Packet Pg. 158 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 8 of 12 confidence in Edmonds government. Conversely, that long-term resident cohort gave the highest rating to the Federal government at 40% compared with 37% and 35% for the two cohorts residing less time in Edmonds. Emergency preparedness Interestingly, younger residents and renters rated the City's emergency preparedness substantially higher than other cohorts. Mobility The rankings for services such as street repair, sidewalk maintenance, traffic enforcement, etc., also showed quite positive marks from those residing less time in Edmonds, while the long-term residents consistently rated these services somewhat lower. The greatest discrepancy was seen between the 71% of newer residents rating this positively contrasted with 36% of long-term Edmonds residents doing so. Preservation of natural areas and Edmonds open space These two questions again received high ratings from the newer residents compared with long- term residents. Code enforcement While half the residents rated this highly (well within national norms), the biggest disparity in responses here was between the younger and older age cohorts. 80% of those under 35 rated this favorably, while only 41% of those over 55 did so. Economic development As with other categories, those residing here under 5 years have the most positive view of the Edmonds economy, rating this at 67%, while 53% of those residents over 20 years did so. Public information services The age cohorts again showed the greatest disparity in rating the City's dissemination of public information, with 54% of those under 35 rating this favorably, while residents over 55 rated this even more highly at a rate of 76%. Sense of community While three-quarters of Edmonds residents rated the sense of community as excellent or good, the disparities here were interesting. Among households of different income brackets, those Packet Pg. 159 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 9 of 12 rating it lower (71%) were the wealthiest households, while among age cohorts those rating sense of community lowest (66%) were the youngest. Remain in Edmonds for the next five years The overall response to this question was overwhelmingly positive, at 91%. However, a somewhat lower number, 76%, of the younger age cohort responded positively to this question. Contacted Edmonds for help or information While just under half of the population contacted City employees for help or information, it is interesting to note the disparity between renters (24%) and homeowners (47%). Similarly, those under 35 came in at 24%, compared with 38% and 46% for the two older cohorts. Was NOT the victim of crime, and did NOT report a crime While both of these questions had high positive responses overall (87% and 76%, respectively), those under 35 had the lowest positive responses at 80% and 64%, respectively. Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation The younger age cohort, renters and those residing in Edmonds less than 5 years showed the highest ratings for this issue. Housing stress 70% of those making less than $49,999 were under some level of housing stress, compared with only 33% overall. Purchase goods or services from Edmonds businesses A good -news story all around: an overall 98% of residents responded positively to this question Used Edmonds recreation centers or their services While the overall positive response rate was 61%, those earning less than $49,999 reported a lower positive response at 51%. Visited a neighborhood or City park As with the above question, with an overall positive response rate of 88%, those earning less than $49,999 reported a 72% positive response. Packet Pg. 160 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 10 of 12 Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health The lower economic cohort showed the lowest positive response rate here, at 49%, compared with an overall positive response of 71% Contacted Edmonds electeds to express opinions While only 18% of residents claimed having done this (within national averages), the lowest rating came from those under 35, at only 5%. Volunteered in Edmonds Longer -term residents had the highest positive response rate here, at 45%, compared with the overall rate of 36%. Those residents of less than 5 years (22%) and renters (27%) exhibited the lowest volunteer rates. Areas the Community Should Focus on over the Next Two Years This section derives from questions asked about where the City or community should focus efforts over the next two years. The topics overlap with those mentioned earlier but are prospective, not reactions to current conditions. Overall quality of natural environment While overall 83% of respondents believed the community should continue to focus on this topic, a lower number, 71%, of those under 35 shared this opinion. Overall quality of the "built" environment Similarly with the last topic, while overall 79% of respondents believed the community should continue to focus on this topic, a lower number, 66%, of those under 35 shared this opinion. Health and wellness opportunities While overall 65% of respondents believed this was an important issue to focus on in the next two years, two interesting disparities were observed. 75% of renters felt this way, while 61% of home -owners; and 57% of those earning more than $100,000 shared this feeling, contrasted with 76% of those earning less than $49,999. Packet Pg. 161 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 11 of 12 Sense of community Here, contrasted with the overall high positive view (76%) among Edmonds residents of the existing sense of community, 84% of residents still view this as a key topic to focus on over the next two years, with the highest response rate coming from renters, at 94%. Responses to Customized Questions by Demographic Subgroups How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for transportation - related services in Edmonds As mentioned earlier, overall the responses were overwhelmingly positive to this question and its components. And, while most responses to this question were similar across demographic cohorts, the greatest disparities were seen among 20-year+ residents who showed lower support, especially for bicycle facilities (48% compared with 60% and 68% from the two shorter -term resident cohorts), and homeowners showing 55% support of bicycle facilities compared with renters, at 68%. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for parks and recreation -related services in Edmonds Again, overall responses were consistently positive to the various components of this question Again, approximately the same disparities arose in these responses as with the previous question, residents under 20 years showing the strongest support. This is borne out by a positive response rate of 77% and 89% from the two under-20-year resident cohorts, with 20- year+ residents supportive at a rate of 66%. Renters exhibited even greater support for acquisition of parkland/beachfront at 84%, compared with 75% from homeowners. Discrimination Interestingly, the highest characteristic identified as a source of discrimination about Edmonds residents was age, at 5%. Twenty-year+ residents showed twice the propensity for age discrimination as 5-year residents; lower income households showed twice the propensity for age discrimination than both higher income brackets; renters showed twice the propensity for the same; and perhaps most interestingly, 11% of those under 35 experienced the highest incidence of age -related discrimination, versus 1% for 35-54 year -olds, and 5% for those over 55. Those experiencing discrimination due to disability were substantially more prevalent in lower income households (10% versus 2% and 0% in the other two income brackets), while three - times as common among renters than homeowners (6% vs. 2%). Packet Pg. 162 5.2.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 12 of 12 How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding to enhance Edmonds Police - related services Overall responses to these questions were consistently positive and quite uniform among demographic cohorts. The chief disparities among demographic cohorts related to support for additional funding for traffic enforcement which saw 71% of lower -income households in support, contrasted with 57% of the top income bracket. There was positive support for 24- hour coverage at the Police Department, with a lower percentage of support among long-time residents, mirrored by less a lower level of support among homeowners than renters. How much various media are regular source of information about City functions, activities, programs and events through the following channels Among media identified as major sources, print media were far less likely to be a major source for residents less than 5 years, renters and the younger age cohort. The City website or Facebook page was much more likely a major source for the middle -age cohort. Online media was much less likely to be a major source for 20-year+ residents and those over 55, yet quite high among those with households incomes above $100,000. And renters showed the highest response to posters and banners as a source of information. Packet Pg. 163 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Public Hearing and Resolution to Designate Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District as Residential Targeted Area (20 min.) Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Economic Development Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History Please refer to the attached copy of the Agenda Memo from 7/26/16 when this item was first introduced for more detailed background. At the 7/26/16 meeting the City Council passed a Resolution of Intent to designate the Westgate Mixed - Use (WMU) Zone District as a Residential Targeted Area for the purpose of potential implementation of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program, pursuant to RCW 84.14. Notice of the public hearing at this Council meeting was provided twice for two consecutive weeks in accordance with the requirements of RCW 84.14. Staff Recommendation Pass the Resolution designating the WMU Zone District as a Residential Targeted Area for the purpose of potential implementation of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program. Narrative As stated in the Resolution of Intent to designate the WMU Zone District as the City's first Residential Targeted Area for potential implementation of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program, pursuant to City Council's adoption of the WMU Zone District plan and zoning provisions in April 2015, the Westgate district is intended to become a mixed -use, walkable, compact urban center with a variety of housing choices and opportunities for employment, goods and services. Nevertheless, since that time, while residential development has been robust in other parts of the City, and purely commercial development has occurred both in Westgate and elsewhere in the City, plans for mixed -use or multifamily development in the WMU district, without this incentive in place, have not been forthcoming - likely due to the challenges cited above. For these reasons, the current proposal is to designate the WMU Zone District as the "residential targeted area" in order to potentially implement the MFTE program there. (See attached map.) In order to do so, the City Council is holding a public hearing at this Council meeting. Upon conclusion of the public hearing and in consideration of any public testimony, the City Council may then pass a Resolution designating the WMU Zone District as the "residential targeted area." The Resolution is attached here. Packet Pg. 164 7.1 Subsequently City staff will develop the corresponding code provisions to implement the MFTE program and bring them to Council for review and adoption in the near future. Attachments: Resolution of Intent Agenda Memo WMU Residential Targeted Area Map 2016-08-10 RESO WMU ZONE DESIGNATION FOR MFTE Packet Pg. 165 7.1.a City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Resolution of Intent to Designate Westgate Mixed Use Zone District as Residential Targeted Zone for Implementation of Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program and to Schedule Public Hearing (20 min.) Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Economic Development Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History In an effort to spur investment and redevelopment in slow -to -develop urban centers statewide and in fulfillment of Growth Management Act objectives, in 1995 the State Legislature inaugurated the Multifamily Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program by passing enabling legislation contained in RCW 84.14. This enabling legislation provides the authority and process for individual jurisdictions to implement the MFTE program in their communities. In short, the MFTE provides an incentive to developers to invest in "residential targeted areas" - areas designated by cities through their GMA-compliant comprehensive planning and subarea planning processes to receive greater density of multifamily and commercial development. Often called "urban centers" or "urban villages," these areas are intended to become walkable, amenity -rich, transit - supportive, mixed -use communities where future growth in housing and employment can be readily accommodated. Unfortunately, in many cities the transformation from current conditions to the intended "urban village" is often slow and fraught with challenges. Be they competition with higher - rent locales that attract developers, or the inherent complications of urban redevelopment (unwilling property sellers, need to accumulate multiple parcels, existing long-term leases, etc.), in many cities these factors can stall for years or decades the transformation to such planned -for "urban villages." The MFTE incentive is one small tool that can help provide incentives in these areas to help counteract some of these challenges for developers and investors, thereby encouraging them to develop multifamily and mixed -use projects in these areas. Per State law, the MFTE is applicable to projects containing at least four dwelling units and provides for an exemption from property tax valuation of the improvement value of the residential portion of the development. Property taxes continue to be assessed and collected on the improvement value of the nonresidential (e.g. commercial) component of the project and the increased land value. State law allows for the exemption pursuant to two options: The standard exemption period is for 8 years. A longer exemption period of up to 12 years is provided for projects that include at least 20% of the dwelling units as affordable to rent or buy for low- and moderate -income households. (Low - Packet Pg. 166 7.1.a income households have incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income, while moderate -income households have incomes no greater than 115% of the area median income.) Many jurisdictions in Washington have enacted this provision, summarized below: Near Edmonds Seattle Everett Shoreline Mountlake Terrace Lynnwood Kenmore Marysville Statewide Tacoma Spokane Yakima Bellevue Renton Kirkland Burien Bremerton Puyallup SeaTac Bellingham Auburn Olympia Vancouver Federal Way Kent Wenatchee Walla Walla Moses Lake Anacortes Issaquah Tukwila Des Moines Covington University Place Due to the program's widespread application across the State, many developers of multifamily and mixed -use projects have come to consider the MFTE program as a requirement to overcome the challenges of urban redevelopment in all but the highest -rent housing markets (central Seattle or Bellevue, e.g.). Packet Pg. 167 7.1.a Staff Recommendation Adopt the Resolution of Intent to designate Westgate Mixed Use Zone District as Residential Targeted Zone for implementation of Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program and schedule a public hearing for the regular City Council meeting on August 16, 2016 at 7:OOpm in Council Chambers. Narrative Resolution of Intent The first step towards implementation of the MFTE program in a local jurisdiction, as per RCW 84.14, is for a City Council to pass a Resolution of Intent to designate the intended "residential targeted area(s)" where implementation of the MFTE program will occur. Pursuant to City Council's adoption of the Westgate Mixed -Use (WMU) Zone District plan and zoning provisions in April 2015, the Westgate district is intended to become a mixed -use, walkable, compact urban center with a variety of housing choices and opportunities for employment, goods and services. Nevertheless, since that time, while residential development has been robust in other parts of the City, and purely commercial development has occurred both in Westgate and elsewhere in the City, plans for mixed -use or multifamily development in the WMU district, without this incentive in place, have not been forthcoming - likely due to the challenges cited above. For these reasons, the current proposal is to designate the (WMU) Zone District as the "residential targeted area" in order to implement the MFTE program there. (See attached map.) In order to do so, the City Council must first pass the attached Resolution of Intent to designate the WMU Zone District as a "residential targeted area" and set a public hearing on August 16, 2016. Upon conclusion of the public hearing and in consideration of any public testimony, the City Council may then pass a Resolution designating the WMU Zone District as the "residential targeted area." Subsequently City staff will develop the corresponding code provisions to implement the MFTE program and bring them to Council for review and adoption in the near future. Attachments: FINAL RESO OF INTENT MFTE WMU Residential Targeted Area Map Packet Pg. 168 ME N Cn O Cyl O O u4 Cyl I O O CD OL CD OL CD I c� rn rn OL N O CD rt C4 3 �O SO 100TH AVE W 100TH AVE W cn IT 1 or _Fir �v 0 �O i �02�p E�: X� CD Q. rn N 0 rn v rr Attachment: WMU Residential Targeted Area Map (1451 : Public Hearing and Resolution to Designate Westgate Mixed -Use Zone as Residential 7.1.c �.YI]�iy�[1]�VCIa A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TO DESIGNATE THE WESTGATE MIXED -USE ZONE DISTRICT AS A RESIDENTIAL TARGETED AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM WHEREAS Chapter 84.14 of the Revised Code of Washington provides for temporary special valuations for eligible improvements associated with multifamily housing, especially within urban centers deficient in planned residential development; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2015 the Edmonds City Council adopted the Westgate Mixed - Use (WMU) Zone District as an urban center whose purpose is to: A. Encourage mixed -use development, including offices and retail spaces in conjunction with residential 07 uses, in a walkable community center with a variety of amenity and open spaces. The intent is to establish a 13 connection between neighborhoods; create a desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to M visitors; and unify the larger Westgate district with a distinctive character. c B. Create mixed -use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and m community -friendly. _ C. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. D. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. a E. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green features. Ln F. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form. H G. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the LL surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. O H. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and LL age segments. p and WHEREAS, multifamily residential development is lagging in the WMU Zone District while commercial development there and residential development elsewhere in the City is occurring; and WHEREAS, implementation of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program, authorized by 84.14 RCW, may provide sufficient incentive to encourage residential development in the WMU Zone District; and WHEREAS, in order to establish a Multifamily Tax Exemption Program, the City must designate one or more residential targeted areas within which the temporary special valuation may be granted to qualifying residential improvements; and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirement stipulated at RCW 84.14.040(2), the Edmonds City Council passed a Resolution of Intent on July 26, 2016 to designate the WMU Zone District a residential targeted area; and Packet Pg. 170 7.1.c WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 84.14.040(2), the Resolution of Intent gave notice of the time and place of a hearing to be held by the governing authority to consider the designation of the residential targeted area(s) as 7:00 pm, August 16, 2016 in Edmonds City Council Chambers; and WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 84.14.040(2), publication of the notice of the August 16, 2016 public hearing was provided in a newspaper of general circulation for at least two consecutive weeks, no less than 7 and no more than 30 days prior to the hearing, on July 29, 2016 and August 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, the hearing on the proposed residential targeted area was held as scheduled on August 16, 2016; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Edmonds finds as follows: (a) The WMU Zone District is within an urban center; (b) The WMU Zone District lacks sufficient available, desirable, and convenient residential housing, including affordable housing, to meet the needs of the public who would be likely to live in the WMU Zone District, if the affordable, desirable, attractive, and livable places to live were available; and (c) The designation of the WMU Zone District as a residential targeted area will stimulate the � construction of new multifamily housing. Section 2. In light of the above findings, the City Council of the City of Edmonds designates the Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District, as defined by Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.110 and the city's official zoning map, as a residential targeted area for the purposes of establishing a Multifamily Tax Exemption Program. RESOLVED this 16`" day of August, 2016. APPROVED: DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 171 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Presentation and Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement with HWA GeoSciences for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project (10 min.) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On February 9, 2016, Council awarded the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project to Razz Construction. On May 17, 2016, staff presented a project update. On June 21, 2016, Council approved a Change Order in the amount of $227,078. Staff Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Narrative On March 4, 2016 the City entered into a $61,376 contract with HWA to provide construction observation services for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. The City entered into Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with HWA for $34,809 for additional construction observation and testing services due to the increase in project scope and duration for the alternate edge repairs required to remedy the substantial rebar corrosion and concrete deterioration. Additional construction observation services are needed for the on -going concrete repairs that are expected to be completed this month. The proposed fee for the Supplemental Agreement is $13,890. Staff is requesting approval of this item so the budget is available to continue on -site inspection of the construction work. Attachments: HWA Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 172 Original Contract No. Supplemental Agreement 1 No. CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 1215T"AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov 0 igg° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and HWA GeoSciences, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project, dated March 4, 2016; and WHEREAS, an extension to the original Scope of Work has been identified with regard construction observation; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of March 4, 2016 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 $61,376 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 $34,809 by the Supplemental Agreement No. 1, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $13,890 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 $110,075 ($61,376, plus $34,809, plus $13,890). 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 A to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Packet Pg. 173 8.1.a 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. DONE this day of CITY OF EDMONDS Bv: Mayor David O. Earling ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 20 HWA GeoSciences, Inc. By: _ Title: Packet Pg. 174 8.1.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: SAStaff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E4MB.Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab\HWA.Supp 2.doc Packet Pg. 175 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work 8.1.a Consultant will provide an extension of the ongoing construction observation services for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. The services are outlined in Exhibit A of the underlying agreement. 2nd Supplimental Budget Request Cost Estimate I HWA Ref: 2016-023 Construction Observation Y =n 1 HWA GEOSCI.ENCES INC. Date: 3-Jun-16 COE Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Revised: 11-Aug-16 Edmonds, WA Prepared By: SEG Prepared For: Ilcnr� Schroder with C.'ih• of l:.�ln3nnds. E ST INIATIT,D IIL1',S I.A110R: WORK TASK DESCRIPTION 2016 PERSONNEL & HOURLY RATES TOTAL HOURS TOTAL AMOUNT Principal $190.00 Sen. Eng. $140.00 Proj Mgr $170.00 Inspector $85.00 Clerical $71.00 Review approved plans andspecifications prior to re -con meetmi 2 8 8 18 $2,420 Preconstruction meeting 4 4 8 $1,020 Daily eonstruclion observation, reporting, and material delivery review 58 days 4 12 464 12 492 $43.092 ,As -built Documentation Support 4 1 8 24 4 1 40 1 $4,444 Final Inspection and Punch list support 4 8 16 28 $3,480 Project management, Communications, meetings 6 34 40 $6,920 TOTAL LABOR: 1 20 0 74 516 16 626 $61,376 Testing Subcontract for Pullout Tests by Mayes TE 519,325 Plus 2% for B&O tax $387 Total Budget Spent (Through July 8, 2016) $62,583 Total Budget Remaining r ($1,207) *Estimated Budget to cover FT from July 11th Through July 29th 2016 6 150 156 S13,890 Estimated Required Budgetary Supplement 1 $34,809 2nd Supplementary Budget Increase 6 150 156 SM890 Requested ContractAmount 5110,075 Assumes no support requred for documentation after August 26th, 2016. COE Fishing Pier Rehabilitation 1 of 1 HWA GeoSciences Inc. Packet Pg. 176 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Authorization to join the King County lawsuit regarding Ronald Wastewater District service area (10 min.) Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Phil Williams A lawsuit has been initiated in King County by Ronald Wastewater District (RWD) seeking clarification as to whether their service territory includes that portion of Snohomish County located at Point Wells. This issue was considered by the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board approximately a year and a half ago. The decision in Snohomish County was that this area was not to be included in their service area. That decision was appealed by Ronald, as well as King County and the City of Shoreline. That appeal was subsequently abandoned. The same parties are now seeking a similar decision from the King County court system. The filing in King County (attached) does not list Edmonds as an interested party even though we participated in the entire Snohomish County review process as well as the process conducted prior to that in front of the King County Boundary Review Board. Staff is seeking authorization from council to file the necessary motions to be added to this lawsuit. Staff Recommendation Direct the city attorney to intervene as a defendant in King County Superior Court cause number 16-2- 15331-3 SEA, captioned as Ronald Wastewater District, plaintiff vs. Olympic View Water and Sewer District et al., defendants, to protect the City of Edmonds' interest in receiving wastewater flows from future development in the Point Wells area of Snohomish County." Narrative See above. Edmonds believes this area of Snohomish County is in the service area of Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD). They are a partner in the regional Wastewater Treatment Facility owned and operated by the City of Edmonds. It is to Edmonds' and our partners advantage to have control of this OVWSD be the service provider to any future development at this site in order to keep system costs and therefore rates low to all of our customers. Attachments: Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Packet Pg. 177 y 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY RONALD WASTEWATER DISTRICT, a Washington municipal corporation, Plaintiff, V. OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, a Washington municipal corporation; SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation; KING COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation; CITY OF SHORELINE, a Washington municipal corporation; and TOWN OF WOODWAY, a Washington municipal corporation, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 1 64483 NO. 16-2-15331-3 SEA COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW Van Ness Feldman LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 c a� E 0 CU L M 0 L 0 r- a E 0 U r c m r r Q Packet Pg. 178 i 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff/Petitioner Ronald Wastewater District, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Statutory and Constitutional Review (the "Complaint/Petition") and alleges as I follows; I. INTRODUCTION 1,1 This case centers around the fact that the corporate boundaries of Ronald i Wastewater District ("Ronald") and Olympic View Water and Sewer District ("Olympic 1 View") overlap in one particularly contentious geographic area of Snohomish County; the "Point Wells" area, located in the southwest corner of the County along Puget Sound. Point Wells has previously been the subject of extensive litigation in several different forums, including two trips to the Washington State Supreme Court. See Town of Woodivay v. Snohomish Cry., 180 Wn. 2d 165, 322 P.3d 1219 (2014); Chevron USA, Inc. v, Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 156 Wn. 2d 131, 124 P.3d 640 (2005). 1.2 The Point Wells area is contentious primarily because a developer, BSRE Point Wells, LLP ("BSRE" ), has proposed the construction of a mixed -use urban center development that would add more than 3,000 residential units to the Point Wells area (the "Urban Center Development"), and because the City of Shoreline ("Shoreline") and the j Town of Woodway ("Woodway") have both designated Point Wells as a potential annexation area. The Urban Center Development is still in the very early stages of environmental review and permitting, however, and if the Urban Center Development is eventually approved, it will not be constructed until after the developer completes the permitting process as well as several years of phased demolition and cleanup of the industrial site. Nevertheless, Olympic View and other parties have been positioning themselves in anticipation of the Urban Center Development and the potential annexation of Point Wells by Shoreline or Woodway. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 2 1 Feldman ur G4483 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 r c E ai 0 R L M 0 a� 0 0 c a 0 U c m M v R r Q Packet Pg. 179 1 a 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.3 For the reasons explained below, under state law, Ronald has the exclusive right to provide sewer service to the entire Point Wells area, including the proposed Urban Center Development, and Olympic View may not provide such service without first obtaining consent from Ronald. 1.4 In 1981, the Washington Legislature declared its intention to "reduce the duplication of service and the conflict among jurisdictions by establishing the principle that the first in tine is the first in right wllere districts overlap." SHB 352, Laws of 1981, Chapter 45, § 1 (emphasis added). 