The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-10-04 City Council - Full Agenda-17581. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7 OF LU4to o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 4, 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 September 27, 2016 2. Approval of claim checks. 3. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Carol R. Durst (undetermined amount) and Corynn Costa ($603.90). 4. August 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report 5. Stormwater Management Code Update, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 6. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with MIG for the ADA Transition Plan 7. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater Management Code Update 8. Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles and surplus city equipment 9. Authorization to contract with Pick-N-Pull to scrap totaled city vehicles 10. Confirm Appointment of Betty Lou Gaeng to the Cemetery Board PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. Domestic Violence Awareness Proclamation (5 min.) 2. Presentation by Diversity Commission (15 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 regarding Intent to Dissolve the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (15 min.) 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. Set Public Hearing for 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation (10 min.) 2. Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program (25 min.) 3. Shoreline Master Program Update (45min.) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Agenda October 4, 2016 Page 1 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda October 4, 2016 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 27, 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: Cm092716 Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES September 27, 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 K. Ploeger, Police Officer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ti N COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO c APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. V 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS E COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Q APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM HIEU VUONG (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT DIRECT DEPOSIT, CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a 1. LEADERSHIP DAY PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 14, 2016 as Leadership Day in the City of Edmonds, Washington, and join in recognizing the many contributions Leadership Snohomish County has made. Kathy Coffey accepted the proclamation and thanked Mayor Earling and the Council for the proclamation. She was excited about the opportunity to move forward in Snohomish County to celebrate this truly nonpartisan issue, bringing people together in celebration of civic and servant leadership and coordinating opportunities for mentorship with the over 60 graduates of their program from Edmonds alone. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ray White, Edmonds, said he and his wife moved to Edmonds 27 years ago largely because it offered a high quality of life especially related to natural areas such as the Edmonds Marsh. He was concerned about the possible adverse change in the shoreline buffer and setback for development near the marsh. He is associated with the citizen group present tonight but his comments are his own. An aquatic ecologist, PhD in zoology, experience as a State of Wisconsin trout stream research biologist and teaching and research in fisheries science at Michigan State and Montana State Universities, he values the marsh greatly and visits it many times a year mainly to observe and photograph birds. The Edmonds Marsh is a rare salt marsh that many waterfowl and wildlife use. If full connection to Puget Sound is restored, it will provide special habitat for salmon and other fish. He was concerned the Council's deliberations on the SMP may not be adequately science based. He referred to Mr. Taraday's September 23 memo evaluating scientific considerations of a possible changes in vegetative cover; the memo presents no science and only refers to Ecology and others' policies. The memo refers to no scientific data or primary scientific publication and does not cite or mention any scientists or plants or animal species. The memo may briefly mention some wetland characteristics, process or functions but does not describe them in the detail needed to properly consider the issues such as what will happen to key wetland species and processes under alternative buffer widths. He suggested the Council obtain recommendations based on evaluations of a team of impartial wetland scientists. Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, relayed her support for a letter that a group of concerned citizens sent the Council on Friday asking for several things from the Council and others including that the Council take ti action on the SMP on a scientific basis that will the offer maximum protection to the marsh and prevent c further degradation which in her opinion was Mr. Taraday's Option 1. The group also asks that the E Council establish a task force with the Edmonds Marsh stakeholders which include WSDOT, Chevron, v Port, BNSF and concerned citizens who are very knowledgeable about wetlands and the marsh. She summarized unless everyone gets together, she was uncertain of the marsh's future; long range planning E and discussion will allow progress on retaining the valued Edmonds Marsh. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, commented it is a simple choice, either development or the marsh; further study a will not change that fact. The forward -thinking City of Mukilteo recently converted a park into a wetland which he hoped would not be necessary in Edmonds and the marsh can be preserved now. The Port of Edmonds recently retained a public relations firm, Cocker Fennessy, whose clients include the Port of Seattle and BNSF, neither of whom are great friends of the environment and seem to be masters at spinning anti -environment decisions so they do not look so bad. Some Councilmembers want more study; he anticipated further study would only be more officiation and more time for development to occur. The City Council can vote tonight; Mr. Taraday outlined several options and Option 1 is what everyone hoped for. He did not want to see Edmonds to become Kirkland where the waterfront is buried under eight stories of steel, glass and concrete. He urged the Council to protect one of the last saltwater marshes on Puget Sound. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a Ardith Hilton, Edmonds, on behalf of the hundreds of people who live in the bowl area who enjoy the water and mountain views said she recently visited several homebound people who were dismayed to finding trees planted years ago have grown up to obliterate their views. She urged the Council to have a code that kept trees a minimum of 25 feet so all can enjoy their view and not have it obliterated. Bea Wilson, Edmonds, expressed support for Mr. Taraday's Option 1. She read a letter from a former resident, John Cook, a biology instructor at Edmonds High School 1959-1989, that described his study of natural wildlife populations, field trips and the study of life. As part of his curriculum his students tried to protect the marsh in the 1980s when it was being filled. They made a presentation to City Council that proved the marsh was influenced by saltwater from Puget Sound and thus was of federal interest. The barnacles growing in the marsh proved their point. Prior to the 1890s before the railroad was constructed, the Edmonds Marsh was likely open to the full tidal action of Puget Sound. Measurements of the tide at Edmonds ferry ramp indicate an average 12-foot vertical exchange of saltwater between high and low tides. Using USGS benchmarks in the harbor and surveying transit levels, a class of high students in the 1980s determined saltwater intrusion into the Edmonds Marsh would occur on an average high tide. At that time two 24" culverts fitted with check valves allowed freshwater to flow from the marsh into Puget 3 Sound but were supposed to block saltwater from flowing into the marsh. The culvert check valves were often blocked open with debris making it possible for saltwater to pass into the marsh. His students found a barnacles attached to the inner end of the culvert indicating that native plant and animal saltwater species made the brackish marsh their home even after the railroad was constructed. Willow Creek and other sources provide freshwater for marsh. Fish living in saltwater and returning to spawn can tolerate the salt - freshwater mix. He also found migrating salmon seldom go into darkness to find light; for example, if the c culvert bends too much. Ms. Wilson summarized this was a tremendous opportunity to look into the 'o treasure of the Edmonds Marsh. Of over 27 listed environmental centers in Washington, none are in V Snohomish County and Edmonds could be an environmental learning center. C Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, addressed issues and concerns raised by ° a members of the community regarding the SMP, particular buffer widths. The Port purchased the land on which Harbor Square was developed in 1978; that property was already filled and had been vacated by Q previous industrial users including an asphalt plant and a railcar cleaning operation. The redevelopment of to the property resulted in its clean-up; the Port spent over $3 million excavating and removing contaminated soil. The Council, Mayor and staff had heard many advocating for marsh restoration and cfl many believe that should automatically include wider buffers which the Port does not. The Port believes N the existing 25-foot buffer meets the no net loss criteria and does not not believe there is sufficient c credible science to support expanding them beyond that and certainly a 100-foot buffer would be v excessive which Ecology has also stated. The Port shares the goal of restoring the Edmonds Marsh but have a different strategy for achieving that goal. The Port believes restoration and redevelopment work best when the Port and City work together; these are not mutually exclusive events. The Port's concepts z and plans create the best value for the entire community over the long term. The Port believes redevelopment would create solutions and additional resources for marsh restoration. If wider buffers a prevail, nothing will be accomplished and the buffers will be nothing more than arbitrary lines on a planning document and no new value will be created. Consequently, the Port is against wider buffers but interested and prepared to continue this discussion with the City and Friends of the Marsh to achieve common goals. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, retired fishery biologist, commended Mr. Taraday for the excellent job he did providing a thorough evaluation of the legal and scientific aspects the Council needs to determine the appropriate buffer for the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Taraday's memo also provides clear legal basis for the Council's rejection of the Department of Ecology's preferred 50-foot proposal. He recalled telling the Council two weeks ago that they did not have the necessary information to make a decision and recommended an analysis of the alternatives to make a good, rational decision. Mr. Taraday has now Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 provided that information and his memo is very clear that the only legally defensible, scientifically -based alternative is Option 1, a 100-foot buffer. That buffer is supported by scientific literature, guidelines published by Ecology and is the best thing for the Edmonds Marsh. As Ms. Schaefer described, once this scientifically -based buffer is approved, it will provide the community a jumping board to start working with all the entities around the marsh to develop community -based solutions for enhancing the buffer and preserving the marsh for future generations. Scott Blomenkamp, Edmonds, referred to the Council's consideration over the summer of changes in the way the Council deals with land use appeals and Hearing Examiner decisions. Apparently the City Council, Mayor and Hearing Examiner do not feel the code applies to them because for the third year in a row, the Hearing Examiner has not provided an oral and written presentation in September. Last year, it was not discovered for nine months that the Hearing Examiner did not have a contract until it was pointed out by citizens. Under ordinance, Mayor Earling is required to enforce the law. For example, ECC 5.50.020 states unless provided in the municipal code, any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of the Edmonds City Code or the Community Development Guide shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $5,000 and one year in jail. The Hearing 3 Examiner is required by ECC 10.35.010.G to provide a written and oral presentation in September. For three years in a row the Council President has failed to schedule this although it is on the extended a agenda. Some may wonder why it's important to have this presentation; ECC 10.35.010.G states the purpose is to enable the City Council and the Hearing Examiner to coordinate City land use policy and philosophy. Mr. Blomenkamp said he currently has a case in appellate court dealing with what Mr. Taraday has tried to defend as two ambiguous statutes. He suggested asking the Hearing Examiner how he determined these were ambiguous and whether they should be changed and clarified. He won at the 'o Hearing Examiner level, at Superior Court and will also win in appellate court. The only question has v been what was remanded and whether it was approved under LUPA. He suggested everyone do their jobs. Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, formerly a member of the Edmonds Backyard Habitat Project and a a member of the Economic Development Commission, referred to the letter from concerned citizens regarding the prevention of further degradation of the Edmonds Marsh and taking actions to enhance the Q ecology function and protect its wildlife. Many more citizens are joining this effort; over 200 signatures to have been gathered in less than a week supporting a petition to protect the Edmonds Marsh wildlife sanctuary. A blank petition was previously shared with Council and he submitted the signed petitions. cfl Both the petition and the letter request the City Council retain the most protective buffer and setback N requirements according to BAS and the 2016 Department of Ecology Wetland Guidance for Critical Area c Ordinance Updates. The letter also requests the formation of a task force composed of stakeholders and v concerned citizens to begin actively working to address and resolve issues that may impact the ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh, including future plans for development near the marsh. Similarly, the petition requests that buffer reduction should only be allowed if specific developer commitments z commensurate with a tightened scale of development are set forth in a development plan application. Good faith efforts by the task force should lead to recommendations to these specific developer a commitments to be included in a development plan application which would be followed by a public review process and additional Council vetting prior to approval. This could potentially lead to a development agreement or incentive -zoning based plan to ensure protections for the marsh are realized. If buffers are reduced without requiring specific developer commitment, Council and staff would be in a weak position to ensure marsh protections because the land would have already been given away. Linking any potential buffer reductions to specific commitments, Council would be in a position of strength to ensure the sustainability of the Edmonds Marsh wildlife sanctuary for future generations. He paraphrased the Hippocratic Oath, when it comes to marsh, first do no more harm. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, said she has a lot in common with Dr. John Cook, who taught first year and advanced biology and now the Edmonds School District has an environmental studies program. She Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a completed reading the letter that Ms. Wilson began above; fish that live in saltwater and come home to spawn can tolerate the salt -freshwater mix and young pacific salmon tolerate brackish water and some require it. Migrating salmon seldom go into darkness to find light. For example, if a culvert bends too much such that the fish see only darkness during the day, it serves as a significant hindrance to their migration upstream; therefore, large culverts greatly aid fish passage. Wildlife also is also important part of the shared world and it is disregarded to our detriment. Presently too little saltwater is passing into the marsh; increasing saltwater flows would greatly improve this valuable marsh. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, along with her mother Elizabeth Sears, said the view of the Edmonds waterfront from their homes on Wharf street is an important part of their lives. Today they sent letters to Councilmembers and Mayor Earling regarding the save our marsh plan. She echoed what another speaker said about the opportunity the marsh provides as possible resource for the Edmonds School District. Her mother, a biology teacher in the Edmonds School District, was teacher of year for Washington in 1975. Ms. Sears said she retired from 25 years as an educator at Lakeside School in Seattle. Now that ESD is embracing environment education, the marsh provides a wonderful opportunity for a partnership. It is important to have young people who are committed and involved in civic action and preserving and caring for the natural environment. She hoped the Council and Mayor would see the opportunity to save the marsh not as an obstruction to development as the Port perhaps sees it, but a real opportunity to bring young people and the City into a partnership of appreciating what makes Edmonds special. After living in many places around the world, she came home to Edmonds because it is the most beautiful place in the world. She urged the Council to act to preserve the marsh, to read the heartfelt letters that have been submitted and to do the right thing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, described his three-point plan, 1) move SR-104 eastward so there is more buffer on the east side, 2) move the Port of Edmonds someplace else so there is more natural beach, and 3) bulldoze Harbor Square to provide a larger buffer on the north side. This plan would appeal to people who are very emotional about the marsh. Putting it in perspective, there has been no change for a number of years and the Port has been beneficial to the City and marsh via their cleanup of the pollution left by previous industries. The Port or Harbor Square should not be considered as something bad; Harbor Square has not moved any closer to the marsh since he has lived in Edmonds. The best and most important thing for everyone who wants to protect the marsh would be to join a group that supports keeping building heights low and restricting tall buildings on the Harbor Square side. Development of 3-4 stories of residential should be considered a bad omen for Edmonds. He concluded the biggest danger to the marsh is not the buffer but taller buildings on the north side. 7. ACTION ITEMS 1. REFUNDING 2007 LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Finance Director Scott James introduced Scott Bauer, Northwest Municipal Advisors, who described the results of RFP process that the Council discussed in July. He displayed a comparison of the outstanding 2016-2031 of LTGO 2007 and LTGO Ref 2012 bonds. The 2007 bonds are proposed to be refinanced, slightly over $3.1 million; the earliest redemption date is December 1, 2016. He presented the Request for Financing Proposals results: • The City solicited proposals from eight banks • Three banks provided responses • JPMorgan Chase provided the best response for the City 0 1.67% interest rate o Maybe refinanced or prepaid anytime on or after December 1, 20231.6% interest He described the 2007 Bonds Refunding results based on the JPMorgan Chase's interest rate: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 ti N on 0 E V c d E z U 2 a 4.1.a • Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007 • $3,375,000 currently outstanding • $3,120,000 Callable (Maturities 2017 — 2026) • Callable interest rates range from 3.65% to 3.95% (Average 3.87%) • Final maturity December 1, 2026 • Call Date December 1, 2016 • Estimated Refunding o Par Amount of Refunding Bonds: $3,166,686 o All -in Interest Cost of Refunding Bonds: 1.85% o Cash flow Savings: $ 367,541 o Net Present Value Savings: $ 337,295 o Net Present Value Savings %: 10.8% Mr. Bauer reviewed next steps: • September 27 City Council Considers Adoption of Bond Ordinance • September 28 Final Numbers Produced • October 11 Bond Closing Funds Deposited to Escrow • December 1 2007 Bondholders Paid Last Payment from Escrow COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4043, TO SELECT JP MORGAN CHASE, OPTION C, 1.67% CALLABLE AFTER 7 YEARS TAX-EXEMPT FIXED RATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. REPORT ON BIDS FOR THE MADRONA WALKWAY PROJECT City Engineer Rob English recalled he made a presentation to Council regarding the project scope and Q improvements on September 13, 2016 before bids were opened; bids were opened on September 15, 2016. He displayed an aerial image of the 236th Street Walkway, explaining the project includes a 5-foot to sidewalk on the south side of 236th Street from SR-104 to Madrona School and entering their parking lot area. Edmonds School District plans to begin redeveloping Madrona Elementary in spring 2016; this walkway will tie into those future improvements. He provided details of the project improvements: N • 770 feet of 5-foot sidewalk o • New pedestrian curb ramps v • Stormwater system improvements • 236th Street pavement reconstruction E • Bicycle sharrows • Pavement striping c° a He provided the bid results: Contractor Bid Results Welwest Construction $572,9225 Bids Rejected Taylor's Excavators $542,737 RRJ $559,716 Mr. English explained because the City received federal funds (Safe Routes to School Grant) for this project, one of the requirements is meeting the disadvantaged business enterprise goal that the State establishes; the goal for this project was 19%. In addition to contractors meeting that goal, they must provide sufficient documentation with their bid package confirming their commitment to the goal. The Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 4.1.a first two bids, Taylor's Excavators and RRJ, were rejected because they failed to provide adequate documentation. He reviewed the construction budget: Item Cost Construction contract $572,925 Construction Management 86,665 1 % art transfer 775 10% m mt. reserve 57,295 Total $717,660 Mr. English reviewed construction funds: Funding Amount Safe Routes to School Grant $363,000 Stormwater Utility Fund (422) 167,000 Pavement Preservation Program REET 187,660 Total Construction Funding $717,660 Staff recommends awarding the contract to Welwest Construction and to authorize a 10% management reserve of $57,295. As this is intended to provide a safe route to school, Council President Johnson questioned whether it was safe for students on bikes to share the road with cars or if there was an opportunity to provide a bike lane 0 at least on the school side of the road. Mr. English answered the geometry in this corridor is very narrow. c The minor widening being done on 236th Street required an interesting design to accommodate the travel M lanes and the 5-foot sidewalk. There is not enough space to include a bike lane and a sidewalk without c L increasing the project cost to reconstruct the roadway. While a bike lane would be a great idea, it is not n within the project budget. As bikes are not allowed on sidewalks, Council President Johnson asked if staff Q recommended students ride in the street or on the sidewalk to reach the school. Mr. English said there will co be sharrows; infrastructure in the street system provides alternative routes for bikes to reach the school LO which would be the recommended route. There are not a lot of options for someone accessing the school from the other side of SR104 and there is a steep grade on 236th Street from SR-104 so students may walk their bikes up the hill. He summarized that is not a good location for a dedicated bike lane. Council N President Johnson commented the sidewalk would provide a significant improvement. G E 0 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON, TO AWARD THE BID TO WELWEST CONSTRUCTION. z Councilmember Teitzel anticipated the project would be completed before construction of Madrona School begins and asked for assurance that no heavy equipment would drive over the sidewalk and Q damage it. Mr. English explained utility work will be done at the entrance; that work is being coordinated to avoid conflicts with the new sidewalk. At a minimum, a panel may need to be coordinated. He assured equipment would not be driving on the sidewalk along 236th COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND TO ADD THE 10% MANAGEMENT RESERVE. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF HR DIRECTOR Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 Mayor Earling commented on the interview process and the Council's opportunity to interview two candidates last week. Councilmembers provided him their input and made his selection. He requested the Council confirm Mary Ann Hardie as the Human Resources Director. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO CONFIRM MARY ANN HARDIE AS NEW HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Hardie said almost 12 years ago she could have not imaged this moment. She was truly pleased, honored and delighted by this incredible opportunity to to further serve the City in an even greater capacity in this role. She thanked Mayor Earling, Council and staff for their continued support of HR and the clear value and understanding of HR via the creation of this position. She looked forward to continuing to provide efficacy, value and quality to the City through the HR Department and programs in this position. People who have worked with her know she sometimes has an over -abundance of energy and enthusiasm for this often complicated but engaging area of work. While there are a lot of challenges ahead in HR, she looked forward to continuing to dig in and complete the critical and important work projects as well as working with the hardworking, competent and talented staff and leaders in the organization as well as citizens when the opportunity arises. 8. STUDY ITEMS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kemen Lien reviewed Ecology Required Change 7 — UMU IV Setback/Buffer • Council approved SMP established a 100-foot setback with the requirement to establish a 50-foot vegetative buffer within the setback with redevelopment in the UMU IV environment • Ecology's required change would establish a 65-foot setback with the requirement to establish a 50-foot vegetative buffer within the setback with redevelopment in the UMU IV environment • Council preliminarily voted not to accept Ecology's required change and directed the City Attorney to draft memorandum • City Attorney memorandum details scientific and regulatory considerations Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email from NOAA fisheries biologist that indicated the memo did not include a reference to the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington 2014 update, c publication 1406029. She asked Mr. Taraday's opinion about not including that document in his memo. E Mr. Taraday answered he did not include the wetland rating system in the memo because tonight's v decision is not whether the marsh is a Category I or II wetland; that is decision for scientists to make in the future. While there is a presumption among City staff that the wetland is a Category II estuarine E wetland, adopting a buffer presuming it is a Category II wetland would not preclude future wetland categorization. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Mr. Taraday is an attorney and not a wetland biologist. Mr. Taraday agreed he is not qualified to categorize the wetland. a Councilmember Teitzel read from a section entitled, Tailor buffers to local conditions (packet page 382), "Determining buffers and setbacks is a challenge. The buffers and setbacks for marine and freshwater shorelines should be tailored to local conditions including existing shoreline functions and existing and planned land use and public access." He noted the Council was required to consider BAS in its decision - making process and asked whether the Council was required, as per this statement, to consider existing local conditions in UMU IV. Mr. Taraday commented BAS is a critical area standard not an SMP standard but there is not a significant difference. Local conditions tailoring is recommended and it relates to the science; local conditions may have scientific relevance such as habitat in one Category II wetland that does not exist in another. The reason it is a suggestion rather than a requirement is the SMA would not require every local jurisdiction do a full-blown scientific analysis and habitat inventory of every Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a estuary and wetland or associated wetland in the shoreline jurisdiction. Taken to its logical extreme, the local conditions suggestion could become somewhat absurd if interpreted as an absolute requirement in all circumstances. Mr. Taraday reviewed a mindmapping tool of the headings in the memo (purpose, legal standards, scientific and technical information, marsh restoration efforts, analysis of alternatives to Required Change 7 and analysis of alternatives to Required Change 8), elements of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) that are applicable to the SMP, the Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates published in June 2016 (which replaced the Wetland and CAO Updates Guidance for Small Cities which was used to update the CAO) and SMP Handbook Chapter 11. To the comment that his memo did not contain any science, Mr. Taraday said it was not his goal to do scientific research. If the Council feels scientific research is necessary, a scientist should be hired to do so. His goal was to assemble what he believes Ecology considers to be a good summary of the science and to briefly highlight seemingly relevant portions from them. Mr. Taraday reviewed four options summarized in his memo related to Ecology Required Change 7: • Option 1: 110-foot buffer / 125-foot setback o Consistent with the most recent guidance from Ecology o Scientifically defensible but question is how get from adopted buffer to an actual planted, vegetated buffer. Recommend City have a strategy for making that happen • Option 2: 75-foot buffer / 90-foot setback o Would have been a great option before new guidance was issues. o Consistent with CAO buffers but COA buffers can be updated to be consistent with most recent science • Option 3: 50-foot buffer / 65-foot setback but only after confirming through site specific scientific study that a 50-foot buffer is appropriate for the UMU IV o Requires additional study to determine whether Required Change 7 can be scientifically supported • Option 4: 50-foof buffer / 65-foot setback without awaiting any further study o Agrees with Ecology's Required Change 7 With regard to Required Change 8, Mr. Taraday explained under the Comprehensive Plan, the entire N Harbor Square property is intended to be redeveloped via a master planning process which provides a 0 triggering mechanism for establishing the buffer. v Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Options 1-4 and asked if any one of them could be supported via further study. Mr. Taraday answered yes, further study may take on different emphases based on z which one is selected. For example, Option 1 does not require further study to scientifically justify it from an appeals standpoint due to recent guidance from Ecology that 110 feet is the appropriate buffer for a a Category II estuarine wetland; the study would be a real world strategy for realizing that 100-foot buffer. With any of the option, additional study may determine the option is not as feasible as once thought. Because Options 2 and 3 do not appear to be consistent with the most recent wetland guidance, he would recommend they be supported by additional study. For example, if a thorough habitat evaluation of Edmonds Marsh determined no creature living in the Edmonds Marsh needs more than a 50-foot buffer from fairly intense development next door, then a 50-foot buffer could be supported. In the absence of that work, it is safer to adopt Ecology's guidance. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Required Change 8, pointing the CG2 zoning in the Chevron/Unocal area that requires a Master Plan. Mr. Lien answered both have the same Comprehensive Plan designation; Harbor Square is zoned CG2 and the Unocal site is zoned MP2. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 4.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in triggering a development agreement with incentives for redevelopment. She asked whether mitigation and incentives in could be addressed in a development agreement. Mr. Taraday answered development agreements are a useful tool for implementing various improvements over a period of time. For example, in the future there is a master plan for Harbor Square and redevelopment efforts but it is recognized they will occur over time. As part of that process, the City and the Port or a developer that contracts with the Port could enter into a development agreement whereby they agree on certain time horizons for establishing the buffer, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether that is done now or then. Mr. Taraday said it would not be done now. He clarified development agreements do not create exceptions from the zoning code; development agreements must be consistent with the zoning code. To the extent the City creates incentives, they need to be in the zoning code, not in a development agreement. A development agreement is simply the contract and vehicle for establishing a timeline. The City can have incentive zoning without a development agreement. Councilmember Teitzel recalled Mr. Taraday said if the City were to enact a 100-foot buffer, an actual buffer increase may not be realized. The Port stated tonight they would not be able to redevelop under those conditions so in effect it would be reaching a stalemate. The existing contract rezone has a 25-foot open space; if the Port does not redevelop, the 25-foot buffer would remain for the foreseeable future. Mr. Taraday said there are different ways buffers can come into existence but one way or another, the Port has to be involved either via redevelopment or through a cooperative effort to begin replanting a buffer with public funds. It is the Port's property so there will need to be cooperation from the Port or creation of conditions whereby the market makes it happen. Councilmember Teitzel reiterated requiring a 110-foot buffer plus a 15-foot setback may be the end result v on paper but it may not be the result in actual practice in UMU IV. Mr. Taraday agreed it was a C possibility but he did not want to presume one way or another because there are many different levers that > can affect the developability of property; this is just one of many. He referred to an aerial of what that a buffer looks like on the Harbor Square property (packet page 153). In his opinion, the buffer alone will not decide the fate of redevelopment of Harbor Square; it is an influencing factor but the availability of Q uses on the site, density bonuses, etc. and other tools the City has to encourage redevelopment. to Councilmember Teitzel commented both the Council and citizens want the marsh preserved and restored. His concern was a buffer that was scientifically supportable on paper but may not be implementable and cfl may delay restoration of the marsh. He was interested in a way to break that stalemate. N on 0 Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Teitzel's concerns, commenting he could easily vote for v Option 1 if there was no existing development within the current buffer. The problem with passing the 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback was the impact on the existing buildings; 30 years from now, those buildings will still be within that buffer which restricts opportunity for restoration on the north boundary z because it will be cost prohibitive for the Port due to the existing building. He preferred to develop a plan that takes into consider the existing development and then provide incentives so restoration occurs and a creates a vegetative buffer. Council President Johnson acknowledged staff, the Department of Ecology, 3 Port Commissioners and the Executive Director, and approximately 30 citizens actively involved in the issue. Everyone agrees with protecting the marsh; there is disagreement in how to accomplish it. She did not think promoting the economic development interests of the Port was inconsistent with protecting the marsh; they are not mutually exclusive. How it is accomplished will require creative thinking and planning in the future. Tonight the Council has choices to make on how to move forward. The Council wants an alternative approach that provides better resource protection and the first priority is to reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions; Option 1 accomplishes those goals. The Port has stated their Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a belief that the 25-foot buffer meets the no net loss requirements; however, the City Attorney stated according to the SMP Handbook Chapter 11, 25- feet does not meet the no net loss standard. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR ACTION NEXT WEEK THAT REPRESENTS THE 110- FOOT BUFFER AND 15-FOOT SETBACK AS OUTLINED IN OPTION 1. Councilmember Tibbott did not support the motion. He appreciated the sentiment of the citizens who spoke tonight related to the education and habitat value of the marsh and future restoration of the saltwater flows. However, similar to Councilmember Teitzel, he was concerned about the reality of putting that into effect. When Ecology presented their recommendation for 65-feet, they were asked if it was based on science and their best understanding of how to apply the standards and they answered in the affirmative. He did not support the motion and preferred to consider either Option 3 or 4. Councilmember Nelson suggested putting this in context, commenting the Council has heard a lot about the marsh and its neighbors but the reason Ecology is here is because of the SMP and a shoreline of the state. He read from the purpose of the SMP, "Shorelines of state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and there is great concern around the state relating to the utilization, protection, restoration and preservation. In addition, it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional use are being placed on the shorelines, necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state." He said Edmonds is not solely in control, Ecology requires the City to update its SMP. Edmonds has always fostered development and 96% of the City is developed. The City's past history has been riddled with negative development around marsh which has unintentionally hurt the marsh's function as well as significantly reduced the size of the marsh. According to the City Attorney, the most recent science indicates Category II estuary wetlands should have a I I0-foot buffer and a 15- foot setback; adoption of Option 1 is appropriate and defensible in light of this recent guidance. The Council has also heard from both Ecology and the City Attorney that Harbor Square is not likely to redevelop in the near future regardless of what buffer is established. Therefore, the Council should adopt the 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback for purposes of this SMP and continue to develop and strategize how to make this buffer a reality. Mr. Lien explained this is only one of the required changes, Council feedback is needed on incorporating C0 the 2016 Wetland Guidance into the SMP and there is another required change that has not yet been N considered. Mr. Taraday said the City eventually needs to send Ecology a new set of code, not just a 0 letter, which may take time for he and Mr. Lien to develop. He was uncertain that could be prepared in v time for the next Council packet. Mr. Lien agreed, advising the remaining items could be addressed next week. E E z Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has heard discussion on both sides; it is the same people on both sides of the issue and nobody has any new information. a COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, CALL FOR THE QUESTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY; COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Councilmember Teitzel commented he preferred to move this forward and end up with a larger buffer than exists today and begin improving the health of the marsh. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 4.1.a COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED TO AMEND TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE ECOLOGY'S CHANGE 7 FOR UMU IV TO REFLECT A 90-FOOT SETBACK AND A 75-FOOT BUFFER FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order. City Clerk Scott Passey said this was a substitute motion not an amendment. MAYOR EARLING RULED THE AMENDMENT OUT OF ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON REQUIRED CHANGE 7. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION IN RECOGNITION OF COMMENTS MADE BY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, NOT TO PUT A TIME LIMIT ON WHEN TO GET INFORMATION BACK TO COUNCIL. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday suggested allowing Ecology to speak. David Pater, Department of Ecology, introduced Joe Burcar, Department of Ecology. Mr. Pater said the City's reply to the Ecology Director must address all the required changes. The reply can be just a letter; it does not have to include all the code changes. As a different alternative has been selected for Required Change 7, the City needs to provide supportive documentation for that option so the director has all the information she needs to make a decision. Mr. Burcar said they would also like to have an opportunity to talk with the City Attorney and staff to clarify the memo. Mayor Earling suggest the Council continue discussion next week. He declared a brief recess. 2. CIVIC MASTER PLAN UPDATE ti N Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained two open houses and two virtual open houses have 0 been held and many stakeholder meetings including recent meetings with the Student Conservation v Association, Art Commission, and SnoKing Youth Club. The effort is leaning toward a hybrid option, combining elements of both options. A presentation was made to the Planning Board two weeks ago. The goal tonight is to review the two options, describe the public input to date as well as the input from the Planning Board and ask for Council guidance so Walter I Macy can begin to shape a final plan. 2 Chris Jones, Walker Macy, reviewed Open House #1 Responses: • Themes/Priorities o Active: 74 o Passive: 62 o Civic: 23 He identified the top 13 program elements from the first open house, advising 13 elements fit comfortably within the park: Activity/Feature Votes Restrooms 77 Petan ue 76 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 a 4.1.a Jogging/walking paths 71 Soccer 67 Shade trees 56 Skate park 50 Playground 50 Tennis 49 Boys & irls club 48 Multi -use lawn 42 Formal track 40 Small performance space 39 Gardens 35 He highlighted comments from the open house that include interest in: • Ethno-botanic gardens • Pickleball • Lighting • Underground parking • Market • Volleyball • Museum display • Covered market • Disc golf • Horticultural gardens • All ages jungle gym • Sustainability • Leave as -is • And more... He commented on plans for additional community engagement: • Student Conservation Association • Stakeholder Interviews • Parks Maintenance • My Edmonds News He identified available Facilities (parks and schools) in Edmonds area and at Civic Center Playfield: Facility Total At Civic Center Pla field Soccer fields (adult & youth) 10 2 Tennis courts 7 2 Petanque 4 4 Basketball courts 10 2 Baseball/softball fields (adult & youth 11 1 Skate Park 2 1 Pickleball 10 2 Mr. Jones highlighted site restrictions: • Project site: 18 acres • 2 acres exempt from deed restrictions • Deed restrictions (6 acres) • Not more than 10% impervious surface (excluding pathways) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 4.1.a • Pervious surface parking only • Must be preserved as open space • No synthetic turf • No buildings (restrooms allowed but apply to impervious calculations) • Shade structures are permitted • Multi -use open grass areas are allowed • Temporary festival use can be accommodated He reviewed Design Options presented at the second open house: • Option 1 — Meadow Loop o Areas in park ■ Civic Edge ■ Multi -use lawn/playfields ■ Landscape buffer o Pedestrian circulation o Multi -use courts o Water feature/plaza o Petanque o Playgrounds o Walking/jogging paths o Berms o Obstacle course or exercise station o Existing trees o Meadows and gardens o Stormwater gardens o Activity zones — high, medium and low o Connections o Community hubs - Field House (Boys & Girls Club or cafe) o Shade pavilion & restroom o Meadow loop precedents ■ Meadows and gardens ■ Promenade / flexible use ■ Creative, integrated play ■ Shade pavilion and plaza and petanque ■ Multi -use lawn ■ Passive landscape gardens ■ Flexible use event space • Option 2 — Activity Central o Areas in park ■ Landscape buffer ■ Neighborhood connection ■ Active recreation o Parking o Tennis o Basketball o Plaza o Skate park o Petanque o Garden groves o Exercise stations o Playgrounds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 4.1.a 0 200-meter track o Sand volleyball o Multi -use lawn/playfields o Walking/jogging circuit o Existing trees o View terraces o Activity zones — high, medium and low o Connections o Community hubs - expanded Field House for Boys & Girls Club and/or cafe, restroom o Picnic terrace o Activity Central precedents o Shade pavilion and picnic area o Landscape integrated play o Lawn terraces for spectating and views o All ages recreation o Small plaza with interactive water feature o Game courts within garden groves o Flexible use event space He nrovided a comparison of the options: Plan Option 1— Meadow Loop Plan Option 2 — Activity Center 2 smaller or 1 large soccer field 1 large + 1 small soccer field 4 petanque courts 8 petanque courts 1.5 courts 4 courts Playgrounds 200m track Walking jogging aths Skate park Multi -use lawn Sand volleyball Existing Field House / B&G Club Parking Shade pavilion and restroom Playgrounds Walking jogging paths Multi -use lawn Expanded Field House for B&G Club / Cafe / restroom Picnic pavilion He identified the project schedule: • Open House #3 (Preferred Master Plan): October 19 • Online Open House #3: October 19 - November 4 o http://edmondscivicfield.participate.online/ • Planning Board: November 9 • City Council: November 22 • Final Plan: January 17 Mr. Jones reviewed the small group discussion & report back: • —160 attendees • 16 discussion tables • Preferred Plan (by majority at table): o Option 1 preferred: 8 o Option 2 preferred: 4 o Split:2 o Unclear:2 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 4.1.a • Individual Comment Cards: o Option 1 preferred: 5 o Option 2 preferred: 3 o Undecided / Unclear: 3 He relayed the most consistent comments from the in -person open house: • Like the lawn terraces • Skatepark should remain in the park • Option 1 curves are nice but want more active program like in Option 2 He reviewed results of the online open house available August 24`h to September 7th • 1,057 visitors • 379 responses 0 88 Prefer Option 1 (23.9%) 0 280 Prefer Option 2 (76.1%) • Age o Over 70: 38 (17.7%) 0 45-69: 81 (37.7%) 0 30-44: 80 (37.2%) 0 18-29: 7 (3.3%) o Under 18: 5 (2.3%) • Common reasons respondents preferred option 1: o Free -flowing structure, layout o Walking paths o Water feature and plaza o Open green spaces and lawn o Reduced number of p6tanque courts o No track • Common reasons respondents preferred option 2: o View terraces o Long walking and running paths o Focus on fields and athletic facilities o Expanded boys and girls club o Skate park o Potential for large events o More spaces for families and children o Track • Common elements not shown that respondents would like to see included: o Additional restrooms o Benches and/or seating areas o Lighting o Additional covered athletic facility and market space o Stage o ADA accessibility o 400-meter track Mr. Jones presented the combined open house (in -person and online) results: • High level estimate of design option votes combined: o Option 1: 178 (35%) ■ In -person — 90 (64%) ■ Online — 88 (24%) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a o Option 2: 330 (65%) ■ In -person — 50 (36%) ■ Online — 280 (77%) He reviewed Planning Board comments: • Track o Majority of community supports the idea that the hybrid would not include a 400-meter track o Loop trail could accommodate mileage markers • Infrastructure o There is infrastructure available to support most if not all of proposed elements • Change in maintenance and cost o New civic field will have higher maintenance costs; systems will require more maintenance than landscaping o Will explore LID strategies • Concern with a water feature o Water features are a regional draw • Parking • Sustainability o Pervious payment o Rain gardens • Surfaces • Skate park o Reusing existing skate park elements ■ Not in great shape, heavily used ■ May be opportunity for cast -in -place concrete instead of modular units • Trees o Define space o Be cognizant of view Mr. Jones said they are moving forward with a hybrid plan that supports the 13 ideas the community has identified with the exception of the track; soccer, p6tanque, skate park, walking and jogging paths, playgrounds, view terraces, basketball, tennis, multiuse courts, plaza space, promenade and Boys & Girls Club. N on 0 E Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she liked the idea of another water feature, noting it did not need to t� be to the extent of City Park. She agreed it was a regional draw and trusted the the consultant and staff would ensure it was not too overreaching. She supported buffers on the north and the south as there are E homes on both sides. She recommended everything be ADA accessible and questioned whether the lawn terrace could be ADA accessible. Mr. Jones said every element in the park should be accessible. a Councilmember Buckshnis liked the idea of a hybrid of Options 1 and 2. She liked the meadow loop and the buffers on edges. She was concerned Option 2 was predicated on expanding the Boys & Girls Club and a caf& which may take years. She liked the idea of a smaller water feature but not as big as City Park. She summarized there needed to be buffers on all edges other than the side facing the Public Safety Building. Councilmember Tibbott concurred with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Buckshnis' comments. He was puzzled why another water feature was needed but could see that it could be an attraction. This park would be an opportunity to incorporate displays of public art with the landscaping. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a Councilmember Nelson commented the all ages recreation was very forward thinking, would be unique to this park and the City and could be tailored to residents. If the track is not included, he recommended the loop trail be a specific increment. He was not crazy about the idea of a water feature; a father of young kids, it would be difficult to bring towels to two parks and the waterfront and he questioned what would be done with the water feature in the winter. He asked whether in Mr. Jones' experience, the results of the online open house were the opposite of the in -person open house. Mr. Jones answered no, this was unique. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the online results could be skewed by respondents who took the survey multiple times. Mr. Jones answered that was considered after people voted several times at the first online open house and but they did not find many repeat respondents in the second online open house. He anticipated there were a few but not enough to sway things any more than a 2% error margin. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the existing tall light poles around the grandstands would be retained, noting they are used fairly often for evening activities. He noted Option 2 includes a full sized soccer field. Mr. Jones answered yes, the lights would be replaced. Ms. Hite said there was a lot of support for retaining the lights for evening activities. LED lights downcast to the field will not have light spillage into the neighborhood. Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for a water feature, commenting it would relieve pressure at City Park. He has heard from a number of people his age whose grandkids love come to Edmonds because of the water feature. He liked the hybrid approach and the list of activities and was anxious to see the plans. He liked the idea of public art, noting the structures in some of the examples were artistic and appealing. He suggested developing a new name to avoid confusion between City Park and Civic Center Playfield. Ms. Hite said engaging the community in a naming contest is on the list of things to do after the design is complete. Council President Johnson commented Edmonds' population is approximately 40,000, yet the top 13 elements are based on votes from residents ranging in age from 77 to 35 which she hoped was Q representative of the entire community. She noted the scores from the in -person open house (178) and to online open house (330) is a very small percentage and the park needs to represent the entire community. She looked forward to the cost estimates, anticipating earth moving for the meadow loop would be very cfl expensive. One of the main environmental features of this site is that it is flat; that needs to be enhanced N rather than redesigning the site's topography. As it may be possible to develop the park in phases, she was c interested in a minimum build cost with regard to maintenance and construction in the short and long E term. Personally, she recommended the area north of the fieldhouse be kept as unrestricted as possible to provide potential for that area in the future. E z Ms. Hite recognized two members of the Project Advisory Committee in the audience, John McGibbon and Pat Waddell as well as Councilmember Teitzel and Council President Johnson. She highlighted a a change to the schedule; the open house was originally scheduled on October 12. It was moved to October 19 to give Walker I Macy an additional week to thoughtfully consider the final design. She realized after - the -fact that that is the third presidential debate. She encouraged citizens to record the debate and attend the open house to help mold and shape Civic Field. The next time the project is presented to the Planning Board and City Council, it will be scheduled as a public hearing. 3. FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER BANDSHELL AWARD OF BID Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite said this project has been in Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan as well as the Capital Improvement Plan for several years. She displayed a photograph of the existing bandshell, explaining it is deteriorating and the wall is separating from the roof. Staff has spent money and time keeping it together for the past several years and it is now time to replace it. The project Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a was out to bid to several vendors for the bandshell itself which can be purchased already built; those bids ranged from $45,000 to $75,000. The low bid of $45,000 was selected and the design taken to the Arts Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). The Frances Anderson Center is on the City's historic register, and staff wanted to ensure the design was appropriate for the site. The HPC issued a certificate of appropriateness of the bandshell that was selected. She displayed a photograph of the roofline that was recommended. The City engaged Barker Landscape to design the stage; there is a significant amount of deterioration around the stage and it will be demolished and re -poured and the roof added. The engineer's construction estimate for this project, not including the actual bandshell roof, was $130,600. The bid was published on August 5, 2016 for the small works roster. At the close of bid, no bids were received. After consultation with the Engineering Division, and their previous guidance from the City Attorney's office, it was determined that if no bid was received on the call, the Council may enter into a contract without any further call or may purchase the supplies, material or equipment and perform the work or improvement by day labor. She called three contractors to determine their interest in providing a construction quote on this project. One declined and two contractor's submitted construction bids: • Engineer's estimate: $130,600.00 • KA General Construction: $141,420.32 • Spirit Ridge: $188,174.50 She reviewed the project budget: Item Amount Base Bid (KA Construction) $128,798.11 Management Reserve 12,889.00 Permit Fees $1,437.00 Bandshell (by owner) 41,260.00 Bandshell engineering 4,470.00 A & E 16,385.00 Geotech/survey 6,600.00 Subtotal $211,830.11 Tax at 9% 16,666.20 Total $228,496.31 Authorized in 2016 $191,870 Additional Authority Needed $36,626 The Dayton Street Plaza was completed under bid by $45,000 - $50,000; she suggested the additional authority in REET in 2016 be used to make up the difference for this project. She relayed staffs recommendation: • Award bid to KA Construction for a total of $141,420 • Approve management reserve of $12,880 • Approve additional budget expenditure of $36,626 (includes management reserve) Councilmember Mesaros asked when the original bandshell was built. Ms. Hite answered she did not know but it used to be a covered play area. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was built well after the Frances Anderson Center building and the HPC determined the bandshell did not have any historic significance. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED BY MS. HITE. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 ti N Cn O E c.� c a� E z U 2 a 4.1.a Councilmember Tibbott assumed the bid included demolition Ms. Hite said it did. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether there was electricity. Ms. Hite answered the bid includes some electricity; the Arts Festival Foundation is interested in upgrading the electricity for their needs. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether the bandshell itself had capability for sound. Ms. Hite answered it had capability for sound and lights. The bandshell is an out of the box structure but some changes were engineered. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether there was any ability to have a green room or back stage. Ms. Hite answered there was not enough space on the site. Councilmember Tibbott suggested two sets of stairs. Ms. Hite answered it will be ADA accessible with ramps and stairs. Performers often use the Frances Anderson Center for staging. Councilmember Tibbott said he would support the project based on those clarifications. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PRESENTATION ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT City Engineer Rob English presented the 2015 Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report • Adopted in 2004 o Rate study: $764/trip $841 per singe family unit • Revised in 2010 o Rate study: $1,049 per trip $1,196 per singe family unit • Updated calculations (proposed) o Rate study: $5,530 per trip $6,249 per singe family unit He provided the 2015 Report: Beginning Balance $520,731 Impact Fees 66,344 Expenditures (220t', 5 Corners and 76th/212th intersection) 370,467 Ending balance $216,608 He provided a com arison of 2004-2015 Impact Fees: Year Im act Fees 2004 $5,641 2005 $165,024 2006 $106,842 2007 $160,429 2008 $62,686 2009 $54,150 2010 $3,873 2011 $307,678 2012 $29,966 2013 $156,652 2014 $202,295 2015 $66,334 Total $1,352,570 ti N Cn 0 E c.� c a� E z U 2 a Councilmember Mesaros asked if the intent was still to phase the traffic impact fee increase over three years. Mr. Williams answered yes, explaining the traffic impact fee was not adjusted based on the need Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 for money, it was based on growth. The additional revenues from the traffic impact fee based on growth offset the need for the General Fund to provide match for transportation projects. For example, the Five Corners roundabout was funded without General Funds due to the availability of traffic impact fees. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the debt payments for the 220`h project and asked when that will be repaid. Mr. English answered it was 20-year payback and he anticipated it would be repaid in 10 more years. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why 2015 collection were so low. Mr. Williams answered collections go up and down; in 2014 the hospital paid a great deal in traffic impact fees. The biggest project in 2015 was $12,000 from a medical clinic; the remainder was from single family residential at about $1200 each. The number of permits and revenue collected do not necessarily coincide. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how projects are prioritized using that revenue source. Mr. Williams answered traffic impact fees can only be used on growth projects. Most of the transportation projects on the CIP are not eligible for traffic impact fees. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for example if $100,000 was paid by Swedish, it was not used only for projects at Swedish, it could be used for all growth -related projects. Mr. Williams agreed. 5. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MIG FOR THE ADA TRANSITION PLAN City Engineer Rob English explained this is a professional services contract for an ADA Transition Plan for the City's rights -of -way. This is a requirement for projects that receive federal funds. The last ADA Transition Plan was completed in the mid-1990s. More guidance has been provided by WSDOT with regard to what the plans should contain. The Plan will inventory all the City's facilities and identify a schedule for upgrading and funding. City standards and codes will be considered as well as developing a procedure for responding to complaints. MIG was selected via a consultant selection process. The 2016 budget includes $110,000 for this project. That amount does not require Council approval but staff wanted to present it to Council for review and approval as there is potential for amendment in the future. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left meeting at 9:55 p.m.) C0 ti Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the focus was ADA compliance but there would be a c survey of all walkways and cracks and changes in elevation that hinder use. Mr. Williams said staff walks E the sidewalks every two years to look for and repair panel displacement. This plan is looking at other v features, particularly ramps to ensure they are in compliance and to prioritize those that are the furthest out of compliance or identify areas without ramps. E z Mr. Williams said when Parks was first approached to determine if they wanted to add an inventory of the a parks system to the scope, Parks staff did not believe it was necessary. Parks now may be interested in adding the parks system to the inventory. If Parks can identify a funding source, staff may return to Council to add that to the scope. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on a future agenda. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 4.1.a 6. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FOR THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODE UPDATE City Engineer Rob English explained in May 2015 the City executed a contract with Herrera to start the code development update process to comply with the NDPES Phase II permit. Another component of the scope of work was to prepare an addendum to help staff administer the code for private development. Those, along with training were the 3 tasks in the 2015 contract. This supplement will focus on preparing the LID standard detail to provide to the development community and citizens who want to develop or make changes on their property and to inform them how to build the stormwater facilities according to the new guidelines adopted for the stormwater code. A great deal of the supplement is allocated for the development of those details. There is also a task for developing checklist and handouts, tools the City uses to assist its customers. There is a need for additional training internally as well as an additional meeting with the private development community due to the complexity of the stormwater code. The project includes a $11,000 management reserve; the total fee for the supplemental agreement is $123,236. A budget amendment for $46,500 from the stormwater utility ending fund balance will be presented with the third quarter amendment. The work will begin this fall and continue into spring 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Herrera wrote the entire code and the City paid them $232,000. She observed the amount was $100,000 in May so it did not require Council approval; the additional $123,236 is for more standards and checklists. She was flabbergasted at the amount and although Herrera's stormwater presentation illustrated they knew a lot, she was concern with the amount of money that had been expended. She asked whether the City could have hired someone to do the work or was it too complex. Mr. Williams answered it was not necessarily a matter of complexity, if the City hired someone, once this task was completed, that employee would no longer be needed. This project gets the City in compliance with the NDPES permit. He acknowledged this has been more complex than originally thought. Staff is very busy delivering capital work and reviewing private development and does not have the capacity. Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned if Herrera did everything, how would staff assimilate it, recalling the Herrera representative did most of the presentation to Council. She wanted to ensure staff was familiar with the new code and what needed to be done. Mr. Williams assured staff is following it very closely; a meeting was held today with eight staff members to discuss the handouts, the addendum, and the LID code integration process. Mr. English said staff needs the details, checklists and handouts as well as the necessary training when this roll out January 1, 2017. It was the consensus for the Council to schedule approval on next week's Consent Agenda. 7. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND SURPLUS CITY EQUIPMENT Public Works Director Phil Williams advised the City will contract with Murphy Auction to sell surplused vehicles and equipment; three 17-year old work trucks, a 5-year old Police Crown Vic that was replaced with a Ford Explorer, and the old generator from Fire Station 20. It was the consensus for the Council to schedule approval on next week's Consent Agenda. 8. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH PICK-N-PULL TO SCRAP TOTALED CITY VEHICLES Public Works Director Phil Williams said these 2007 and 2008 wrecked patrol vehicles were used for parts and are now scrap metal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 ti N on 0 E c.� c a� E z U 2 a 4.1.a It was the consensus for the Council to schedule approval on next week's Consent Agenda. 9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS This item was delayed to a future meeting. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported: • ECA gala last weekend was truly spectacular and raised a record amount of approximately $370,000 • On Saturday Mayor Smith and he will announce the 5k run sponsored by Edmonds School District • Development Services Department is developing a new fee schedule that will be presented for Council approval during the budget process. • The AWC Regional Conference will be held at Scotts Bar & Grill in Edmonds on October 28tn Governor Inslee plans to attend. Electeds from Seattle to the border have been invited. Seating is available for 100. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Johnson reported she is unable to attend the Snohomish County Tomorrow annual meeting tomorrow. Mayor Earling advised he planned to attend. Councilmember Teitzel applauded and agreed with Councilmember Nelson's column regarding responsible gun ownership. He recommended focusing on that issue in light of recent events. Councilmember Mesaros reported he as well as Council President Johnson also attended the ECA to auction. Edmonds is privileged to have such a wonderful place for performing arts. Brue Hornsby will to LO perform at opening night this Thursday. Councilmember Tibbott reported he attended curriculum night at the high school and was very impressed N with the faculty at Meadowdale High School and was aware of excellent faculty at other schools. The c students of Edmonds are in good hands; he was thankful for the investment that teachers and E administrators are making in the lives of students. c a� 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION z PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) c� This item was not needed. a 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Approval of claim checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #222010 through #222107 dated September 29, 2016 for $768,097.71. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Financial Impact $768,097.71 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 09-29-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-29-16 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222010 9/29/2016 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-39461 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 15-39474 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 15-39793 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 15-39827 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 15-39836 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 15-39840 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 15-40280 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 15-40297 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 15-40841 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 Total 222011 9/29/2016 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 374664 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Total 222012 9/29/2016 073626 ALPHA EDEN 1345342 PS - PEST CONTROL BI/MO MAINT 4.2.a Page: 1 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 2 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222012 9/29/2016 073626 ALPHA EDEN (Continued) PS - Pest Control Bi/Mo Maint _ 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.0( vi 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 a� 9.7( Total: 108.7( E 222013 9/29/2016 070976 AMERESCO INC #1 2013-030 D (4) PHASE 6 LIBRARY GAS PACK REPI Phase 6 Library Gas Pack Replacemi c 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 31,362.4E -cu- 9.8% Sales Tax o 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,073.5: a #1 2013-030 J (4-1) PHASE 6 LIBRARY GAS PACK Q Phase 6 Library Gas Pack 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 101,849.3E Retainage for 2013-030 J (4-1) LO 7 016.000.223.400 -4,637.9E m Total: 131,647.4� 1 rn N 222014 9/29/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988787234 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS N 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 24.9( 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.4z m 1988801387 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE c 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.2: E 1988801388 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS U 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 r 24.9( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.4z 1988806735 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE Page: 2 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222014 9/29/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 222015 9/29/2016 075061 ARTSITE LTD LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' _ PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: vi 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: t 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: M 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' 6 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE o 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ 5 9.8% Sales Tax o L 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1( a 9.8% Sales Tax Q 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6( r 9.8% Sales Tax LO 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6( 9.8% Sales Tax m 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6( d6 9.8% Sales Tax N 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6( o 9.8% Sales Tax Y 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.5� 1988806736 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT E FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 7.1, FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4( E 9.8% Sales Tax U 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.7( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.8( Total: 174.2' 1283 PA MAINT PA MAINT Page: 3 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 4 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222015 9/29/2016 075061 ARTSITE LTD LLC (Continued) 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 1,040.9( 9.8% Sales Tax 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 102.0( Total: 1,142.9( 222016 9/29/2016 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 81220 UNIT E124PO - GRAPHICS FOR EX 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 103.3� Unit E124PO - Graphics for Exterior 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,055.0( Total: 1,158.35 222017 9/29/2016 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 10888 SERVICE AWARDS CINDI CRUZ 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 12.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 1.2' 11006 SR. SOFTBALL PLAQUE ENGRAVE[ SR. SOFTBALL PLAQUE ENGRAVE[ 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 10.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 0.9E Total: 24.41 222018 9/29/2016 075600 BARKSDALE, JESSICA WOTS JUDGE INCLAN WOTS JUDGE INCLAN WOTS JUDGE INCLAN 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 125.0( Total: 125.0( 222019 9/29/2016 002100 BARNARD, EARL 057 LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEI EYE MEDICAL SERVICES 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 50.0( Total: 50.0( 222020 9/29/2016 002170 BARTON, RONALD 059 LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEI Page: 4 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 5 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222020 9/29/2016 002170 BARTON, RONALD (Continued) PRESCRIPTION CO -PAY 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 331.9E Total: 331.9E 222021 9/29/2016 073989 BELL, ELIZABETH 9/20 REFUND 9/20 REFUND 9/20 REFUND 001.000.239.200 25.0( Total: 25.0( 222022 9/29/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 6691 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 656.7 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 656.7 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 631.7' 6725 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 602.9 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 602.9 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 617.4: Total: 1,249.1 222023 9/29/2016 075524 BOCK CONSULTING COE23 VOCATIONAL CONSULTING SERVI( VOCATIONAL CONSULTING SERVI( 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 330.0( Total: 330.0( 222024 9/29/2016 075342 BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT 2016-08 AUG 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE CONS 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE COSTS 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 2,766.E 1 Total: 2,766.E , 222025 9/29/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR 19873 INV#19873 - EDMONDS PD - DAWS NAVY POLO SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 89.9E EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 16.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 10.3� 19874 INV#19874 - EDMONDS PD - STREE Page: 5 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 6 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222025 9/29/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR (Continued) POLICE PANEL ON ALL SHIRTS _ 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 108.0( vi EMBROIDER NAMES ON 6 SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 a� 48.0( KHAKI PANTS - PLOEGER U E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.9E '@ KHAKI PANTS - YAMANE U 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.9E o KHAKI PANTS - CLARK 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.9E o 9.8% Sales Tax a 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 68.2( Q POLO SHIRTS- YAMANE r 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.9E '0 POLO SHIRTS - CLARK 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.9E w POLO SHIRTS - PLOEGER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.9E N 19877 INV#19877 - EDMONDS PD - LIM o LABOR TO REPAIR HOLE IN JUMP Y 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.5( 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.0< Total: 891.9E c m 222026 9/29/2016 069295 BROWN, CANDY 5003 BACKYARD BIRDS 5003 BACKYARD BIRDS INSTRUCT E 5003 BACKYARD BIRDS INSTRUCT U 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 61.6( r Total: 61.6( Q 222027 9/29/2016 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATION 58 COMMUNICATIONS/COMMUNITY O Communications and community outr 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.0( Total: 2,500.0( Page: 6 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222028 9/29/2016 071443 CED - KENT Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 2340-650399 222029 9/29/2016 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 48471117 222030 9/29/2016 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 222031 9/29/2016 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 222032 9/29/2016 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 451503-1608 3-H384 0285506-IN 0285507-IN PO # Description/Account FS 20 - SUPPLIUES FS 20 - Suppliues 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total INV#48471117 ACCT#7898305185 E FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 2 CAR WASH FOR NARCS VEHICLE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 Total E4GB.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2C E4GB.Services thru August 2016 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 Total UNIT E128PR - NEW 2016 FORD F- Unit E128PR - New 2016 Ford F-35C 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Total UNIT 66 - SUPPLIES Unit 66 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 66 - SUPPLIES Unit 66 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.2.a Page: 7 Page: 7 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 8 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222032 9/29/2016 075648 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC (Continued) Total: 248.41 222033 9/29/2016 005965 CUES INC 461904 SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES vi Sewer - TV Truck Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1,184.0' Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 40.7, . 9.8% Sales Tax f° 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 120.0, c Total: 1,344.7! 222034 9/29/2016 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC 001-21316 FS 20 - REPLACEMENT GENERATC a FS 20 - Replacement Generator- Q- Q 016.000.66.594.19.64.00 18,988.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 016.000.66.594.19.64.00 1,860.8, Total: 20,848.8, 222035 9/29/2016 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC ESJA.Pmt 3 ESJA.PMT 3 THRU 8/26/16 d6 ESJA.Pmt 3 thru 8/26/16 N di 421.200.74.594.34.65.00 361,885.5z N ESJA.Ret 3 421.200.223.400 -16,479.3( E Total: 345,406.21 .Fu 6 222036 9/29/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3695 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9/20/16 09/20/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE: aa) 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 198.0( E Total: 198.0( UM 222037 9/29/2016 075806 DOUGLAS, MEG 9/26 REFUND 9/26 REFUND r r Q REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT LESS 001.000.239.200 400.0( Total: 400.0( 222038 9/29/2016 007253 DUNN LUMBER 4214679 FAC MAINT - RAINWEAR Fac Maint - Rainwear Page: 8 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222038 9/29/2016 007253 DUNN LUMBER 222039 9/29/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 9 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 49.1, _ 9.5% Sales Tax vi 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 4.6E U 4225811 CITY HALL - BRACKET RM SUPPLIE t City Hall - Bracket Rm Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.0: 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.7' o 4258193 PM: TREATED WOOD PM: TREATED WOOD p L 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.8E 0- 9.5% Sales Tax Q' Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.8� Total: 118.2E LO 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' m LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 44.7' N 3-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL c CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 310.7E cYi 3-07490 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F E HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 83.8( 3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE E E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.1 U 3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S r LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S r Q 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.1 3-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 87.3E 3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R Page: 9 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 10 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222039 9/29/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.1 1 _ 3-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / vi LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 44.7' t 3-38565 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c U E SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 41.1 6 Total: 736.0( o 222040 9/29/2016 075757 FARMERS ELECTRIC 500 FS 20 - GENERATOR REPLACEMEI` o FS 20 - Generator Replacement a 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,400.6: Q 9.8% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 137.2( Total: 1,537.8� LO 222041 9/29/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU41303 PM: SUPPLIES PM: SUPPLIES N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 42.0 0 d) 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 N 4.1 , WAMOU41318 PM: SUPPLIES E PM: SUPPLIES c� 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.3' E WAMOU41368 PM: HOTGALV CHAIN PM: HOTGALV CHAIN cvv 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 r 94.9( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.3( WAMOU41399 UNIT E113PO - SUPPLIES Unit E113PO - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 24.2' 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 10 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222041 9/29/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 222042 9/29/2016 075607 FOLKINS, GAIL 222043 9/29/2016 011900 FRONTIER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 WAMOU41451 PM: TOILETAUGER PM: TOILETAUGER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 WAMOU41452 PM: SUPPLIES PM: SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 WAMOU41453 PM: SUPPLIES PM: SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total: WOTS JUDGE FOLKINS WOTS JUDGE FOLKINS WOTS JUDGE FOLKINS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Tota I : 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 4.2.a Page: 11 Page: 11 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222043 9/29/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.7( 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 46.7 , TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 86.8E 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 68.3< 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.5( 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL, FRANCESANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.5( Total: 1,014.51, 222044 9/29/2016 075798 GOREY, MELISSA 9/22 REFUND 9/22/16 REFUND 9/22/16 REFUND 001.000.239.200 25.0( Total: 25.0( 222045 9/29/2016 012199 GRAINGER 9203569331 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.0z Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 41.2E Total: 45.3; 222046 9/29/2016 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197344 PHOTOGRAPHY SEPTEMBER 2016 September photography 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.0( September photography 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 200.0( Page: 12 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 13 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222046 9/29/2016 074804 074804 HARLES, JANINE (Continued) Total: 400.0( 222047 9/29/2016 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 165398 UNIT 43 - SUPPLIES Unit 43 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 84.4, 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.2 , 165665 UNIT 132 - BOLTS Unit 132 - Bolts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.7( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.2 , 165669 UNIT 454 - ACTUATOR 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.6( Unit 454 - Actuator 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 47.5( Total: 147.91 222048 9/29/2016 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 14331254 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 751.3, 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 73.6: Total: 824.9! 222049 9/29/2016 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 058 LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEI EYE MEDICAL SERVICES 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 46.2( Total: 46.2( 222050 9/29/2016 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 39096 STORMWATER PLAN REVIEW SUP Stormwater Plan Review Support thrL 001.000.67.518.21.41.00 1,946.4( 39132 ESFB.SERVICES THRU 9/2/16 ESFB.Services thru 9/2/16 Page: 13 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222050 9/29/2016 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 222051 9/29/2016 074966 HIATT, ELLEN Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) COE_2016_0926 222052 9/29/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 10587 3010241 3011457 3020218 4021784 4021830 4573484 6095066 7015056 PO # Description/Account 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 Total: TOURISM COMMUNICATIONS & MA Tourism communications & marketing 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Total PM: MOSS OUT LAWN GRANULES PM: MOSS OUT LAWN GRANULES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: SUPPLIES PM: SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: VALVE BOX PM: VALVE BOX 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: SUPPLIES PM: SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: TRASH CAN & BOLT PM: TRASH CAN & BOLT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: HEXNUTS & U-BOLTS PM: HEXNUTS & U-BOLTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: CUTTER MATTOCK PM: CUTTER MATTOCK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: GLOVE, PENCIL, RAFTER SQU PM: GLOVE, PENCIL, RAFTER SQU 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: WOOD, WRENCH, BOLT PM: WOOD, WRENCH, BOLT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.2.a Page: 14 Page: 14 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222052 9/29/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 222053 9/29/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 7093848 PM: LOPPER, PLANTFOOD, SHEAR PM: LOPPER, PLANTFOOD, SHEAR 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 8061305 PM: HOOK, WOVEN MINI, HAMMER PM: HOOK, WOVEN MINI, HAMMER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total: 2853999 COPY PAPER Copy paper - 6 cs 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 Total: 222054 9/29/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10013339 411111 [11TWTi:1 300-10013555 567472 FLEET SHOP - SUPPLIES Fleet Shop - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 UNIT E119PR - LED RETURNS Unit E119PR - LED Returns 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 LS-1 -BATTERY LS-1 -Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.2.a Page: 15 Page: 15 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222054 9/29/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 222055 9/29/2016 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 222056 9/29/2016 075797 JOHN SKOCILICH Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 61237043 015 3-57275 222057 9/29/2016 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300076240 222058 9/29/2016 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 20966 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 20967 KIDZ LOVE SOCC PO # Description/Account UNIT PS17 - BATTERIES Unit PS17 - Batteries 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : STATE LOBBYIST SEPTEMBER 201, State lobbyist for September 2016. 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Total #16-59514 UTILITY REFUND #16-59514 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total INV#300076240 ACCT#100828 - EDI KLEENEX TISSUES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 HAND SANITIZER, 4 OZ BOTTLES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 HAND SANITIZER, 8 OZ BOTTLES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 Total 20966 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL 20966 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 20967 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL 20967 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL 4.2.a Page: 16 Page: 16 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 17 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222058 9/29/2016 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER (Continued) 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 378.0( _ 20968 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 20968 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL vi 20968 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL U 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 378.0( t 20969 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 20969 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL U E 20969 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 294.8z 6 20971 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 20971 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL p 20971 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 264.6( p 20972 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 20972 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL a 20972 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL Q' Q 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 508.6E 20973 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 20973 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL cro 20973 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 378.0( 20974 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 20974 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL 20974 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRL N 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 189.0( c Total: 2,844.7, u) 222059 9/29/2016 069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC 1607795R-1283 E4MB.TO 16-01 SERVICES THRU 8/ E E4MB.TO16-01 Services thru8/31/1E c� 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 714.0( Total: 714.0( c am 222060 9/29/2016 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC INV-023070 INV#023070 ACCT#1005003 - EDMC t SERVICE TOTAL STATION #137585i cvv 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 r 420.0( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 41.1( Total: 461.1E 222061 9/29/2016 075799 LAUGHBON, ZANE 9/22 REFUND 9/22/16 REFUND 9/22/16 REFUND Page: 17 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 18 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222061 9/29/2016 075799 LAUGHBON, ZANE (Continued) 001.000.239.200 25.0( Total: 25.0( 222062 9/29/2016 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 80500166396 UNIT 57 - TIRES Unit 57 - Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 554.5, Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 54.3z 80500166401 UNIT 21 -TIRES Unit 21 -Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1,858.4z Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 182.1 < 80500166430 UNIT 9 - TIRES Unit 9 - Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 3,888.0, Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 381.0: Total: 6,926.41 222063 9/29/2016 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER October 2016 OCTOBER 2016 CIGNA PREMIUMS October 2016 Cigna Premiums 811.000.231.550 11,395.8( Total: 11,395.8( 222064 9/29/2016 074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 17908 INV#17908 - EDMONDS PD TEST XTS3000 326CDU0471 RADIC 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 90.0( CASTING/REAR CHASSIS Page: 18 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222064 9/29/2016 074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) 17910 17911 17912 17913 4.2.a Page: 19 PO # Description/Account Amoun 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 150.5( ADAPTER, RF ANTENNA SWITCH vi 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 140.0( CONNECTOR B+ ASSEMBLY t 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.9E INV#17909 - EDMONDS PD TEST #MTS2000 466CDS0640 RADI 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 108.0( o POTENTIOMETER, ON/OFF/VOL 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 16.Z o SWITCH, TRANSMIT POPPLE L a 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 4.9E Q LCD BOARD REPAIR r 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.0( INV#17910 - EDMONDS PD TEST #MTS2000 466CDS0627 RADI 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 90.0( ASSEMBLY/BOARD,LCD DISPLAY N 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 125.0( o INV#17911 -EDMONDS PD N TEST #MTS2000 466CDS0608 RADI 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 108.0( . POTENTIOMETER, ON/OFF/VOL c° 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 16.Z ; INV#17912 - EDMONDS PD m TEST #MTS2000 466CDS0611 RADI E 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 t 90.0( U LCD BOARD REPAIR r Q 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.0( INV#17913 - EDMONDS PD TEST #MTS2000 466CDS0616 RADI 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 90.0( LCD BOARD REPAIR 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.0( Page: 19 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 20 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222064 9/29/2016 074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) 17914 INV#17914 - EDMONDS PD TEST #MTS2000 466CDS0617 RADI 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 90.0( ASSEMBLY/BOARD, LCD DISPLAY 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 125.0( SWITCH,TRANSMIT POPPLE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 4.9E Total: 1,481.9: 222065 9/29/2016 073801 LONG, PRISCILLA WOTS JUDGE LONG WOTS JUDGE LONG WOTS JUDGE LONG 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 125.0( Total : 125.0( 222066 9/29/2016 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 969216 PM: ELEMENT & SPARK PM: ELEMENT & SPARK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.7( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.6, Total : 29.31 222067 9/29/2016 069862 MAKERS ARCHITECTURE AND 1438-23 ECDC REWRITE ECDC REWRITE 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,290.0( Total : 1,290.0( 222068 9/29/2016 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 742763-00 FAC - CAULK FAC - Caulk 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 40.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.9 1 Total : 44.4 , 222069 9/29/2016 075800 MCFADDEN, JOE 9/20 REFUND 9/20/16 REFUND 9/20/16 REFUND Page: 20 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222069 9/29/2016 075800 MCFADDEN, JOE (Continued) 001.000.239.200 25.0( Total: 25.0( 222070 9/29/2016 022733 MUTUAL MATERIALS 1588160 BRICKS -LIBRARY BRICK PROJECT BRICKS -LIBRARY BRICK PROJECT 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 756.1( Total: 756.1( 222071 9/29/2016 075805 NEWKIRK, RACE 092716 REIMBURSE CDL TESTING AND EN Reimburse CDL Testing and Endorse 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 301.0( Total: 301.0( 222072 9/29/2016 075801 NILON-VOLPENTESTA, LUCA 9/20 REFUND 9/20/16 REFUND 9/20/16 REFUND 001.000.239.200 18.0( Total: 18.0( 222073 9/29/2016 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 76379 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 119.7( 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.0' Total: 130.7' 222074 9/29/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 3685-225853 UNIT451 -SUPPLIES Unit 451 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 51.5< 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.0: 3685-226557 LS 1 - G01- PARTS LS 1 - G01- Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.3. 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.1' 3685-228648 UNIT 66 - SUPPLIES Page: 21 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222074 9/29/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS (Continued) Unit 66 - Supplies _ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 29.9� vi 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 a� 2.9z 3685-228650 UNIT 66 - SUPPLIES Unit 66 - Supplies M 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.1( 6 9.8% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.2( Total: 127.3( o L Q 222075 9/29/2016 027450 PAWS AUG 2016 INVOICE 9/8/16 FOR AUG 2016-CRE Q• Q RTG FEE/BOARD FOR #A14411011 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -95.0( W RTG FEE/BOARD FOR #A19098828 LO 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -35.0( RTG FEE FOR #A33162495 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -20.0( N RTG FEE FOR #A33197630 am 0 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -20.0( N RTG FEE/BOARD FOR #A33223306 cYi 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -35.0( E AUG 2016 AUG 2016 ANIMAL SHELTERING - E f° SHELTERING 8 ANIMALS @ $175 81 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,400.0( y Total: 1,195.0( E t 222076 9/29/2016 008350 PETTY CASH 9/26 PARKS PETTY CSH 9/26 PARKS PETTY CASH U LEACH:OFFICE MAX: ENVELOPES r Q 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 10.9 1 CHAPIN: COSTCO: WOTS SUPPLIE 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 22.3 , CHAPIN: BARTELLS: WOTS SUPPL 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 20.3E CHAPIN: TRADER JOES: WOTS SU Page: 22 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222076 9/29/2016 008350 PETTY CASH (Continued) 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 COLLEY: FRED MEYER: PENCIL SF 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 COLLEY: OFFICE DEPOT: POSTER; 001.000.64.571.23.49.00 Total: 222077 9/29/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC K158846 PS - OUTDOOR LIGHTING PS - Outdoor Lighting 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 K267222 PW - SUPPLIES PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 K330778 PM: PHI PLC 15 MM PM: PHI PLC 15 MM 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 222078 9/29/2016 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS ` 111.111 222079 9/29/2016 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 286159 Total TOURISM ADVERTISING AD FOR DI Tourism marketing/advertisement in F 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 Total INV#286159 CUST #007522 - EDMO TSR CART M26/X26 21 FT NON -CON 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 4.2.a Page: 23 Page: 23 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 222079 9/29/2016 071594 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT (Continued) 222080 9/29/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 222081 222082 222083 291104 9/29/2016 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0035171-IN 9/29/2016 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 16-033S 9/29/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 200002411383 200007876143 200011439656 4.2.a Page: 24 Description/Account Amoun Total : 2,622.0, ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON ( vi ALARM MONITORING FRANCES AN Y 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 278.1( ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I E 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 21.3z Z ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I o 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 21.3z @ Total: 320.71 o L WWTP: D-RING, PLUG STATIONLV\ 0 WWTP: D-RING, PLUG STATIONLV\ 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1,019.3z to Freight 'n 7 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 30.8' .. 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 102.9, N Total: 1,153.01, CD 0 Q4-2016 CLEAN AIR ASSESSMENT Q4-16 Clean Air Assessment per RC\ 001.000.39.553.70.51.00 8,574.2E Total: 8,574.2! FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( y FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( E t 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 600.0E u YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN Q YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,962.7: OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 37.1: FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE Page: 24 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222083 9/29/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 222084 9/29/2016 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 25 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 50.9E w 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / t 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 177.9' 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 72.0( o 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN p L 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 43.7' 0- 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Q' Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 3.9: r w PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 14.9E m PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : C6 rn 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 14.9f N PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : CD 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 14.9: Y PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 14.9: . PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; c° 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 14.9E ; 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE m CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 85.9z t u Total : 3,109.21 Q 00000168095 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-BELLOTTI MARKER/INSCRIPTION-BELLOTTI 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 580.0( 00000168096 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ALIVERTI MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ALIVERTI 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 125.0( Page: 25 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 26 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222084 9/29/2016 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC (Continued) 00000168097 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-DENTON MARKER/INSCRIPTION-DENTON 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 125.0( 00000168098 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-VAN METEF MARKER/INSCRIPTION-VAN METEF 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 125.0( Total: 955.0( 222085 9/29/2016 075611 RACKLEFF, ALIX Rackleff REIMBURSEMENT FOR VEST Survey Vest 001.000.67.518.21.24.00 65.5' Tota I : 65.5' 222086 9/29/2016 075753 RADWELL INTERNATIONAL INC INV2587689 WWTP: DRIVES & ADAPTER (NSFI DRIVES & ADAPTER (NSFP ALLEN 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 4,181.5( Total: 4,181.5( 222087 9/29/2016 074927 RICHARDSON, APRIL 5207 RAINBOW 5207 A RAINBOW IN YOUR KITCHE 5207 A RAINBOW IN YOUR KITCHE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 49.5( Total: 49.5( 222088 9/29/2016 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 16-5215 UNIT 47 - SUPPLIES Unit 47 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 149.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.6: Total: 163.9: 222089 9/29/2016 074579 SECURITY CONCEPTS 12549 INV#12549 - EDMONDS PD 1 YR RENEWAL SIMS (10/12/16-10/' 104.000.41.521.21.35.00 799.8( Total: 799.8( 222090 9/29/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0205506-IN UNIT E108PO - SUPPLIES Page: 26 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222090 9/29/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 27 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Unit E108PO - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 661.1 £ w 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 a� 64.8( 0205593-IN UNIT E108PO - SUPPLIES Unit E108PO - Supplies M 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 14.4( 6 9.8% Sales Tax o 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1.4' 5 0205628-IN UNIT EQ96PO - SUPPLIES o Unit EQ96PO - Supplies L a 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 99.8( Q Freight r 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 14.3E 9.8% Sales Tax 77 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 11M w 0205629-IN UNIT E109PO - SUPPLIES Unit E109PO - Supplies N 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 183.1, a) Freight Y 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 26.5z 9.8% Sales Tax E 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 20.5E 0205650-IN UNIT 108PO - TRAFFIC ADVISER RI ; Unit 108PO - Traffic Adviser Red/Blue m 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 543.6( E 9.8% Sales Tax U 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 53.2 Q 0205682-IN UNIT E107PO - SUPPLIES Unit E107PO - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 40.3, 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 3.9E 0205749-IN UNIT E107PO - SUPPLIES Page: 27 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222090 9/29/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM 222091 9/29/2016 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 28 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Unit E107PO - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 102.0( Y Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 94.3: t 9.8% Sales Tax U E 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 19.2z 0205782-IN UNIT E108PO - SUPPLIES Unit E108PO - Supplies o 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 34.9: 9.8% Sales Tax o L 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 3.4< a 0205783-IN UNIT E124PO - PARTS Q Unit E124PO - Parts r 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 516.1 z 9.8% Sales Tax 77 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 50.5E w 0205898-IN UNIT E124PO - PARTS Unit E124PO - Parts N 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 859.8� o 9.8% Sales Tax N 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 84.2 , 0205899-IN UNIT E108PO - COUNSOLE, SUPPL E Unit E108PO - Counsole, Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 859.8� ; 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 84.2- E 197857A-CM UNIT E109PO - CONSOLE RETURN U Unit E109PO - Console Returns r Q 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 -440.1, 199946A-CM UNIT M16 - RETURNS Unit M16 - Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10-312.0( Total : 3,695.3E 14-330861 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Page: 28 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222091 9/29/2016 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 222092 9/29/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 29 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 129.4E Y 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 a� 12.6� 14-331051 UNIT 66 - SUPPLIES Unit 66 - Supplies M 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 54.4E 6 9.8% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.3z 5 14-331069 UNITS EQ96PO, E107PO, E124PO - L Units EQ96PO, E107PO, E124PO - E a 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 168.8( Q 9.8% Sales Tax r 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 16.5z LO Total : 387.3: 7- w 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W N 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 41.4z c 2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE N CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE cYi 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 49.4z E 2004-6859-3 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 203.4z 2004-9314-6 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M E MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.7< 2006-3860-9 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON r Q OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 160.3E 2007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.2� 2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE Page: 29 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222092 9/29/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 30 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 52.2( w 2009-4334-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V t 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 27.7, 2011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.2� o 2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � p L 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 169.7( 0- 2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P Q' Q LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 T 18.8( LO 2015-7289-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.4z 2015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W N TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W A 0 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 24.4( Y 2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 21.5: 5 2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W m 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 35.1 � E 2016-5690-7 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! U DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! r 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 125.1( Q 2017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 50.1E 2017-6210-1 415 5TH AVE S 415 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 22.1 f Page: 30 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222092 9/29/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 31 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 2017-8264-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � _ TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � vi 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.8E 0 2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW t TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 26.8E 2019-2991-6 WWTP: 8/24-9/21/16 FLOW METER WWTP: 8/24-9/21/16 FLOW METER p 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 16.2E 16- 2020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl p LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 99.6 1 Q 2022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME cro 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 60.7( 2023-8937-5 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I m STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 rn 8.3( c� 2024-2158-2 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI °' 0 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI Y 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 56.5' V 2026-2041-5 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA E MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA f° 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.4. . . 2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW m TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 16.8, U 2030-9778-7 WWTP: 8/16-9/14/16 200 2ND AVE 8 r WWTP: 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10 Q 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 27,597.4 , 2042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 86.7z 2044-6743-5 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA HAZEL MILLER PLAZA Page: 31 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 32 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222092 9/29/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 27.1 £ 2205-4758-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 42.7� Total: 29,162.11 222093 9/29/2016 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 100008533-60 WO 100008533-60 SERVICES WO 100008533-60 Services 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 3,192.0( Total: 39192.0( 222094 9/29/2016 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 44579 OLD PW - DOOR REPAIRS Old PW - Door Repairs 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,192.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 214.8, Total: 2,406.8, 222095 9/29/2016 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 2659 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES SEPTEM Social media services September 20' 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.0( Total: 300.0( 222096 9/29/2016 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 75109 ENG JACKETS (14) Eng Jackets (14) 001.000.67.518.21.24.00 783.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.67.518.21.24.00 76.7 , Total: 860.0 , 222097 9/29/2016 071666 TETRA TECH INC 35009-11 B ESDB.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 20 ESDB.Services thru August 2016 001.000.67.518.21.41.00 37,612.3, Total: 37,612.3, 222098 9/29/2016 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 93688 PAPER Page: 32 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 33 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222098 9/29/2016 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY (Continued) PAPER 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 88.1 < Total: 88.1 < 222099 9/29/2016 075802 THOMAS, KAREN 9/22 REFUND 9/22/16 REFUND 9/22 REFUND 001.000.239.200 10.0( Total: 10.0( 222100 9/29/2016 070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA 2016-159042 BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADVERI Business recruitment advertising 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 1,200.0( Total: 1,200.0( 222101 9/29/2016 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-147596 2016 EDEN SUPPORT MAINTENAN, 2016 EDEN Support Maintenance 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 5,786.4 1 2016 EDEN Support Maintenance 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 38,219.6: 2016 EDEN Support Maintenance 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 573.8( 2016 EDEN Support Maintenance 001.000.41.521.11.48.00 788.2, 2016 EDEN Support Maintenance 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 8,108.9' 2016 EDEN Support Maintenance 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 8,108.9' 2016 EDEN Support Maintenance 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 8,108.9' Total: 69,694.8E 222102 9/29/2016 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 119503327-002 REFUND PICKUP CHARGES FROM Refund Pickup Charges from 6/12/14 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 -105.0( 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 33 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 34 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222102 9/29/2016 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 -9.9E 140641528-001 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 358.5E 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 35.1: Total: 278.7; 222103 9/29/2016 043935 UPS 00002T4T13376 DELIVERY SERVICE DELIVERY SERVICES 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 19.7z Total: 19.71 222104 9/29/2016 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 219.3( Total: 219.3( 222105 9/29/2016 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WF 0687785-WA WATER PRE-EMP DT WATER PRE-EMP DT 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 99.0( Total: 99.0( 222106 9/29/2016 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 51315 CITY WIDE ANNUAL FIRE SPRINKL City Wide Annual Fire Sprinkler Tests 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,642.1 , 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 356.9: Total: 3,999.0° 222107 9/29/2016 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 56549 INV#56549 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2006 FORD #B94574T 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 16.2 , 56581 INV#56581 - EDMONDS PD Page: 34 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 09/29/2016 9:00:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222107 9/29/2016 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 98 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 98 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 35 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) TOW 2001 KIA#AWG9406 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.0( Y 9.8% Sales Tax a� 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 16.2 Total: 364.51 E Bank total : 768,097.7' 0 Total vouchers : 768,097.7' - 0 L Q Q Q r LO T- Page: 35 Packet Pg. 62 t0 C6 N CD O N Y V E V a+ C d E L V R r r Q 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA a) v WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC E STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA o STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA > 0 SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC Q. a SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA Q STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB LO WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB v WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA N SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA o rn SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC y WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC E WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB ? 