1.5 Ronald and its predecessors -in -interest have been providing sewer service to the Point Wells area since the early 1970s. In the mid-1980s, Point Wells was transferred and annexed to Ronald's corporate boundary through a process that was specifically authorized by the Legislature for that purpose. In 1984, the Legislature adopted Substitute House Bill 1127 ("SHB 1127") (Exhibit I , which provided an expedited process for transferring a sewer system from a County to a water -sewer district, In 1985, pursuant to SHB 1127, King County entered into a transfer agreement with Ronald authorizing the transfer of the County's sewer boundary and infrastructure in Point Wells to Ronald (the "1985 Transfer Agreement") and filed a joint petition with this Court seeking approval of the 1985 Transfer Agreement Exhibit 2 . In response to the joint petition, this Court entered an order approving the transfer and annexing Point Wells to Ronald's corporate boundary (the "1985 Annexation Order") Exhibit 3 as of January 1, 1986. 1.6 Ronald has itself been providing sewer service to Point Wells since January 1, 1986, As detailed below, Ronald has also adopted specific plans, in coordination with Snohomish County, to upgrade its infrastructure to accommodate the Urban Center Development. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 3 1 Feldman 69463 719 Second Avenge, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 6234372 r c a� 01 0 CU aD 0 0 4- r_ a 0 U c m t v R r .r Q Packet Pg. 180 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 1.7 In 1996, the Legislature reaffirmed and refined the "first in time, first in j right" principle established in SHB 352 when it adopted SSB 6091 ("SSB 6091") (Exhibit 4) . SSB 6091 provided that, in the ease of overlapping sewer territory, the first district to make service available, or to plan to snake service available, has the exclusive right to provide service within the overlapping territory. SSB 6091 also ratified and confirmed the validity of all prior acts of water -sewer districts, which included Ronald's act of annexing Point Wells, L8 Olympic View has never provided sewer service to any portion of Point Wells. Olympic View's officials specifically consented to the provision of sewer service to Point Wells by Ronald's predecessors in 1971. For many years, Olympic View's officials were aware that Ronald was providing sewer service to Point Wells, and that Ronald was planning to provide sewer service to the Urban Center Development, but they raised no objection. Sometime between 2011 and 2014, however, Olympic View's officials decided to change course, and they have been attempting to re -write history ever since. In 2014 proceedings before the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board, Olympic View asserted, for the first time, that Ronald's corporate boundary does not include Point Wells, and that Olympic View should instead be given the right to serve the Point Wells area. In 2015, Olympic View began seeking approval of an amendment to its comprehensive sewer plan that anticipates Olympic View's construction of its own duplicative infrastructure for Point Wells, Olympic View had not previously adopted any plans to make sewer service available to any portion of Point Wells. 1.9 Woodway has also called into question Ronald's exclusive right to provide' sewer service to Point Wells. For example, Woodway recently filed a Notice of Intention with the Boundary Review Board that failed to recognize Ronald's exclusive right to provide sewer service to Point Wells, and Woodway's Town Administrator recently COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND 1 Feldman,. CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 4 69483 719 Second Avenue, Suite MD Seettfe, ViA 96104 I206) 623.9372 .r Q Packet Pg. 181 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [ submitted comments to the Snohomish County Council suggesting that Point Wells is I outside of Ronald's boundary. 1.10 Snohomish County has similarly refused to acknowledge Ronald's exclusive right to provide sewer service to Point Wells. On June 1, 2016, the Snohomish County Council approved Olympic View's proposed amendment to its comprehensive sewer plan, creating a new sewer service planning overlap in the County's adopted plans. 1.11 Ronald files this Petition/Complaint seeking relief from Olympic View's campaign to invade Ronald's exclusive sewer service territory in Point Wells; from the actions of Olympic View, Woodway, and Snohomish County that have called into question Ronald's corporate boundary and its exclusive right to serve Point Wells; and from the cloud over Ronald"s rights that may have resulted from Snohomish County's improper approval of Olympic View's amendment. II. PARTIES 2.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs I above and below as if fully set forth herein. 2.2 Plaintiff/Petitioner Ronald is a Washington municipal corporation and special purpose district operating under the authority of Title 57 RCW, whose corporate boundary includes territory in King County and Snohomish County, and whose executive and administrative offices are located in King County. Ronald currently provides sewer service to a portion of the Point Wells area of Snohomish County, and Ronald has adopted plans to provide sewer service to the Urban Center Development, if and when it is constructed. Pursuant to RCW 7.24.020, Ronald is "interested under a .. . written contract or other writings constituting a contract," including without limitation its 1985 Transfer Agreement with King County; and Ronald's rights, status, and other legal relations are affected by the statutes discussed below, the franchise agreement between COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT an Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND HeldrnanLLF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 5 69483 719 Second Avenue, Sulle 1160 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 c a� E a� 0 CU L a� 0 4 c a 0 U r c m t R r-+ Q Packet Pg. 182 1 8.2.a I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ronald and Snohomish County discussed below, and other relevant instruments, statutes, I ordinances, contracts and/or franchises. Ronald identifies the following parties as' defendants in this proceeding pursuant to RCW 7.24.110 because they claim an interest which would be affected by the declaratory relief sought in this Complaint/Petition, 2.3 Defendant Olympic View is a Washington municipal corporation and special purpose district operating under the authority of Title 57 RCW, whose corporate boundary includes territory in Snohomish County that partially overlaps with Ronald's corporate boundary, and whose executive and administrative offices are located in Snohomish County. Olympic View currently provides water service to the Point Wells area, but it has never provided sewer service to the area, and it did not adopt plans to do so until 2015-16, Olympic View transacts substantial business in King County, including entering into agreements with Ronald and other King County entities addressing sewer service and wastewater treatment issues. 2.4 Defendant Snohomish County is a Washington municipal corporation, whose executive and administrative offices are located in Snohomish County in Everett, Washington. The Point Wells area is located in Snohomish County. Snohomish County I recently approved, over Ronald's objection, Olympic View's newly -adopted plans to provide sewer service to Point Wells. Some of Ronald's sewer infrastructure in Snohomish County is located on a stretch of Richmond Beach Drive, which was previously part of Snohomish County's right-of-way and subject to Snohomish County's Franchise Agreement with Ronald, As explained below, that property was annexed into the Town of Woodway in 1997. Snohomish County transacts substantial business in King County. 2.5 Defendant King County is a Washington municipal corporation, whose executive and administrative offices are located in King County in Seattle, Washington. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND Feldman CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 6 LLP M83 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA M04 (206) $23.9372 c a� E a� 0 CU L a� 0 L .0 c a E 0 U r c m t R r r Q Packet Pg. 183 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 King County was a party to the 1985 Transfer Agreement and the court proceeding that led to this Court's issuance of the 1985 Annexation Order. King County has, at various times, entered into agreements with Ronald, Olympic View, and Woodway regarding sewer service and wastewater treatment issues. 2.6 Defendant Woodway is a Washington municipal corporation, whose executive and administrative offices are located in Snohomish County. Ronald currently provides sewer service to a portion of Woodway's corporate boundary by agreement. Woodway transacts substantial business in King County. Woodway has, at various times, entered into agreements with Ronald, Olympic View, and King County regarding sewer service and wastewater treatment issues. In 1997, pursuant to Snohomish County Ordinance No. 97-003, Woodway annexed a stretch of Richmond Beach Drive on which some of Ronald's sewer infrastructure in Snohomish County is located. In 2004, Woodway entered into an agreement with Olympic View that allowed Olympic View to assume jurisdiction over Woodway's sewer system. In 2013, pursuant to that agreement, Woodway gave Olympic View a "ten-year notice" stating that, by 2023, Woodway intends to re -assume jurisdiction over the portion of Olympic View located within Woodway. As noted above, Woodway recently proposed the annexation of the "Upper Bluff' portion of Point Wells. 2.7 Defendant Shoreline is a Washington municipal corporation, whose j executive and administrative offices are located in King County. Ronald provides sewer service within Shoreline's corporate boundary. As explained below, in 2002, Shoreline entered into an interlocal agreement with Ronald that anticipates Shoreline's assumption of Ronald — including Ronald's entire corporate boundary in King County and Snohomish County, and all of its assets in both of those counties — pursuant to RCW 35.13A.030. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 3UDGMENT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 7 69483 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 c a� E 0 CU �a a� 0 �0 c M a E 0 U m R r Q Packet Pg. 184 1 21 8.2.a 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs I I above and below as if fully set forth herein, 3.2 This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under RCW 2.08.010, RCW Ch, 7.16, RCW Ch. 7.24, RCW Ch. 7,40, Washington Constitution Article 1V Section 6, I and other applicable law. 33 Venue is proper under RCW Ch. 4.12 and RCW 36.01,050(1), inter alia, because several of the defendants reside in King County and because this Court is one of the two nearest judicial districts to Snohomish County. IV. FACTS REGARDING RONALD'S ANNEXATION OF POINT WELLS TO ITS CORPORATE BOUNDARY 4,1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs + above and below as if fully set forth herein, 42 Ronald and its predecessors have provided sewer service to the Point Wells area since the early 1970s. In 1970 and 1971, Ronald's predecessor, the King County Sewer and Drainage District No. 3 ("KCSD #3") entered into agreements with Standard Oil Company, which later became Chevron USA, Inc., to provide sewer service to the Point Wells area. Pursuant to those agreements, Standard Oil Company constructed a sewer lift station in Point Wells (now known as "Lift Station #13") and conveyed ownership of Lift Station #13 to KCSD #3, and KCSD #3 provided sewer service to the Standard Oil facility. On September 28, 1971, Olympic View (which was then called "Olympic View Water District No. 1") sent a letter to King County's Department of Public Works stating that "[t]he Commissioners of the Olympic View Water District have no objections to permitting the Department of Public Works, King County, to serve the lift COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 8 1 Feldman 6903 M second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA M04 (206) 6 23-937 2 c a� E a� 0 CU L M 0 a� 0 0 c a E 0 U c m t V t4 r r Q Packet Pg. 185 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 station located approximately 180 feet north of the King County line on Richmond Beach Drive, within our service area." KCSD #3 continued to provide sewer service to Point Wells until the mid-1980s, when King County began a multi -step process of divesting itself of sewer collection operations, As part of that process, King County assisted in passing SHB 1127. As noted above, SHB 1127 provided an expedited process for transferring a sewer system from a County to a water -sewer district. 4.3 The next step in the County's divestment process was a transfer of KCSD #3's sewer system (also referred to as the "Richmond Beach Sewer System") to King County. In February 1984, in anticipation of this first step, KCSD #3 adopted its Sewerage General Plan for Richmond Beach, The Sewerage General Plan recognized that KCSD #3 provided sewer service to "a Chevron Petroleum plant on Point Wells just north of the King -Snohomish border." In June of 1984, KCSD #3 and King County then entered into the 1985 Transfer Agreement and filed a petition in this Court under RCW 36.94.340 seeking approval to transfer the Richmond Beach Sewer System from KSCD #3 to King County, which was approved by this Court in July of 1984. 4.4 On November 5, 1984, Woodway's Town Council discussed Ronald's planned annexation of Point Wells, noting that "the date for Ronald Sewer District to take over King County Sewer District is now April 1985." 4.5 In 1985, using the statutory process authorized by SHB 1127, King County and Ronald (then called "Ronald Sewer District") entered into the 1985 Transfer Agreement and filed a petition in this Court under SHB 1127 seeking approval of a transfer of the Richmond Beach Sewer System to Ronald. RCW 36.94.420, one of the codified provisions of SHB 1127, provides as follows: "If so provided in the transfer agreement, the area served by the system shall, upon completion of the transfer, be COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND 1 Feldman,, CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 9 49413 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seatile, WA 96104 (206) 623.9372 c a� a1 0 CU L aD 0 0 4- r_ a E 0 U c m t v R r .r Q Packet Pg. 186 1 8.2.a 31 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dee7ned annexed to and become a part of the water -sewer district acquiring the system" I I (emphasis added). 4,6 Consistent with RCW 36.94.420, the 1985 Transfer Agreement between the County and Ronald stated: "the area served by the System shall be deemed annexed to and part of the District" after the transfer was completed. Ex. 2, 1 K (emphasis added). The 1985 Transfer Agreement also stated that "the `area served' by the System shall mean those parcels of property within the boundaries described in Addendum A." Id., 13. Addendum A to the 1985 Transfer Agreement, which is titled "Legal Description Richmond Beach Sewer System," includes a description of two areas in King County and additional areas in Snohomish County, including the Point Wells area and a small area in the southwest corner of what is now the Town of Woodway. 4.7 On November 20, 1985, this Court issued its 1985 Annexation Order. In the 1985 Annexation Order, the Court found that the 1985 Transfer Agreement was "legally correct"; approved the 1985 Transfer Agreement; ordered that the system transfer would be effective on January 1, 1986; and ordered that "the area served by the System shall be annexed to and become a part of the District on the effective date of the transfer." Ex. 3, 13 (emphasis added). 4.8 The Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office has confirmed the fact that I Point Wells is part of Ronald's corporate boundary. In 2007, the Prosecutor's Office issued a "Memorandum of Advice" that discusses the history of Ronald's service area in Snohomish County (Exhibit 5). The Memorandum of Advice concludes that "by virtue of the court order of November 1985, the portion of Snohomish County in question [Point Wells] was annexed into the Ronald Sewer District as of January 1, 1986." Ex. 5 at 3-4. Olympic View's current General Manager, Lynne Danielson, was personally contacted by the County Prosecutor as part of his investigation into this issue. Id. at 3. At that time. - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND 1 Feldman CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW -1a 694a3 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 5ealtle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9 37 2 c a� E 0 CU L aD 0 4 c a 0 U r c m t R r .r Q Packet Pg. 187 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Danielson confirmed that Olympic View has never provided sewer service to Point Wells. Id. No objection was raised by Ms. Danielson or any other agent of Olympic View to the County Prosecutor's decision to confirm that Point Wells was legally annexed to Ronald as a result of the 1985 Annexation Order. V. FACTS REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND OTHER ACTIONS RECOGNIZING RONALD'S EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SERVE POINT WELLS 5.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs I above and below as if fully set forth lierein. 5.2 When Point Wells was annexed into Ronald's territory on January 1, 1986,1 Ronald immediately began providing sewer service to the industrial facility in Point Wells, and it also began planning to provide sewer service to the greater Point Wells area. In the capital facilities section from Ronald's 1990 Comprehensive Sewer Plan (which was revised in 1993), the first specific project discussed was upgrades to Lift Station #13 ('LS #13") "to provide sewer service for ultimate development of the service area, including Woodway and Chevron." In 1995, Ronald upgraded LS #13 at a total cost of well over $500,000. In addition to serving the industrial facility at Point Wells, LS #13 also serves four homes in the Town of Woodway (pursuant to an agreement between Ronald and Woodway) and approximately 56 homes in Shoreline. Ronald's 2001 Comprehensive Sewer Plan notes that Ronald's territory includes "a small amount of service area in Snohomish County'; describes the transfer of the Point Wells facilities from KCSD #3 to Ronald; discusses upgrades completed to date to LS #13 and additional upgrades needed; and includes a system map and a sewer basin boundary map showing LS #13 extending into Snohomish County. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 11 69493 Van Ness Feldman ,. 719 SeCOnd Avenue, Suile 1160 Seattle, 1YA "104 (206) 623-9372 r c a� E 0 CU L V aD 0 0 c a E 0 U r m R r-+ .r Q Packet Pg. 188 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5.3 Olympic View's 2007 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, which includes a service area map showing Point Wells as "served by Ronald Wastewater District" and does not include any plans for Olympic View to provide sewer service to any portion of Point Wells, was approved by the Snohomish County Council in 2007. 5.4 In 2010, Ronald issued a Certificate of Sewer Availability to BSRE for the Urban Center Development. BSRE later filed a comment letter with the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board stating that "BSRE has always expected to have Ronald Wastewater District -as the sewer service provider" for the Urban Center Development. 5.5 Also in 2010, the Snohomish County Council approved Ronald's 2010 Comprehensive Sewer Plan via Motion 10-185. The 2010 Comprehensive Sewer Plan states that Ronald's corporate boundary includes "a portion in Snohomish County" and notes that Ronald's LS #13 "provides sewer service for a portion of unincorporated Snohomish County known as the Point Wells area." The 2010 plan also includes a Capital Facilities Plan map that references additional improvements to LS #13, including an estimated $2 million upgrade on a schedule to be "coordinated with development of the Point Wells area of the District." The County's staff report for Motion 10-185 found that Ronald's plans to serve Point Wells were consistent with the County's comprehensive plan in general, and were also consistent with the County's planning actions and environmental review regarding the Urban Center Development in particular, noting that Ronald had "used the best available infonnation on the potential build -out of the Point Wells site under the new Urban Centers designation" and that Ronald had "accurately used infonnation published in the Paramount FEIS for the site (3,500 housing units and nearly 900 jobs) for this purpose." 5.6 In 2011, Snohomish County issued a SEPA Addendum supporting its comprehensive plan update for the Point Wells development. The SEPA Addendum COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND 1 Feldman CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 12 LLP 69483 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 62a-9372 .r Q Packet Pg. 189 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 clearly stated that Ronald is the sewer provider to Point Wells. Olympic View was included on the distribution list for this document, but Olympic View's officials did not I raise any objection to its recognition of Ronald as the sewer service provider in Point I Wells. 5.7 Other documents supporting Snohomish County's comprehensive plan similarly recognize that Ronald is the sewer provider for Point Wells. For example, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) supporting the County's 2015 Comprehensive Plan update included a map showing Ronald as the sewer provider for Point Wells. In 2015, the County Council approved a Capital Facilities Plan that included a "Public Waste Water Systems" map showing Ronald as the sewer provider for Point I Wells. VI. FACTS REGARDING RONALD'S `FIRST -IN -TIME" RIGHT TO SERVE POINT WELLS 6.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs above and below as if fully set forth herein. 6,2 As noted above, Ronald's corporate boundary partially overlaps with Olympic View's corporate boundary. The well -established rule in Washington is that, when the corporate boundaries of two water -sewer districts include overlapping territory, the first district to make service available in the overlapping territory has the exclusive right to continue providing service in that area. SSB 6091 (1996), Laws of 1996, Ch. 230,' §§ 302, 313(2) (codified at RCW 57.08.007, RCW 57.08.065(2)), Washington law similarly provides that the first district that plans to make service available in an area: `under an effective comprehensive plan" has the exclusive right to provide service in that i area. Id., § 302 (codified at RCW 57.08.007). Because Ronald was the first district to' make sewer service available in Point Wells, and was the first district to plan to make COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND 1 Feldman CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 13 6948) 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1160 Seattle, WA 9804 (206) 623-9372 r c a� E a� 0 CU L 0 0 a� 0 0 c a E 0 U r c m t R r-+ Q Packet Pg. 190 1 8.2.a 1I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional service available in Point Wells (including serving the Urban Center I Development), Ronald has the exclusive right to continue providing such service. VII. FACTS REGARDING RONALD'S 2002 OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH SHORELINE 7.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs above and below as if fully set forth herein. 7.2 In 2002, Ronald entered into an Interlocal Operating Agreement with Shoreline (the "2002 Operating Agreement"). The express purpose of the 2002 Operating Agreement was "to provide an orderly and predictable transition of the wastewater utility from the District to City ownership." Ronald and Shoreline initially anticipated that this transition to city ownership would culminate in Shoreline's exercise of its statutory authority under RCW 35.13.030 to assume jurisdiction over Ronald by October of 20t7. 7.3 In 20W, Shoreline filed Notices of Intention with the King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) and the Snohomish County BRB seeking approval for its proposed assumption of Ronald's corporate boundary and assets in King County and Snohomish County. The King County BRB approved Shoreline's proposed assumption of Ronald's corporate boundary and assets in King County, but the Snohomish County BRB denied Shoreline's proposed assumption of Ronald's corporate boundary and assets in Snohomish County. 7.4 Because more than one year has passed since the Snohomish County BRB's decision, under the statute governing the BRB's review process, Shoreline is free to file a new Notice of Intention with the Snohomish County BRB seeking approval of the assumption. RCW 3693.150 provides in relevant part that, when the BRB disapproves a proposed action, "such action may be reinitiated after a period of twelve months from date of disapproval and shall again be subject to the same consideration." COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND i Feldman CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 14 .. 6"83 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seatlie, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 c a� E 0 CU L 0 aD 0 L 0 4- r- a E 0 U r c m t R r .r Q Packet Pg. 191 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7.5 Because the Snohomish County BRB has not yet approved Shoreline's assumption of Ronald's corporate boundary in Snohomish County, it is unclear whether Shoreline's assumption of Ronald can be completed in 2017, as was initially anticipated in the 2002 Operating Agreement. If Shoreline decides to move forward with assumption in King County before it obtains approval for assumption in Snohomish County, Ronald would most likely continue to exist as special purpose district with a corporate boundary and assets only in Snohomish County for some period of time extending beyond 2017. VIII. FACTS REGARDING OLYMPIC VIEW'S CAMPAIGN TO INVADE RONALD'S TERRITORY IN POINT WELLS 8.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs above and below as if fully set forth herein. 8.2 As noted above, Olympic View's officials consented to King County's provision of sewer service to the Point Wells area in 1971; Olympic View's officials were aware of Ronald's provision of sewer service to the Chevron plant and Ronald's plans to serve the Urban Center Development; and Olympic View did not raise any objection to Ronald's plans at any time prior to 2014. In 2014 proceedings before the King County BRB and the Snohomish County BRB, however, Olympic View asserted, for the first time, that Olympic View should be given the right to provide sewer service to Point Wells. Olympic View also asked the Snohomish County BRB to confiscate all of Ronald's infrastructure and other assets in Point Wells and "award" them to Olympic View. 8.3 Olympic View later abandoned its pursuit of Ronald's sewer infi•astructure serving Point Wells, and instead sought approval of an amendment to its Comprehensive Sewer Plan that would anticipates Olympic View's construction of its own infrastructure serving Point Wells. In 2015 and 2016, Olympic View prepared and sought approval of COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL, REVIEW - 15 1 Feldman u� 64491 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, VIA 98104 (206) 623.9372 r c a� E a� 0 CU L 0 aD 0 0 c a E 0 U c m t V R r .r Q Packet Pg. 192 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . .. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Amendment No. 2 to its Comprehensive Sewer Plan ("Amendment No. 2"), which asserted that Olympic View has "a legal obligation" to provide sewer service to Point Wells and included plans to build duplicative infrastructure that would parallel sewer system components owned by Ronald and King County. As further explained below, the Snohomish County Council approved Olympic View's proposed Amendment No. 2 on June 1, 2016. 8.4 In proceedings before the Snohomish County BRB and the Snohomish County Council, Olympic View has asserted that "King County was prohibited by law from conducting any sewer operations in Snohomish County pursuant to RCW 36.94.020" prior to Ronald's annexation of Point Wells; that "no territory in Snohomish County was ever lawfully annexed by Ronald or any predecessor to Ronald'; that Olympic View is "free to challenge" the validity of the 1985 Annexation Order because Olympic View was not a party to the proceeding that led to this Court's entry of that order; and that, even assuming the validity of the 1985 Annexation Order, Ronald does not have an exclusive right to serve Point Wells because "Ronald does not have service available" in Point Wells and because Ronald "does not have'an effective comprehensive plan."' 8.5 In particular, Olympic View has asserted that "the disapproval of [Shoreline's proposed assumption of Ronald] by the BRB in Snohomish County effectively means there is no effective [Ronald) comprehensive plan." Olympic View has also asserted that Snohomish County's alleged -"refusal to consent to (lie transfer and conveyance of its franchise without an interlocal, a condition required to be met by the Council's conditional approval of the Ronald plan in 2010, also means there is no effective comprehensive plan." Finally, Olympic View asserted that "the Ronald plan is so outdated, it does not effectively deal with the proposed developments in the area." COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL, REVIEW - 16 6"83 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1160 Seattle, WA 98104 t2O6) 623-9372 c a� E a� 0 CU L V aD 0 .0 r_ a E 0 U r t R r r Q Packet Pg. 193 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 1 25 1 IX. FACTS REGARDING WOODWAY'S PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE "UPPER BLUFF" PORTION OF POINT WELLS AND OTHER ACTIONS QUESTIONING RONALWS RIGHTS 9.1 Woodway has also called into question Ronald's corporate boundary and sewer service rights. During 2014 proceedings before the Snohomish County BRB, Woodway joined Olympic View's argument that Point Wells is not part of Ronald's corporate boundary. Woodway's Town Administrator recently submitted comments to the Snohomish County Council regarding Olympic View's proposed Amendment No. 2 suggesting that Point Wells is "outside of the District's boundaries and outside of the boundaries of the former King County Sewer District #3." 9.2 On May 9, 2016, Woodway filed a Notice of Intention with the Boundary Review Board stating its intention to annex the "Upper Blufr' portion of Point Wells. Woodway's Notice of intention failed to recognize Ronald's exclusive right to provide sewer service to Point Wells, suggesting that service could be provided by either Ronald or Olympic View. Because the jurisdiction of the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board was not invoked by July 22, 2016, Woodway's proposed annexation is "deemed approved" under RCW 36,93.100. Ronald does not object to the annexation itself, but as long as a special purpose district operates wastewater service in the annexation area, Ronald would expect to be that service provider. X. FACTS REGARDING SNOHOMISH COUNTY'S APPROVAL OF OLYMPIC VIEW'S AMENDMENT NO.2 10.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs I I above and below as if fully set forth herein. 10.2 On June 1, 2016, over Ronald's, Shoreline's, and King County's objections, the Snohomish County Council approved Olympic View's proposed Amendment No. 2 pursuant to RCW 57.16.010 et seq. In approving Amendment No. 2, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 17 1 Feldman UP 69383 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 r c E a1 0 CU L a� 0 0 c a E 0 U r c m t R r-+ .r Q Packet Pg. 194 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I the Council asserted that "the County's GMA comprehensive plan recognizes that service overlaps may exist between purveyors within the County" and that "overlaps in service areas are compliant with the County's GMA comprehensive plan," while ignoring the fact that the County's action created a new sewer service planning overlap that did not previously exist in Snohomish County plans. XI, FIRST CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT — RONALD$S CORPORATE BOUNDARY 11.