0 WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA d SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA m rn WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 >, STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD y 0 STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB L WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 LL STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC r a� STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD E v STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB Q STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 63 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) 4.2.b Funding Project Title Protect Engineering Accounting Project Number Number SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 64 4.2.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 coo L0 Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 65 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR 368 ve W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STM yton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STR ransportation Plan Updat STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project y STR E2AD SElWy 99 Enhancements (Phase y z STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements v E STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW t an Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study v 'Nor C SWR 0 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation M STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study p L STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) =- STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) Q STR E3 c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) co STR 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 N STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th o N STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Pr ' E WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) Z_ FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Proje a` STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program m N STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals T WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays as STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept u_ STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements E STM c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin v M STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Q I&T c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station `STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project NLWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 66 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title WWTP EnErSewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4J13 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR 60 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK lffi7ty Spray FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR ackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STR 2015 Overlay Program WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR §Wl5 Sewerline Overla STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project General dmonds Waterfront Access Analysi STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD V 79 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Protect SWR E5G13 s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA �c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects WJLR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating EMILE5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DI3 s016 ADA Transition Plan Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements d Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WWR E6GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update E6J13 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) Dayton Street Plaza Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 67 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 68 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR E1CA 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 SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STIR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E31FE 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 STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STIR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STIR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STIR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM 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 STIR 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 STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 69 4.2.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 77 STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays N 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 to 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 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 70 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 71 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Protect Funding Protect 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 E41-A General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA 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 E4FE 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 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 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 72 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Protect Fundinq Protect 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 E1CA 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 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehablitation c390 E2GB 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 iolo E6CC SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays io09 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 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 73 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 9/29/2016 Packet Pg. 74 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Carol R. Durst (undetermined amount) and Corynn Costa ($603.90). Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Linda Hynd Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Narrative Carol R. Durst 22630 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 (amount undetermined) Corynn Costa 7507 Braemar Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 ($603.90) Attachments: Durst Claim for Damages Costa Claim for Damages Packet Pg. 75 4.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS RECEIVED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM t- �11 � wlit Date Claim Form EDN'tJ' Please take note that ukf& T)it � who currently I resides at 3LG 31 % �# 0aCc L G "�A "Qo rj- (P mailing address S0, Y)q hem phone #A04•91 y.-21010 work phone # 4oi5. (pgO.i; 37and who resided at _ Same_ 1 at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages against ; o� ( ► o—nG� in the sum of $ Ukme-4-ow"rlcl rising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: g119 11, TIME: HI 67 LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: Ra I I I inrw tr (Lri.. (-4- a;m,) 7 %0-1 A_w Ulesf (fd i 'iai,4c, DESCRIPTION: I. II Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or `rkk ldl'Uo. til'-dli►"L4�6-+ i5 1oCm-_Q,4 r)A knra-v' 1 e. c[ b 0-4-d-e J X,5 4ToYh --li Pi _' 6t1Q- r+l0MJ 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable to Z7La 3d -7 N M E M ama e. Also describe the injuV or damage. f rI_ L GUtSi'I h, t&& C c N -Plud Nv c:4 r ( 2 Vetrek atid wen*ca 5 I ill V i4 00 �}AH. (at ach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) ,' O rence in iudi names, addresses, and phone numbers. E `o 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: 2 Yes l/ No v rn L * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) DRIVER: (model) OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: am E z Form Revised 05/06/14 Page t of 2 Packet Pg. 76 4.3.a * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * I, & rd )U G-�— , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure purs nWG-R6VV 42.56. x x Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington County of :jii j Mo Yl lr7L I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �)UOAais;e 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 n GI Title My appointment expires: Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 51h Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. C) 156104 �1q, ip x �J i tns `•- rmns z`.1 `.,� 6; LAG = 2 QA- 1 (ti, WA SV1�N -Z.` rn m a� E 0 L 0 U 00 un LO Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 77 CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM 4.3.b RECEIVED R�iled'ki�l EDMOND, C U1FW Please take note at + LJ n 1 �U L r� w o currently resides at n aili ►Fg r ss 250 lq- home phone` ❑4 #��-µ 411_-'7fVI work phone #ONI S5J 04 , and who resided at �Sfi� � �LRFtn%Y w 1 � p a�#lo'� time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is 27/721 is claiming damages against Vy'0'X15 in the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: atL 2-01 J LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: DESCRIPTION: 1. , Describe the conduct and circumstance that brou-aht about the TIME: Also describe the injury or WLY Cha (dttatfi an extra,sh et for a ti nal infor&ht yee a Xm r 1 tin- tvq �.ti0 sSy( S i 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbe Y Ceil#Ati t' `J 3 Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) DRIVER: (model) OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: , if 6L d a� M E M C r[ N �e E L coe LO LO M E L O V M N O V Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 78 4.3.b * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * I, 1 I 0 cS�k being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; thO 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 bject to disclosur Dorsuant to aw 42.56. x Y Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington County of 31LtA I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument a d acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and c0 purposes mentioned in the instrument. E �etrl►t�t � , reorq +��►y �� y ca V �A IV,i U Title00 My appointment expires: i F�+d',`i ��Ipy►nm�a" G �` +Itt111►I1��;�� c� 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. 79 ,-75 � sU L , 4.3.b RECFI,VED SEP 2 3 2016 J�11� DS CITY CLM V 6L 5 v l' P'6-105 -lam C yyo +-,, ice} Y � in i m - 4,o s�� I'1 � . � .e-�eG� i v) �� r� or �..�r! �. ��y ?013 N 0 0 0 E U Go LO m am m E L 0 E .2 U m 0 U c 0 E t ca Q Packet Pg. 80 Cr') n CC95" Fran kasta - 7507 Braemar Dr. Edmonds, WA 98026 Irrigation Repair post installation of New Water Supply modifications 4.3.b Irrigation System basin with backflow piping connected r�. � - e Supply basin itbound piping ted to Home ,ystem t, �RJ New Supply basin N N a� R 0 0 E U Go LO m a� E CU L 0 E .2 U 0 U) 0 U c a) E t V R Q Packet Pg. 81 4.3.b Frank Costa - 7507 Braemar Dr. Edmonds, WA 98026 Irrigation Repair post installation of New Water Supply modifications New Supply basin Irrigation System basin with • '` ''�� ,�. kflow acpip ing i connected p i? g r- Y'• Irrigation system stop • A valve - - . r'�•:'r':.ti.�� 7* L E Id supply pipes unhooked v and remaining in soil showing ao ' connection to existing Irrigation LO System v, it • as cC y` 1 E •�'4�r 0 It E f M N • o U E t 0 ca Q Packet Pg. 82 4.3.b a" ylr-) CDsto Frank Costa - 7507 Braemar Dr. Edmonds, WA 98026 Irrigation Repair post installation of New Water Supply modifications New Supply basin a.. Supply Line Connection made to existing Irrigation system. Packet Pg. 83 L V%r) �� 4.3.b Frank sta - 7507 Braemar Dr. Edmonds, WA 98026 Irrigation Repair post installation of New Water Supply modifications :r Supply basin ocation near backflow basin calve. oly to irrigation th Stop Valve and Basin. Packet Pg. 84 (2003v)h C05� SprinksPlus-John Felber 20411 30th Ave. W Alderwood Manor, WA 98M (425) 478-2392 Sprin**011 qw '76 07 Ord "sue✓ / i�" ��bt e) h Js- CUST ORDER NO IDATESHIPPED ISHIPPEDVIA TERMS DATE: Fqb771 INVOICE 007733 SALESMAN I FOB I OUR ORDER NO QTV ORDERED 010 QTY. SNIPPED DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT YJ 7 i t Ak I I ika,1 - 3 11 ?c 0 3 90 I 1 1 I i I I I i I 1 I 1 I ! I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I l 1 i I I 4 I r I I I r I 1 r I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I Payment due upon receipt. Finance charge of 1.5% or $10.00 which ever is greater assessed after 30 days past due. INV-751-3 PRINTED IN USA Q to m 0 `O N E U Go In E t4 L 0 E .2 U M In O U C N E t V t4 a+ Q Packet Pg. 85 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 August 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Staff Recommendation No action needed; informational only. Narrative August 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report Attachments: August 2016 Monthly Financial Report Packet Pg. 86 n CD 00 4 Z O z r 00 c v O M D �o mn z D z 0 D r 70 M MU O 70 0 O mn M v 9 O z v ►�-Tt Attachment: August 2016 Monthly Financial Report (1544 : August 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report) I 4.4.a I Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received 001 GENERAL FUND $ 39,280,321 $ 23,846,578 $ 24,759,102 $ 14,521,219 639 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 278,770 140,005 140,311 138,459 500 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 6,660 5,282 5,574 1,086 840 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 28,110 27,718 9,671 18,439 340 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 291 314 (314) 09 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,000 5,684 2,534 2,466 510 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1 2,505,000 252,757 1,661,882 843,118 669 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 153,000 11,309 68,721 84,279 450 111 STREET FUND 1,760,500 1,157,600 1,231,713 528,787 700 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2 8,160,017 3,208,217 4,834,556 3,325,461 590 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 106,008 50,539 35,868 70,140 349 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 110 92 100 10 910 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 82,150 46,088 51,093 31,057 620 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 21,390 9,172 9,098 12,292 439 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 5,550 260 95 5,455 29 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 27,530 15,553 17,225 10,305 630 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,108,000 951,936 865,737 242,263 780 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 1,102,000 950,338 866,904 235,096 790 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 46,900 43,511 30,722 16,178 669 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 280 198 213 67 760 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 177,260 122,767 116,851 60,409 669 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,352,240 290,403 1,112,706 239,534 820, 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 630 785 846 (216) 1340 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 19,880 15,852 15,822 4,058 800 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 12,010 3,918 5,781 6,229 480 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 682,500 469,898 472,042 210,458 690 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 62,541 64,826 (64,826) 09 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 16,370 1,997 12,403 140, 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 14,400 - - 14,400 09 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 677,380 75,464 70,301 607,079 109 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 949,540 9,201 936,429 13,111 990 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 39,973 107,964 (107,964) 09 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 4 8,443,460 10,624,654 5,605,235 2,838,225 669 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4 4,131,780 6,640,592 2,797,357 1,334,423 680 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4 12,645,240 15,534,686 6,841,777 5,803,463 540 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,900 337,210 667,448 1,322,452 340 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,579,570 1,070,177 1,095,105 484,465 690 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 64,840 56,945 57,757 7,083 890, $ 87,432,326 $ 66,094,565 $ 54,561,676 $ 32,870,650 620, Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to grant invoicing for Fishing Pier Rehab and mid -year transfer from Fund 001. 2 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to grant invoicing for various projects in 2016. 3 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to a SnoCo grant, parks donations, and park impact fees. 4 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is largely due to 2015 Revenue Bond Proceeds received in August of 2015. 1 Packet Pg. 88 1 4.4.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 5 $ 41,011,287 $ 25,640,346 $ 28,202,529 $ 12,808,758 690/( 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 279,480 192,087 174,499 104,981 620/( 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 70,546 - - 00% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 6 800,000 2,391,018 800,000 0°/ 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400 6,750 - 5,400 0°/ 016 BUILDING MAINT ENANCE 7 2,395,000 132,711 1,549,075 845,925 650/( 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,030 29,929 48,795 27,235 640/( 111 STREET FUND 1,716,120 1,091,534 1,197,599 518,521 700/( 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8,173,112 3,245,105 2,876,350 5,296,762 350/( 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 181,380 45,002 45,280 136,100 250/( 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 00/( 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 149,650 33,292 33,078 116,572 220/( 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 - - 26,880 00/( 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 1,416 1,210 1,790 400/( 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 31,500 8,501 13,818 17,682 440/( 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,100,565 141,517 315,324 1,785,241 1501( 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND s 2,750,000 28,845 554,322 2,195,678 200/( 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 44,950 20,590 35,120 9,830 780/( 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - - - - 00/( 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 210,370 106,392 109,297 101,073 520/( 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 8 1,575,770 528,802 717,480 858,290 460/( 136 PARKSTRUST FUND - - - - 0°/ 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 12,500 4,266 5,185 7,315 410/( 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 682,500 497,833 472,042 210,458 690/( 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 39,321 40,876 (40,876) 00/( 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 - - 14,400 00% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 00% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 677,380 75,464 70,301 607,079 100/( 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 5 949,540 9,201 936,429 13,111 990/( 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 12,717,507 4,969,299 5,370,596 7,346,911 420/( 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 8,057,048 2,017,246 2,194,686 5,862,362 270/( 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,921,050 6,098,998 6,566,559 11,354,491 370/( 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 337,261 667,442 1,323,478 340/( 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,971,820 735,793 1,075,591 896,229 5501( 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 59,610 34,550 27,489 32,121 460/( $ 106,584,769 $ 48,533,612 $ 53,300,972 $ 53,283,797 500% 5 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to final payment of 2014 debt. 6 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to Interfund Loans to funds 112 and 014 in 2015. 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 purchase of Civic Field in 2016. 2 Packet Pg. 89 4.4.a Page 1 of 3 C TTY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX $ 10,068,020 $ 5,380,683 $ 5,413,091 $ 4,654,929 54% EMS PROPERTY TAX 9 3,688,090 1,826,990 1,980,972 1,707,118 54% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 949,540 498,842 510,649 438,891 54% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 10 6,144,400 4,328,398 4,487,881 1,656,519 73% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,800 4,458 4,020 5,780 41% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 626,700 414,705 443,055 183,645 71% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,451,800 1,080,841 1,131,516 320,284 78% GASUTILITYTAX 647,900 465,494 440,093 207,807 68% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 306,500 211,208 223,871 82,629 73% WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 1,229,110 724,968 777,205 451,905 63% SEWER UTFLIT YTAX 629,140 378,990 418,243 210,897 66% STORMWATERUTFLIT Y TAX 330,430 229,003 239,539 90,891 72% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 846,000 565,357 570,054 275,946 67% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,349,100 876,407 829,228 519,872 61% PULLTABSTAX 60,600 36,295 38,477 22,123 63% AMUSEMENT GAMES 40 - 141 (101) 351% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 242,200 186,792 192,594 49,606 80% 28,579,370 17,209,431 17,700,628 10,878,742 62% LICENSES AND PERNUTS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 250 255 190 60 76% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 - 285 15 95% PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI 630 330 - 630 0% AMUSEMENTS 4,740 4,325 - 4,740 0% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 710,600 532,250 534,338 176,263 75% FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 44,900 30,576 28,179 16,721 63% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER 100,900 49,706 76,654 24,246 76% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK 18,400 12,932 12,275 6,125 67% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 268,000 197,208 202,687 65,313 76% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 116,000 93,117 83,136 32,864 72% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 42,000 33,390 36,640 5,360 87% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 70,400 32,900 47,550 22,850 68% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 15,000 5,388 46,623 (31,623) 311% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 11 525,000 409,425 495,813 29,187 94% ANIMAL LICENSES 38,800 16,741 11,109 27,691 29% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 42,100 26,849 35,152 6,948 83% OTR NON -BUS LIC/PERMITS 13,100 9,785 12,769 331 97% 2,011,120 1,455,176 1,623,399 387,721 81% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: FEDERAL GRANT S-BUDGET ONLY - - - - 0% DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 11,970 3,018 6,920 5,050 58% USDA FOREST SERVICE - - - - 0% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 3,750 - - 0% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II 6,000 5,250 5,250 750 88% WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - - 995 (995) 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 7,780 3,348 4,152 45% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 - 4,675 (1,675) 156% DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - 492 614 (614) 0% WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT 300 300 - 300 0% 2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT - 1,000 - - 0% WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT - - 330,649 (330,649) 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 192,500 - 197,399 (4,899) 103% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 10,000 7,946 8,297 1,703 83% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE 13,000 8,189 13,569 (569) 104% CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 36,980 29,139 30,279 6,701 82% DUI - CITIES 7,240 4,458 4,740 2,500 65% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 65,200 63,087 139,331 (74,131) 214% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 357,800 175,055 174,541 183,259 49% MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE 12 - - 75,757 (75,757) 0% INTERLOCAL GRANTS 383,330 30,000 - 383,330 0% VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 2,000 2,120 (2,120) 0% 1,094,820 341,463 998,484 96,336 91% 9 2016 EMS Property Taxrevenues are $153,982 higher than 2015 revenues. 10 2016 Local Retail Sales/Use Taxrevenues are $159,483 higher than 2015 revenues Please also see pages 18 & 19. 11 2016 Building Structure Permits are $86,389 higher than 2015 revenues. 12 Difference between 2015 and 2016 revenues is due to funds received for closure of ESCA in 2016. 3 Packet Pg. 90 I 4.4.a I Page 2 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: MUNICIPAL COURT CIVIC FILINGS RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS ATM SURCHARGE FEES COURT RECORD SERVICES D/M COURT REC SER SHARED COURT COSTS MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN SALE MAPS & BOOKS CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKINGPERMITS BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT PHOTOCOPIES POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES SNO-ISLE PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS OCDETF OVERTIME CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS LEGAL SERVICES ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE ELECTRONIC MONITORING BOOKING FEES FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 13 CRIM CONV FEE CT CRIM CONV FEE CN FIBER SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER ZONINGSUBDIVISION FEE PLAN CHECKING FEES FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE S.E.P.A. REVIEW CRITICAL AREA STUDY DV COORDINATOR SERVICES SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES LOCKER FEES SWIM CLASS FEES PROGRAM FEES TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS $ - $ - $ 25 $ (25) 0% 2,000 1,430 1,413 588 71% 250 241 243 7 97% - - - - 0% 50 7 43 7 87% - - - - 0% 400 318 358 42 90% 100 - 4 96 4% 25,100 - 25,100 0% 600 - - 600 0% 2,000 1,399 648 1,352 32% 4,000 2,791 2,499 1,501 62% 180,350 131,582 163,449 16,901 91 % - - - - 0% 58,000 43,534 50,484 7,516 87% 15,000 13,300 14,984 16 100% 26,000 24,653 31,852 (5,852) 123% - - - - 0% 12,300 3,782 2,873 9,427 23% 39,500 31,510 49,211 (9,711) 125% 1,500 - 538 962 36% 300 330 - 300 0% - - 41 (41) 0% 45,000 37,621 39,031 5,969 87% - - 177 (177) 0% 60,000 43,286 46,745 13,255 78% - - 100 (100) 0% 6,000 4,472 2,781 3,219 46% 8,000 15,681 16,471 (8,471) 206% 15,000 7,919 5,426 9,574 36% 822,100 631,009 673,314 148,786 82% - - - - 0% - - - - 0% 9,200 6,120 7,625 1,575 83% 7,200 4,800 4,800 2,400 67% 1,800 1,409 1,413 387 79% 6,000 1,706 204 5,797 3% 75,000 67,334 60,890 14,110 81% 425,000 360,583 270,056 154,944 64% 3,000 7,380 7,200 (4,200) 240% 1,250 939 1,784 (534) 143% 7,000 7,545 610 6,390 9% 15,000 13,795 14,060 940 94% 10,000 6,329 7,413 2,587 74% - - - - 0% 7,800 5,341 8,242 (442) 106% - - - - 0% - - - - 0% 861,700 631,942 657,581 204,119 76% 19,130 92,626 964 18,166 5% - - - - 0% 5,000 - 475 4,525 10% 950 755 260 690 27% 2,964,600 1,507,183 1,483,492 1,481,108 50% 5,743,180 3,710,652 3,629,780 2,113,400 63% 13 2016 EMS Transport User Fees are $42,305 higher than 2015 revenues. 4 Packet Pg. 91 4.4.a Page 3 of 3 C PIY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND FO RFEITURES : PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 8,000 4,410 4,542 3,458 57% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,000 38,830 142,436 (117,436) 570% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 260,000 176,515 40,102 219,898 15% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 24,600 16,646 14,594 10,006 59% SPEEDINGDOUBLE - - - - 0% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,300 1,780 38,868 (37,568) 2990% OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 1,000 508 1,529 (529) 153% PARKINGINFRACTION PENALTIES 43,000 29,211 17,162 25,838 40% PR -HANDICAPPED - - - - 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 1,300 1,373 2,375 (1,075) 183% DWI PENALTIES 6,000 4,131 16,095 (10,095) 268% DUI - DP ACCT 2,500 2,009 1,623 877 65% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 300 385 326 (26) 109% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN - - - - 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 21,067 21,545 11,455 65% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 1,900 1,726 1,808 92 95% CRIM CONV FEE CT 2,300 1,215 1,214 1,086 53% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 130 94 - 130 0% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 9,000 8,260 9,728 (728) 108% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 900 805 337 563 37% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 1,900 1,161 1,178 722 62% CRIM CONV FEE CN 900 509 395 505 44% CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENTS 60,000 38,630 18,036 41,964 30% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 33,000 20,368 16,374 16,626 50% BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT - - 4,504 (4,504) 0% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 260 68 32 68% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 5,000 12,810 11,880 (6,880) 238% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 1,450 720 280 72% 522,130 3849152 367,441 154,689 70% MISCELLANEOUS : INVESTMENT INTEREST 38,600 20,764 33,908 4,692 88% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 5,700 2,383 4,204 1,496 74% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 4,138 4,559 441 91% PARKING 14,000 10,625 10,720 3,280 77% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 128,000 93,829 108,586 19,415 85% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 3,840 3,560 1,440 71% LEASESLONG-TERM 218,100 117,952 119,247 98,853 55% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 50,000 37,734 37,498 12,502 75% OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES 4,500 3,300 1,800 2,700 40% DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 5,000 - - 5,000 0% PARKSDONATIONS 9,500 11,282 4,350 5,150 46% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 1,950 1,200 (250) 126% 125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS - 3,700 - - 0% VOLUNT EER P ICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS - 500 1,701 (1,701) 0% POLICE CONT RIBUT IONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 1,200 - 1,000 0% PARKS GRANT S-PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 - 303 (153) 202% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 1,697 4,802 (2,802) 240% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0% OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT 5,651 58 3,851 1,800 68% POLICE JUDGMENTS✓RESTITUTION 200 10 276 (76) 138% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - (604) 60 (60) 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 1,000 15,214 10,970 (9,970) 1097% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 25 23 27 46% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 30 - 120 0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 330 217 172 158 52% FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 0% US BANK REBATE 6,000 4,774 4,153 1,847 69% 503,861 334,618 355,940 147,921 7107o TRANSFERS -IN: INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - 57,595 (57,595) 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 83,430 742,410 10% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 39,280,321 $ 23,846,578 $ 24,759,102 $14,521,219 63% 5 Packet Pg. 92 I 4.4.a I Page 1 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 14,010,590 $ 8,468,130 $ 8,974,369 $ 5,036,221 64% OVERTIME 423,510 340,372 317,461 106,049 75% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 217,790 1,543 2,349 215,441 1% BENEFITS 5,356,460 3,167,514 3,410,342 1,946,118 64% UNIFORMS 89,290 50,564 57,100 32,190 64% SUPPLIES 393,950 231,253 239,262 154,688 61% SMALL EQUIPMENT 161,680 94,278 81,689 79,991 51% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,644,903 1,485,234 2,016,356 1,628,547 55% COMMUNICATIONS 211,890 101,954 105,325 106,565 50% TRAVEL 46,210 21,134 22,213 23,997 48% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 - 2,773 3,727 43% ADVERTISING - 2,824 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 916,390 606,076 624,631 291,759 68% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% UTILITIES 457,800 277,522 296,354 161,446 65% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 429,510 289,488 141,528 287,982 33% MISCELLANEOUS 400,094 220,956 243,453 156,641 61% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 10,384,010 9,228,960 9,338,667 1,045,343 90% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2,909,320 526,556 1,739,021 1,170,299 60% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 67,500 14,777 27,449 40,051 41% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 168,300 - - 168,300 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - 0% OTHER DEBT - 87 - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 46,150 27,460 23,454 22,696 51% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 41,011,287 25,640,346 28,202,529 12,808,758 69% 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 $ 120,190 $ 111,724 $ 66,996 63% 100,480 64,980 60,272 40,208 60% - 6,643 1,286 (1,286) 0% - - 447 (447) 0% 280 275 770 (490) 275% 279,480 192,087 174,499 104,981 62% $ - $ 70,546 $ $ - 0% 70,546 - 0% $ - $ 1,991,018 $ $ - 0% 800,000 400,000 800,000 0% 800,000 2,391,018 800,000 0% $ 100 $ - $ $ 100 0% 200 6,750 200 0% 5,100 - 5,100 0% 5,400 6,750 5,400 0% $ - $ 1,934 $ 1,756 $ (1,756) 0% 162,459 80,931 297,834 (135,375) 183% 2,062,000 49,540 35,390 2,026,610 2% - - 546 (546) 0% 33,000 307 170,972 (137,972) 518% 137,541 - 1,042,577 (905,036) 758% $ 2,395,000 132,711 1,549,075 845,925 65% $ 3,000 $ 1,096 $ 846 $ 2,154 28% 5,000 - 4,968 32 99% 2,230 1,361 1,142 1,088 51% 800 - - 800 0% 20,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 50% 45,000 22,473 31,839 13,161 71% 76,030 29,929 48,795 27,235 64% 6 Packet Pg. 93 4.4.a Page 2 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 515,160 $ 374,655 $ 417,980 $ 97,180 81% OVERTIME 18,400 12,375 14,366 4,034 78% BENEFITS 265,870 192,654 212,171 53,699 80% UNIFORMS 6,000 4,927 3,745 2,255 62% SUPPLIES 240,000 75,832 130,556 109,444 54% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 9,243 6,090 19,910 23% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 5,789 13,827 223 98% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 2,638 2,582 918 74% TRAVEL 1,000 300 - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 190,950 128,167 128,032 62,918 67% INSURANCE 87,620 81,386 97,912 (10,292) 112% UTILITIES 270,170 165,133 157,998 112,172 58% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 26,332 8,510 36,490 19% MISCELLANEOUS 24,250 1,349 1,472 22,778 6% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 - 1,492 1,508 50% 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 $ 1,091,534 $ 1,197,599 $ 518,521 70% COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,747,910 $ 1,111,492 $ 854,951 $ 892,959 49% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 358,240 313,084 40,908 317,332 11% LAND 438,000 94,056 132,896 305,104 30% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,553,332 1,650,828 1,771,998 3,781,334 32% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 100% INTEREST 3,410 3,444 3,396 14 100% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - - 0% $ 8,173,112 $ 3,245,105 $ 2,876,350 $ 5,296,762 35% 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 $ 729 $ 424 $ 3,976 10% 1,500 - 150 1,350 10% 166,500 41,489 41,073 125,427 25% 80 - 11 70 13% - - - - 0% 2,000 - 2,000 0% 300 - - 300 0% 6,600 2,784 3,622 2,978 55% $ 181,380 S 45,002 $ 45,280 $ 136,100 25% $ 77,500 $ 31,211 $ 30,977 $ 46,523 40% - - - - 0% 8,150 82 101 8,049 1% 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 50% 60,000 - - 60,000 0% $ 149,650 $ 33,292 $ 33,078 $ 116,572 22% $ 1,790 $ - $ $ 1,790 0% 25,090 25,090 0% $ 26,880 $ $ $ 26,880 0% $ 3,000 $ 1,416 $ 1,210 $ 1,790 40% $ 3,000 $ 1,416 $ 1,210 $ 1,790 40% $ 28,300 $ 7,228 $ 10,615 $ 17,685 38% - - - - 0% 3,200 1,273 3,203 (3) 100% $ 31,500 $ 8,501 $ 13,818 $ 17,682 44% 7 Packet Pg. 94 4.4.a Page 3 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 33,129 $ 46,639 $ (25,639) 222% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 186,788 100,562 98,138 88,650 53% RENTAL/LEASE - - 2,790 (2,790) 0% UTILITIES - - - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 140,000 7,825 12,605 127,395 9% MISCELLANEOUS - - 181 (181) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,752,777 - 154,972 1,597,805 9% $ 2,100,565 $ 141,517 $ 315,324 $ 1,785,241 15% REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC (126) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 314,560 $ - $ - $ 314,560 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 1,200 - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 139,430 18,263 17,213 122,218 12% LAND 692,180 4,000 476,669 215,511 69% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,573,870 - 55,406 1,518,464 4% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 19,890 - - 19,890 0% OTHER DEBT & DEBT SERVICE COST S - - - - 0% INTEREST 10,070 5,382 5,033 5,037 50% $ 2,750,000 $ 28,845 $ 554,322 $ 2,195,678 20% GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES $ 13,110 $ 9,088 $ 2,985 $ 10,125 23% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,000 415 6,300 (300) 105% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 25,840 11,088 25,835 5 100% $ 44,950 $ 20,590 $ 35,120 $ 9,830 78% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 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 $ 108,410 $ 52,568 $ 57,127 $ 51,283 53% 3,500 1,764 1,015 2,485 29% 44,500 22,424 23,875 20,625 54% 1,000 197 - 1,000 0% 7,000 1,393 2,715 4,286 39% 20,000 10,706 12,426 7,574 62% 4,200 6,473 917 3,283 22% 1,410 894 666 744 47% 500 - - 500 0% - - - - 0% 11,550 6,656 7,700 3,850 67% 3,800 581 610 3,190 16% 500 - - 500 0% 4,000 2,735 2,246 1,754 56% $ 210,370 $ 106,392 $ 109,297 $ 101,073 52% $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 225,000 63,071 40,247 184,753 18% 500,000 - 475,710 24,291 95% 850,770 461,531 201,523 649,247 24% - 4,200 - - 0% $ 1,575,770 $ 528,802 $ 717,480 $ 858,290 46% $ 2,000 $ 49 $ 168 $ 1,832 8% 4,500 3,123 2,515 1,985 56% 6,000 1,094 2,502 3,498 42% $ 12,500 $ 4,266 $ 5,185 $ 7,315 41% $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 100% 680,000 495,333 469,542 210,458 69% $ 682,500 $ 497,833 $ 472,042 $ 210,458 69% 8 Packet Pg. 95 I 4.4.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent BUSINESS EMPROVEVIENTDISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES $ - $ 13,918 $ 5,466 $ (5,466) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 25,369 34,457 (34,457) 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 35 953 (953) 0% $ - 39,321 40,876 (40,876) 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 - - 500 0% $ 677,380 $ 75,464 $ 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 $ 482,520 $ 521,559 $ 273,661 66% 24,000 11,773 16,049 7,951 67% 372,550 220,523 239,865 132,685 64% 4,000 2,032 2,534 1,466 63% 151,000 90,466 72,720 78,280 48% 1,600,000 1,058,994 1,032,412 567,588 65% 143,000 81,414 62,231 80,769 44% 11,000 8,657 3,845 7,155 35% 1,793,286 575,666 737,695 1,055,591 41% 30,000 19,655 19,006 10,994 63% 200 - - 200 0% 340,000 224,202 262,177 77,823 77% 100,750 63,323 65,433 35,317 65% 58,920 70,904 52,335 6,585 89% 40,000 13,901 14,436 25,564 36% 17,000 17,441 18,017 (1,017) 106% 70,450 47,119 41,157 29,293 58% 30,000 16,173 25,761 4,239 86% 1,229,110 724,968 777,205 451,905 63% 731,220 121,300 219,326 511,894 30% 15,000 15,960 - 15,000 0% 4,551,921 825,913 1,031,987 3,519,934 23% 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% - 96,726 - - 0% - 31 - 0% - - - - 0% $ 12,717,507 $ 4,969,299 $ 5,370,596 $ 7,346,911 42% 9 Packet Pg. 96 I 4.4.a I Page 5 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent S TO RM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 640,470 $ 289,153 $ 326,472 $ 313,998 51% OVERTIME 6,000 9,454 8,410 (2,410) 140% BENEFITS 313,950 145,427 167,082 146,868 53% UNIFORMS 6,500 4,850 5,450 1,050 84% SUPPLIES 46,500 23,472 15,347 31,153 33% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 1,510 1,227 2,773 31% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,683,530 743,348 660,905 2,022,625 25% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 2,100 1,743 1,457 54% TRAVEL 4,300 - 300 4,000 7% EXCISE TAXES 55,000 42,279 34,603 20,397 63% RENTAL/LEASE 252,990 141,992 165,832 87,158 66% INSURANCE 64,120 39,269 63,187 933 99% UTILITES 10,500 5,431 6,138 4,362 58% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 8,576 2,266 10,734 17% MISCELLANEOUS 94,950 38,554 32,821 62,129 35% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 71,733 122,643 (37,643) 144% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 330,430 229,003 239,539 90,891 72% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 413,678 25,585 95,380 318,298 23% LAND 25,000 - - 25,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,563,330 2,000 129,348 2,433,982 5% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 83,800 - - 83,800 0% REVENUE BONDS 158,300 - - 158,300 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,070 32,063 32,063 8 100% INTEREST 166,430 87,739 83,932 82,498 50% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 63,866 - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 15 - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - - 0% $ 8,057,048 $ 2,017,246 $ 2,194,686 $ 5,862,362 27% 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 $ 1,721,530 $ 1,096,788 $ 1,136,571 $ 584,959 66% 100,000 64,918 60,701 39,299 61% 771,920 483,584 510,707 261,213 66% 9,500 5,761 5,747 3,753 60% 420,200 151,030 168,750 251,450 40% 90,000 43,536 31,527 58,473 35% 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 46,000 14,273 21,411 24,589 47% 1,954,696 905,517 1,124,817 829,879 58% 43,000 26,533 26,165 16,835 61% 5,000 - 1,097 3,903 22% 150,000 101,531 125,368 24,632 84% 182,670 131,608 118,946 63,724 65% 96,630 140,834 106,915 (10,285) 111% 1,056,660 630,346 873,015 183,645 83% 325,000 247,184 168,762 156,238 52% 105,450 45,599 37,925 67,525 36% 150,000 103,823 125,222 24,778 83% 629,140 378,990 418,243 210,897 66% 2,563,949 367,729 518,760 2,045,189 20% - 25,251 - - 0% 6,999,825 730,544 764,622 6,235,203 11% 130,140 - - 130,140 0% 72,840 - - 72,840 0% 170,620 169,990 157,034 13,586 92% 122,280 68,751 61,299 60,981 50% - 158,765 - - 0% - 6,114 2,955 (2,955) 0% - - - - 0% $ 17,921,050 $ 6,098,998 $ 6,566,559 $ 11,354,491 37% $ 655,010 $ - $ $ 655,010 0% - - - 0% 1,334,910 337,208 667,442 667,468 50% 1,000 54 - 1,000 0% $ 1,990,920 $ 337,261 $ 667,442 $ 1,323,478 34% 10 Packet Pg. 97 I 4.4.a I Page 6 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 224,880 $ 138,753 $ 147,861 $ 77,019 66% OVERTIME 2,000 949 - 2,000 0% BENEFITS 105,050 63,744 64,897 40,153 62% UNIFORMS 1,000 975 805 195 81% SUPPLIES 110,000 64,269 56,301 53,699 51% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 106 - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 308,200 93,428 85,752 222,448 28% SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 21,294 9,256 48,744 16% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 44,000 788 937 43,063 2% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,383 1,550 1,450 52% TRAVEL 1,000 2,935 1,000 - 100% RENTAL/LEASE 19,440 9,543 12,842 6,598 66% INSURANCE 29,560 40,605 29,967 (407) 101% UTILITIES 14,000 7,139 7,739 6,261 55% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 26,274 34,055 25,945 57% MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 3,834 6,760 430 94% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 - 1,288 1,212 52% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 981,000 259,771 614,580 366,420 63% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% $ 1,971,820 $ 735,793 $ 1,075,591 $ 896,229 55% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 30,940 $ 15,886 $ 11,389 $ 19,551 37% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 27,470 17,557 15,885 11,585 58% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 1,107 214 986 18% S 59,610 $ 34,550 $ 27,489 $ 32,121 46% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 106,584,769 $ 48,533,612 $ 53,300,972 $ 53,283,797 50% 11 Packet Pg. 98 4.4.a Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL $ 295,500 $ 143,789 $ 143,459 $ 152,041 490/c OFFICE OF MAYOR 260,250 166,555 171,288 88,962 660/c HUMAN RESOURCES 462,044 232,558 235,942 226,102 51O/C MUNICIPAL COURT 909,270 552,079 577,433 331,837 640/c CITY CLERK 589,290 373,253 371,081 218,209 630/c ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,839,930 1,023,319 956,740 883,190 520/c CITY ATTORNEY 741,560 440,856 467,705 273,855 630/c NON -DEPARTMENTAL 14,956,000 10,573,039 11,927,542 3,028,458 800/c POLICE SERVICES 9,633,050 5,768,314 6,111,444 3,521,606 630/c COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV. 535,580 263,436 325,051 210,529 610/c DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,688,352 1,396,951 1,616,477 1,071,875 600/c PARKS& RECREATION 3,774,541 2,346,584 2,491,385 1,283,156 660/c PUBLIC WORKS 2,842,120 1,395,116 1,867,395 974,725 660/c FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,483,800 964,498 939,588 544,212 630/c $ 41,011,287 $ 25,640,346 $ 28,202,529 $ 12,808,758 690/c C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2016 Amended Budget 8/31/2015 Expenditures 8/31/2016 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITY FUND $ 12,717,507 $ 4,969,299 $ 5,370,596 $ 7,346,911 420/ STORM UTILITY FUND 8,057,048 2,017,246 2,194,686 5,862,362 270/ SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,921,050 6,098,998 6,566,559 11,354,491 370/ BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 337,261 667,442 1,323,478 340/ $ 40,686,525 $ 13,422,804 $ 14,799,284 $ 25,887,241 360/c 12 Packet Pg. 99 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEIAAIL Title 2016 Amended Budget 8/31/2015 Expenditures 8/31/2016 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 119,100 $ 83,287 $ 77,544 $ 41,556 65% OVERTIME 1,000 - 93 907 9% BENEFITS 88,550 49,759 58,103 30,447 66% SUPPLIES 2,000 806 1,612 388 81% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 832 - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47,160 5,481 1,432 45,728 3% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,101 2,111 889 70% TRAVEL 6,700 723 1,277 5,423 19% RENTAL/LEASE 490 387 219 271 45% REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 500 - 15 485 3% MISCELLANEOUS 27,000 411 1,055 25,945 4% $ 295,500 $ 143,789 $ 143A59 $ 152,041 49% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 197,160 $ 131,788 $ 131,655 $ 65,505 67% BENEFITS 48,190 30,197 32,052 16,138 67% SUPPLIES 1,500 600 733 767 49% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 908 1,191 809 60% COMMUNICATION 1,400 280 802 598 57% TRAVEL 3,000 188 538 2,462 18% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,394 1,112 1,288 46% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,600 1,200 3,207 1,393 70% $ 260,250 $ 166,555 $ 171,288 $ 88,962 66% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 226,880 $ 138,555 $ 143,926 $ 82,954 63% OVERTIME - - 43 (43) 0% BENEFITS 73,380 45,727 49,386 23,994 67% SUPPLIES 2,300 1,075 2,503 (203) 109% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 107 - 300 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,000 45,968 31,325 82,675 27% COMMUNICATIONS 700 667 688 12 98% TRAVEL 1,000 482 416 584 42% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,252 1,531 669 70% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 7,850 7,793 - 7,850 0% MISCELLANEOUS 33,434 (9,068) 6,124 27310 18% $ 462,044 $ 232,558 $ 235,942 $ 226,102 51% MUNIC H'AL C O URT SALARIES $ 566,190 $ 349,666 $ 372,848 $ 193,342 66% OVERTIME 600 2,301 1,738 (1,138) 290% BENEFITS 222,750 122,629 134,431 88,319 60% SUPPLIES 9,930 10,389 4,515 5,415 45% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 1,631 262 2,538 9% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 49,348 48,153 15,847 75% COMMUNICATIONS 1,800 1,382 1,546 254 86% TRAVEL 2,500 2,971 2,360 140 94% RENTAL/LEASE 800 172 539 261 67% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,700 928 885 815 52% MISCELLANEOUS 36,200 10,662 10,156 26,044 28% $ 909,270 $ 552,079 $ 577,433 $ 331,837 64% 13 Packet Pg. 100 Page 2 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 324,480 $ 219,871 $ 224,711 $ 99,769 69% OVERTIME - 893 1,509 (1,509) 0% BENEFITS 129,300 79,384 85,992 43,308 67% SUPPLIES 10,240 6,191 5,079 5,161 50% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 602 1,416 (1,416) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,310 17,862 18,082 10,228 64% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 24,421 7,264 42,736 15% TRAVEL 1,000 423 - 1,000 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 13,951 12,867 7,133 64% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 21,960 7,096 10,448 11,512 48% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,558 3,712 288 93% $ 589,290 $ 373,253 $ 37L081 $ 218,209 63% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 892,390 $ 519,780 $ 558,309 $ 334,081 63% OVERTIME 6,670 1,192 1,633 5,037 24% BENEFITS 305,800 175,575 188,134 117,666 62% SUPPLIES 43,050 4,307 4,440 38,610 10% SMALL EQUIPMENT 110,650 50,096 45,574 65,076 41% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111,400 40,632 21,479 89,921 19% COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 28,775 35,299 26,201 57% TRAVEL 2,900 540 833 2,067 29% RENTAL/LEASE 8,200 7,668 7,897 303 96% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 242,680 154,307 38,804 203,876 16% MISCELLANEOUS 14 14,690 25,668 54,336 (39,646) 370% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 14,777 - 40,000 0% $ 1,839,930 $ 1,023,319 $ 956,740 $ 883,190 52% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 741,560 $ 440,856 $ 465,569 $ 275,991 63% MISCELLANEOUS - - 2,137 (2,137) 0% $ 741,560 $ 440,856 $ 467,705 $ 273,855 63% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 34,500 4,099 2,775 31,725 8% SUPPLIES 3,000 2,379 1,542 1,458 51% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 643,420 275,406 277,340 366,080 43% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 2,824 2,773 3,727 43% 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 62,276 48,223 20,787 70% INTERGOVT SERVICES 10,302,760 9,184,688 9,290,081 1,012,679 90% 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 87 - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - 0% $ 14,956,000 $ 10,573,039 $ 11,927,542 $ 3,028,458 80% 14 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to Microsoft Office Windows Software Renewal in 2016. 14 r- Packet Pg. 101 1 1 4.4.a I Page 3 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTIVIENTIN DETAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 5,778,330 $ 3,471,455 $ 3,732,101 $ 2,046,229 65% OVERTIME 396,240 323,997 289,812 106,428 73% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 217,790 1,543 2,349 215,441 1% BENEFITS 2,220,940 1,349,443 1,451,503 769,437 65% UNIFORMS 80,310 43,018 50,818 29,492 63% SUPPLIES 86,730 56,570 52,879 33,851 61% SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,900 12,469 18,842 6,058 76% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117,170 60,958 58,100 59,070 50% COMMUNICATIONS 26,210 15,411 18,566 7,644 71% TRAVEL 17,310 14,167 10,567 6,743 61% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 595,100 382,390 393,897 201,203 66% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 14,620 9,119 5,112 9,508 35% MISCELLANEOUS 46,850 22,502 21,624 25,226 46% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,550 5,272 5,274 5,276 50% $ 9,633,050 $ 5,768,314 $ 6,111,444 $ 3,521,606 63% COMMUNITY SERVIC ES/EC 0 N DEV. SALARIES $ 224,960 $ 146,092 $ 150,641 $ 74,319 67% BENEFITS 67,430 42,497 45,896 21,534 68% SUPPLIES 7,000 1,021 5,873 1,127 84% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - 125 676 16% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 222,400 67,345 118,540 103,860 53% COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 636 684 806 46% TRAVEL 2,000 179 - 2,000 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,252 1,299 701 65% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 7,000 4,413 1,993 5,007 28% $ 535,580 $ 263,436 $ 325,051 $ 210,529 61% DEVELOPMENT S ERVIC ES/PLANNING SALARIES $ 1,444,230 $ 883,441 $ 960,745 $ 483,485 67% OVERTIME 1,300 72 6,116 (4,816) 470% BENEFITS 534,670 315,052 351,661 183,009 66% UNIFORMS 500 - - 500 0% SUPPLIES 16,100 9,010 9,054 7,046 56% SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,950 4,534 4,782 2,168 69% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 573,942 107,502 205,247 368,695 36% COMMUNICATIONS 8,500 2,813 3,850 4,650 45% TRAVEL 4,250 568 4,027 223 95% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 24,750 25,637 13,501 11,249 55% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 6,800 6,612 1,177 5,623 17% MISCELLANEOUS 38,860 41,710 28,871 9,989 74% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 27,500 - 27,449 51 100% $ 2,688,352 $ 1,396,951 $ 1,616,477 $ 1,071,875 60% ENGINEERING SALARIES $ 1,373,500 $ 817,728 $ 845,206 $ 528,294 62% OVERTIME 5,000 846 3,290 1,710 66% BENEFITS 561,900 322,800 335,184 226,716 60% UNIFORMS 360 - - 360 0% SUPPLIES - - 79 (79) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 644 1,952 248 89% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 465,000 - 404,811 60,189 87% COMMUNICATIONS 11,800 5,200 6,795 5,005 58% TRAVEL 600 21 296 304 49% RENTAL/LEASE 26,370 9,920 16,140 10,230 61% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 2,600 - - 2,600 0% MISCELLANEOUS 21,000 7,255 14,645 6,355 70% $ 2,470,330 $ 1,164,415 $ 1,628,399 $ 841,931 66% 15 Packet Pg. 102 I 4.4.a I Page 4 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 8/31/2015 8/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 1,830,090 $ 1,133,057 $ 1,174,229 $ 655,861 64% OVERTIME 10,000 7,560 9,594 406 96% BENEFITS 695,310 413,725 443,898 251,412 64% UNIFORMS 5,370 5,318 4,012 1,358 75% SUPPLIES 117,500 88,046 102,912 14,588 88% SMALL EQUIPMENT 9,080 9,205 6,998 2,082 77% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 514,341 327,251 363,123 151,218 71% COMMUNICATIONS 30,140 10,822 17,199 12,941 57% TRAVEL 4,450 871 1,889 2,561 42% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 170,310 119,528 132,341 37,970 78% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 114,860 118,157 56,843 68% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 50,800 29,454 31,337 19,463 62% MISCELLANEOUS 91,450 47,888 42,383 49,067 46% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,700 39,000 43,312 27,388 61% $ 3,774,541 $ 2,346,584 $ 2,491,385 $ 1,283,156 66% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES $ 263,850 $ 169,471 $ 174,522 $ 89,328 66% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 81,750 50,426 55,280 26,470 68% SUPPLIES 7,600 2,501 2,244 5,356 30% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 1,479 108 892 11% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 41 57 143 29% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 389 432 918 32% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,640 3,861 4,021 3,619 53% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 1,429 1,615 1,185 58% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - 522 478 52% MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 1,103 195 3,705 5% $ 371,790 $ 230,701 $ 238,996 $ 132,794 64% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 669,430 403,937 427,932 241,498 64% OVERTIME 2,500 3,512 3,633 (1,133) 145% BENEFITS 291,990 166,201 176,048 115,942 60% UNIFORMS 2,750 2,228 2,270 480 83% SUPPLIES 87,000 48,357 45,799 41,201 53% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 12,678 1,631 1,369 54% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 45,675 1,907 (1,907) 0% COMMUNICATIONS 14,000 9,056 10,089 3,911 72% TRAVEL - - 12 (12) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 52,530 35,064 35,667 16,863 68% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 161,233 176,581 103,419 63% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 78,500 74,179 53,227 25,273 68% MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 2,378 4,791 (2,691) 228% $ 1,483,800 $ 964,498 $ 939,588 $ 544,212 63% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 41,011,287 $ 25,640,346 $ 28,202,529 $ 12,808,758 69% 16 Packet Pg. 103 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 1,916,622 $ 1,916,622 $ 2,112,632 10.23% February 4,629,440 2,712,818 4,307,339 -6.96% March 6,886,259 2,256,819 6,797,209 -1.29% April 10,543,424 3,657,165 10,797,010 2.41% May 18,429,883 7,886,459 18,037,636 -2.13% June 20,405,311 1,975,427 20,334,355 -0.35% July 22,524,224 2,118,913 22,256,068 -1.19% August 24,710,319 2,186,096 24,759,102 0.20% September 26,714,429 2,004,110 October 29,931,863 3,217,434 November 37,264,604 7,332,741 December 39,280,321 2,015,717 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2016 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 189,874 $ 189,874 $ 216,395 13.97% February 316,058 126,183 447,070 41.45% March 479,194 163,136 551,728 15.14% April 640,872 161,679 768,326 19.89% May 800,918 160,046 977,560 22.05% June 986,094 185,176 1,234,188 25.16% July 1,276,157 290,062 1,436,215 12.54% August 1,480,830 204,673 1,708,460 15.37% September 1,690,614 209,784 October 1,875,616 185,002 November 2,069,074 193,458 December 2,200,000 130,926 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 104 1 4.4.a Contractors 725,524 Health & Personal Care 68,918 Retail Eating & Drinking 570,507 Gasoline Stations 22,415 Automotive Repair 114,450 Retail Automotive 1,151,61 Total Retail Automotive Misc Retail Trade Retail Eating & Drinking Business Services Retail Food Stores Others Wholesale Trade Amusement & Recreation Clothing and Accessories Accommodation Health & Personal Care Gasoline Stations Automotive Repair Communications Contractors ($175,000) Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: August 2016 Year -to -Date Total $4,487,881 Wholesale Trade 188,207 1 Conuxiruiications 165,770 I-Misc Retail Trade 539,959 Clothing and Accessories 144,711 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: August 2016 compared to August 2015 ($125,000) ($75,000) ($25,000) $25,000 28,494 Services 311,290 _ Amusement & Recreation 45,686 Retail Food Stores 178,411 Others 231,927 $75,000 $125,000 $175,000 18 Packet Pg. 105 I 4.4.