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs above and below as if fully set forth herein. 11.2 There is an actual and presently existing controversy between Ronald, Olympic View, Snohomish County, Shoreline, and Woodway regarding whether or not Ronald's corporate boundary lawfully includes the Point Wells area, Olympic View's assertions regarding Ronald's corporate boundary have created a cloud over Ronald's rights, and Ronald is entitled to have that cloud resolved pursuant to RCW Chapter 7.24. 11.3 The 1985 Annexation Order remains valid and binding as a legislatively - authorized annexation of territory to Ronald"s corporate boundary. Point Wells was lawfully annexed to Ronald's corporate boundary pursuant to RCW 36.94,420. As a result of the language in RCW 3694.420 stating that "the area served by the system shall . . , be deemed annexed," Point Wells was lawfully annexed to Ronald's corporate boundary regardless of whether or not KCSD #3 and/or King County were authorized to provide sewer service outside King County's borders. Moreover, KCSD ##3 and King County were, in fact, authorized to provide sewer service outside King County's borders at all relevant times in any event. 11.4 In 1996, the Legislature took further action to ratify and confirm the validity of all prior acts of water -sewer districts, which included Ronald's act of annexing COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 18 1 Feldman 69483 719 Second Avenue, Sut1e 1150 Seattle, WA W09 (206) 623-9372 r c a� E a� 0 CU aD 0 0 r- a E 0 U c m t V R r .r Q Packet Pg. 195 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Point Wells. SSB 6091 (1996) included a provision, now codified in RCW 57.02.001, stating that all prior acts of water -sewer districts were "legal and valid and of full force and effect." The clear intent of this legislation was to give water -sewer districts like Ronald certainty and finality with respect to the effect of prior contracts, annexations, and other acts affecting boundaries in general and overlapping boundaries in particular. As a result of this legislation, even if there had been some legal defect in the 1985 Annexation Order, Ronald's annexation of Point Wells must still be deemed legal, valid, and of full force and effect. 11.5 Since as early as 1971, Olympic View's officials were aware that Ronald and its predecessors were providing sewer service to Point Wells. From 1971 until 2014, Olympic View's officials did not object to Ronald's provision of service to Point Wells or to its plans to serve the Urban Center Development. Similarly, Woodway's officials were aware of Ronald's annexation of Point Wells as early as 1984 and did not object until 2014. Snohomish County's officials were aware of Ronald's annexation of Point Wells no later than 2007. Ronald and its customers have detrimentally relied on the lack of objection from Olympic View, Woodway, and Snohomish County, including bearing all capital and maintenance costs and making improvements to Ronald's sewer infrastructure serving Point Wells. Civil and political rights have become fixed according to the i boundary established by the 1985 Annexation Order: Snohomish County citizens living within Ronald's corporate boundary have been allowed to vote for Ronald's commissioners. As a result the long period of silent acquiescence by Olympic View, Woodway, and Snohomish County on the issue of Ronald's corporate boundary, they are all barred by the doctrine of acquiescence, and by the by the doctrines of estoppel and ]aches, from denying the validity of the 1985 Annexation Order. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 19 61A83 Van Ness Feldman Up 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 9B104 (206) 623-9372 c a� a1 0 CU L M 0 a� 0 .0 c a E 0 U r m E t R r-+ Q Packet Pg. 196 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11.6 A determination by the Court of the extent of Ronald's corporate boundary i will provide a final and conclusive determination of the controversy between the parties' that arose from Olympic View's assertions that Ronald's corporate boundary does not include Point Wells. Pursuant to RCW Ch. 7.24, Ronald is therefore entitled to a declaration that (1) the 1985 Annexation Order remains legal, valid, of full force and I effect, and binding on Olympic View, Snohomish County, and Woodway; (2) as a result of the passage of SSB 6091 (1996), Ronald's annexation of Point Wells was legal, valid, of full force and effect, and binding on Olympic View, Snohomish County, and Woodway regardless of the validity of the 1985 Annexation Order, Ronald is also entitled to an order pursuant to RCW 7.24.190 restraining the parties from taking any further action inconsistent with such a declaration. XII, SECOND CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT — RONALD'S EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SERVE POINT WELLS 12.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs above and below as if fully set forth herein. 12.2 There is an actual and presently existing controversy between Ronald, Olympic View, Snohomish County, Shoreline, and Woodway regarding whether Ronald has the exclusive right to provide sewer service to the Point Wells area pursuant to RCW 57.08.007, RCW 57.08.065(2), and/or other legislative authority. Olympic View's assertions denying Ronald's exclusive right to provide such service has created a cloud over Ronald's rights, and Ronald is entitled to have that cloud resolved pursuant to RCW Chapter 7.24. 12.3 Ronald was the first district to make sewer service available in Point Wells. I Accordingly, Ronald has the exclusive right to provide such service under RCW 57.08.007 and RCW 57.08.065(2), COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 20 1 Feldman 69463 719 Second Avenue, Suite MO Seattle, WA 96104 (2061623-9372 c a� E 0 CU L 0 a� 0 L 0 a E 0 U r c m t R r .r Q Packet Pg. 197 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12A Ronald was the first district to plan to make service available in Point Wells "under an effective comprehensive plan." Accordingly, Ronald has the exclusive right to provide such service under RCW 57.08.007. 12.5 A determination by the Court defining the extent of Ronald's exclusive statutory right to provide sewer service to the Point Wells area will provide a final and conclusive determination of the controversy between the parties that arose from Olympic View's assertions that Ronald does not have any right to serve Point Wells. Pursuant to RCW Ch. 7.24, Ronald is therefore entitled to a declaration that, under RCW 57.08.007 1 and RCW 57.08.065(2),. (1) Ronald has the exclusive right to provide sewer service to the Point Wells area, including the entire area legally described in the 1985 Transfer Agreement; and (2) Olympic View may not provide sewer service to any portion of the Point Wells area without Ronald's consent. Ronald is also entitled to an order pursuant to RCW 7.24.190 restraining the parties from taking any further action inconsistent with such a declaration. XIII. THIRD CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT -- SNOHOMISH COUNTY'S APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.2 13.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs' above and below as if fully set forth herein. 13.2 There is an actual and presently existing controversy between Ronald, Olympic View, Snohomish County, Shoreline, and Woodway regarding whether Snohomish County's approval of Olympic View's Amendment No. 2 complied with the approval criteria in RCW 57,02.040 and whether Snohomish County's approval of Amendment No. 2 had any effect on Ronald's exclusive right to provide sewer service to Point Wells. Snohomish County's approval of Amendment No. 2 has created a cloud over COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 21 69AS3 Ilan Ness Feldman Up 719 Second Avenue, Sulte 1150 Seattle, WA 9B104 (206) 623.9372 r c a� E 0 CU L 0 aD 0 0 c a E 0 U r m R r .r Q Packet Pg. 198 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I Ronald's rights, and Ronald is entitled to have that cloud resolved pursuant to RCW Ch. I 1 7.24. 13.3 Amendment No. 2 is not "in compliance with the development program that is outlined in the county comprehensive plan, or city or town comprehensive plan where appropriate, and its supporting documents," as required. by RCW 57.02.040(3)(a). 13.4 Amendment No. 2 is not `tin compliance with the policies expressed in the county plan for water and/or sewage facilities," as required by RCW 57.02.040(3)(c). 13.5 RCW 57.02.040(4) provides that the local legislative authority may not approve the action if it finds that "sewer service in the area under consideration will be most appropriately served by ... another district." Here, as a result of the long history of sewer service and planning by Ronald, the Point Wells area "will be most appropriately served by" Ronald. 13.6 A determination by the Court of whether Snohomish County's approval of Olympic View's Amendment No. 2 complied with the approval criteria in RCW 57.02.040 will provide a final and conclusive determination of the controversy between the parties regarding whether Snohomish County's approval was legal and valid. Pursuant'. to RCW Ch. 7.24, Ronald is therefore entitled to a declaration that Snohomish County's approval of Amendment No. 2 failed to comply with the approval criteria in RCW 57.02.040 and that Amendment No. 2 is therefore not legally "effective" under RCW 57.16.010(7) and RCW 57.08.007. Ronald is also entitled to an order pursuant to RCW 7,24.190 restraining the parties from taking any further action inconsistent with such a declaration. 13.7 In the alternative, if this Court determines that Snohomish County's approval of Olympic View's Amendment No. 2 complied with the approval criteria in RCW 57.02.040, Ronald is entitled to a declaration that Snohomish County's approval of COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND 1 Feldman CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 22 L.. 6940 719 Second Avenue, Suite tlso Seattle, YdA M04 (206) 623.9372 c a� E a� 0 CU L M 0 a� 0 L .0 c a E 0 U r m t R r-+ Q Packet Pg. 199 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 201 21 22 23 24 25 Amendment No. 2 had no effect on Ronald's exclusive right to provide sewer service to 1 Point Wells. XIV. PETITION FOR STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL WRITS OF REVIEW — SNOHOMISH COUNTY'S APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.2 14.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs Iabove and below as if fully set forth herein, 14.2 In the alternative, if this Court determines that Snohomish County's approval of Amendment No. 2 is not properly reviewed under RCW Ch, 7.24, Ronald has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law. 14.3 For reasons including without limitation those set forth above, Snohomish County's approval of Olympic View's Amendment No. 2 was erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, and unlawful. This Court should use its statutory and constitutional writ authority to require production of the record in this matter, to review that record, and to I enter an order holding that Snohomish County's approval of Olympic View's Amendment No. 2 failed to comply with the approval criteria in RCW 57.02.040 and that Amendment No. 2 is therefore not legally "effective" under RCW 57.16.010(7) and RCW 57.08.007. In the alternative, if this Court determines that Snohomish County's approval of Olympic View's Amendment No. 2 complied with the approval criteria in RCW 57.02.040, the Court should enter an order holding that Snohomish County's approval of Amendment No. 2 had no effect on Ronald's exclusive right to provide sewer service to Point Wells. XV. INJUNCTION — OLYMPIC VIEW'S CAMPAIGN TO INVADE RONALD'S TERRITORY 15.1 Ronald incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs + above and below as if fully set forth herein. 15.2 Ronald has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND 1 Feldman CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 23 LLP W93 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seatllo, WA 98104 (206) 623-a372 c a� E 0 CU L V 0 L 0 c a E 0 U r c m t R r .r Q Packet Pg. 200 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15.3 Ronald will suffer irreparable harm if Olympic View is allowed to continue I its campaign to invade Ronald's exclusive sewer service territory in Point Wells. 15.4 For reasons nieluding but not limited to those set forth above, Ronald is entitled to an injunction enjoining Olympic View from taking any further action to advance its campaign to invade Ronald's exclusive sewer service territory in Point Wells, including without limitation spending further public funds on sewer planning efforts or taking any action to build sewer infrastructure in Point Wells. XVI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Ronald requests cumulatively, and in the alternative, that the Court grant the following relief: 16.1 All of the relief requested above, including without limitation the following: 16,1,1 A declaration that (1) the 1985 Annexation Order remains legal, valid, of full force and effect, and binding on Olympic View, Snohomish County, and Woodway; (2) as a result of the passage of SSB 6091 (1996), Ronald's annexation of Point Wells was legal, valid, of full force and effect, and binding on Olympic View, Snohomish County, and Woodway regardless of the validity of the 1985 Annexation Order; together with an order restraining the parties from taking any further action inconsistent with such a declaration, 16.1.2 A declaration that, under RCW 57.08.007 and RCW 57.08.065(2), (1) Ronald has the exclusive right to provide sewer service to the Point Wells area, including the entire area legally described in the 1985 Transfer Agreement, under RCW 57.08.007 and RCW 57M,065(2); and (2) Olympic View may not provide sewer service to any portion of COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND 1 Feldman CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 24 LLP 69493 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 c a� a3 0 CU L V a� 0 L ,0 c a E 0 U r c m t R r-+ Q Packet Pg. 201 1 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Point Wells area without Ronald's consent; together with an order restraining the parties from taking any further action inconsistent with such a declaration. 16.1.3 A declaration that Snohomish County's approval of Amendment No. 2 failed to comply with the approval criteria in RCW 57.02.040; together with an order restraining the parties from taking any further action inconsistent with such a declaration; or, in the alternative, a declaration that Snohomish County's approval of Amendment No. 2 had no effect on Ronald's exclusive right to provide sewer service to Point Wells. 16.1.4 An order, issued after this Court's review of the record, holding that Snohomish County's approval of Olympic View's Amendment No. 2 failed to comply with the approval criteria in RCW 57.02,040 and that Amendment No. 2 is therefore not legally "effective" under RCW 57.16.010(7) and RCW 57.08.007; or, in the alternative, an order holding that Snohomish County's approval of Amendment No. 2 had no effect on Ronald's exclusive right to provide sewer service to Point Wells; and 16.1.5 An injunction forever enjoining Olympic View from taking any further action to advance its campaign to invade Ronald's exclusive sewer service territory in Point Wells without Ronald's consent, including without limitation spending any further funds on planning efforts for Olympic View to provide sewer service to Point Wells or taking any action to build sewer infrastructure in Point Wells. 16.2 Leave to amend this Complaint/Petition to add claims arising out of acts or omissions occurring after its initial filing and service; COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Van Ness AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 25 1 Feldman 6943 119 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 96104 (206) 623.9372 c a� a� 0 CU L M 0 a� 0 0 l= a E 0 U r c m t R r-+ Q Packet Pg. 202 1 8.2.a 11 PA 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16.3 An award of attorneys' fees and costs to the extent allowed by law; and 16.4 Further relief as maybe just and equitable, including interim relief. DATED this 29th day of June, 2016. 7V'tSS � DM N LLP By: Ni—in-con M. Greene, WSBA #36718 H. Ray Liaw, WSBA# 40725 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-9372 Fax; (206) 623-4986 E-mail: dm vn£com• hrl@vnf.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner Ronald Wastewater District COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW - 26 69483 Van Ness Feldman W M Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 96104 (206) 623.9372 c a� E at 0 CU L V L 0 r- a E 0 U r t R r .r Q Packet Pg. 203 1 C1 n X M CQ FO,1 Attachment: Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (1456 : Authorization to join the King County lawsuit regarding Ronald Wastewater District 8.2.a Ch. 147 WASHINGTON LAWS, 1984 CHAPTER 147 [Substitute House pill No. 11271 SEWER OR WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER FROM A COUNTY TO A MUNICIPAL. CORPORATION AN ACT Relating to the transfer of a sewerage or water system from a county to a mu- nicipal corporation; amending section I, chapter [ 19, laws of 1969 and RCW 56,08.015'. add- ing a new section to chapter 114, Laws of 1929 and to chapter 57.04 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 36.93 RCW; and adding new sections to chapter 36,94 RCW. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington: NEW SECTION, Sec. 1, A system of sewerage, system of water or combined water and sewerage systems operated by a county under the au- thority of this chapter may be transferred from that county to a water or sewer district in the same manner as is provided for the transfer of those functions from a water or sewer district to a county in RCW 36,94,310 through 36.94,340. NEW SECTION, Sec. 2. If so provided in the transfer agreement, the area served by the system shall, upon completion of the transfer, be deemed annexed to and become a part of the water or sewer district acquiring the system. The county shall provide notice of the hearing by the county legis- lative authority on the ordinance executing the transfer agreement under RCW 36.94.330 as follows; (1) By mailed notice to all ratepayers served by the system at least fifteen days prior to the hearing; and (2) by notice in a newspaper of general circulation once at least fifteen days prior to the hearing. NEW SECTION. Sec. 3, The provisions of sections I and 2 of this act provide an alternative method of accomplishing the transfer permitted by those sections and do not impose additional conditions upon the exercise of powers vested in water and sewer districts and counties. NEW SECTION, Sec. 4, if the superior court finds that the transfer agreement authorized by section I of this act is legally correct and that the interests of the owners of related indebtedness are protected, then the court by decree sh^11 direct that the transfer be accomplished in accordance with the agreement. NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. There is added to chapter 36.93 RCW a new section to read as follows: Annexatioi,s of territory to a water or sewer district pursuant to sec- tions I through 4 of this act shall not be reviewed by a boundary review board, Sec. 6. Section 1, chapter 119, Laws of 1969 and RCW 56.08.015 are each amended to read as follows; 16461 Exhibit 1 Packet Pg. 205 8.2.a WASHINGTON LAWS, 1984 Ch. 148 Any sewer district heretofore or hereafter organized and existing may apply to change its name by filing with (( of)) the county legislative authority in which was filed the original petition for the organization of the district, a certified copy of a resolution of its .board -of commissioners adopted by the majority vote of all the members of said board at a regular meeting thereof providing for such change of name. ((Tht ncw natlicice offere .)) Af- ter approval of the new name by the county ({ )) legislative authorit , all proceedings of such district shall be had under such changed name, but all existing obligations and contracts of the district entered into under its former name shall remain outstanding without change and with the validity thereof unimpaired and unaffected by such change of name, and a change of name heretofore made by any existing sewer district in this state, substantially in the manner above provided is hereby ratified, con- firmed and validated, NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. There is added to chapter 114, Laws of 1929 and to chapter 57.04 RCW a new section to read as follows; --- Any water district heretofore or hereafter organized and existing may apply to change its name by filing with the county legislative authority in which was filed the original petition for organization of the district, a certi- fied copy of a resolution of its board of commissioners adopted by majority vote of all of the members of said board at a regular meeting thereof pro- viding for such change of name. After approval of the new name by the county legislative authority, all proceedings for such district., shall be had under such changed name, but all existing obligations and contracts of the di.;, ict entered into under its former name shall remain outstanding without change and with the validity thereof unimpaired and unaffected by such change of name, and the change of name heretofore made by any existing -water-district in -this state, substantially in the manner above approved is hereby ratified, confirmed, and validated. --NEW- SECTION. Sec. 8. Sections l through 4 of this act are each added to chapter 36.94 RCW. Passed the House February 28, 1984. Passed the Senate February 22, 1984. Approved by the Governor March 7, 1984. Filed in Office of Secretary of State March 7, 1984, CHAPTER 148 [House Rill No. 11351 MOTOR VEHICLE WARRANTIES AN ACT Relating to motor vehicle warrnnlics; amending section 3, chapter 240, taws of 1983 and RCW 19.118.030, and ammnding section 4, chapter 240, Laws of 1983 and RCW 19.118,040, 16411 Packet Pg. 206 M Attachment: Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (1456 : Authorization to join the King County lawsuit regarding Ronald Wastewater District 8.2.a 73 70 AGREEMENT -TRANSFERRING SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between King County, hereinafter called the "County" and Ronald Sewer District, hereinafter called the "District". The purpose of this agreement is to transfer a sanitary sewer system and operated by the: County to the District for its ownership and operation. This agreement is 'based upon the following facts, recognized by both parties: 1. The County is a home -rule charter county under the laws of Washington. It is authorized to own and operate sanitary sewer systems, and to transfer such ownership and operation, under RCW 36.94. 2. The District is a sewer district organized pursuant c t r to RCW Title 56 and authorized to accept transfer and to own and 0 a operate a sanitary sewer system. LO 3. The system which is the subject of this agreement is r commonly known as the Richmond Beach sewer system (hereinafter called the "System"). At the time of this agreement, the System -a serves apprdximatel,y 1,022 customers directly and serves others by 0 developer gxtension agreements. For purposes of this agreement R m the "area served" by the System shall mean those parcels of, property within the boundaries described iA Addendum A, which is o 4- attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. c 4. As part of the System, the County owns a combination a E 0 of sanitary sewer lines, manholes, side sewers, lift stations and V necessary appurtenances which have been installed within the boundaries of the System. r 5. In addition to the integral components of the System Q Exhibit 2 described in paragraph 41 the County owns certain maintenance and Packet Pg. 208 8.2.a office equipment and supplies associated with the System, which are described in,,AddOndu-m g, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The'County owns certain easements of record which permit it to construct and maintain the system's facilities on private property. 7. The County currently has a funs} balance of 0 approximately $115,000'associated with the system. This fund is U a� c derived from all revenues, permit fees, and operation and Y ' m maintenance charges g generated by the System and is used only to c pay the expenses of the System such as debt service and operation •° 0 and maintenance costs. o 9. The County has certain contractual rights and r N obligations in connection with the system. These rights and�o, obligations arise under the agreements which are attached as Q Addenda C and F?, and incorporated herein by this reference. LO r 9. The District has submitted a proposal received June 22, 1983, to accept the transfer of the System from the County. A E a� copy of this proposal is attached hereto as Addendum E, and incorporated herein by this reference. c 10. The King County Council, by ordinance No. 0 R has found that the transfer of the System to the District under p the terms herein would be in the public interest and conducive to L •° c the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience. a 11. The District by Resolution No. 83-21 has also found o that such a transfer would be in the public interest and conducive :r c m to the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience. E t r r Q Packet Pg. 209 8.2.a NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree•as follows: A, All sanitary sewer lines, manholes, side sewers, lift stations, and necessary appurtenances owned by the County in connection with the System shall hereby be transferred to and become the property of the District, For any such facilities which have been constructed on County road right-of-way, the District shall be permitted to continue to use that portion of right -of --way for the purpose of operating and maintaining the facilities. ,B. All maintenance and office equipment and supplies described above shall hereby be transferred to and become the property of the District. The County shall also make available all records necessary for operation of the System, and shall make available to the District, for a period of two months, County personnel needed to assist in identifying, organizing and checking said records. C. All rights to easements owned by the County in connection with the System shall be and are hereby conveyed, assigned, and transferred to the District. D. The County will keep segregated and will transfer to the District any fund balance associated witht he System at the time of the transfer, less an amount required to cover the County's costs of terminating its operation of the System. SUIP36 0s,F,IY termination costs are estimated to be $ '� . The County will also assign to the District all accounts receivable or other debts owed to the County in connection with the System,, together with any security interests or liens securing payment of such debts. Q Packet Pg. 210 I f Ea All the County's rights and obligations under the contracts above are hereby assigned and delegated to the District. F. The District shall assume responsibility for providing the sanitary sewer services for the System, including the maintenance, operation, and all other administrative and financial duties associated with the System. G. The District agrees to accept the System "as is," with no warranty from the County as -to the physical, condition, efficiency, capacities, freedom from defect, or fitness of any element of the System or of the System as a whole. Any necessary repairs, modifications, or improvements to the System will be the responsibility of the District. H. The District shall not compel sewer connection or impose sewer charges without connection for any parcels with existing septic systems within the area served by the System but not now connected to the System. This paragraph shall not limit the District's authority to make assessments or require connections as part of the formation of a Utilities Local Improvement District, nor shall it limit the authority of the King County Health Department to compel sewer connection under conditions specified by its regulations. I. The District shall abide by the terms of the proposal submitted as described above, except where it conflicts with the terms of this agreement, in which case this agreement shall control, In addition to the rate structure described in its proposal, the District shall ensure that for at least two years, senior citizens shall be charged rates no higher than those they are currently oharged by the County, except to the extent of Metro rate increases. r c a� E a� 0 R L aD L 0 4- c a E 0 U c m E t r Q Packet Pg. 211 8.2.a J. The transfer provided for by this Agreement shall take effect , 19 The District recognizes, however, that the transfer of the System is part of an effort by the County to simultaneously transfer to other agencies all sewer facilities currently operated by the County. If any or all such other transfers are delayed, prevented or cancelled for any reason, the transfer provided for herein shall not be effective unless or until all such transfers occur. K. The area; served by the System sha11 be deemed annexed to .and a part of the District as of the above -stated effective date. KING COUNTY DISTRICT by: its Title Approved as to form: SACK G. JOHNSON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney by: 94 n"11 Z. �" 14� its i1 e" 0 � 0 aD a L 0 Q E 0 U w Q Packet Pg. 212 8.2.a LEGAL DESCRIPTION Richmond Beach Sewer System ALL that portion of Section 1, Township 26 North, Range 3 East, W.M. lying Westerly of that area annexed to Ronald Sewer District by Resolution No, 28106, TOGETHER WITH all that portion of Section 2, Township 26 North, Range 3 East, W.M. lying Easterly of the Puget Sound shoreline EXCEPT those areas already annexed to Ronald Sewer District -by Resoltuions No. 909 and 83-53. All being located in King County, Washington, ALSO TOGETHER -WITH all those portions of Section 35, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M. Snohomish County, Washington described as follows; That portion of the SW 1/4 of said Section 35 lying Westerly of the corporate limits of the -City of Woodway as established February 26, 1958. TOGETHER WITH, all that portion of said SW 114 of Section 35, described as follows; Beginning at a point at the intersection of the South line of said Section 35, with the Easterly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway Company; thence East along the South line of said Section 35, a distance of 365 feet; thence North 247.5 feet, more or less, to the North line of the E.L. Reber tract; thence West along the North line of said Reber tract to the Easterly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway Company; thence Southeasterly along the Easterly line of said right of way to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the North 20 feet thereof for road, LESS portion thereof as conveyed to Snohomish County, Washington in Volume 183 of Deeds on page 56 for road right of r-� way and condemned in Superior Court Cause No. 40540; situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Packet Pg. 213 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 S 6 T f 9 10 It 12 �� 13 h'• is tv 16 ;• 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 EXHIBIT M • i = 3 � SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY In Re the Transfer of the } Q y�y fj > 5 1 3 Z 5 I 3 Richmond Beach-Sewer.Sys.tem ) NO. U L ° PETITION TO "PROVE c SEWER SYSTEM TRANSFER } Y as �• r COME NOW King county and the Ronald Sewer District { 'oo (hereinafter the "District"), and jointly petition the Court to ! . I +r approve transfer ,f the Richmond Beach Sewer System (the "System" o from King County to the District. NL 0 The petitioners inform the Court of the following facts: Q --1. King -County is -a home -rule charter county organized c� en under the laws of Washington and authorized to operate sanitary r sewer systems pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94.King County now owns c 0) and operates the System. a� 2. The District is a sewer district organized Under the -laws of-Alashington and operating a sanitary sewer system under the CU Title 56. ev 3. Petitioners have entered into an agreement which L 0 would transfer all ownership and maintenance authority regarding the System from King County to the District. A copy of this E agreement is attached as Pxhibit A. ° U r c m Petition to Approve Sewer System Transfer - 1 NORM MALE u R"*CUUr+ Ar"M r Q ccvu. �rvra�ox K iuri X[N fh11T.v i1161T�fIM1M Packet Pg. 214 WM 2 3 s 7 ti 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8.2.a 4. The legislative authority of King County and the governing body of the District have approved this transfer 'agreement. Copies of the ordinance and resolution indicating these approvals are attached as Exhibits D and C. i 5. The transfer agreement between petitioners provides for the transfer of all property and other assets of the System from King County to the District. 6. There is no outstanding indebtedness currently associated with the System. 7. The transfer agreement further provides for the annexation of the area served by the System to the District on the .date of the transfer. WHEREFOREO the petitionerq ask the court to enter a decree as follows: I. Finding that the transfer agreement between petitioners is legally correct and that there are no owners of related indebtedness to be protected. 2. Directing that the transfer of the System be accomplished in accordance with the transfer agreement. Petition to Approve Sewer system Transfer - 2 NORM MALENG prowl4n/ Atoorcwy CML PIVJEtON 3 6W XW4 OWAW 0*UM*vu YsW�, W*4hV4%0n 4aiO4 MO) 60&W? Q Packet Pg. 215 8.2.a 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 26 23 26 El 3. Annexing the area served by the System to the ,District, effective at the date of transfer. KING COUNTY THE DISTRICT f G GARY GRAN Chairman, King County Council. DATED this day of [tha6Ar- I985. NORM MALENG King County Prosecuting Attorney By JA K G- O SON At orn s or King County Petition to Approve Sewer System Transfer .. 3 a� E a� 0 R aD 0 0 c a E 0 U NORM MALENG � ►rVOMU" AWrM E am DM310H v aMKL%Caunbmunhou#e o Iwo) BM407 Packet Pg. 216 liJ W v rt CQ 00 N N 3 Attachment: Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (1456 : Authorization to join the King County lawsuit regarding Ronald Wastewater District 3 6 7 I2 18 19 20 21 22 23 7{ 25 26 8.2.a �.:.� Nov.. 0 i985 Supvior Cgurt Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OR WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNV In Re the Transfer of the } Richmond Beach Sewer System ) NO. 85-2-17332-5 ) ORDU APPROVING SEWER } SYSTEM TRANSFER } This matter Larne on for hearing upon joint petition of King County and the Ronald Sewer District (hereinafter the "District") to approve transfer of the Richmond Beach Sewer System (the "System") from King County to the District. Based upon the record herein and the evidence received, the Court finds that petitioners have entered into an agreement which would transfer all ownership and maintenance authority regarding the System from King County to the District and that, the governing body of the District and the legislative body of the County have approved this transfez agreement. The Court further finds that said transfer agreement is legally correct and that there are no owners of related indebtedness to be protected, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 1. The transfer agreement between the parties is approved. Order Approving Sewer System Transfer - 1 NORM MALENG rroosVU=A A%arnoy L W Kull count CVVMWz ofttw. WNAW4Wn 08104 =01 034437 c a� a� 0 R �a W 0 0 c a E 0 U c m E t r Q Exhibit 3 1 Packet Pg. 218 8.2.a 0 i 2 3 S b 7 b 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. The transfer of the System is to be accomplished in accordance with the transfer agreement effective as of 3. As provided in the transfer agreement, the area .served by the System shall be annexed to and become a part of the District on the effective date of the transfer. G {, DATED. this day of F-'1'`Y . 5. JUDGE Presented by: NORIM MALENG King County Prosecuting Attorney Sy ACK pro p pxo ing Attorney Attorneys '70f0z King County Order Approving sewer System Transfer — 2 r NORM MALENG Mrrevon; Aaorn+x CM PTMIQN 'XW xLYa ca, nV cavnhMM cmtu;. WjAftwo4n W104 r C E 131 0 Cu L V o L 4- Q E 0 U c d E V R r-+ Packet Pg. 219 IM o NAttachment: Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (1456 : Authorization to join the King County lawsuit regarding Ronald Wastewater District 8.2.a CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6091 Chapter 230, Laws of 1996 54th Legislature 1996 Regular Session - COMBINING WATER AND SEWER DISTRICTS EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/1/97 Passed by the Senate March 2, 1996 YEAS 47 BAYS 0 JOEL PRITCHARD President of the Senate Passed by the House February 27, 1996 YEAS 98 NAYS 0 CLYDE BALLARD Speaker of the House of Representatives Approved March 28, 1996 MIKE LOWRY Governor of the State of Washington CERTIFICATE I, Marty Brown, Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6091 as passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth. MARTY AROVIN Secretary E FILED 3 ---- - __ O March 28, 1996 - 5:05 p.m. R Secretary of State State of Washington w Q Exhibit 4 Packet Pg. 221 8.2.a SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6091 AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Passed Legislature - 1996 Regular Session State of Washington 54th Legislature 1996 Regular Session By Senate Committee on Government Operations (originally sponsored by Senators Haugen, Winsley, Sheldon, Drew, McCaslin, Long, Hale, Snyder, Heavey and Sellar) Read first time 01/19/96. 1 AN ACT Relating to combining water and sewer districts; amending 2 RCW 57.02.010, 56.02.110, 57.02.030, 57.02.040, 56.02.070, 56.02.100, 3 57.02.050, 57.04.001, 57.04.020, 57.04.030, 57.04.050, 57.04.060, 4 57.04.065, 57.04.070, 56.04.080, 57.04.100, 57.04.110, 56.04.120, 5 56.04.130, 57.08.011, 57.08.014, 57,08.015, 57.08.016, 57.08.030, 6 57.08.040, 56.08.060, 57.08.047, 57.08.050, 57.08.060, 57.08.065, 7 56.08.012, 57.08.100, 57.08.105, 57.08.110, 57.08.120, 57.08.140, 8 57,08.017, 57.08,180, 57.08.150, 57.08.160, 57.08.170, 57.12.010, 9 57.12.015, 57.12.030, 57.12.039, 57.12.020, 57.16.010, 56.08.030, 10 57,16,140, 57.16.050, 57.16.060, 57.16.073, 57.16.065, 56.20.030, 11 57.16.070, 57,16.080, 57.16.100, 57.16.090, 57.16.110, 57.16.150, 12 57.16.020, 57.20.015, 57.16.030, 57.16.035, 57.16.040, 57.20,020, 13 57.20.023, 57.20.025, 57.20.027, 57.20.030, 57.20,080, 57.20.090, 14 57.20.1.10, 57.20.120, 57.20.130, 57.20.135, 57.20.140, 57.20.1501 15 57.20.160, 57.20.165, 57.20.170, 57.22.010, 57.22.020, 57.22.030, 16 57.22.040, 57.22.050, 57.24.001, 57.24.010, 57.24.020, 57.24.040, 17 57.24.050, 57.24.070, 57.24.090, 57.24.170, 57.24.180, 57.24.190, 18 57.24.200, 57.24.210, 57.24.220, 57.28.001, 57.28.010, 57.28.020, 19 57.28.030, 57,28.035, 57.28.040, 57,28.050, 57.28.060, 57.28.070, 20 57.28.080, 57.28.090, 57.28.100, 57.28.110, 57.32.001, 57.32.010, 21 57.32.020, 57.32.021, 57.32.022, 57.32.023, 57.32.024, 57.32.130, c a� E a� 0 CU I- CU 0 aD a L 0 4- r c a E 0 U r c m E t R r w Q P. 1 SSB 6091.SL Packet Pg. 222 8.2.a I 57.32.160, 57.36,001, 57,36.010, 57.36.020, 57.36.030, 57.36.040, 2 57.40.135, 57.36,050, 57.42.010, 57.42.020, 57.42,030, 57.46.010, 3 57.46.020, 57.46.030, 57.90.001, 57.90.010, 57.90.020, 57.90.030, 4 57.90.040, 57.90.050, 57.90.100, 35.13.900, 35.58.570, 35.97.050, 5 35A.14.901, 35A.56.010, 35A.70.010,- 36.29.160, 36.93.090, 36.94.420, 6 41.04.190, 43.99F.020, 82.02.020, 84.09.030, 84.38.020, 84,52.052, 7 90.03.510, and 90.03.525; adding new sections to chapter 57.02 RCW; 8 adding new sections to chapter 57.08 RCW; adding a new section. to Title 9 57 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 57.04 RCW; adding new sections 10 to chapter 57.06 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 57.16 RCW; adding 11 new sections to chapter 57.20 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 12 57.36 RCW; creating a new section; recodifying RCW 56.02.070, 13 56.02.100, 56.02.110, .56.04.080, __56,04.1.20, 56.04,130, 56.02.030, 14 56.02.080, 56.36.070, 56.08.060, 56,08.012, 56.08.170, 56.08.030, 15 56.20.030, 57.16.020, 57.16.030, 57.16.035, 57.16.040, and 57.40.135; 16 repealing RCW 56.02.010, 56.02.040, 56.02.050, 56.02.055, 56.02.060, 17 56.02.120, 56.04.001, 56.04.020, 56.04.030, 56.04.040, 56.04.050, 18 56.04.060, 56.04.065, 56.04.070, 56.04.090, 56.08.010, 56.08.013, 19 56.08.014, 56.08.015, 56.08.020, 56.08.040, 56.08.050, 56,08.065, 20 56.08.070, 56.08.075, 56.08.080, 56.08.090, 56.08.092, 56.08.100, 21 56.08.105, 56.08,110, 56.08.120, 56.08.130, 56.08.140, 56.08.150, 22 56.08.160, 56.08.180, 56.08.190, 56.08.200, 56.12.010, 56.12.015, 23 56.12.020, 56.12.030, 56.12.040, 56.12.050, 56.16.010, 56.16.020, 24 56.16.030, 56.16.035, 56.16.040, 56.16.050, 56.16.060, 56.16.065, 25 56.16.070, 56.16.080, 56.16.085, 56.16,090, 56.16.100, 56.16.110, 26 56.16.115, 56.16.130, 56.16.135, 56.16.140, 56.16.150, 56.16.160, 27 56.16.165, 56.16.170, 56.20.010, 56.20.015, 56.20.020, 56.20.-032, 28 56.20.033, 56.20.040, 56.20.050, 56.20.060, 56.20.070, 56.20.080, 29 56,20.090, 56.20.120, 56.22.010, 56.22.020, 56.22.030, 56.22.040, 30 56.22.050, 56.24.001, 56.24.070, 56.24.080, 56.24.090, 56.24.100, 31 56.24.110, 56.24.120, 56.24.130, 56.24,140, 56.24.150, 56.24.180, 32 56.24.190, 56.24.200, 56.24.205, 56.24.210, 56.24.900, 56.28.001, 33 56.28.010, 56.28.020, 56.32.001, 56.32.010, 56.32.020, 56.32.030, 34 56.32.040, 56.32.050, 56.32.060, 56.32.070, 56.32.080, 56.32.090, 35 56.32.100, 56.32.110, 56.32.115, 56.32.120, 56.32.160, 56.36.001, 36 56.36.010, 56.36.020, 56.36.030, 56.36.040, 56.36.045, 56.36.050, 37 56.36.060, 56.40.010, 56.40.020, 56.40.030, 57.08.010, 57.08.045, 38 57.08.080, 57.08.090, 57.08.130, 57.12.045, 57.20.100, 57.40.100, r c a� E a� O R aD 0 4- c a E O U r c m E t u r r Q SSB 6091.SL p. 2 Packet Pg. 223 8.2.a 1 57.40.110, 57.40.120, 57.40.130, 57.40.140, and 57.40.150; 2 providing an effective date, 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 4 PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS and 5 NEW SECTION. Sec, 101. A new section is added to chapter 57.02 6 RCW to read as follows: 7 Every sewer district and every water district previously created 8 shall be reclassified and shall become a water -sewer district, and 9 shall be known as the ". . . . . Water -Sewer District," or "Water -Sewer 10 District No. -.._...... -or shall --continue to..__._be... known ..as a "sew.er_ 11 district" or a "water district," with the existing name or number 12 inserted, as appropriate. As used in this title, "district" means a 13 water -sewer district, a sewer district, or a water district. All 14 debts, contracts, and obligations previously made or incurred by or in 15 favor of any water district or sewer district, and all bonds or other 16 obligations issued or executed by those districts, and all assessments 17 or levies, and all other things and proceedings done or taken by those 18 districts or by their respective officers, are declared legal and valid 19 and of full force and effect. 20 Sec. 102. RCW 57.02.010 and 1982 1st ex.s. c 17 s 8 are each 21 amended to read as follows: 22 Wherever in this title ((57RCW)) petitions are required to be 23 signed by the owners of property, the following rules shall govern the 24 sufficiency ((thereof)) of the petitions,: 25 (1) The signature of a record owner, as determined by the records 26 of the county auditor of the county in which the real property is 27 located, shall be sufficient without the signature of ((his or h)) 28 the owner's spouse. 29 (2) ( (in the case f) ) For mortgaged property, the signature of the 30 mortgagor shall be sufficient. 31 (3) ( (lam—the—caseof) ) For property purchased on contract, the 32 signature of the contract purchaser, as shown by the records of the 33 county auditor of the county in which the real property is located, 34 shall be ((deemed)) sufficient. r c a� E a� 0 R aD 0 , c a E 0 U r c m E t U r r Q p. 3 SSB 6091.SL Packet Pg. 224 8.2.a 1 and charges that are imposed by districts. In setting those rates and 2 charges, consideration may be made of in --kind services, such as stream 3 improvements or donation of property; 4 (10) To contract with individuals, associations and corporations, 5 the state of Washington, and the United States; 6 (11) To employ such persons as are needed to carry out the 7 district's purposes and fix salaries and any bond requirements for 8 those employees; 9 (12) To contract for the provision of engineering, legal, and other -- 10 professional services as in the board of commissioner's discretion is 11 necessary in carrying out their duties; 12 (13) To sue and be sued; 13 (14) To loan and borrow funds and to issue bonds and instruments 14 evidencing indebtedness under chapter 57.20 RCW and other applicable 15 laws; 16 (15) To transfer funds, real or personal property, property 17 interests, or services subject to RCW 57.08.015; 18 (16) To levy taxes in accordance with this chapter and chapters 19 57.04 and 57.20 RCW; 20 (17) To provide for making local improvements and to levy and 21 collect special assessments on property benefitted thereby, and for 22 paying for the same or any portion thereof in accordance with chapter 23 57.16 RCW; 24 (18) To establish street lighting systems under RCW 57.08.060; 25 (19) To exercise such other powers as are granted to water -sewer 26 districts by this title or other applicable laws; and 27 (20) To exercise any of the powers granted to cities and counties 28 with respect to the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation 29 of, and fixing rates and charges for waterworks and systems of sewerage 30 and drainage. 31 NEW SECTION Sec. 302. Except upon approval of both districts by 32 resolution, a distract may not provide a service within an area in 33 which that service is available from another district or within an area 34 in which that service is planned to be made available under an 35 effective comprehensive plan of another district. 36 Sec. 303. RCW 57.08.011 and 1989 c 308 s 14 are each amended to 37 read as follows: SSB 6091.SL p. 20 Packet Pg. 225 8.2.a 1 two consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers of general circulation 2 in the area to be served by the proposed street lighting system. 3 Following the hearing, the board may by resolution establish the street 4 lighting system. 5 ((+3+)) A street lighting system shall not be established if, 6 within thirty days following the decision of the board, a petition 7 opposing the street lighting system is filed with the board and 8 contains the signatures of at least forty percent of the voters 9 registered in the area to be served by the proposed system. 10 ( (+4}) ) The (Nater) ) district has the same powers of ( (ealecton 11 fir)) imposing charges for providing street lighting, collecting 12 delinquent street lighting charges, and financing street lighting 13 systems by issuing general obligation bonds, issuing revenue bonds, and 14 creating improvement_ districts as ((the water —distriet_) ) it has for 15 ( (eallecb eon a€) ) imposing charges for providing water, collecting 16 delinquent water service charges and financing water syptems by 17 issuing general obligation bonds, issuing revenue bonds, and creating 18 im rovement districts. 19 H(S) Any street lighting system established by a water distri.- 20 prier to March 31, , )) 21 Sec. 313. RCW 57,08.065 and 1981 c 45 s 11 are each amended to N L 22 read as follows: r 23 Q (( 24 they)) (1) A district shall ((also)) have power to establish, maintain, LO 25 and operate a mutual water sewer_ drainage, and street 1* Z. 26 lighting system ( (or)), a ((separate a� a� 27 28 thereof in conneetian with water supply)) mutual system of any two or 29 three of the systems, or separate systems. c 0 `L° 30 { ( the 31 and operating a sanitary sewer system may exercise all Powers (D ineluding, 0 32 , but not L 0 4- 33 limited rright r � 34 , a 0 35 0 U 36 c 37 E 38 U r Q SSS 6091.SL p. 28 Packet Pg. 226 8.2.a - _ - - - - in - - -area- - to exercise sewer distrieb—powers . district: PReVIDED _ _ _ FURTHER,Thatno water- G herein proceed 4 exereise the powers grantek-3A to establis'La, Maintain, _ eons and operate _ sewer system without obtaining _ - do from department • and department of necessity to the _ health - _ _s. _ _ of - -siv and for of social _ betterment i i 8 a- system • be by of sewers or addition thereto or _ _ _ - _ _ thereof sh _ _ui - approved 10 approve _ _ 11 A district he i • ty i state officials as _ district. i _ _ = V _ _ _ sewer have isstie are i i water shall the power to general 12 bonds for sewer system purposes a PROVIDED, That a proposition to 13 _.authorize general obligation-bandspayable-from 14 15 to all of the quall 16 which is not contained within another existing d4:stri'(-t dul'y au-01orized 17 to exercise sewer district powers, and the taxes to pay the prineipal 18 of and interest en the bonds approved b such voters shall: be levi,__ 19 only apen all ef the taxable property within sue.h. part of the wat 20 distriet .) ) 21 (2) Where any two or more districts include the same territory as 22 of. .... the effective date.- of this. section, none of the overlapping 23 districts may provide any service that was made available by any of the 24 other_ districts prior to the -effective date of this section within the 25 overlapping territory without the Consent by resolution of the board of 26 commissioners of the other district or districts. 27 __._ (3) A district that _was a water district prior to the effective 28 dated this.section, -that did not operate a sewer system prior to the 29 effective date of this section, may not proceed to exercise the powers 30 to e-stablish, maintain, construct, and operate any sewer system without 31 first obtaining written approval and certification of necessity from 32 the department _of ecology and department of health. Any comprehensive 33 plan for a system of sewers or addition thereto or betterment thereof, 34 proposed by a district that was a water district prior to the effective 35 date of this section shall be apace roved b the same county and state 36 officials as were required to approve such plans adopted by a sewer 37 district immediately prior to the effective date of this section and as 38 subsequentlysubseqiiently may be re uired. p. 29 SSB 6091.SL Packet Pg. 227 w NAttachment: Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (1456 : Authorization to join the King County lawsuit regarding Ronald Wastewater District 8.2.a From: Sorgen, Heather [LnaIIto: heather.sorgen@co.snohomish,wa.us] Sent: July 09, 2014 10.47 AM To: Michael Herrick Subject: Snohomish County documentation Hi Michaell I've attached a pdf of the document you were looking to receive. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me. O Heather Sorgen Elections Public Information Specialist Snohomish County Elections (425)388- 33Z1 NOTICE: All emails, and attachments, sent to and from 5nohomish County are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (RC W 42.56) Exhibit 5 Packet Pg. 229 8.2.a Civil Division Jason Curnmin s, Chief Deputy Snohomish County Admin3000 Rockefeller Ave Prosecuting ,Attorney Everett, WA 98201-4060 3canice Et Ellis (425) 388-6330 -- Fax�42S) 388.6333 MEMORANDUM OF ADVICE Confidential Attorney -Client Communication Do not disclose without express authorkaflon FILE NO, AU07-05OG TO: Carolyn Dlepenbrock ounty Auditor FROM; Gordon W. Sivley Deputy Prosecuting A orney DATE: September 6, 2007 RE. Snohomish County Voters and Ronald Wastewater District A question has arisen whether voters in the far southwest portion of Snohomish County are eligible to vote in the elections of the Ronald Wastewater District. As noted on the district's website, 'The Ronald Wastewater District is located in Shoreline, Washington in the northwest corner of King County. We provide sewage collection service for the entire City of Shoreline and parts of unincorporated Snohomish County. It appears the District also serves a few parcels in the City of Woodway as well. The present inquiry Is focused on whether voters residing on property in Snohomish County that is served by the District are eligible to vote in District elections. Sewer service in this area has a rather interesting history. Beginning with its creation In the 1960`s, METRO was established to provide sewer service to much of urban King County. Nevertheless, King County government itself, under the authority of chapter 36.94 RCW, directly provided sewer service to portions of King County. The Ronald Sewer District (now named the Ronald Wastewater District) is a separate special purpose district in King County organized and operated under the authority of title 57 RCW. In the mid 1980's King County determined to divest itself of its sewer operations and to do so, entered into an agreement with the Ronald Sewer District (hereinafter the District) to transfer a portion of the county's sewer facilities and 5:4Ciei.�(w�hpAlTOti ELEC714 i Rrm�d lfast shoFar CilkiU 9A-07.doe Admintstratlon Robert G. Lenz, Operatlons Manager Admin East 7t` Floor, MIS 504 (425)388-3333 Fax (425) 388.7172 Crlminal Division loan Cavagnaro, Oiler Deputy Mission Building, hVS 504 (425) 388-3333 Fax (425) 38R-3572 Family Support Dlvlslon Marle Turk, Chlel: Deputy Admin East Wh Floor, MIS 504 (425)388-7280 Fax (425) 388-7295 Packet Pg. 230 8.2.a September 6, 2007 Page 2 of 4 operations to the District. This transfer was authorized by RCW 36.94A10, a statute enacted In 1984. It states: RCW 36.94.410 Transfer of system from county to water -sewer district, A system of sewerage, system of water or combined water and sewerage systems operated by a county under the authority of this chapter may be transferred from that county to a water -sewer district In the same manner as is provided for the transfer of those functions from a water -sewer district to a county In RCW 36.94.310 through 36.94.340. The transfer process Included an interlocal agreement between the County and the District, providing the details of the transfer, and a court decree approving the agreement. One significant feature of the statute authorizing the transfer was this portion of RCW 36.94,420: If so provided in the transfer agreement, the area served by the system shall, upon completion of the transfer, be deemed annexed to and become a part of the water -sewer district acquiring the system. The 1986 agreement between King County and the District you sent me for review did provide that upon the transfer, "the area served by the system shall be deemed annexed to and a part of the District." This agreement also Included the following key provision: For purposes of this Agreement, the "area served" by the System shall mean those parcels of property within the boundaries described in Addendum A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Addendum A, with the heading "Legal Description Richmond Beach Sewer System," includes a description of two areas in King. County and the following description of additional areas in Snohomish County: ALSO TOGETHER WITH all those portions of Section 35, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M. Snohomish County, Washington described as follows; That portion of the SE 1/d of said Section 35 lying Westerly of the corporate limits of the City of Woodway as established February 26, 1958, TOGETHER WITH, all that portion of said SW 1/4 of Section 35, described as follows: Beginning at a point at the intersection of the South line of said Section 35, with the Easterly right of way line of the Great Northern Packet Pg. 231 8.2.a ti September 6, 2007 Page 3 of 4 Railway Company; thence East along the South line of said Section 35, a distance of 365 feet; thence North 247,5 feet, more or less, to the North line of the E.L. Reber tract; thence West along the North line of said Reber tract to the Easterly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway Company, thence Southeasterly along the Easterly line of said right of way to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the North 20 feet thereof for road, LESS portion thereof as conveyed to Snohomish County, Washington in Volume 183 of Deeds on page 56 for road right of way and condemned in Superior Court Cause No. 40540, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. This "area served" in Snohomish County is depicted do the parcel map enclosed. The bulk of the area Is occupied by the petroleum tank farm at Point Weds, (where presumably few, if any, registered voters reside), However, it also includes a short plat at the extreme Southwest corner of the City of Woodway upon which four residences have been built. All of the "area served" In Snohomish County is also within the boundaries of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District, However, I confirmed with Lynn Danielson, the Supervisor of the district, that the district has never actually provided sewer service to this area. That the area in question was already within the Olympic View Water and Sewer District at the time of the 1985 transfer agreement does not appear to preclude It from annexation into the Ronald District. Water�sewer districts may include property in more than one county RCW 57.04.020, Also, no statutes expressly preclude the inclusion of particular parcels of property in more than one district, In fact, provisions within chapter 57.08 RCW acknowledge the possibility of overlapping districts. As note above, RCW 36,94,410 authorizes a county to transfer sewer operations to a water -sewer district, "in the same manner as is provided for the transfer of those functions from a water -sewer district to a county in RCW 36,94.310 through 36.94.340." The manner of making the transfer involves an agreement and superior court approval. RCW 36.94,310. The governing body of the district Involved and the county legislative authority must each pass an ordinance or resolution approving the terms of the transfer agreement. RCW 36.94.330. The material you provided me includes such documents from both King County and the District. The final step in the process involves obtaining a superior court order (following a petition to the court and a hearing) approving the transfer agreement. RCW 36,94.340. You provided me a copy of the November 20, 1985 King County Superior Court order that meets this requirement and approves the transfer agreement between King County and the District. Thus, it appears all of the statutory requirements for a valid transfer were met. Therefore, I conclude that by virtue of the court order of November 1985, the portion of Snohomish County In question was ' RGW 57,08.066 is entitled "Powers as to mutual systems -- Overlapping districts — Operation of system of sewerage or drainage by former water dlstrleV and includes provisions to restrict extension of actual service by one district in the overlapping area unless the other district consents. 2 "Water -sewer' districts Include districts previously created and identified as sewer districts, as was the Ronald Wastewater District. RCW 57,02.001. Packet Pg. 232 8.2.a September 6, 2007 Page 4 of 4 annexed Into the Ronald Sewer District as of January 1, 1986, Because this is a portion of the Ronald Wastewater District, registered voters residing in the area are eligible to vote in Ronald Wastewater district elections. I trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Enclosure. Packet Pg. 233 8.2.a Sw 35 27 Packet Pg. 234 8.2.a �m oy 2 Entire area of Point Wells In Roland Wastewater DistrictThis is a NRV area TOTM O No Registered Voters — wOO HiH:fr 1llr�tHFN�krfiYH+W1iH►o+tWlfl _ r _� _ I` �. •— Four perCals in the TVYri of Modway also MNn Mond Waslewaler District. These pamole off have a Shoragne, 69477 y .-.-..—.� trltr al address as eccess Is only thu tang County _ rtt There are wrentty 4 reNlslered Were In this area. All ere reglsiered 1n Xing County, —Ir.= rsa rl��l /,w11�r YratM kY iY1lYt.r 3,�cwr.)vn'a�.tiY r�]A Pl1LY.rh.rJ■KIL'::b.}w-lwdp.m rFw*rl[I:*Ulm nr:arMrlrrn wnwt3r.rrww KING COUNTY w Q Packet Pg. 235 8.2.a fay King County Addresses in Snohomish County I , 1 � � �I/1feglfrlf"'too if no lq RR 11011101$ Wl l Rfon l7Rrt YI IRII Y If R low ! TOW111 of Woodti,<ay ! nwlraliRlll I � , Roll .� 27033500300700 —270335003024 _ 2 5136003 1 f 27033600302300 �\ r1tl\ r %•8noham3sh Ca�inty � � ! ,�Ir#y/AIM Ilifl IlRnlllllglt ■IFR 11R IYp■IIRfI#ilff Yll Mfl g101II■u411RIf111u1Itill rl 1R I IR lI■11 RI t IN tIM$Ilfl off RIIY114fIRnR Jim 1 •low Ifl /F,Ir,IM,1a�IwfYwl F.1/w.�IW1. �r If.w1 r11 r�1ti#r/ 1 MIr#t..{wlrllti#r1•+/aq#w/a/1 r+1w../rlRy h.11 w,Ilw King County �•••••, Parcel 1b Addreee Street 2703UO0300600 20450 Richmane_6each Or NW Shoreline, 98177 27033500302300 _ 20452 _ Richmand Benub Or NW Shozaline, 96177 27033500302400 _ 20454 _ Richmond Beach Or NW Shoreline, 06177 27033500300700 204M Richmond Beach Or NW Shoreline, 138177 r Q Packet Pg. 236 8.2.a Mfsprecincted Votera lomMy Voter 11) Name Address V0423607 Jeff D Woor 20452 Richmond Beach Or NW Shorollne 08177 _75_M2654Donna L Sae _ 20454 Richmond Beach Or NW StioreRne98i77_ 740144472 l}o !as KS e_.... -- 20454 Rlct3mond fRcach DrNW Shof©tino g8i77-- 020SWO28 Darren MJ Hughes 20456 Richmond Daach Or NW SnOreflna 08177 Packet Pg. 237 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/16/2016 Shoreline Master Program Update (60 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City of Edmonds spent several years (2006 - 2014) revising its SMP consistent with updated 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, culminating in the adoption of Resolution 1326 expressing intent to adopt an update to the Shoreline Master Program (Exhibit 2). 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 1). The City Council discussed Ecology's conditional approval and proposed changes at the July 12, 2016 and July 19, 2016 council meetings. At the August 2, 2016 meeting the City Council began voting one -by - one on the proposed changes from Ecology. Staff Recommendation Review each of the Department of Ecology's required changes and one recommended change to decide whether to accept them or provide an alternative for Ecology's consideration. (Note: once the Council has worked through each of the proposed changes, staff will prepare a draft response to Ecology for Council's review and approval before it is submitted to Ecology.) NARRATIVE The 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 1 along with 6 attachments, which are: 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. Packet Pg. 238 8.3 The City of Edmonds sent an initial response to the Department of Ecology acknowledging receipt of the conditional approval and requesting additional time to provide a more complete response to the required and recommended changes. 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 and with the Shoreline Management Act. At the August 2, 2016 Council meeting, the Council began discussion and preliminary votes on each of the required and recommended amendments as a way of working through the issues and preparing a response to Ecology. Below is a summary and discussion of Ecology's required and recommended changes and action taken by the Council thus far. Department of Ecology Conditional Approval For purposes of Council consideration, Ecology's conditional approval is split into three categories: A. Critical Area Required Changes B. Urban Mixed Use IV Required Changes C. Urban Mixed Use IV Recommended Change Each of the general categories are summarized briefly below and followed by more specific items. A. CRITICAL AREA REQUIRED CHANGES 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 Packet Pg. 239 8.3 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. Each of these five required critical area changes are summarized below, and then followed by an explanation of the differences between the Council -approved SMP and Ecology's changes and a brief discussion. 1. 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. Language in Council -Approved SMP: SMP 24.40.020.13 (SMP pg. 3S) adopted the old version of the City's critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, specifically that version in Ord. 3527 dated November 23, 2004. Ecology Required Change: Ecology's required change is to change the reference in SMP 24.40.020.13 regarding the critical area regulations that are being adopted by reference to Ord. 4026 dated May 3, 2016. Ditrw;ginn- This change will update the SMP to incorporate the recently adopted critical area regulations. Without this change, there would be one version of the critical area regulations that apply in shoreline jurisdiction and another version that applies outside shoreline jurisdiction. City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 1. Replace Appendix B (SMP version of the critical area regulations) with the updated critical area regulations. Language in Council -Approved SMP: The specific version of the critical area regulations (minus exceptions) is included as Appendix B to the SMP. Appendix B is referenced in SMP 24.40.020.13 (SMP pg. 3S) and SMP 24.100.010 (SMP pg. 160). Appendix B in the Council approved SMP is the old version of the critical area regulations adopted in 2004 under Ord. 3527. Ecology Required Change: Ecology's required change is to replace Appendix B with the critical area regulations adopted under Ord. 4026 (minus exceptions discussed in change 4 below). Discussion: Packet Pg. 240 8.3 This is an extension of change 1. This change will update the SMP to incorporate the recently adopted critical area regulations. Without this change, there would be one version of the critical area regulations that apply in shoreline jurisdiction and another version that applies outside shoreline jurisdiction. City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 2. 3. Remove the section that required a shoreline variance for certain critical area provisions. Language in Council -Approved SMP: SMP 24.40.020.0 (SMP pg. 35) lists specific provisions within the critical area regulations (Ord. 3527 version) which may only be implemented in shoreline jurisdiction through the shoreline variance process. Ecology Required Change: Ecology's required change would eliminate SMP 24.40.020.C. Disawssinn- With the critical area regulations update, the previous critical area regulations listed in SMP 24.40.020.0 were modified to an extent that they would not require a shoreline variance in order to be implemented. Most of these provisions pertained to buffer width reductions. Under the old critical area regulations buffers could be reduced to 50% of the standard buffer. With the updated critical area regulations, buffers may only be reduced a maximum of 25%. One of the provisions listed in SMP 24.40.020.0 (allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas) is being moved from SMP 24.40.020.0 to SMP 24.40.020.D (exceptions) which is discussed in change 4 below. City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 3. 4. Revise the exceptions section. This section includes provisions of the City's critical area regulations that do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction. Language in Council -Approved SMP: SMP 24.40.020.D (SMP pg. 36) lists specific provisions within the critical area regulations (Ord. 3527 version) which do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction. The primary exception includes large portions of the wetland regulations (particularly buffer widths). Within the Council approved SMP, the critical area wetland sections were replaced in the SMP with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for Small Cities. Ecology Required Change: Packet Pg. 241 8.3 Ecology's required change would eliminate most of the exceptions detailed in SMP 24.40.020.D. Critical area variance (ECDC 23.40.210) would still be excepted as shorelines have their own variance process and allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas (ECDC 23.80.040.B) have been moved from SMP 24.40.020.0 (provisions requiring a variance) to this exception section. DitruSSinn - With the critical area regulations update, the City has incorporated Ecology's guidance for Small Cities into the CAO so it is no long necessary to have two wetland provisions (one that applies in shoreline jurisdiction and one that applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction). The geologically hazardous allowed activities was moved to the exceptions rather than remaining in the provisions requiring a shoreline variance because those allowed activities may be allowed under the SMA without requiring a variance. City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 4. 5. Remove the wetland section from the SMP. Language in Council -Approved SMP: The SMP wetland provisions are contained in SMP 24.40.020.F (SMP pgs. 37 - 42). The wetland provisions in this section are from Ecology's Wetland Guidance for Small Cities. SMP 24.40.020.F.2.g also contains a version of the physically separated/functionally isolated buffer provision. Ecology Required Change: Ecology's required change is to remove SMP 24.40.020.F from the SMP. Discussion: The City's recently updated critical area regulations incorporated Ecology's Wetland Guidance for Small Cities into the critical area regulations. The City also further developed the physically separated/functionally isolated (now called "interrupted buffer") provision in the updated CAO. As with all Ecology's required critical area changes, this change will simplify an already complicated regulatory environment by having one set of critical area regulations apply throughout the City. City Council August 2, 2016 Discussion Since the City Council adopted the updated critical area regulations in May 2016, a new wetland guidance document was published by the Department of Ecology - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version, Publication No. 16.06-001. Before voting on this required change, the City Council wants to see a comparison of Ecology's Guidance for Small Packet Pg. 242 8.3 Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002) used in the CAO update and the new guidance from Ecology. Paul Anderson, Department of Ecology Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor, has provided a comparison of the two guidance documents and referenced other documents in Exhibit 4. In case you are interested in the detail, excerpts from all five documents mentioned in Exhibit 4 are attached as Exhibit 5-9.) Note that the recommended buffer widths are for vegetated areas next to wetlands and do not necessarily apply in the same way where the adjacent land is already developed. B. URBAN MIXED USE IV CHANGES 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 originally 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. Each of the three required changes from Ecology related to the UMU IV Environment are summarized below (following the numbers from Ecology's document). Then each item has a comparison of Council's approved version with Ecology's proposal and a discussion. 6. Remove the "interim" designation for the UMU IV shoreline environment. Language in Council -Approved SMP: The UMU IV shoreline environment is described in SMP 24.30.070.B.5 (SMP pg. 31). The City established the UMU IV shoreline environment as an "interim" designation, noting: 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. Ecology Required Change: Ecology's required change would delete the paragraph noted above (as well as other minor wording changes) and thus eliminates the interim designation. Discussion: Under the Shoreline Management Act, an interim shoreline environment may be effective for up to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the interim environment is developed and made available for public review. An interim Packet Pg. 243 8.3 environment may be renewed for two six-month periods as long as certain procedural requirements, including a hearing, are satisfied before each renewal. If an interim environment is in effect on the date a proposed master program or amendment is submitted to Ecology, the interim environment must remain in effect until Ecology takes final action. The law is not clear on whether an interim environment would expire if Ecology fails to take final action within six months. The "interim" designation that the city had approved for the UMU IV shoreline environment is different from the interim controls contemplated by the Shoreline Management Act. There is no expiration date in the interim designation language in SMP 24.30.070.B.5 noted above. In order to change any provisions of the interim UMU IV shoreline environment, the City and Ecology would have to complete an SMP amendment process using the same process that would be needed to change any other aspect of the SMP. The "interim" designation really just identifies legislative intent to study and update the UMU IV environment sooner than the normal eight -year update cycle for SMPs. Nothing prevents the City from updating the UMU IV provisions sooner than the next required update whether or not it has an "interim" designation associated with it. As noted in the Council approved SMP, the intent was to work with "property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested agencies/organizations, and members of the public" in reviewing the interim environment. Note: The current language about the rationale for interim does not clearly identify the purpose beyond "working with" stakeholders or provide a schedule to accomplish the transition. Should the Council wish to propose keeping the interim designation, a clearer purpose for the work and a more specific timeline should be developed with the identified stakeholders and submitted as an alternate proposal to Ecology. Ecology has noted that they believe an interim designation is no longer required in part because the Ecology proposed setback/buffer is the appropriate setback for the area. City Council August 2, 2016 Discussion The Council decided to reach out to stakeholders to gauge interest in developing a work plan to submit to Ecology has an alternate approach and maintain 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). Language in Council -Approved SMP: The setback and buffers for different developments and uses throughout the City's shoreline jurisdiction are contained in the Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table in SMP 24.40.090 (SMP pgs. 54 - 56). Most development in the UMU IV environment is subject to a 100-foot setback from the edge of the marsh with the requirement to establish a 50-foot vegetative buffer within the setback area with redevelopment. This is depicted as 100/50 within the Bulk and Dimensional Standards table. Ecology Required Change: Packet Pg. 244 8.3 Ecology's required change would change the 100/50 setback/buffer in SMP 24.40.090 to 65/50 resulting in a 65 foot setback from the edge of the marsh with the requirement to establish a 50-foot vegetative buffer with redevelopment. The amount of redevelopment that triggers the requirement to establish the vegetative buffer is discussed in change 8 below. DitruSSinn - A detailed description of the setback/buffer requirements of the SMP and the difference between the Council adopted SMP and Ecology's required changes is included in Exhibit 3. Both the City Council's adopted version and the Department of Ecology's version of the setback/buffer combination for the UMU IV environment require the establishment of a 50-foot vegetation buffer. The primary difference is what happens beyond the 50-foot vegetated buffer. The Council's adopted total setback is 100 feet, including the 50-foot vegetated buffer, while Ecology's proposed total setback is 65 feet, including the 50-foot vegetated buffer. That means a net difference of 35 feet between the Council approved version and Ecology's required change. 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 presentations, 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 or mitigation without redevelopment) with the desire to protect and enhance the marsh. While a large setback/buffer in an undeveloped area will provide enhanced protections to a wetland, in an already developed urban environment, a large setback/buffer may perpetuate the status quo by discouraging redevelopment that could result in some enhancements around the marsh. On the other hand, a smaller setback/buffer could provide an incentive for redevelopment that may result in a net ecological benefit to the marsh. 8. Change a footnote related to the setback/buffer to note that the buffer established will be required if more than 50% of the Harbor Square property within shoreline designation is redeveloped. Language in Council -Approved SMP: The 100/50 setback/buffer in the Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table in SMP 24.40.090 references footnote 18 under the table (SMP pg. 56). Footnote 18 contains the following language: 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. Ecology Required Change: Packet Pg. 245 8.3 Ecology's required change to this footnote mostly relates to when the requirement to establish the 50-foot vegetated buffer will be required. Ecology's change would require establishment of the vegetative buffer with "Redevelopment of greater than 50% for the Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction and development of the site on the south border of the marsh..." DitruSSinn - The Council adopted SMP did not put a threshold on when the establishment of the vegetated buffer would be triggered. One typical threshold often used for bringing a site until full compliance with a given regulation is when a development exceeds 75% replacement cost of the existing development. The 75% threshold is listed in the nonconforming building section in SMP 24.70.010 and 24.70.020 (SMP pgs. 124 and 125). Ecology's required change requiring the establishment of the buffer with 50% redevelopment would be a more stringent than the 75% threshold in the nonconforming provisions. C. URBAN MIXED USE IV RECOMMENDED CHANGE The one recommended change for the UMU IV shoreline environment relates to residential uses. Language in Council -Approved SMP: The City Council -adopted version of the UMU IV shoreline environment did not allow for residential uses. Ecology Recommended Change: Ecology is recommending that the City consider allowing multi -family residential development in the UMU IV shoreline environment. Dkrussinn- Ecology's reasoning behind this recommended change is that including residential development as a permitted use in the UMU IV environment would 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. The Planning Board's SMP recommendation to City Council included allowing multi -family residential development within the UMU IV shoreline area (UMU III at the time). Including residential development within the SMP would not automatically allow residential development within the Harbor Square property. Any development within shoreline jurisdiction must be compliant with zoning as well as the SMP. Currently the contract rezone for Harbor Square does not allow for residential development. However, the MP2 zone on the south side of the marsh does allow for mixed use development, including residential uses. If the City Council wanted sometime to allow residential use at the Harbor Square property, not prohibiting it in the SMP now would eliminate the need to conduct a long SMP amendment process later (though it would not eliminate the Edmonds zoning requirement prohibiting residential in this area, unless the Council were to change the zoning code). Packet Pg. 246 8.3 NEXT STEPS After the City Council directs a general response to each of Ecology's proposed changes, City staff will draft a more detailed, formal response for the Council's review and approval. Ecology asks for submittal of the City's final response to the proposed SMP changes by late October, 2016. (See Exhibit 10.) Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Department of Ecology Conditional Approval with Attachments Exhibit 2 - Council SMP Approved 20141118 Exhibit 3 - Staff Memorandum UMU IV Setback/Buffer Comparison Exhibit 4- Principal Changes to Wetland CAO Guidance Exhibt 5-Small City Guidance 2012 Buffers Exhibt 6-CAO Guidance- Buffers 2016 Exhibt 7-Update on Wetland Buffers Exhibit 8-WA Freshwater II 2014Appendix8C Exhibit 9-WA Freshwater Wtld Buffers Exhibit 10-SMP.Ext.Ltr Packet Pg. 247 au118J04S 6ZV0 S;uauayae;;d 44inn 1enoiddd jeuoi;ipuo3 ABoloa3;o;u9w:Pedaa - ;igiyx3 :;uauayae;;d 04 � N 00 �rn 6 �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. au118J04S : 6ZV0 S4u8uay3e;4d 44inn 1enoiddd jeuoi;ipuo3 ABoloo3;o;u9w:Pedaa - ;igiyx3 :;u9wLI38;4d 04 ev � Go The Honorable Dave Earling a June 27, 2016 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 8.3.a 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. 250 8.3.a 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. 251 8.3.a 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. 252 8.3.a 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. 253 8.3.a 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. 254 8.3.a 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. 255 8.3.a 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. 256 8.3.a 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. 257 8.3.a 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. 258 8.3.a 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. VA= No change in water elevation 112/11elevation 112/11 Off f} 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. as c� Q. D E a� 0 L (L L m U) m c L 0 L Cn N Packet Pg. 259 8.3.a 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. 260 8.3.a 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. 261 8.3.a Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions City of Edmonds SMP Update 2006 Salt Marsh Boundary 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. D I_ O d d to R d C CD L O L CD N Packet Pg. 262 8.3.a 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. 263 8.3.a 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. 264 8.3.a 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. 265 ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326) 8.3.a 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 23.50.040P.3. AnY hatprepeses The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the 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. Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 266 ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326) 8.3.a 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 M 2 Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 267 ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326) 8.3.a 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 ageR 0es�oicgaRizatieRs and me.mbelcsefth to eaFeful�evie;.v e€festsef 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 don th 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) cn N c a� E U CU a r O a a a CU _ O w O U O O v W 4- 0 r-+ _ O E i R d Q Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 268 ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION No. 1326) 8.3.a 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 . CD N r c as E V c� a 3 O a a a c O c O U tm O O v W 4- 0 C N E R N .r a Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 269 ATTACHMENT C -DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROPOSED SMP AMENDMENT (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326) 8.3.a 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 Topic Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; strikethlFeugh-cleletions] c ECOLOGY. — 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 0 Use IV allowed "Attached or stacked residential (multifamily)" under the subheading "Residential." flexibility within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. co uses. Adopting this change would preclude the need for future SMP c� amendments should the city modify zoning for that area. r Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 270 8.3.a 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. 271 8.3.a 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 m c 0 W as N c as E a 3 0 0. a Q Packet Pg. 272 8.3.a 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; m c `o M Cn as N N c a) E a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 273 8.3.a (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); m _ `0 Cn a� N N c as E a 3 0 0. a Q Packet Pg. 274 8.3.a 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-1 (EPA NMFS 2004 Critical Area Ordinance update, the Edmonds Marsh is a Category I 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. m c L 0 Cn a� N N c as E a 3 0 L 0. a Q Packet Pg. 275 8.3.a (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. Q Packet Pg. 276 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 277 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 278 8.3.a 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 x w m E s c� Q Packet Pg. 279 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 280 8.3.a 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 m _ 0 Cn as N c a� E a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 281 8.3.a 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? Q Packet Pg. 282 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 283 8.3.a 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- Q Packet Pg. 284 8.3.a 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) Q Packet Pg. 285 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 286 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 287 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 288 8.3.a 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. z x w m E s c� Q Packet Pg. 289 8.3.a 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, Q Packet Pg. 290 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 291 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 292 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 293 8.3.a 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 Packet Pg. 294 8.3.a 25 Marsh buffer/ (Landau Associates) inconsistent with Ecology recommendations within shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation setback chapter 11 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 11 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. Q Packet Pg. 295 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 296 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 297 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 298 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 299 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 300 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 301 8.3.a 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) Q Packet Pg. 302 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 303 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 304 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 305 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 306 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 307 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 308 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 309 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 310 8.3.a 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 Q Packet Pg. 311 8.3.a 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: Q Packet Pg. 312 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 313 8.3.a 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. Q Packet Pg. 314 8.3.a 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. z x w m E s c� Q Packet Pg. 315 8u118J0yS 6ZV0 s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euoi;ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - ;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d ev M M G a m .�c a 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 Iq M 00 aullaaogS : 6ZVO s;uauagoejjV q;Inn IenoiddV Ieu011IpuO3 A601033101u8ua:Ped8a - I, IIglgx3 :;uGWLI3e;;d 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 au118J04S : 6ZV0 s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euoi;ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;uew:Pedea - 6;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d ev M Go • 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 au118J04S : 6ZV0 s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euog!puo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - 6;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d rn ev M M G a m .�c • 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 8ul18J0yS : M,0 s;uauayoe;;d 44Inn lenoiddd 1euoi;Ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - ;Igl4x3 :;uauayoe;;d 0 M M Co i31 a m .�c 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� 8.3.a 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. 321 8.3.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. 322 8.3.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. 323 8.3.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 m 0 a E 0 0 L. a L M m c 0 z CD N City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 3 of 160 Packet Pg. 324 8.3.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. 325 8.3.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. 326 8.3.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. 327 8.3.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. 328 8.3.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. 329 8.3.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. 330 8.3.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. 331 8.3.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. 332 8.3.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. 333 8.3.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. 334 8.3.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. 335 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. 336 8.3.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. 337 8.3.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. 338 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. 339 8.3.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. 340 8.3.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. 341 8.3.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. 342 8.3.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. 343 8.3.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. 344 8.3.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. 345 8.3.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. 346 8.3.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. 347 8.3.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. 348 8.3.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. 349 8.3.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. 350 8.3.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. 351 8.3.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. 352 8.3.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. 353 8.3.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. 354 8.3.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. 355 8.3.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. 356 8.3.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. 357 8.3.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. 358 8.3.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. 359 8.3.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. 360 8.3.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. 361 8.3.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. 362 8.3.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. 363 8.3.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. 364 8.3.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. 365 8.3.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. 366 8.3.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. 367 8.3.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. 368 8.3.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. 369 8.3.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. 370 8.3.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. 371 8.3.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. 372 8.3.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 I X X X X X X X X X X X X City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 52 of 160 m 0 0. E M 0 L a M m c 0 t CD N CO T T T 0 N m 0 L 0. Q. a a c 0 0 t� N s x w c d E z c� a Packet Pg. 373 8.3.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. 374 8.3.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. 375 8.3.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"1 100150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Heightlb 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 m 0 0. E M 0 L a M m c 0 t CD N CO T 0 N 0 0 0. Q. a a N c 0 0 V s K w c d E z c� a Packet Pg. 376 8.3.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 Varies"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. 377 8.3.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. 378 8.3.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. 379 8.3.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. 380 8.3.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. 381 8.3.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. 382 8.3.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. 383 8.3.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. 384 8.3.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. 385 8.3.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 City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 65 of 160 Packet Pg. 386 8.3.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. 387 8.3.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. 388 8.3.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. 389 8.3.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. 390 8.3.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. 391 8.3.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. 392 8.3.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. 393 8.3.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. 394 8.3.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. 395 8.3.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. 396 8.3.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. 397 8.3.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. 398 8.3.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. 399 8.3.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. 400 8.3.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. 401 8.3.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. 402 8.3.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. 403 8.3.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. 404 8.3.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. 405 8.3.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. 406 8.3.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. 407 8.3.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. 408 8.3.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. 409 8.3.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. 410 8.3.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. 411 8.3.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. b. A baseline description of existing conditions, including best available information on; a i. Water quality. E M L ii. Tidal variations. o a L iii. Prevailing storm wind conditions. M iv. Current flows. d c as L v. Flushing rates. 0 co vi. Littoral drift. N vii. Areas of differing substrate composition. 00 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. 412 8.3.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. 413 8.3.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. 414 8.3.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. 415 8.3.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. 416 8.3.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. 417 8.3.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. 418 8.3.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. 419 8.3.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. 420 8.3.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. 421 8.3.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. 422 8.3.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. 423 8.3.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. 424 8.3.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. 425 8.3.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. 426 8.3.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. 427 8.3.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. 428 8.3.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. 429 8.3.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. 430 8.3.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. 431 8.3.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. 432 8.3.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. 433 8.3.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. 434 8.3.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. 435 8.3.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; ii. Railroad track/road crossing signals; iii. Slide fences; iv. Railroad signals; v. Bridges (i.e. pedestrian overpass bridges, vehicular overpass bridges and pipeline overpass bridges); vi. Railroad signage (i.e., speed, track, whistle, etc.); vii. Drainage facilities, including culverts; 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. as 0 0. E M 0 L. IL L 0 d c L 0 z U) CD N City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 115 of 160 Packet Pg. 436 8.3.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. 437 8.3.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 a E M 0 L. a L M d c L 0 z CD N City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 117 of 160 Packet Pg. 438 8.3.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. 439 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. 440 8.3.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. 441 8.3.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. 442 8.3.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. 443 8.3.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. 444 8.3.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. 445 8.3.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. 446 8.3.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. 447 8.3.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. 448 8.3.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. 449 8.3.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. 450 8.3.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. 451 8.3.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. 452 8.3.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. 453 8.3.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. 454 8.3.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. 455 8.3.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. 456 8.3.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. 457 8.3.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. 458 8.3.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. 459 8.3.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. 460 8.3.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. 461 8.3.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. 462 8.3.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. 463 8.3.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. 464 8.3.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. 465 8.3.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. 466 8.3.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. 467 8.3.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. 468 8.3.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. 469 8.3.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. 470 8.3.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. 471 8.3.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. 472 8.3.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. 473 8.3.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. 474 8.3.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. 475 8.3.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. 476 8.3.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. 477 8.3.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. 478 8.3.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. 479 8.3.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. 480 8.3.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. 481 8.3.c Date: To: Cc: From: Subject: Introduction MEMORANDUM July 25, 2016 City Council Mayor Earling, Jeff Taraday, Shane Hope Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Shoreline Master Program — Setbacks and Buffers There have been some questions regarding the setbacks and buffers associated with the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment, in particular where setbacks and buffers are measured from and what is the difference between the Council -approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) provisions and the Department of Ecology's required changes. This memorandum is intended to clarify the measurement of setbacks and buffers in the SMP. Both the City Council's adopted version and the Department of Ecology's version of the setback/buffer combination for the UMU IV environment require the establishment of a 50-foot vegetation buffer. The primary difference is what happens beyond the 50-foot vegetated buffer. The Council's adopted total setback is 100 feet, including the 50-foot vegetated buffer, while Ecology's proposed total setback is 65 feet, including the 50-foot vegetated buffer. That means a net difference of 35 feet between the Council approved version and Ecology's required change. Below is a detailed discussion of the Council adopted version of the UMU IV setback/buffer and Ecology's required change for the UMU IV setback/buffer. Shoreline Jurisdiction, Buffers, and Setbacks There are three terms within Shoreline Master Programs that often get intermingled while they each have specific meanings: shoreline jurisdiction, setback and buffer. Shoreline jurisdiction is the area where development and uses must comply with the City's SMP provisions. The SMP defines "shoreline areas" and "shoreline jurisdiction" as all "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (SMP 24.90.050.13, pg. 157). The definitions in RCW 90.58.030 are rather long, but the first paragraph from the shoreland areas definition is the most relevant to this discussion and states: Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 482 8.3.c 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 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. Basically, shoreline jurisdiction includes shorelines of the state (Puget Sound, Edmonds Marsh, and Lake Ballinger in Edmonds) and the adjacent land extending 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The definition of buffer in the SMP is provided in 24.90.010.P and states: 24.90.01OY "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. (SMP pgs. 148 — 149) Ecology's Shoreline Master Program handbook notes that shoreline buffers typically are naturally vegetated areas adjacent to water bodies that protect the ecological functions of the shoreline and help to reduce the impacts of land uses on the water body. Shoreline buffers can help to protect structures from hazards such as erosion, landslides, floods, and storm damage associated with a water body. Ideally, shoreline buffers are relatively undisturbed, uses are limited, and there are no substantial structures. Setbacks in the SMP are defined as "shore setback" in 24.90.050.A which states" 24.90.050.A. "Shore setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline ordinary high water mark. The City's SMP has some shoreline environments that only require a "shore setback" such as the Urban Mixed Use I and II with a 15-foot shore setback from the seawall, whereas the UMU IV has both a buffer and a setback requirement. Since, 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. Urban Mixed Use IV — Council Adopted Version of Setback/Buffer Ecology's Shoreline Master Program 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 adopted by the City Council. Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 483 8.3.c The Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards in 24.40.090 (SMP 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." See Figure 1 below. Urban Mixed Use IV — Department of Ecology Version of Setback/Buffer In Ecology's June 27, 2016 conditional approval of the City's SMP, Ecology indicated two required changes to the UMU IV setback/buffer requirements. These changes are noted as Items 7 and 8 in Attachment B of Ecology's conditional approval. The required change in Item 7 would change the 100150 setback/buffer required adopted by the Council in 24.40.090 to a 65/50 (a 65-foot setback from ordinary high water with the requirement to establish a 50-foot vegetative buffer). Required change in Item 8 is a change to Footnote 18 elaborating on when the 50-foot vegetative buffer is triggered. The buffer would have to be established with the "redevelopment of greater than 50% for the Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 484 8.3.c and development of the site on the south border of the marsh within shoreline jurisdiction" require the establishment of the 50-foot vegetative buffer. See Figure 2 below for Ecology's setback/buffer. Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 485 8.3.d Principal Changes to the Wetland Guidance for Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Updates August 10, 2016, Paul S. Anderson, Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor, Ecology NWRO In June 2016, Ecology published the updated version of its CAO guidance for local jurisdictions, Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001; hereafter, CAO Guidance). This update replaced Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002; hereafter, Small Cities Guidance), both of which are based on Ecology's best available science documents: Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science and Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Ecology Publication Nos. 05-06-006 and 05-06-008, respectively). Here is a link to Ecology's Website that explains the update and has links to the referenced documents: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/guidance.html The CAO Guidance was updated to incorporate recent changes in the state wetland rating system and associated buffer recommendations based on a new scoring scheme; to provide guidance to all jurisdictions in the state and not just small cities; to more closely reflect the buffer recommendations in Appendix 8C of Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2, to acknowledge the importance of wildlife corridors and provide incentives for buffer reductions if corridors can be provided; and to incorporate recent publications and regulatory changes. Wetlands in Washington State (Glossary, p. 1) defines buffers as: "Vegetated areas adjacent to wetlands, or other aquatic resources, that can reduce impacts from adjacent land uses through various physical, chemical, and/or biological processes." Ecology considers buffers to be areas that are well -vegetated with a plant community appropriate to the eco-region. Buffers provide two primary roles in protecting and supporting wetland (and stream) functions: water quality and habitat. Where native vegetation has been removed, buffer functions are degraded and the recommended buffer widths may need to be increased to achieve a comparable level of function. For water quality improvement, the benefit of buffers is achieved within the first 60-75 feet and wider buffer are providing primarily habitat value. The buffer widths listed in Appendix 8C represent the mid -ranges of buffer widths reported in the literature and are, therefore, a moderate -risk approach to wetland protection. Because habitat is such an important consideration in buffer (and wetland) function, the buffer widths are scaled based on the wetland habitat score. Relative to wetland buffers, and specifically applicable to Edmonds Marsh, the most important changes in the CAO Guidance are: • a revised format for the recommended buffer widths; • including wildlife corridors as an option to reduce buffer widths; and • including buffer widths for Category II estuarine wetlands. Packet Pg. 486 8.3.d The change to the format for the recommended buffer widths in the CAO Guidance from the Small Cities Guidance has been to include a table of required buffer widths if minimization measures (or a wildlife corridor) are not incorporated into site design (Table XX.3). The buffer widths listed in Table XX.1 Small Cities Guidance were dependent upon application of the minimization measures listed in Table XX.2 and if those measures weren't applied, the buffer widths needed to be increased by 33% (Condition No. 2, p. A-5, Small Cities Guidance). My understanding is that this approach (assuming that projects would incorporate the minimization measures) was a challenge for Ecology and local jurisdictions to implement; people simply referred to the buffer widths listed in Table XX.1 and believed those were the recommended buffer widths. In 2013, Ecology published an update to the 2005 wetland BAS synthesis specific to buffers (Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science; Ecology Publication No. 13-06-11). The purpose of the update was to review studies published since 2003 and determine whether the conclusions and recommendations in Wetlands in Washington State were still valid. The 2013 literature review concluded that the Wetlands in Washington State recommendations were still valid. One key findings in the 2013 literature review was on the importance of corridors and habitat connectivity for wildlife. That finding is the basis for including wildlife corridors as a consideration in the recommended buffer widths in the CAO Guidance. The buffer widths listed in tables XX.1 and XX.3 in the CAO Guidance now include buffer widths for Category II estuarine wetlands; 110 and 150 feet, respectively, regardless of habitat score. I'm not sure why Category II estuarine wetlands were not included in Small Cities Guidance Table XX.1. That omission has now been corrected in the CAO Guidance. Also, because the state wetland rating system is not designed to accurately assess the habitat condition of estuarine wetlands, habitat scores are no longer a consideration in establishing the appropriate buffer width for estuarine wetlands. For Edmonds Marsh, any areas of intact native vegetation within the adopted buffer widths would need to be protected or if impacts to intact buffer are unavoidable, the area of impact would need to be replaced (mitigated). The 50-foot buffer mentioned in Items 8 and 9 of Ecology's Required Changes refers to a restored buffer within currently developed areas (little or no remaining functional buffer) as mitigation to offset the more intensive land use associated with redevelopment. It is the redevelopment of greater than 50% of the Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction that would trigger the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer along the perimeter of Edmonds Marsh, in combination with a 15-foot structural setback. Packet Pg. 487 8.3.e DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version January 2010 Publication No. 10-06-002 (1st Revision July 2011) (2nd Revision October 2012) Packet Pg. 488 8.3.e Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington Additional Additional Additional buffer width if buffer width if buffer width Standard wetland scores wetland scores if wetland Wetland Category Buffer 21-25 habitat 26-29 habitat scores 30-36 Width points points habitat points Category I: 75ft Add 30 ft Add 90 ft Add 150 ft Based on total score Category I: 190 ft NA NA Add 35 ft Bogs Category I: Natural Heritage 190 ft N/A NA Add 35 ft Wetlands Category I: 150 ft N/A Add 15 ft Add 75 ft Coastal Lagoons Category I: 75ft Add 30 ft Add 90 ft Add 150 ft Forested Category I: 150 ft N/A NA N/A Estuarine Category 11: 75 ft Add 30 ft Add 90 ft Add 150 ft Based on score Category II: 110 ft NA Add 55 ft Add 115 ft Interdunal Wetlands Category III (all) 60 ft Add 45 ft Add 105 ft NA Category IV (all) 40 ft NA NA NA Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version Page A-6 Packet Pg. 489 8.3.e hand removal unless permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Re - vegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species. 6. Educational and scientific research activities. 7. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the maintenance or repair does not expand the footprint of the facility or right- of-way. XX.050 Wetland Buffers A. Buffer Requirements. The standard buffer widths in Table XX.1 have been established in accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington state wetland rating system for western Washington. 1. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in Table XX.2, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. 2. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table XX.2, then a 33% increase in the width of all buffers is required. For example, a 75-foot buffer with the mitigation measures would be a 100- foot buffer without them. 3. 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. 4. 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). Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version Page A - Packet Pg. 490 8.3.e Table XX.2 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 outer wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Intensity Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of corridors or • Maintain connections to offsite areas that are connections undisturbed • Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version Page A - Packet Pg. 49, 8.3.f DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version June 2016 Publication No. 16-06-001 Packet Pg. 492 8.3.f Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection Ecology has produced several different tools that can help local governments develop a comprehensive wetlands protection program for their jurisdictions. The Washington Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have published a two -volume guidance document to help local governments protect and manage wetlands: • Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-006, Olympia, WA, March 2005). This volume is the result of an extensive search of over 17,000 scientific articles and synthesizes over 1,000 peer -reviewed works relevant to the management of Washington's wetlands. • Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-008, Olympia, WA, April 2005). This volume was developed with the assistance of local government planners and wetland consultants. It can be used to craft regulatory language that is based on BAS. We recommend that you review Chapter 8 and its appendices as you begin to work on updating your existing regulations. (Please note: Appendix 8-C was revised in October 2014.) In October 2013, Ecology released an update of the science pertaining to wetland buffers. The new information on buffers provides a refinement of our knowledge and revisits the conclusions and key points in the 2005 synthesis. • Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-011, Olympia, WA, October 2013. Ecology, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has also developed a two-part guidance document aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation in Washington State: • Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 la, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 1 provides a brief background on wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies' permitting decisions, and detailed guidance on the agencies' policies of wetland mitigation, particularly compensatory mitigation. It outlines the information the agencies use to determine whether specific mitigation plans are appropriate and adequate. • Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 2 provides technical information on preparing plans for compensatory mitigation. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 3 Packet Pg. 493 8.3.f Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of New and Redevelopment projects can be considered within wetlands and their buffers. However, these areas may contain features that render LID BMPs infeasible. A site - specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is feasible at the project site. XX.050 Wetland Buffers A. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high. 1. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in Table XX.1 can be used if both of the following criteria are met: • A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are available on the WDFW web site at: http://wdfvv.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm ) The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement. Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, Table XX.1 may be used with the required measures in Table XX.2 alone. z • The measures in Table XX.2 are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. 2. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in Table XX.2 are required for the use of Table XX.1 3. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table XX.2, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then Table XX.3 must be used. 2 See discussion in the Introduction, page 12 as to whether this applies in small urban jurisdictions. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 27 Packet Pg. 494 8.3.f 4. The buffer widths in Table XX.1 and XX.3 assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Wetland Category Category L• 75 105 165 225 Based on total score Category I: Bogs and 190 225 Wetlands of High Conservation Value Category I: 150 165 225 Coastal Lagoons Category I: 225 Interdunal Category I: 75 105 165 225 Forested Category 1: 150 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category II: 75 105 165 225 Based on score Category II: 110 165 225 Interdunal Wetlands Category II: 110 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (all) 60 105 165 225 Category IV (all) 40 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 28 Packet Pg. 495 8.3.f Table XX.2 Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands (Measures are required if applicable to a specific proposal) Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10' heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Intensity Development techniques (for more information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual) Change in water • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from regime impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer disturbance 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 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 29 Packet Pg. 496 8.3.f Table XX.3 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if Table XX.2 is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Wetland Category Category L• 100 140 220 300 Based on total score Category L• Bogs and 250 300 Wetlands of High Conservation Value Category I: 200 220 300 Coastal Lagoons Category I: 3 00 Interdunal Category I: 100 140 220 300 Forested Category I: 200 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category II: 100 140 220 300 Based on score Category II: 150 220 300 Interdunal Wetlands Category IL• 150 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (all) 80 140 220 300 Category IV (all) 50 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 30 Packet Pg. 497 aP ri co OC -J �V4-J z W 0 J `a 0 `°0- Q u� � oWV, (a;epdn wea6oad as;seW auilaaoyS : 6ZI70 sia}ln8 puel;aM uo a;epdn-L;giyx3 :;uewt4oe;jV 8.3.g NOTE: We are using an alternate format for scientific citations in this report. Instead of citing the authors and the date, each reference is assigned a number based on its position in the alphabetic list of references at the end of this document. This is the format used by scientific journals such as Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. This format is easier to read when a statement is supported by multiple citations, and it reduces the length of the text. 1.0 Introduction In 2005 the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) published a synthesis of scientific information available on freshwater wetlands, their functions, and their management (81). The purpose of the synthesis was to provide local governments in the state with the best available science (BAS) when managing their wetland resources. Using BAS in making decisions was mandated by the 1995 amendment to the Growth Management Act (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.172 [1]). Our scientific knowledge is continually increasing and changing and we recognized that the synthesis would need periodic updates. Much of the information presented is still valid, but research in the last decade has provided new data to expand and clarify many of the conclusions made in the original synthesis. This is especially true for the information on the role of buffers in protecting wetland functions. Buffers are vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic resources that can, through various physical, chemical, and/or biological processes, reduce impacts to these resources from adjacent land uses. Buffers also provide some of the terrestrial habitats necessary for wetland -dependent species that require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Several jurisdictions, including Island County and San Juan County, have developed their own syntheses of scientific research based on some of the more recent information on buffers. These syntheses focused on the wetlands found within their jurisdiction and the information may be limited relative to other areas in the state. Ecology is expanding on these efforts. The goal is to provide updated information on wetland buffers that can be applied statewide. The objective is to synthesize the information on buffers that was published between 2003 and the winter of 2012. We focus on wetland buffers, since buffers are one of the most common elements of wetland regulations in Critical Area Ordinances (CAO's), and they are consistently the part of a CAO of most interest and concern to the public. Limited resources prevent us from expanding our review and update to other issues at this time. This update revisits the conclusions and key points concerning wetland buffers made in the 2005 synthesis. Each conclusion is reviewed with respect to any new information that was Update on Wetland Buffers Final Report October 2013 Packet Pg. 499 8.3.g published between 2003 and 2012, or information in earlier studies that we may have missed and that has come to our attention. If the conclusion is still valid, new references supporting it are noted. If the conclusion needs to be expanded or modified, then revised conclusions are presented based on the new information. In reviewing the recent information we also found that some of the studies address issues that were not commonly discussed in the past. New conclusions that can be made from this information are presented as updates of old conclusions in the appropriate sections. This synthesis DOES NOT contain agency recommendations or suggestions for implementing programs to protect or manage wetlands using buffers. Its purpose is to identify the sources of information reviewed and relied upon by Ecology in the process of updating our guidance on wetland buffers as required in state law (H131113). Any recommendations documented here are those that have been described in the literature. They are included here only as part of the synthesis of existing scientific information. Agency recommendations that stem from this synthesis will be provided as supplements to the Appendices in Ecology publication #05-06-008, Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Update on Wetland Buffers Final Report October 2013 Packet Pg. 500 8.3.g 5.0 Synthesis of New Information on Buffers The initial questions posed at the beginning of this literature review were: 1. Are the conclusions and key points regarding wetland buffers made in the 2005 synthesis still valid? 2. If not, what new conclusions can be made from the recent research about how buffers protect wetland functions? In addition, a synthesis should "involve the integration of disparate data with existing concepts and theories to yield new knowledge, insights, and explanations." ( 59). Below we provide our synthesis of the information we presented in the previous chapters. Some conclusions that come out of a synthesis may not have been made previously by others and thus cannot be cited because they provide new knowledge and explanations. 5.1 Conclusions on protecting water quality by using buffers (Section 3.2) The research in the last decade supports the basic conclusion that buffers trap pollutants before they reach a wetland, thus protecting its functions. The recent research has also increased our understanding of the many different factors that control the effectiveness of a buffer at trapping pollutants. These factors include: • Width • Slope • Type of vegetation (herbaceous, shrub, trees) • Type of pollutant (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, coliform bacteria) • Geochemical and physical properties of the soil • Infiltration rates of soils • Source of pollutants (surface water or groundwater) • Concentration of pollutants • Path of surface water through the buffer • For phosphorus, the amount of phosphorus already trapped by the soil. All else being equal, wider buffers should be more effective than narrower ones. However, the other site -specific factors listed above can change the effectiveness of wider buffers. For example, a wide buffer where surface runoff has formed a small channel will probably not be as effective as a narrower buffer with no channels. In the latter case, the surface flows carrying pollutants have a chance to diffuse through the vegetation and percolate into the ground. In the former case the pollutants have less opportunity to interact with the processes that trap and transform them. The approach of using the width of buffers as the only means for protecting water quality in a wetland can be complicated. Different buffers widths may be needed to achieve the same level of protection because other environmental factors are also important. Update on Wetland Buffers Final Report October 2013 31 Packet Pg. 501 8.3.g 5.2 Conclusions on protecting wetlands as wildlife habitat by using buffers (Section 3.3) The research in the last decade indicates the habitat needs of wetland -dependent species are highly variable. Protecting wetland -dependent wildlife will probably require a broader, landscape -based approach. Current research indicates that: Some species of amphibians require large areas of relatively undisturbed uplands if their populations are to survive. Models that estimate the extinction rate show that some amphibian populations have a high probability of becoming extinct in a wetland within few decades as buffers are sized using current guidance (100 - 300 ft). We found information on the upland habitat needs for 15 of the 27 species of amphibians found in Washington State. These articles do not specify a minimum distance that is required to protect a population, but they show that the species can range 40m (-130ft) to over 1km (0.6 miles) from the edge of a wetland. The type of upland habitat used by species found in Washington are similar to what these species use in other parts of their range. Thus, many of the general conclusions reported in the literature will probably also be valid, even though the research was done on these species in other locations. The uplands surrounding a wetland can serve as critical habitat for certain wetland - dependent species. Because this expands the concept of wetland buffer from simply protecting the wetland to protecting species in the uplands, some have suggested using the term core habitat rather than buffer. Many wetland -dependent species will probably not survive unless an adequate amount of core habitat is present. Studies on birds as well as amphibians report that core habitat for many species needs to extend between 300m (1000ft) and 1000 m (0.6mi) from the wetland edge. However, we were unable to find information on how much of the wetland edge has to be connected to the core habitat to maintain populations. The composition of plants in buffers and core habitats is also an important factor Some species prefer grasslands while others prefer shrubs and forests. • Policies and regulations will probably need to protect the upland habitats that are an integral part of their habitat needs. The current research indicates that a broader approach to protecting wildlife is needed. Buffers alone may not prevent the populations of many species from declining. Wetland policies that rely on only on buffer widths may be ineffective at protecting amphibians or other wetland species that disperse across the landscape. Bauer and others (5) combined an economic cost model with models of amphibian populations and found that in the Update on Wetland Buffers Final Report October 2013 32 Packet Pg. 502 8.3.g majority of human -dominated landscapes, some amount of protection for the upland core habitat is necessary for long-term survival of these amphibians. However, in landscapes with less intense land uses, such as low -intensity residential, and a high pond density, wetland buffers may be all that is required (5). 5.3 Conclusions on protecting plant biodiversity in wetlands using buffers (Section3.4) Very little research has been done correlating plant biodiversity in wetland with buffer width. The research that has been done suggest that wetlands may require buffers that are at least 200 ft (60m) to protect sensitive plants. Update on Wetland Buffers Final Report October 2013 33 Packet Pg. 503 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Appendix 8-C Guidance on Widths of Buffers and Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation for Use with the Western Washington Wetland Rating System 8C.1 Introduction This appendix provides guidance on widths of buffers, ratios for compensatory mitigation, and other measures for protecting wetlands that are linked to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update, Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-029 (October 2014). Refer to Appendix 8-D for guidance for eastern Washington. Appendices 8-C through 8-F have been formatted similar to the main text of this volume (i.e., with a numbering system) to help with organization. The tables below list the recommended widths of buffers for various alternatives, examples of measures to minimize impacts, and ratios for compensatory mitigation. • Table 8C-1. Width of buffers needed to protect wetlands in western Washington if impacts from land use and wetland functions are NOT incorporated (Buffer Alternative 1). [Page 4] • Table 8C-2. Width of buffers based on wetland category and modified by the intensity of the impacts from changes in proposed land use (Buffer Alternative 2). [Page 5] • Table 8C-3. Types of land uses that can result in high, moderate, and low levels of impacts to adjacent wetlands (used in Buffer Alternatives 2 and 3). [Page 5] • Table 8C-4. Width of buffers needed to protect Category IV wetlands in western Washington (Buffer Alternative 3). [Page 6] • Table 8C-5. Width of buffers needed to protect Category III wetlands in western Washington (Buffer Alternative 3). [Page 6] • Table 8C-6. Width of buffers needed to protect Category II wetlands in western Washington (Buffer Alternative 3). [Page 7] • Table 8C-7. Width of buffers needed to protect Category I wetlands in western Washington (Buffer Alternative 3). [Page 8] • Table 8C-8. Examples of measures to minimize impacts to wetlands from different types of activities. [Page 10] October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 1 Packet Pg. 504 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington • Table 8C-9. Comparison of recommended buffer widths for high intensity land uses between Alternative 3 (step -wise scale) and Alternative 3A (graduated scale) based on score for habitat functions [Page 14]. • Table 8C-10. Comparison of recommended widths for buffers between Alternative 3 and Alternative 3A for proposed land uses with high impacts with mitigation for impacts. [Page 14] • Table 8C-11. Mitigation ratios for projects in western Washington. [Page 20] The guidance in this appendix can be used in developing regulations such as critical areas ordinances for protecting and managing the functions and values of wetlands. The recommendations are based on the analysis of the current scientific literature found in Volume 1. The detailed rationale for the recommendations is provided in Appendices 8- E and 8-F. The recommendations on buffer widths and mitigation ratios are general, and there may be some wetlands for which these recommendations are either too restrictive or not protective enough. The recommendations are based on the assumption that a wetland will be protected only at the scale of the site itself. They do not reflect buffers and ratios that might result from regulations that are developed based on a larger landscape -scale approach. 8C.2 Widths of Buffers Requiring buffers of a specific width has been one of the primary methods by which local jurisdictions in Washington have protected the functions and values of wetlands. Generally, buffers are the uplands adjacent to an aquatic resource that can, through various physical, chemical, and biological processes, reduce impacts to wetlands from adjacent land uses. The physical characteristics of buffers (e.g., slope, soils, vegetation, and width) determine how well buffers reduce the adverse impacts of human development. These characteristics are discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Volume 1. In addition to reducing the impacts of adjacent land uses, buffers also protect and maintain a wide variety of functions and values provided by wetlands. For example, buffers can provide the terrestrial habitats needed by many species of wildlife that use wetlands to meet some of their needs. The review of the scientific literature has shown, however, that buffers alone cannot adequately protect all functions that a wetland performs. Additional guidance is, therefore, provided on other ways in which wetlands can be managed and regulated to provide some of the necessary protection that buffers alone do not provide. The following guidance for protecting the functions and values of wetlands is based on their category as determined through the rating system for western Washington. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 2 Packet Pg. 505 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Basic assumptions for using the guidance on widths for buffers Recommendations for widths of buffers assume that: The wetland has been categorized using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update, Department of Ecology Publication #14-06- 029, October 2014. The buffer is vegetated with native plant communities that are appropriate for the ecoregion or with a plant community that provides similar functions. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains updated maps of 7ecoregions that are available at http://www.epa.gov/naaujydbZpages/models/ecoregions.htm. Ecoregions currently mapped for Washington are: Coast Range, Puget Lowland, Cascades, Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills, North Cascades, Columbia Plateau, Blue Mountains, and Northern Rockies. • If the vegetation in the buffer is disturbed (grazed, mowed, etc.), proponents planning changes to land use that will increase impacts to wetlands need to rehabilitate the buffer with native plant communities that are appropriate for the ecoregion, or with a plant community that provides similar functions. • The width of the buffer is measured along the horizontal plane (see drawing below): Measurement of buffer width • The buffer will remain relatively undisturbed in the future within the width specified. Three alternatives for protecting the functions of wetlands using buffers are described in the following sections: • Buffer Alternative 1. Width based only on wetland category. • Buffer Alternative 2. Width based on wetland category and the intensity of impacts from proposed changes in land use. • Buffer Alternative 3. Width based on wetland category, intensity of impacts, and wetland functions or special characteristics. This alternative has two options for determining the widths of buffers when they are based on the score for habitat. Alternative 3 provides three buffer widths based on habitat scores, while Alternative 3A provides a graduated scale of widths for buffers based on habitat scores. The buffer widths recommended for each alternative were based on the review of scientific information in Volume 1. The guidance in this appendix synthesizes the information about the types and sizes of buffers needed to protect the functions and special characteristics of wetlands. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 3 Packet Pg. 506 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Appendices 8-C and 8-D do not provide the metric equivalents for buffer widths even though most of the research on buffers uses the metric scale. This decision was made because most local governments use the English Customary measures. For example, a buffer width is set at 50 feet rather than 15 meters. 8C.2.1 Buffer Alternative 1: Width Based Only on Wetland Category This alternative, in which the width of buffers is based only on the category of the wetland, is the simplest (Table 8C-1). The width recommended for each category of wetland in Alternative 1 is the widest recommended for that category in both Alternatives 2 and 3 (discussed below). Alternative 1 provides the least flexibility because many different types of wetlands and types of human impacts are combined. For example, not all wetlands that fall into Category I or II need a 300-foot buffer. If no distinctions are made between the wetlands that fall into Category I or II, all wetlands that fall into these categories have to be protected with a 300-foot buffer so adequate protection is provided for those wetlands that do need a buffer this wide. Also, the widths recommended for this alternative are those needed to protect the wetland from proposed land uses that have the greatest impacts since no distinctions between impacts are made. Table 8C-1. Width of buffers needed to protect wetlands in western Washington if impacts from land use and wetland functions are NOT incorporated (Buffer Alternative 1). Category of Wetland Widths of Buffers IV 50 ft III 150 ft II 300 ft I 300 ft 8C.2.2 Buffer Alternative 2: Width Based on Wetland Category and Modified by the Intensity of the Impacts from Proposed Land Use The second alternative increases the regulatory flexibility by including the concept that not all proposed changes in land uses have the same level of impact (Table 8C-2). For example, one new residence being built on 5 acres of land near a wetland is expected to have a smaller impact than 20 houses built on the same 5 acres. Three categories of impacts from proposed land uses are outlined: land uses that can create high impacts, moderate impacts, and low impacts to wetlands. Different land uses that can cause these levels of impacts are listed in Table 8C-3. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 4 Packet Pg. 507 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Table 8C-2. Width of buffers needed to protect wetlands in western Washington considering impacts of proposed land uses (Buffer Alternative 2). Category of Wetland Land Use with Low Impact * Land Use with Moderate Impact * Land Use with High Impact* IV 25 ft 40 ft 50 ft III 75ft 110ft 150 ft II 150 ft 225 ft 300 ft I 150 ft 225 ft 300 ft * See Table 8C-3 below for types of land uses that can result in low, moderate, and high impacts to wetlands. Table 8C-3. Types of proposed land use that can result in high, moderate, and low levels of impacts to adjacent wetlands. Level of Impact from Types of Land Use Based on Common Zoning Designations Proposed Change in Land Use High • Commercial • Urban • Industrial • Institutional • Retail sales • Residential (more than 1 unit/acre) • Conversion to high -intensity agriculture (dairies, nurseries, greenhouses, growing and harvesting crops requiring annual tilling and raising and maintaining animals, etc.) • High -intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields, etc.) • Hobby farms Moderate • Residential (1 unit/acre or less) • Moderate -intensity open space (parks with biking, jogging, etc.) • Conversion to moderate -intensity agriculture (orchards, hay fields, etc.) • Paved trails • Building of logging roads • Utility corridor or right-of-way shared by several utilities and including access/maintenance road Low • Forestry (cutting of trees only) • Low -intensity open space (hiking, bird -watching, preservation of natural resources, etc.) • Unpaved trails • Utility corridor without a maintenance road and little or no vegetation management. * Local governments are encouraged to create land -use designations for zoning that are consistent with these examples. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 5 Packet Pg. 508 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington 8C.2.3 Buffer Alternative 3: Width Based on Wetland Category, Intensity of Impacts, Wetland Functions, or Special Characteristics The third alternative provides the most flexibility by basing the widths of buffers on three factors: the wetland category, the intensity of the impacts (as used in Alternative 2), and the functions or special characteristics of the wetland that need to be protected as determined through the rating system. The recommended widths for buffers are shown in Tables 8C-4 to 8C-7. Using this alternative, a wetland may fall into more than one category in the table. For example, an interdunal wetland may be rated a Category III wetland because it is an isolated interdunal wetland, but it may be rated a Category II wetland based on its score for functions. If a wetland meets more than one of the characteristics listed in Tables 8C-4 to 8C-7, the buffer recommended to protect the wetland is the widest one. For example, if a Category I wetland (Table 8C-7) scores 8 points for habitat and 7 points for water quality functions, a 300-foot buffer is needed for land uses with high impacts because the widths needed to protect habitat are wider than those needed for the other functions. Table 8C-4. Width of buffers needed to protect Category IV wetlands in western Washington (Buffer Alternative 3 for wetlands scoring less than 16 points for all functions). Wetland Characteristics Buffer Widths by Impact of Other Measures Recommended Proposed Land Use for Protection Score for all 3 basic Low - 25 ft No recommendations at this time' functions is less than 16 Moderate — 40 ft points High — 50 ft ' No information on other measures for protection was available at the time this document was written. The Washington State Department of Ecology will continue to collect new information for future updates to this document. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 6 Packet Pg. 509 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Table 8C-5. Width of buffers needed to protect Category III wetlands in western Washington (Buffer Alternative 3 for wetlands scoring 16 - 19 points for all functions). Wetland Characteristics Buffer Widths by Impact of Proposed Land Use Other Measures Recommended for Protection Moderate level of function Low - 75 ft No recommendations at this time' for habitat (score for Moderate — 110 ft habitat 5 - 7 points)* High— 150 ft *If wetland scores 8-9 habitat points, use Table 8C-6 for Category II buffers Score for habitat 3-4 points Low - 40 ft No recommendations at this time' Moderate — 60 ft High — 80 ft October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 7 Packet Pg. 510 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Table 8C-6. Width of buffers needed to protect Category II wetlands in western Washington (Buffer Alternative 3 for wetlands scoring 20 - 22 points for all functions or having the "Special Characteristics" identified in the rating system). Wetland Characteristics Buffer Widths by Impact of Other Measures Recommended for Proposed Land Use (Apply Protection most protective if more than one criterion is met.) High level of function for Low - 150 ft Maintain connections to other habitat habitat (score for habitat Moderate — 225 ft areas 8 - 9 points) High — 300 ft Moderate level of function Low - 75 ft No recommendations at this time for habitat (score for habitat Moderate — 110 ft 5 - 7 points) High — 150 ft High level of function for Low - 50 ft No additional surface discharges of water quality improvement Moderate — 75 ft untreated runoff and low for habitat (score High — 100 ft for water quality 8 - 9 points; habitat less than 5 points) Estuarine Low - 75 ft No recommendations at this time Moderate — 110 ft High — 150 ft Interdunal Low - 75 ft No recommendations at this time Moderate — 110 ft High — 150 ft Not meeting above Low - 50 ft No recommendations at this time characteristics Moderate — 75 ft High — 100 ft 2 See footnote on the previous page. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 8 Packet Pg. 511 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Table 8C-7. Width of buffers needed to protect Category I wetlands in western Washington (Buffer Alternative 3 for wetlands scoring 23 points or more for all functions or having the "Special Characteristics" identified in the rating system). Wetland Characteristics Buffer Widths by Impact of Other Measures Recommended for Proposed Land Use (Apply Protection most protective if more than one criterion is met) Wetlands Of High Low - 125 ft No additional surface discharges to Conservation Value Moderate — 190 ft wetland or its tributaries High — 250 ft No septic systems within 300 ft of wetland Restore degraded parts of buffer Bogs Low - 125 ft No additional surface discharges to Moderate — 190 ft wetland or its tributaries High — 250 ft Restore degraded parts of buffer Forested Buffer width to be based on If forested wetland scores high for score for habitat functions or habitat, need to maintain water quality functions connections to other habitat areas Restore degraded parts of buffer Estuarine Low - 100 ft No recommendations at this time Moderate — 150 ft High — 200 ft Wetlands in Coastal Low - 100 ft No recommendations at this time Lagoons Moderate — 150 ft High — 200 ft High level of function for Low — 150 ft Maintain connections to other habitat habitat (score for habitat 8 - Moderate — 225 ft areas 9 points) High — 300 ft Restore degraded parts of buffer Interdunal wetland with Low — 150 ft Maintain connections to other habitat high level of function for Moderate — 225 ft areas habitat (score for habitat 8 - High — 300 ft Restore degraded parts of buffer 9 points). Moderate level of function Low — 75 ft No recommendations at this time for habitat (score for habitat Moderate — 110 ft 5 - 7 points) High — 150 ft High level of function for Low — 50 ft No additional surface discharges of water quality improvement Moderate — 75 ft untreated runoff (8 — 9 points) and low for High — 100 ft habitat (less than 5 points) Not meeting any of the Low — 50 ft No recommendations at this time above characteristics Moderate — 75 ft High — 100 ft 3 See footnote on page 6. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 9 Packet Pg. 512 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington 8C.2.4 Special Conditions for a Possible Reduction in Buffer Widths 8C.2.4.1 Condition 1: Reduction in Buffer Width Based on Reducing the Intensity of Impacts from Proposed Land Uses The buffer widths recommended for proposed land uses with high -intensity impacts to wetlands can be reduced to those recommended for moderate -intensity impacts under the following conditions: • For wetlands that score moderate or high for habitat (5 points or more for the habitat functions), the width of the buffer can be reduced if both of the following criteria are met: 1) A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100-feet wide is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are available on the WDFW web site at: http://wdfw.wa. gov/hab/phshabs.htm) The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement. 2) Measures to minimize the impacts of different land uses on wetlands, such as the examples summarized in Table 8C-8, are applied. • For wetlands that score less than 5 points for habitat, the buffer width can be reduced to that required for moderate land -use impacts by applying measures to minimize the impacts of the proposed land uses (see examples in Table 8C-8). October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 10 Packet Pg. 513 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Table 8C-8. Examples of measures to minimize impacts to wetlands from proposed change in land use that have high impacts. (This is not a complete list of measures.) Examples of Activities and Uses that Cause Examples of Measures to Minimize Impacts Disturbance Disturbances Lights • Parking lots • Direct lights away from wetland • Warehouses • Manufacturing • Residential Noise • Manufacturing • Locate activity that generates noise away from • Residential wetland Toxic runoff* • Parking lots • Route all new, untreated runoff away from • Roads wetland while ensuring wetland is not • Manufacturing dewatered • Residential areas • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland • Application of agricultural o Apply integrated pest management pesticides • Landscaping Stormwater • Parking lots • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment runoff . Roads for roads and existing adjacent development • Manufacturing • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that • Residential areas directly enters the buffer • Commercial • Landscaping Change in • Impermeable surfaces • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into water regime • Lawns buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces • Tilling and new lawns Pets and • Residential areas • Use privacy fencing; plant dense vegetation to human delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion; place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract Dust • Tilled fields • Use best management practices to control dust * These examples are not necessarily adequate for minimizing toxic runoff if threatened or endangered species are present at the site. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 11 Packet Pg. 514 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington 8C.2.4.2 Condition 2: Reductions in Buffer Widths Where Existing Roads or Structures Lie Within the Buffer Where a legally established, non -conforming use of the buffer exists (e.g., a road or structure that lies within the width of buffer recommended for that wetland), proposed actions in the buffer may be permitted as long as they do not increase the degree of non- conformity. This means no increase in the impacts to the wetland from activities in the buffer. For example, if a land use with high impacts (e.g., building an urban road) is being proposed next to a Category II wetland with a moderate level of function for habitat, a 150-foot buffer would be needed to protect functions (see Table 8C-6). If, however, an existing urban road is already present and only 50 feet from the edge of the Category II wetland, the additional 100 feet of buffer may not be needed if the road is being widened. A vegetated buffer on the other side of the road would not help buffer the existing impacts to the wetland from the road. If the existing road is resurfaced or widened (e.g., to add a sidewalk) along the upland edge, without any further roadside development that would increase the degree of non -conformity, the additional buffer is not necessary. The associated increase in impervious surface from widening a road, however, may necessitate mitigation for impacts from stormwater. If, however, the proposal is to build a new development (e.g., shopping center) along the upland side of the road, the impacts to the wetland and its functions may increase. This would increase the degree of non -conformity. The project proponent would need to provide the additional 100 feet of buffer extending beyond the road or apply buffer averaging (see Section 8C.2.6). 8C.2.4.3 Condition 3: Reduction in Buffer Widths Through an Individual Rural Stewardship Plan A Rural Stewardship Plan (RSP) is the product of a collaborative effort between rural property owners and a local government to tailor a management plan specific for a rural parcel of land. The goal of the RSP is better management of wetlands than what would be achieved through strict adherence to regulations. In exchange, the landowner gains flexibility in the widths of buffers required, in clearing limits, and in other requirements found in the regulations. For example, dense development in rural residential areas can be treated as having a low level of impact when the development of the site is managed through a locally approved RSP. The voluntary agreement includes provisions for restoration, maintenance, and long-term monitoring and specifies the widths of buffers needed to protect each wetland within the RSP. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 12 Packet Pg. 515 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington 8C.2.5 Conditions for Increasing the Width of, or Enhancing, the Buffer 8C.2.5.1 Condition 1: Buffer is Not Vegetated with Plants Appropriate for the Region The recommended widths for buffers are based on the assumption that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion or with one that performs similar functions. 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. Generally, improving the vegetation will be more effective than widening the buffer. 8C.2.5.2 Condition 2: Buffer Has a Steep Slope The review of the literature (Volume 1) indicates that the effectiveness of buffers at removing pollutants before they enter a wetland decreases as the slope increases. If a buffer is to be based on the score for its ability to improve water quality (see Tables 8C-4 through 8C-7) rather than habitat or other criteria, then the buffer should be increased by 50% if the slope is greater than 30% (a 3-foot rise for every 10 feet of horizontal distance). 8C.2.5.3 Condition 3: Buffer Is Used by Species Sensitive to Disturbance If the wetland provides habitat for a species that is particularly sensitive to disturbance (such as a threatened or endangered species), the width of the buffer should be increased to provide adequate protection for the species based on its particular, life -history needs. Some buffer requirements for priority species are available on the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife web page (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htrn . The list of priority species for vertebrates is at http://wdfw.wa. og v/hab/phsvert.htm; for invertebrates it is at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsinvrt.htm. Information on the buffer widths needed by some threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of wildlife is provided in Appendix 8-H. 8C.2.6 Buffer Averaging The widths 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. There is no scientific information available to determine if averaging the widths of buffers actually protects functions of wetlands. The authors have concluded that averaging could be allowed in the following situations: Averaging may not be used in conjunction with any of the other provisions for reductions in buffers (listed above). October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 13 Packet Pg. 516 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington • Averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when all of the following conditions are met: — The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a "dual -rated" wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower rated area — The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher -functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower - functioning or less sensitive portion — The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging — The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 3/4 of the required width • Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following are met: — There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging — The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's functions and values as demonstrated by a report from a qualified wetland professional (see Appendix 8-G for a definition of a qualified wetland professional) — The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging — The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 3/4 of the required width 8C.2.7 Modifying Buffer Widths in Alternative 3 Using a Graduated Scale for the Habitat Functions (Alternative 3A) Alternative 3 contains recommendations for protecting the habitat functions of wetlands using only three groupings of scores (3-4, 5-7, 8-9). As a result, a one -point difference between 4 and 5 and between 7 and 8 can result in a 50-foot increase in the width of a buffer around a wetland. The habitat scores were divided into three groups to simplify the regulations based on this guidance. Such a large increase in width with a one -point increase in the habitat score may be contentious. A jurisdiction may wish to reduce the increments in the widths for buffers by developing a more graduated (but inherently more complicated) scale based on the scores for habitat. Table 8C-9 provides one example of a graduated scale for widths of buffers where the width increases for every one point increase in the habitat score. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 14 Packet Pg. 517 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Table 8C-9. Comparison of widths for buffers in Alternatives 3 (step -wise scale) and 3A (graduated scale) for proposed land uses with high impacts based on the score for habitat functions in western Washington Points for Habitat from 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wetland Rating Form Alternative 3 80 100 150 150 150 300 300 Alternative 3A 80 100 140 180 220 260 300 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 15 Packet Pg. 518 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Other scales are possible as long as they keep within the limits established from the scientific information currently available: wetlands with scores for habitat that are higher than 7 points need buffers that are at least 300 feet wide; wetlands with a score of 5-7 points need buffers of at least 150 feet; and wetlands with a score 3-4 points need buffers that are at least 80 feet wide. These buffer widths can be further reduced by 25 percent if a proposed project with high impacts implements the mitigation measures such as those described in Table 8C-8. The measures are part of "Condition 1" in Section 8C.2.4 (Special Conditions for a Possible Reduction in Buffer Widths). The buffer widths under Buffer Alternatives 3 and 3A, and the corresponding 25 percent reduction (per buffer reduction condition 1) are shown in Table 8C-10. Table 8C-10. Comparison of widths for buffers in Alternatives 3 (step -wise scale) and 3A (graduated scale) for proposed land uses with high impacts based on the score for habitat functions in western Washington if the impacts are mitigated. Points for Habitat from Wetland 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rating Form Alternative 3 (with impact -reducing 60 75 110 110 110 225 225 measures) rnative 3A h impact- E 60 75 105 135 165 195 225 ng measures Alternatives 3 and 3A represent two separate approaches for determining widths of buffers for wetlands scoring between 5 and 8 points for the habitat functions. Local governments should select one of the two approaches and should not hybridize the approaches or adopt both at the same time. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 16 Packet Pg. 519 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington 8C.3 Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation When the acreage required for compensatory mitigation is divided by the acreage of impact, the result is a number known variously as a replacement, compensation, or mitigation ratio. Compensatory mitigation ratios are used to help ensure that compensatory mitigation actions are adequate to offset unavoidable wetland impacts by requiring a greater amount of mitigation area than the area of impact. Requiring greater mitigation area helps compensate for the risk that a mitigation action will fail and for the time lag that occurs between the wetland impact and achieving a fully functioning mitigation site. 8C.3.1 Definitions of Types of Compensatory Mitigation The ratios presented are based on the type of compensatory mitigation proposed (e.g., restoration, creation, and enhancement). In its Regulatory Guidance Letter 02-02, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided definitions for these types of compensatory mitigation. For consistency, the authors of this document use the same definitions which are provided below. Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into: • Re-establishment. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in a gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles. • Rehabilitation. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland. Creation (Establishment): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Establishment results in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically involve excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod, create hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species. Enhancement: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 17 Packet Pg. 520 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington habitat. Enhancement results in a change in some wetland functions and can lead to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination of these activities. Protection/Maintenance (Preservation): Removing a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This includes the purchase of land or easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural protection such as repairing a barrier island. This term also includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres, may result in a gain in functions, and will be used only in exceptional circumstances. Distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement The distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement as defined above is not clear-cut and can be hard to understand. Actions that rehabilitate or enhance wetlands span a continuum of activities that cannot be defined by specific criteria. Rehabilitation Enhancement In general, rehabilitation involves actions that are more sustainable and that reinstate environmental processes, both at the site and landscape scale (e.g., reinstating hydrologic processes in a diked floodplain by breaching the dikes). Rehabilitation actions often focus on restoring environmental processes that have been disturbed or altered by previous or ongoing, human activity. Ecology further defines rehabilitation as: • Actions that restore the original hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class, or subclass, to a wetland whose current HGM class, or subclass, has been changed by human activities • Actions that restore the water regime that was present and maintained the wetland before human activities changed it Any other actions taken in existing wetlands would be considered enhancement. Enhancement typically involves actions that provide gains in only one or a few functions and can lead to a decline in other functions. Enhancement actions often focus on structural or superficial improvements to a site and generally do not address larger -scale environmental processes. For example, a wetland that was once a forested, riverine wetland was changed to a depressional, emergent wetland by the construction of a dike and through grazing. Rehabilitating the wetland would involve breaching the dike so the wetland becomes a riverine wetland again, discontinuing the grazing, and reforesting the area. Discontinuing the grazing and reforesting the wetland without re-establishing the links to the riverine system would be considered enhancement. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 18 Packet Pg. 521 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Basic assumptions for using the guidance on ratios • The ratios are for a compensatory mitigation project that is concurrent with impacts to wetlands. If impacts are to be mitigated by using an approved and established mitigation bank, the rules and ratios applicable to the bank should be used. • The ratios are based on the assumption that the category (based on the rating system for western Washington) and hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class or subclass of the wetland proposed as compensation are the same as the category and HGM class or subclass of the affected wetland (e.g., impacts to a Category II riverine wetland are compensated by creating, restoring, or enhancing a Category 1I riverine wetland). • Ratios for projects in which the category and HGM class or subclass of wetlands proposed as compensation is not the same as that of the wetland affected will be determined on a case -by -case basis using the recommended ratios as a starting point. The ratios could be higher in such cases. • The ratio for using rehabilitation as compensation is 2 times that for using re- establishment or creation (R/C) (2 acres of rehabilitation are equivalent to 1 acre of R/C). The ratio for using enhancement as compensation is 4 times that for using R/C (4 acres of enhancement are equivalent to 1 acre of R/C). • Re-establishment or creation can be used in combination with rehabilitation or enhancement. For example, 1 acre of impact to a Category III wetland would require 2 acres of R/C. If an applicant provides 1 acre of R/C (i.e., replacing the lost acreage at a 1:1 ratio), the remaining 1 acre of R/C necessary to compensate for the impact could be substituted with 2 acres of rehabilitation or 4 acres of enhancement. • Generally the use of enhancement alone as compensation is discouraged. Using enhancement in combination with the replacement of wetland area at a minimum of 1:1 through re-establishment or creation is preferred. These ratios were developed to provide a starting point for further discussions with each proponent of compensatory mitigation. They are based on the observations of the success and risk of compensatory mitigation, as reviewed in Volume 1, and do not represent the specific risk or opportunities of any individual project. As noted above, the ratios for compensatory mitigation are based on the assumption that the category and hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class or subclass of the affected wetland and the mitigation wetland are the same. The ratios may be adjusted either up or down if the category or HGM class or subclass of the wetland proposed for compensation is different. For example, ratios may be lower if impacts to a Category IV wetland are to be mitigated by creating a Category II wetland. The same is true for impacts to wetlands that currently would be considered atypical (see definition below). Also, compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of an atypical wetland. An atypical wetland is defined as a wetland whose October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 19 Packet Pg. 522 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington design does not match the type of wetland that would be found in the geomorphic setting of the proposed site (i.e., the water source(s) and hydroperiod proposed for the mitigation site are not typical for the geomorphic setting). In addition, any designs that provide exaggerated morphology or require a berm or other engineered structures to hold back water would be considered atypical. For example, excavating a permanently inundated pond in an existing seasonally saturated or inundated wetland is one example of an enhancement project that could result in an atypical wetland. Another example would be excavating depressions in an existing wetland on a slope that required the construction of berms to impound water. On a case -by -case basis, it is possible to use the scores from the Washington State wetland rating system to compare functions between the mitigation wetland and the impacted wetland. This information may also be used to adjust replacement ratios. Scores from the methods for assessing wetland functions (Hruby et al. 1999) provide another option to establish whether the functions lost will be replaced if both the affected wetland and the wetland used for compensation are of the same HGM class and subclass. Mitigation ratios for projects in western Washington are shown in Table 8C-11. Refer tc the text box on the basic assumptions on the previous page before reading the table. As mentioned previously, these ratios were developed to provide a starting point for further discussions with each proponent of compensatory mitigation. They only factor in the observations of mitigation success and risk at a programmatic level, and do not represent the specific risk or opportunity of any individual project. October 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 20 Packet Pg. 523 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington Table 8C-11. Mitigation ratios for projects in western Washington. Category and Re-establishment Rehabilitation Re-establishment or Re-establishment or Creation (R/C) Enhancement Type of Wetland Impacts or Creation Only 4 Creation (R/C) and Rehabilitation (RH)4 (E)4 Enhancement Only 4 All Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C and 1:1RH 1:1 R/C and 2:1 E 6:1 All Category III 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 4:1 E 8:1 Category II Case -by -case 4:1 Case -by -case Case -by -case Case -by -case Estuarine Rehabilitation of an estuarine wetland Category II 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1 RH Not considered an Not considered Interdunal Compensation has Compensation Compensation has to be options an options to be interdunal has to be interdunal wetland wetland interdunal wetland All other 3:1 6:1 1:1 R/C and 4:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 8:1 E 12:1 Category 11 Category I 6:1 12:1 1:1 R/C and 10:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 20:1 E 24:1 Forested Category I 4:1 8:1 1:1 R/C and 6:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 12:1 E 16:1 based on score for functions Category I Not considered 6:1 R/C Not considered R/C Not considered Case -by -case Natural Heritage possible Rehabilitation possible possible site of a Natural Heritage site Category I Not considered 6:1 R/C not considered R/C not considered Case -by -case Coastal Lagoon possible Rehabilitation possible possible of a coastal lagoon Category I Not considered 6:1 R/C Not considered R/C Not considered Case -by -case Bog possible Rehabilitation possible possible of a bog Category I Case -by -case 6:1 Case -by -case Case -by -case Case -by -case Estuarine Rehabilitation of an estuarine wetland NOTE: Preservation is discussed in the following section. 4 These ratios are based on the assumption that the rehabilitation or enhancement actions implemented represent the average degree of improvement possible for the site. Proposals to implement more effective rehabilitation or enhancement actions may result in a lower ratio, while less effective actions may result in a higher ratio. The distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement is not clear-cut. Instead, rehabilitation and enhancement actions span a continuum. Proposals that fall within the gray area between rehabilitation and enhancement will result in a ratio that lies between the ratios for rehabilitation and the ratios for enhancement. 5 Due to the dynamic nature of interdunal systems, enhancement is not considered an ecologically appropriate action. 6 Natural Heritage sites, coastal lagoons, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because they perform some special functions that cannot be replaced through compensatory mitigation. Impacts to such wetlands would therefore result in a net loss of some functions no matter what kind of compensation is proposed. June 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 21 Packet Pg. 524 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington 8C.3.2 Conditions for Increasing or Reducing Replacement Ratios Increases in replacement ratios are appropriate under the following circumstances: • Success of the proposed restoration or creation is uncertain • A long time will elapse between impact and establishment of wetland functions at the mitigation site • Proposed mitigation will result in a lower category wetland or reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted • The impact was unauthorized Reductions in replacement ratios are appropriate under the following circumstances: • Documentation by a qualified wetland specialist (see Appendix 8-H) demonstrates that the proposed mitigation actions have a very high likelihood of success based on prior experience • Documentation by a qualified wetland specialist demonstrates that the proposed actions for compensation will provide functions and values that are significantly greater than the wetland being affected • The proposed actions for compensation are conducted in advance of the impact and are shown to be successful • In wetlands where several HGM classes are found within one delineated boundary, the areas of the wetlands within each HGM class can be scored and rated separately and the ratios adjusted accordingly, if all of the following apply: — The wetland does not meet any of the criteria for wetlands with "Special Characteristics" as defined in the rating system — The rating and score for the entire wetland is provided along with the scores and ratings for each area with a different HGM class. — Impacts to the wetland are all within an area that has a different HGM class from the one used to establish the initial category — The proponents provide adequate hydrologic and geomorphic data to establish that the boundary between HGM classes lies at least 50 feet outside of the footprint of the impacts June 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 22 Packet Pg. 525 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington 8C.3.3 Replacement Ratios for Preservation In some cases, preservation of existing wetlands may be acceptable as compensation for wetland losses. Acceptable sites for preservation include those that: • Are important due to their landscape position • Are rare or limited wetland types • Provide high levels of functions Ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation generally range from 10:1 to 20:1, as determined on a case -by -case basis, depending on the quality of the wetlands being impacted and the quality of the wetlands being preserved. Ratios for preservation as the sole means of mitigation generally start at 20:1. Specific ratios will depend upon the significance of the preservation project and the quality of the wetland resources lost. See Chapter 8 (Section 8.3.7.2) and Appendix 8-13 for more information on preservation and the criteria for its use as compensation. 8C.3.4 Replacement Ratios for Temporal Impacts and Conversions When impacts to wetlands are not permanent, local governments often require some compensation for the temporal loss of wetland functions. Temporal impacts refer to impacts to those functions that will eventually be replaced but cannot achieve similar functionality in a short time. For example, clearing forested wetland vegetation for pipeline construction could result in the temporal loss of functions, such as song bird habitat provided by the tree canopy. It may take over 20 years to re-establish the level of function lost as a result of clearing the trees. Although the wetlands will be re -vegetated and over time it is anticipated that their previous level of functioning will be re- established, a temporal loss of functions will occur. There is also some risk of failure associated with the impacts or alterations, especially when soil is compacted by equipment, deep excavation is required, and pipeline trenches alter the water regime at the site. Therefore, in addition to restoring the affected wetland to its previous condition, local governments should consider requiring compensation to account for the risk and temporal loss of wetland functions. Generally, the ratios for temporal impacts to forested and scrub -shrub wetlands are one -quarter of the recommended ratios for permanent impacts (refer to Table 8C-11), provided that the following measures are satisfied: An explanation of how hydric soil, especially deep organic soil, is stored and handled in the areas where the soil profile will be severely disturbed for a fairly significant depth or time June 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 23 Packet Pg. 526 8.3.h Modified to use with the 2014 Washington State Rating System for Western Washington • Surface and groundwater flow patterns are maintained or can be restored immediately following construction • A 10-year monitoring and maintenance plan is developed and implemented for the restored forest and scrub -shrub wetlands • Disturbed buffers are re -vegetated and monitored • Where appropriate, the hydroseed mix to be applied on re-establishment areas is identified When impacts are to a native emergent community and there is a potential risk that its re- establishment will be unsuccessful, compensation for temporal loss and the potential risk should be required in addition to restoring the affected wetland and monitoring the site. If the impacts are to wetlands dominated by non-native vegetation (e.g., blackberry, reed canarygrass, or pasture grasses), restoration of the affected wetland with native species and monitoring after construction is generally all that is required. Loss of functions due to the permanent conversion of wetlands from one type to another also requires compensation. When wetlands are not completely lost but are converted to another type, such as a forested wetland converted to an emergent or shrub wetland (e.g., for a utility right-of-way), some functions are lost or reduced. The ratios for conversion of wetlands from one type to another will vary based on the degree of the alteration, but they are generally one-half of the recommended ratios for permanent impacts (refer to Table 8C-11). Refer to Appendix 8-F for the rationale for the ratios provided in this appendix. Specific guidance has been developed for conversions of wetlands to cranberry bogs. Please refer to the 1998 Guidelines for Implementation of Compensatory Mitigation Requirements for Conversion of Wetlands to Cranberry Bogs for information on ratios associated with this activity (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Special Public Notice: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/ACE 101 C.pdf). June 2014 Modified from Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios for Western Washington Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication No. 05-06-008 24 Packet Pg. 527 Wetlands in Washington State Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science Final WASNIN Gi ON SiAiE � O E A AAi AlE Ni Of �mOnad of E c o L o c Y F15H�eN7L!]LTFF Packet Pg. 528 5.5 Buffers Buffers are another common element of wetland regulations. Buffers are vegetated areas adjacent to an aquatic resource that can, through various physical, chemical, and/or biological processes, reduce impacts from adjacent land uses. Buffers also provide the terrestrial habitats necessary for wildlife that use wetlands to meet their life -history needs. In this document, we collectively call these processes that buffers provide the functions of buffers. Buffers and other adjacent upland areas provide habitat for other wildlife species that do not commonly use wetlands. This document does not address those functions of upland habitats. The primary purpose of buffers is to protect and maintain the wide variety of functions and values provided by wetlands (or other aquatic areas). The physical characteristics of buffersslope, soils, vegetation, and width —determine how well buffers reduce the adverse impacts of human development and provide the habitat needed by wildlife species that use wetlands. These characteristics are discussed in detail in this section. The subject of buffers is well documented in the scientific literature. The research on buffers has occurred worldwide, and this section includes literature from a variety of regions when it was found to be relevant. In particular, a variety of literature related to agricultural practices and vegetated filter strips from the north -central United States and south-central Canada is directly relevant to some agricultural practices in Washington State, especially east of the Cascades. In addition, studies on buffers in urban and suburban settings conducted in the Pacific Northwest region are clearly relevant. However, many of the buffer studies conducted elsewhere in the U.S. and the world, as well as the many buffer synthesis documents, provide information relevant to the state of Washington. The majority of research on buffers tends to focus on the processes that buffers provide to filter sediment or take up nutrients (i.e., their influence on water quality). Far fewer studies look at the influence of a buffer's physical characteristics on attenuating surface water flow rates, except as it relates to water quality. The long-term effectiveness of buffers in providing such mechanical and biological processes is not well documented in the literature and may represent a critical need for future research. The literature on buffers related to wildlife is, in general, less focused. Most studies document the needs of a particular species or guild relative to distances for breeding or other life -history needs within a radius from aquatic habitats. There is substantial literature on the implications of habitat fragmentation and connectivity, some of it related specifically to agricultural practices, forestry practices, or the impacts of urbanization. This literature does not specifically address the role of buffers in providing connectivity between wetlands and other parts of the landscape. It does, however, unequivocally support maintaining connectivity between wetlands in order to maintain viable populations of species that are closely associated with wetlands. The reader is referred to Section 4.11 in Chapter 4, which discussed the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation as well as Section 5.5.4.3. Wetlands in Washington State Chapter 5 Volume 1 — A Synthesis of the Science 5-23 March 2005 Packet Pg. 529 8.3.i Older research studied the tolerance limits of wetland wildlife for disturbance —how closely a disturbance can approach animals before they are flushed from wetlands —with particular emphasis on waterfowl. These studies tend to be older than 1990 and focus on the prairie pothole region of North America. Where the findings are germane and where they have not been superceded by more recent work, they are included. In addition to papers on specific research studies, multiple compilations and syntheses of literature on buffers have been completed since 1990. Synthesis papers were compiled by Castelle and other authors (I 992b, 1994, and 2000) and another was compiled by McMillan (2000) as a master's thesis. These compilations include literature that was published prior to 1990, but much of the work they rely on is considered seminal to the effectiveness of buffers in protecting wetlands and contributing to habitat. Therefore these synthesis documents are used in this document as direct sources when no more recent research was found to supercede the earlier findings. This section also cites literature related to stream buffers and riparian areas when the findings are relevant to the influence these areas have on the adjacent aquatic resource. The literature on stream buffers related to microclimate, water quality influences, and some habitat characteristics is particularly relevant because the ways buffers protect and maintain these functions is similar whether they are adjacent to streams or wetlands. 5.5.1 Terms Used to Describe Buffers The scientific literature varies widely on the terms used to denote the area that serves to reduce impacts to wetlands from adjacent land uses and provide habitat for parts of the life -cycle of many species. Common terms include: • Buffer • Wetland setback • Vegetated filter strip • Buffer strip • Riparian area • Riparian zone • Riparian corridor These terms can be differentiated as those that are a product of regulations or policy language and those that define or describe an ecological condition or location (Castelle et al. 1994). Terms such as buffer, wetland setback, or vegetated filter strip are most commonly applied in an administrative context to denote the landscape immediately adjacent to an aquatic resource, the dimensions of which are legally determined. The terms buffer strip or vegetated filter strip may imply a relatively undisturbed, vegetated Wetlands in Washington State Chapter 5 Volume 1 — A Synthesis of the Science 5-24 March 2005 Packet Pg. 530 area that helps attenuate the adverse effects of land uses adjacent to a wetland. For example, Norman (1996) provides this definition: Buffer strips are strips of vegetated land composed in many cases of natural ecotonal and upland plant communities which separate development from environmentally sensitive areas and lessen these adverse impacts of human disturbance. The terms riparian areas or riparian zones are defined by many to denote ecologically discernable ecotones (transition zones) along aquatic resources where the presence or action of surface waters, or the presence and duration of shallow groundwater, influences the structure and composition of the vegetation community (Lowrance et al. 1995, Harper and MacDonald 2001). The term riparian corridor is defined by Naiman et al. (1993) as "encompass(ing) the stream channel and that portion of the terrestrial landscape from the high water mark towards the uplands where vegetation may be influenced by elevated water tables or flooding, and by the ability of the soils to hold water." 5.5.2 Functions Provided by Buffers The literature is broadly consistent on the ways in which buffers can provide for the protection and maintenance of wetland functions. These include: • Removing sediment • Removing excess nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen) • Removing toxics (bacteria, metals, pesticides) • Influencing the microclimate • Maintaining adjacent habitat critical for the life needs of many species that use wetlands • Screening adjacent disturbances (noise, light, etc • Maintaining habitat connectivity As noted by Castelle and Johnson (2000), buffers can be both ecological sources and sinks. They can control or limit the effects of land uses upslope of the aquatic resource (act as a sink), and they can contribute biological benefits to the aquatic resource (act as a source). Naimen et al. (1992) summarize the range of functions provided by buffers along streams as follows: It is well known that riparian vegetation regulates light and temperature regimes, provides nourishment to aquatic as well as terrestrial biota, acts as a source of large woody debris,... regulates the flow of water and nutrients from uplands to the stream, and maintains biodiversity by providing an unusually diverse array of habitat and ecological services. Wetlands in Washington State Chapter 5 Volume 1 — A Synthesis of the Science 5-25 March 2005 Packet Pg. 531 5.5.3.5 Summary of Key Points • The use of buffers to protect and maintain water quality in wetlands (removing sediments, nutrients, and toxicants) is best accomplished by ensuring sheet flow across a well vegetated buffer with a flat slope (less than 5%). • Significant reductions in some pollutants, especially coarse sediments and the pollutants adhered to them, can be accomplished in a relatively narrow buffer of 16 to 66 feet (5 to 20 m), but removal of fine sediments requires substantially wider buffers of 66 to 328 feet (20 to 100 m). • Removal of dissolved nutrients requires long retention times (dense vegetation and/or very low slope) and, more importantly, contact with fine roots in the upper soil profile (i.e., soils that are permeable and not compacted). Distances for dissolved nutrient removal are quite variable, ranging in the literature from approximately 16 to 131 feet (5 to 40 m). • The literature is consistent in finding that it takes a proportionally larger buffer to remove significantly more pollutants because coarse sediments and the pollutants associated with them drop out in the initial (outer) portions of a buffer. It takes a longer time for settling, filtering, and contact with biologically active root zones to remove fine particles and dissolved nutrients. • The role of buffers in protecting the microclimate of streams is well documented and may be applicable to wetlands, but no specific data on buffers and wetland microclimate maintenance were found. 5.5.4 Buffers and Wildlife Habitat Wetland buffers are essential to maintaining viable wildlife habitat because they perform three overlapping functions: • Buffers can provide an ecologically rich and diverse transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. This includes necessary terrestrial habitats for many wildlife species that use and/or need wetlands but also need terrestrial habitats to meet critical life requirements. • Buffers can screen wetland habitat from the disturbances of adjacent human development • Buffers may provide connectivity between otherwise isolated habitat areas In regard to wildlife, most of the scientific research is not directly focused on the effectiveness of buffers for maintaining individuals or populations of species that use wetlands. Some of the research simply documents use of upland habitats adjacent to wetlands by wildlife to meet their life -history needs. For example, a substantial body of Wetlands in Washington State Chapter 5 Volume 1 — A Synthesis of the Science 5-38 March 2005 Packet Pg. 532 5.5.4.4 Summary of Key Points • There is no simple, general answer for what constitutes an effective buffer width for wildlife considerations. The width of the buffer is dependent upon the species in question and its life -history needs, whether the goal is to maintain connectivity of habitats across a landscape, or whether one is simply trying to screen wildlife from human interactions. • The majority of wildlife species in Washington use wetland habitats for some portion of their life -history needs. Many species that are closely associated with wetlands (those that depend upon wetlands for breeding, brood -raising, or feeding) depend upon surrounding upland habitats as well for some life -history stages. • Many terrestrial species that are dependent upon wetlands have broad -ranging habits, some over 3,280 feet (1,000 m) from the source wetland. Although this might be expected for large mammals such as deer or black bears, it is also true for smaller species, such as salamanders and other amphibians. • Human access and land uses adjacent to wetlands influence the use and habits of wildlife through noise and light intrusions, as well as elimination or degradation of appropriate upland habitats. Even "passive" activities, such as bird/nature- watching, have been shown to have effects on roosting and foraging birds. • Synthesis documents that evaluated many studies discussing the protection of habitat provided by wetland buffers generally recommend buffer widths between 50 and 300 feet (15 to 100 m), depending on specific factors. These factors include the quality of the wetland habitat, the species needing protection, the quality of the buffer, and the surrounding land uses. 5.5.5 Buffer Maintenance and Effectiveness over Time Buffers can help to protect wetlands for as long as the buffers themselves remain intact. Buffer areas can be altered over time by human disturbance and natural events, such as windstorms. In addition, some researchers have raised the issue of whether buffers have a long-term, carrying capacity with regard to filtration and binding of pollutants. In other words, is there a maximum amount that can be processed before the buffer's ability is overwhelmed? 5.5.5.1 Human Alteration to Buffers Human activities are the most common mechanism for altering buffers over time. Buffer functions can be reduced if vegetation is cut or trampled, soils are compacted, sediment loading surpasses the filtering capability of the vegetation, or surface -water flows create channels and subsequent erosion. Wetlands in Washington State Chapter 5 Volume 1 — A Synthesis of the Science 5-49 March 2005 Packet Pg. 533 AUG 0 5 2016 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 August 1, 2016 The Honorable David Earling City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update — Time Extension The Director forwarded me your letter requesting additional time to consider a response to Ecology's proposed changes related to the Urban Mixed Use IV designation in the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). We understand there are diverse perspectives on this issue and more time may be needed than the 30 days outlined in the statute. We recommend working towards a October 31, 2016 target for final approval. We pledge to work with the City to ensure the final SMP meets all statutory requirements and addresses local interests. Ecology appreciates the thoughtful attention the Council is paying to the SMP, the careful and professional work of city staff, and the enthusiasm and participation of concerned residents. Sincerely, Tim Gates Shoreline Planning and Policy Lead By Certified Mail [7012 1010 0003 3028 45051 cc: Shane Hope, City of Edmonds Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds David Pater, Ecology Joe Burcar, Ecology Packet Pg. 534