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 3,843,359 11.15% August 3,998,806 540,993 4,487,881 12.23% 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 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 31,449 415,562 -12.94% August 501,633 24,291 440,093 -12.27% 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. 106 1 I 4.4.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 794,692 108,792 732,953 -7.77% August 904,737 110,045 829,228 -8.35% 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 1,025,239 7.21% August 1,049,934 93,622 1,131,516 7.77% 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. 107 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2016 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly 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 3,581,142 -0.15% August 4,157,711 571,242 4,155,904 -0.04% 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 1,880,842 -0.54% August 2,403,804 512,795 2,395,020 -0.37% 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. 108 1 I 4.4.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 3,712,853 0.41% August 4,168,968 471,356 4,182,788 0.33% 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. 109 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 4,549,179 $ 4,549,179 $ 4,953,956 8.90% February 7,065,106 2,515,927 7,893,221 11.72% March 10,227,893 3,162,787 10,217,655 -0.10% April 14,243,715 4,015,821 14,305,106 0.43% May 16,426,676 2,182,961 16,509,045 0.50% June 20,205,702 3,779,026 19,669,418 -2.65% July 23,450,047 3,244,346 23,796,385 1.48% August 27,049,690 3,599,642 28,202,529 4.26% September 30,662,580 3,612,891 October 33,262,295 2,599,715 November 36,869,601 3,607,306 December 41,011,287 4,141,686 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 9,839,305 9.41% August 10,291,465 1,298,344 11,927,542 15.90% 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. 110 I 4.4.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 26,656 120,390 -29.02% August 194,018 24,404 143,459 -26.06% 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 22,032 148,207 -2.11% August 172,781 21,380 171,288 -0.86% 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 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. 111 1 I 4.4.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 $ 31,041 $ 31,041 $ 25,054 -19.29% February 72,203 41,162 61,145 -15.31% March 112,713 40,509 101,724 -9.75% April 168,538 55,825 146,484 -13.09% May 209,518 40,980 183,771 -12.29% June 247,117 37,599 232,729 -5.82% July 292,697 45,580 274,304 -6.28% August 335,893 43,196 325,051 -3.23% September 383,280 47,387 October 429,917 46,636 November 475,538 45,621 December 535,580 60,042 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 $ 50,833 $ 50,833 $ 44,524 -12.41% February 96,778 45,946 87,838 -9.24% March 146,191 49,413 142,107 -2.79% April 191,236 45,044 188,255 -1.56% May 235,619 44,383 234,593 -0.44% June 283,490 47,872 281,026 -0.87% July 331,509 48,019 323,638 -2.37% August 381,757 50,248 371,081 -2.80% September 431,132 49,374 October 489,238 58,106 November 538,959 49,721 December 589,290 50,331 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 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 25 Packet Pg. 112 1 I 4.4.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 38,336 206,637 -22.35% August 302,589 36,480 235,942 -22.03% 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 74,993 503,006 -2.49% August 594,541 78,676 577,433 -2.88% 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. 113 I 4.4.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 67,044 370,139 -17.47% August 521,686 73,171 421,240 -19.25% 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 72,826 459,737 -16.56% August 624,240 73,230 535,500 -14.22% 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. 114 I 4.4.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 61,797 425,065 -1.74% August 494,373 61,797 467,705 -5.39% 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 $ 742,786 $ 742,786 $ 771,955 3.93% February 1,501,528 758,742 1,527,193 1.71% March 2,271,626 770,097 2,295,467 1.05% April 3,026,048 754,422 3,078,848 1.74% May 3,780,240 754,192 3,832,659 1.39% June 4,598,322 818,082 4,596,670 -0.04% July 5,363,806 765,484 5,342,881 -0.39% August 6,136,928 773,122 6,111,444 -0.42% September 6,902,315 765,387 October 7,698,702 796,387 November 8,768,959 1,070,257 December 9,633,050 864,091 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. 115 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2016 Development Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 204,243 $ 204,243 $ 170,060 -16.74% February 415,923 211,680 361,353 -13.12% March 648,648 232,726 565,548 -12.81% April 859,812 211,164 764,404 -11.10% May 1,077,954 218,142 985,455 -8.58% June 1,286,181 208,226 1,183,128 -8.01% July 1,508,767 222,586 1,381,541 -8.43% August 1,735,150 226,383 1,616,477 -6.84% September 1,959,377 224,226 October 2,208,198 248,821 November 2,436,068 227,870 December 2,688,352 252,284 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 2,007,609 -4.78% August 2,567,286 458,908 2,491,385 -2.96% 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 Yeaz Budget -dm- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 29 Packet Pg. 116 I 4.4.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 31,243 208,906 -3.56% August 246,986 30,363 238,996 -3.24% 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 FEB 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 857,071 133,314 822,642 -4.02% August 967,719 110,648 939,588 -2.91% 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. 117 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2016 Engineering Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast 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 1,362,376 -2.80% August 1,603,612 201,942 1,628,399 1.55% 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. 118 4.4.a INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Investment Portfolio Summary As of August 31, 2016 (a) 1 Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted Agency/Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Washington State Local Investment Pool Various $13,831,784 Various ° 0.49 /° 0.11%•, Government Investment Pool i Snohomish County Investment Pool Various $30,571,886 Various 0.82% 0.42% Investment Pool FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 0.96% s 0.02% FHLMC Bonds 61 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.01 % FFCB Bonds 36 1/25/2016 2,000,000 12/28/2018 1.42% 0.05% FFCB Bonds 37 1/25/2016 2,000,000 1/25/2019 1.23% 0.04% FNMA Bonds 61 9/19/2014 1,000,000 9/19/2019 1.87% 0.03% c FHLB Bonds 48 5/5/2016 2,000,000 3/30/2020 1.45% 0.05% c FHLMC Bonds 48 5/5/2016 2,000,000 4/28/2020 1.35% 0.04% FHLB Bonds 49 7/13/2016 3,000,000 7/13/2020 1.20% 0.06% e FNMA Bonds 55 7/19/2016 2,000,000 1/19/2021 0.95% 0.03% (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 $60,430,670 0.86% % of Total Rate Comparison 22.89% Current6-monthtreasuryrate 0.47% 26.52% Current State Pool rate 0.49% 50.59% Blended Edmonds rate 0.86% 100.0% Interest Income Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 1 Dec 0.86% ■ 2012 e ■2013 , 2014 ■2015 i 2016 ! 32 Packet Pg. 119 4.4.a GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES o GENERAL FUND & SUBFUNDS 0. ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- � 12/31 /2015 6/30/2016 8/31 /2016 Q2 YTD R 001-General Fund $ 9,359,437 $ 10,024,373 $ 5,916,010 $ 4,248,681 $ (3,443,42" 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 519,409 532,581 485,221 78,821 (34,18t S LL 011-Risk Management Fund 961,512 965,713 967,086 2,373 5,57, 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 4,677,030 4,684,313 4,686,701 3,016,660 9,67- 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,487 56,720 56,801 126 31, -a 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 2,589 5,116 5,123 (3,927) 2,53, ca 016-Building Maintenance 118,085 (48,433) 230,892 (181,693) 112,80- Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,549 $ 16,220,385 $ 12,347,833 $ 7,161,041 $ (3,346,71( o m r O N a+ N 7 7 a LO General Fund & Subfunds LO r 20 0 $15.69 $16.22 a °) 16 $12.35 �a 12 c o � u. � 8 c 0 4 m r O N Dec 2015 June 2016 Aug 2016 a� a E U 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. 120 4.4.a GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- _ 12/31 /2015 6/30/2016 8/31 /2016 Q2 YTD 0 o Q. General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,549 $ 16,220,385 $ 12,347,833 $ 7,161,041 $ (3,346,71, Special Revenue 7,711,345 10,255,835 11,046,489 (1,631,894) 3,335,14, R Debt Service 114,789 115,563 116,786 (0) 1,99 c Total Governmental Funds $ 23,520,683 $ 26,591,783 $ 23,511,108 $ 5,529,147 $ (9,57 .r m a� m t Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances - Combined o m 20 0 N 30 N $26.59 a 16 9 General 24 $23.52 $23.51 Fund & 'n r Subfunds v LA 0 12 35 $11.05tSpecial 0 18 �0.26 Revenue v 8 $7.71 12 c Debt u- Service 2' t 4 c 6 0 m o - $0.11 $0.12 $0.12 - N Dec 2015 June 2016 Aug 2016 Dec 2015 June 2016 Aug 2016 a E U 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. 121 4.4.a SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW GOVERNMENTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE; ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31/2015 6/30/2016 8/31/2016 ---- ACTUAL ---- Q2 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 68,732 $ 109,613 $ 88,658 $ (10,919) $ 19,92E 111 - Street Fund 514,447 556,641 548,561 129,712 34,11z 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 9,340 1,393,845 1,967,546 (2,419,981) 1,958,20( 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 468,471 472,727 459,059 (9,357) (9,41, 118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,919 17,993 18,019 40 10( 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 153,885 162,241 171,900 (2,268) 18,01E 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,481 72,599 73,579 835 9,09£ 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 15,468 14,705 14,353 (468) (1,1v 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 84,568 86,674 87,975 188 3,401 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,629,534 1,996,449 2,179,947 122,191 550,41: 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 2,239,006 2,366,504 2,551,589 324,283 312,58: 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 265,925 261,169 261,527 (23,445) (4,391 129 - Special Projects Fund 38,393 38,551 38,606 85 21: 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 137,256 154,038 144,810 11,869 7,55z 132 - Parks Construction Fund 897,414 1,392,690 1,292,640 232,085 395,22E 136 - Parks Trust Fund 152,249 152,877 153,095 339 84( 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 883,729 895,815 899,551 6,085 15,82.' 138 - Sister City Commission 3,785 6,921 4,381 3,129 59E 139 - Transportation Benefit District - - - (0) - 140 - Business Improvement Disrict 66,743 103,780 90,692 3,704 23,94� Total Special Revenue $ 7,711,345 $ 10,255,835 $ 11,046,489 $ (1,631,894) $ 3,335,14,e 15 12 c 9 0 6 3 Special Revenue Funds $10.26 $11.05 Special Revenue Dec 2015 June 2016 Aug 2016 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 35 Packet Pg. 122 I 4.4.a I ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ENTERPRISE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31/2015 6/30/2016 8/31/2016 Q2 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 16,489,530 $ 17,135,816 $ 16,724,168 $ 1,622,668 $ 234,63E 422 - Storm Utility Fund 9,589,898 10,084,412 10,192,569 (488,470) 602,67' 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 42,657,767 44,186,132 42,932,984 233,885 275,21 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,960 4 843,966 (843,959) f 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 83,251 107,964 36,122 107,96z Total Enterprise Funds $ 69,581,155 $ 71,489,615 $ 70,801,651 $ 560,246 $ 1,220,49E Enterprise Fund Balances as of August 31, 2016 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40, 000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 16 724 168 $10,192,569 $10,000,000 $107,964 Combined Utility Water Storm $843,966 Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 36 Packet Pg. 123 SUMMARY OVERVIEW I 4.4.a I CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES ACTUAL CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- Governmental Funds $ 23,520,683 $ 26,591,783 $ 23,511,108 $ 5,529,147 $ (9,57f Enterprise Funds 69,581,155 71,489,615 70,801,651 560,246 1,220,49E Internal Services Fund 7,650,499 7,549,040 7,670,013 (724,516) 19,51z Agency Funds 203,102 239,169 233,370 47,333 30,26E Total City-wide Total $100,955,439 $105,869,607 $102,216,143 $ 5,412,209 $ 1,260,70,e Governmental Fund Balances as of August 31, 2016 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 Pen -nit 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 $12,347,81 $88,658 1 $548,561 $1,967,546 $459,059 1 $18,019 � $171,900 � $73,579 $14,353 � $87,975 $2,179,9 7 $2,551, 89 $261,527 $38,606 $144,810 $1,292,640 $153,095 $899,551 $4,381 $90,692 $105,135 $7,670,01' $233,370 $1 $20,000,000 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 37 Packet Pg. 124 I 4.4.a I INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- - - ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2015 6/30/2016 8/31 /2016 02_ YTD 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 7,650,499 $ 7,549,040 $ 7,670,013 $ (724,516) $ 19,51,e Total Internal Service Funds $ 7,650,499 $ 7,549,040 $ 7,670,013 $ (724,516) $ 19, 10 8 6 0 4 2 Internal Service Fund Balances Dec 2015 June 2016 Aug 2016 511- Equipment Rental Fund *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. 125 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Stormwater Management Code Update, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On June 14, 2016, staff provided an update on the required stormwater code changes. On August 2, 2016, a public hearing was held on the proposed update to the stormwater management code. On August 23, 2016, staff presented the proposed update to the stormwater management code. On September 6, 2016, staff presented the proposed update to the stormwater management code. Staff Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Ordinance. Narrative The City of Edmonds is a Department of Ecology Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permittee. As a Phase II permit holder, the City is required to update the stormwater code by December 31, 2016 to meet the minimum requirements of the 2012 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. This includes reviewing and revising all development -related codes, rules, and standards to incorporate and require Low Impact Development principles and best management practices to make Low Impact Development the preferred and commonly used approach to site development. The goal is to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff onsite to the extent feasible. The proposed stormwater code was discussed at four City Council meetings in June, August and September. Staff conducted a public meeting in July and there was a public hearing at the City Council meeting on August 23, 2016. The City Council agreed to move the item forward for approval at the September 61" City Council meeting and have an Ordinance prepared to adopt the new stormwater code effective on January 1, 2017. Attachments: 2016 09-29 ordinance SW code update Attachment A - ECDC 18.30-FINAL DRAFT-08.23.2016 Packet Pg. 126 4.5.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.30 ECDC, ENTITLED "STORMWATER MANAGEMENT," IN ITS ENTIRETY. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is a Department of Ecology Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit holder; and WHEREAS, as a Phase II permit holder, the City is required to update its stormwater code by December 31, 2016, to meet the minimum requirements of the 2012 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual; and WHEREAS, these requirements include reviewing and revising all development -related codes, rules, and standards to incorporate and require Low Impact Development principles and best management practices to make Low Impact Development the preferred and commonly used approach to site development; and WHEREAS, the goal of Low Impact Development is to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff onsite to the extent feasible; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Stormwater Management," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The existing text of chapter 18.30 ECDC shall be replaced entirely with the text shown in Attachment A. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Packet Pg. 127 4.5.a Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect upon the latter of five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title and January 1, 2017. "C• Df MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 128 4.5.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.30 ECDC, ENTITLED "STORMWATER MANAGEMENT," IN ITS ENTIRETY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 Packet Pg. 129 4.5.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Chapter 18.30 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Sections: 18.30.000 Purposes. 18.30.010 Definitions. 18.30.020 Authority and Regulation. 18.30.030 Applicability. 18.30.040 Exemptions. 18.30.050 Administration. 18.30.060 Requirements. 18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeal. 18.30.080 Access and Covenants. 18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities. 18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures. 18.30.000 Purposes. Page 1/23 A. To set forth standards for managing stormwater runoff from construction and development sites to minimize: 1. Degradation of surface water quality by controlling the scouring and sedimentation of creeks, streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, other water bodies. 2. Degradation of groundwater quality. 3. Damage to adjacent and other downstream private properties from erosion or other impacts from stormwater runoff. 4. Damage of City -owned parcels, City roads, rights -of -way and associated infrastructure. B. To comply with requirements in the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit as issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). C. To complement site planning activities that minimize: 1. Impervious surfaces area. 2. The loss of native or non-native site vegetation. 3. The generation of stormwater runoff. D. To make low impact development (LID) the preferred and commonly used approach to site development; to require LID be considered at the site planning stage; and to implement LID BMPs unless they are infeasible. E. To require that all publicly -owned and privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control best management practices (BMPs)/Facilities are operated, maintained and repaired in manner that conforms to this chapter. F. To provide the authority for the City to inspect privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. G. To provide enforcement procedures for ensuring compliance with this chapter. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 130 4.5.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 2/23 18.30.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: Arterial. A road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or streets considered collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property. See also RCW 35.78.010, RCW 36.86.070, and RCW 47.05.021. Adjustment. A variation in the application of a minimum requirement to a particular project. Adjustments provide substantially equivalent environmental protection. Applicant. The owning individual(s) or corporations or their representatives applying for the permits or approvals described in this chapter. Approval. The proposed work or completed work conforming to this chapter as approved by the public works Director or their designee. Best management practices (BMPs). The schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the City that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State. Bioretention. Engineered facilities that treat stormwater by passing it through a specified soil profile, and either retain or detain the treated stormwater for flow attenuation. Refer to the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), Chapter 7 of Volume V for bioretention BMP types and design specifications. Category 1 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.1 through No.S. See ECDC 18.30.60.C. Category 2 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.l through No.9. See ECDC 18.30.60.C. Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). An individual who has current certification through an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by Ecology (see BMP C160 in the SWMMWW). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater and, the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control course. Course listings are provided online at Ecology's website. City's municipal separate storm sewer system or "MS4." A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) that are owned or operated by the City of Edmonds, designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater, and are not a combined sewer nor part of a publicly owned treatment works as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 122.2, and which is defined as "large" or "medium" or "small" or otherwise designated by Ecology pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26. Clearing. The destruction and removal of vegetation by manual, mechanical, or chemical methods. Commercial Agriculture. Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and activities involved in the production of crops or livestock for commercial trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial agriculture when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Common plan of development or sale. A site where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules and/or by different contractors, but still under a single plan. Examples include: 1) phase projects and projects with multiple filings or lots, even if the separate phases or filings/lots will be constructed under separate contract or by separate owners (e.g., a development where lots are sold to separate builders); 2) a development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is still under a consistent plan for long-term development; 3) projects in a contiguous area that maybe unrelated but still under the same contract, such Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 131 4.5.b Edmonds Page 3/23 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility; and 4) linear projects such as roads, pipelines, or utilities. If the project is part of a common plan of development or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan must be used in determine permit requirements. Converted vegetation (areas). The change in land cover changed from native vegetation, pasture scrub/shrub, or unmaintained non-native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or where native vegetation is converted to pasture. Creek. Is synonymous with "streams," which is defined in ECDC 23.40.320. Detention facility. An above or below ground facility, such as a pond or tank, that temporarily stores stormwater runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or no infiltration of stored stormwater. Development. Land -disturbing activities, including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses. Creation or addition of hard surfaces, or replacement of hard surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity. Structural development, including construction, installation, replacement, or expansion of a building or other structure. Subdivision, short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW Director. The City's Public Works and Utilities Director or a designee with an appropriate background in engineering or another related discipline. Discharge point. The location where a discharge leaves the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) through the City's MS4 facilitiesBMPs designed to infiltrate. Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology. Effective impervious surface. Those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a drainage system. Impervious surfaces on residential development sites are considered ineffective if: 1) the runoff is dispersed through at least 100 feet of native vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 —'Tull Dispersion," as described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with downspout Full Infiltration Systems in BMP T5.10A in Volume III of the SWMMWW; or 3) approved continuous runoff modeling methods indicate the entire runoff file is infiltrated. Erodible or leachable materials. Wastes, chemicals, or other substances that measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of runoff when exposed to rainfall. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage. Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including such processes as gravitational creep. Also, detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity. See the SWMMWW Glossary for examples of types of water erosion. Excavation. The mechanical removal of earth material. Exception. Relief from the application of a minimum requirement to a project. Fill. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. Groundwater. Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or below a water body. Hard surface. An impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof. Highway. A main public road connecting towns and cities. In Edmonds, this includes State Route 99, State Route 524, and portions of State Route 104, that are classified as principal arterials in the City's comprehensive transportation plan. Illicit discharge. Any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the City's MS4, groundwaters, or a water body, except as expressly allowed by ECDC Chapter 7.200. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 132 4.5.b Edmonds Page 4/23 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Impervious surface. A non -vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor swimming pools shall be considered impervious surfaces in all situations. In addition, lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and other areas that have modified runoff characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains are to be considered impervious surfaces. Lake. An inland body of fresh water surrounded by land. Land disturbing activity. Any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non -vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land -disturbing activities include but are not limited to demolition, clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be considered a land -disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices, including landscape maintenance and gardening, are not considered land -disturbing activity. Stormwater facility maintenance is not considered land disturbing activity if conducted according to established standards and procedures. Low impact development (LID). A stormwater and land use strategy that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design. LID Best Management Practices (BMPs). Distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project design, that emphasize pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. LID principles. Land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff. Maintenance. Repair and maintenance activities conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and equipment that involves no expansion or use beyond that previously existing and results in no significant adverse hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities, including cases where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as long as the functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a collapsed, fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. In regard to stormwater facilities, maintenance includes assessment to ensure ongoing proper operation, removal of built up pollutants (i.e., sediments), replacement of failed or failing treatment media, and other actions taken to correct defects as identified in the maintenance standards of Chapter 4, Volume V of the SWMMWW. Maximum extent practicable (MEP). Refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. MS4. The City's municipal separate storm sewer system. Native vegetation. Vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest which could have been reasonably expected to occur naturally on the site. Examples include trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big -leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 133 4.5.b Edmonds Page 5/23 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Natural drainage systems and outfalls. The location of the channels, swales, and other non -manmade conveyance systems as defined by the earliest documented topographic contours existing for the subject property, either from maps or photographs, or such other means as appropriate. Outfall. A point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a discharge leaves the City's MS4 and enters a surface receiving waterbody or surface receiving waters. Outfall does not include pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other surface waters and are used to convey primarily surface waters (i.e., culverts). On -site Stormwater Management BMPs. A synonym for Low Impact Development BMPs. Permeable pavement. Pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir. Pervious Surface. Any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn, landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements. Person. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal corporation, agency of the state, or City government unit, however designated. Pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS). Those hard surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. See the listing of surfaces under pollution -generating impervious surface. Pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS). Those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use; industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; metal roofs unless they are coated with an inert, non -leachable material (e.g., baked -on enamel coating); or roofs that are subject to venting significant amounts of dusts, mists, or fumes from manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities. Pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS). Any non -impervious surface subject to vehicular use, industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall, use of pesticides and fertilizers, or loss of soil. Typical PGPS include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns, and landscaped areas including: golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turf). Pre -developed condition. The native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro-American settlement. The pre -developed condition shall be assumed to be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement. Project site. That portion of a property, properties, and/or right-of-way subject to land -disturbing activities, new hard surfaces, or replaced hard surfaces. For projects that involve land disturbing activity on one or more parcels and land disturbing activity in the City right-of-way, the "Project site" includes all areas of land disturbance. If the project is part of a common development plan or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan shall be used in determining permit requirements. Rain garden. A non -engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost -amended native soils and adapted plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile. Receiving waterbody or Receiving waters. Naturally and/or reconstructed naturally occurring surface water bodies, such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine waters, or groundwater, to which a MS4 discharges. Replaced hard surface. For structures means the removal and replacement of hard surfaces down to the foundation. For other hard surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 134 4.5.b Edmonds Page 6/23 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Replaced impervious surface. For structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces down to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement. Roadway. Traveled hard surface portion of any public or private road or street. Road -related project. A project that all of, or the majority of, the new or replaced hard surface consist of roadway, shoulders, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or walkways, either publicly or privately funded. Runoff. Water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that is found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes and wetlands, as well as shallow ground water. It also means the portion of rainfall or other precipitation that becomes surface flow and interflow. Site. The area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to development. For road projects, or utility projects in the right-of-way, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries define the site. Slope. The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal; measured as a numerical ratio, percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the vertical distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, with a 90-degree slope being vertical (maximum) and 45 degrees being a 1:1 or 100 percent slope. Soil. The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the intermediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. Source control BMPs. A structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with storm water through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of pollutants. The SWMMWW separates source control BMPs into two types. Structural source control BMPs are physical, structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. Operational BMPs are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering stormwater. See Volume IV of the SWMMWW for details. Stormwater facility. A constructed component of a stormwater drainage system, designed and constructed to perform a particular function or multiple functions. Stormwater facilities include, but are not limited to, pipes, swales, ditches, culverts, street gutters, detention ponds, retention ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration devices, catch basins, oil/water separators, and biofiltration swales. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The Washington State Department of Ecology's 2012 (as amended in 2014) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Referred to as the 2014 SWMMWW. Stormwater site plan. The comprehensive report containing all of the technical information and analysis necessary for regulatory agencies to evaluate a proposed development project for compliance with stormwater requirements. Contents of the Stormwater Site Plan will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics. It includes a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Construction SWPPP) and a Permanent Stormwater Control Plan (PSC Plan). Guidance on preparing a Stormwater Site Plan is contained in Chapter 3 of Volume I of the SWMMWW. Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. Detention facilities, treatment BMPs/facilities, bioretention, vegetated roofs, and permeable pavements that help meet Minimum Requirements No.6 (Treatment), Minimum Requirement No.7 (Flow Control), or both as described in ECDC 18.30.060. Threshold discharge area. An on -site area that drains to either a single natural discharge location or multiple natural discharge locations that combine within one -quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath). The examples below and in Figure G.1 presented in Volume I of the SWMMWW illustrate this definition. The purpose of this definition is to clarify how the thresholds of this code are applied to project sites with multiple discharge points. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 135 4.5.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 7/23 Example of a Site with a Example of a Site with Example of a Site with Single Natural Discharge Multiple Natural Multiple Natural Discharges and a Single Threshold Discharges and a Single and Multiple Threshold Discharge Area Threshold Discharge Area Discharge Areas Natural NaWral Natural NAvral Natural dDischarge--...-- bischart -. Discharge-----• ... bischarge_ Discharx3e------ -.. Area Area 1 Area 2 . Area 1 Area 2 THRESHOLD DISCHARGE f----.THRE HOLD THRESHOLD THRESHOL D15CFiAd - NSC ARG�. - DISCHARGE AREIi--.,, . •••••• f Shaded ti :,.A AREA T,,, AFfEA2 ed) (Shade Natural Natural Natural Discharge discharge Discharge i Location Location Location f .ti tJ is s f 1 f r '!4 Mile Downstream.w------------------------ 4___________� {shortest flow path) by V Vehicular Use. Regular use of an impervious or pervious surface by motor vehicles. The following are subject to regular vehicular use: roads, un-vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways. The following are not considered subject to regular vehicular use: paved bicycle pathways separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance access roads. Waterbody. Surface waters including rivers, streams, lakes, marine waters, estuaries, and wetlands. Waters of the state. Includes those waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of Washington State, and "waters of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW which includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Wetlands. As defined in ECDC 23.40.005. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016]. 18.30.020 Authority and Regulation. A. The Public Works and Utilities Director shall administer this chapter and shall be referred to as the Director. B. The Director shall have the authority to develop, implement, and enforce policies and procedures to administer and enforce this chapter per ECDC 18.30.110 and 18.30.120, such as the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. C. The requirements of this chapter are minimum requirements. They do not replace, repeal, abrogate, supersede, or affect any other more stringent requirements, rules, regulations, covenants, standards, or restrictions. Where this chapter imposes requirements that are more protective of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. When this chapter imposes requirements that are less protective Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 136 4.5.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 8/23 of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of the more protective requirements shall prevail. D. The Director shall have the authority to impose additional requirements on a project or site to meet the purpose of this chapter based on site -specific factors including, but not limited to, location, soil conditions, slope, and designated use. E. Approvals and permits granted under this chapter are not waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do they indicate compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including rules promulgated under authority of this chapter. F. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not necessarily mitigate all impacts to the environment. Thus, compliance with this chapter should not be construed as mitigating all drainage water or other environmental impacts, and additional mitigation may be required to protect the environment pursuant to other applicable laws and regulations. The primary obligation for compliance with this chapter and for preventing environmental harm on or from property is placed upon the applicant. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.030 Applicability. A. This chapter applies to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017 and applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022. B. This chapter applies to the following actions on sites that discharge to the City's MS4 or discharges to waters of the state whether or not a City -issued permit is required: 1. Land -disturbing activity, or 2. Creation of new hard surfaces, or 3. Replacement of existing hard surfaces, or 4. Conversion of pervious surfaces, or 5. New connections to the City's MS4, or 6. Any other actions that can increase the volume or rate of stormwater runoff, or cause the generation of pollutants, from the site. 18.30.040 Exemptions. A. Full Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Forest practices regulated under WAC Title 222, except for Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timberland to other uses, are exempt from the provisions of the minimum requirements 2. Commercial agriculture practices that involve working land for production are generally exempt. However, land conversion from timberland to agriculture and the construction of impervious surfaces are not exempt. 3. Construction of drilling sites, waste management pits, and associated access roads, and construction of transportation and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines, natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline compressor stations, and crude oil pumping stations are exempt. Operators are encouraged to implement and maintain best management practices to minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during storm events. 4. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are exempt: pothole and square -cut patching, overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement with asphalt or concrete without expanding the area of Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 137 4.5.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 9/23 coverage, shoulder grading, reshaping/regrading drainage systems, crack sealing, resurfacing with in -kind material without expanding the road prism, pavement preservation activities that do not expand the road prism, and vegetation maintenance. B. Partial Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are partially exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in -kind material or materials with similar runoff characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement No. 2, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. 2. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are considered development, and therefore are not categorically exempt. The extent to which these requirements apply is explained for each circumstance. a. Removing and replacing a paved surface to base course or a lower level, or repairing the pavement base: If impervious surfaces are not expanded, Minimum Requirements No. 1 — No. 5 apply when the thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met. Where appropriate, project proponents are encouraged to look for opportunities to use permeable and porous pavements. b. Extending the pavement edge without increasing the size of the road prism or paving graveled shoulders: these are considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements that are triggered when the thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met. c. Resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, asphalt, or concrete; or upgrading from gravel to asphalt or concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous surface treatment ("chip seal") to asphalt or concrete: these are considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements that are triggered when the thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met. 18.30.050 Administration. A. Application, Submittals, and Review. 1. The Director shall review all plans and all other submittals required by ECDC 18.30.050.A.3 for compliance with this chapter when: a. An application for a City permit is required under all other chapters of ECDC Title 18 or 19, or b. A subdivision application is submitted per ECDC 20.75.040. 2. In all other situations when actions under ECDC 18.30.030 apply to a project site, review shall be under a Stormwater permit. 3. All stormwater review submittals shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other applicable City code, a Stormwater Site Plan as described in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (see ECDC 18.30.060) and any other information required by the Director. B. Inspections. 1. The Director shall inspect projects at various stages of the work to determine if they comply with the requirements of this chapter, and enforcement actions shall be taken as necessary. These inspections will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Prior to site clearing and construction to assess site erosion potential, and b. During construction to verify proper installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment controls and other approved plan components, and Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 138 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 10/23 c. All permanent stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities and catch basins in new residential developments every six months until 90 percent of the lots are constructed (or when construction is stopped and the site is fully stabilized) to identify maintenance needs and enforce compliance with maintenance standards as needed, and d. Upon completion of construction and prior to final approval to ensure proper installation of permanent stormwater control facilities and verify that a maintenance plan is completed and responsibility for maintenance is assigned for stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities, and e. Post -Construction inspections per ECDC 18.30.090. 2. When reasonably required by the Director to accomplish the purpose of this chapter or to comply with local, state or federal law or regulation on stormwater, special inspection or testing shall be performed by the applicant. C. Fees. Application, review and inspection fees as set in ECDC Chapter 15.00 shall be paid. 18.30.060 Requirements. A. Documents. The sources of the stormwater management requirements for the City are from the following documents: 1. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, Appendix 1, modification date January 16, 2015 2. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) 3. The Edmonds Stormwater Addendum In the event of conflicts between the various provisions, the more stringent provision shall apply. B. Illicit Discharges and Connections. Non-stormwater illicit discharges, including spills, into the MS4, groundwaters, or a water body from any developed or undeveloped lands are prohibited per ECDC Chapter 7.200. C. Thresholds and Applicability The thresholds outlined in this section are only applicable to ECDC 18.30.060.C. See also the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for supplemental information on thresholds. a. All development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 2. b. Category 1 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. Category 1 includes projects that: i. Result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or ii. Have land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater. c. Category 2 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. Category 2 includes projects that: i. Result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or ii. Convert 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or iii. Convert 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture. 2. Additional Requirements for road -related projects. For road -related projects, runoff from the new hard surfaces (including pavement, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) and the converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more. In addition, if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within the project limits, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements. The project limits shall be defined by the length of the project and the width of the right-of-way. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 139 4.5.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 11/23 New Connections to the City's MS4 when the proposed connection does not involve activity that meets the definition of development. Sites that are not currently connected to the City's MS4 but that wish to connect directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 may be allowed on a case -by -case basis, subject to City approval. For sites that propose to drain greater than or equal to 2,000 square feet of hard surface area to the City's MS4, minimum requirements and BMPs associated with stormwater flow control and/or water quality treatment (such as those outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D [1] through [9]) may be required if the connection poses any risk to downstream systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water quality degradation, or other related impacts. D. Minimum Technical Requirements. This section describes the minimum technical requirements for stormwater management at development sites. 1. Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans The City shall require a Stormwater Site Plan from all projects meeting the thresholds in ECDC 18.30.060.C. Stormwater Site Plans shall use site -appropriate development principles to retain native vegetation and minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. 2. Minimum Requirement No. 2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) a. Thresholds: i. All development projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of sediment and other pollutants into receiving waters. Compliance with this minimum requirement can be achieved for an individual site if the site is covered under Ecology's General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and fully implementing the requirements of that permit. ii. A Construction SWPPP is required for all projects which a) result in 2,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surface area, b) where a structure with an exterior hard surface area of at least 2,000 square feet is being demolished, c) which disturb 7,000 square feet or more of land, or d) when the site falls within the Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, Landslide Hazard Area or steep slope critical area. Projects that do not meet any of the above criteria are not required to prepare a Construction SWPPP, but must consider all of the elements listed below for Construction SWPPPs and develop controls for all Construction SWPPP elements that pertain to the project site. b. General Requirements: The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. Each of the thirteen elements referenced below must be considered and included in the SWPPP unless site conditions render the element unnecessary and the exemption from that element is clearly justified in the narrative of the SWPPP. ii. Clearing and grading activities for developments shall be permitted only if conducted pursuant to an approved site development plan (e.g., building permit, subdivision approval) that establishes permitted areas of clearing, grading, cutting, and filling. These permitted clearing and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve critical or sensitive areas, buffers, native growth protection easements, or tree retention areas as required by the City, shall be delineated on the site plans and the development site. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 140 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 12/23 iii. The SWPPP shall be implemented beginning with initial land disturbance and until final stabilization. Sediment and Erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained in Chapter 4 of Volume II of the SWMMWW. c. Seasonal Work Limitations: From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities may only be authorized by the City if it can be demonstrated that silt -laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following: Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and ii. Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and iii. Proposed erosion and sediment control measures, in accordance with ECDC 18.30.060.D.2.d below. Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the City may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations, except for sites lying in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 19.10.020.F: Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs, ii. Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil, and iii. Activities where there is one hundred percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. d. Construction SWPPP Elements Construction SWPPP elements are required in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 of Volume I of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum 3. Minimum Requirement No. 3 — Source Control of Pollution All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs must be required for all projects approved by the City. Source control BMPs must be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume IV of the SWMMWW. All single family residential projects shall, at a minimum, incorporate required BMPs from SWMMWW Volume IV, S411 — BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management. 4. Minimum Requirement No. 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down gradient properties. The discharge must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate outfall location (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system). All outfalls require energy dissipation. To demonstrate compliance with this core requirement, all projects shall submit an off -site qualitative analysis. If an existing problem (or potential future problem after development) is identified, mitigation will be required to prevent worsening of that problem. A quantitative analysis may be required for any project deemed to need additional information or where the project proponent or the City determines that a quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system. See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on complying with this requirement. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 141 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 5. Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management a. Applicability: Page 13/23 On -site Stormwater Management BMPs are required in accordance with the following project thresholds, standards, and lists to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on -site to the extent feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. b. Project Thresholds: There are five project scenarios outlined below that determine the applicability of Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management. The first four scenarios apply to projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4. The fifth scenario applies to project discharges that do not enter the City's MS4. Note that more than one of the five scenarios may apply to a given project: Retrofit. Projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain existing hard surfaces on the parcel or common plan of development that do not drain to an approved Stormwater management facility are required to provide On -site Stormwater Management BMPs to manage a portion of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after project completion. BMPs from List No.I (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d) shall be applied to a minimum of 25 percent of those existing unmanaged surfaces, but to no more than the area equal to the proposed new plus replaced hard surfaces. Only for those existing unmanaged hard surfaces that remain after project completion, applicants are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility for these existing surfaces (as is required under ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b [ii] and [iii] below). However, if it is determined that the minimum 25 percent requirement cannot be met due to BMP infeasibility, documentation of BMP infeasibility is required. In addition, when runoff from exiting unmanaged hard surfaces is mixed with runoff from new plus replaced hard surfaces, those BMPs must be selected and designed in accordance with the requirements for management of new plus replaced hard surfaces (per sections [ii] and [iii] below). See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. ii. Category 1. Category 1 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5 (per ECDC 18.30.060.C) shall either: a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.l for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d); or b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW. iii. Category2. Category 2 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9 (per ECDC 18.30.060.C) shall either: a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.2 for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.e); or b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 142 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 14/23 iv. Direct Discharge Requirement. Projects that discharge directly to Puget Sound through the City's MS4 (in accordance with the restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound presented in Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW) do not have to achieve the LID Performance Standard, nor consider bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavement, or full dispersion, but must meet the following: a. Projects must implement BMP T5.13 (Post -Construction Soil Quality & Depth); BMPs T5.I OA Downspout Full Infiltration Systems, T5.1 OB Downspout Dispersion Systems, or T5.1 OB Perforated Stub -out Connections; and BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion or T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion; if feasible for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility. b. Edmonds Way specific requirements. After applying the requirements in item (a) above, for all remaining project site runoff (e.g., from unmanaged surfaces, or from overflow from on -site BMPs), the post -development 10-, and 100-year recurrence interval peak flows shall not exceed, 0.25 and 0.45 cubic feet per second per acre of impervious surface area, respectively. See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details. V. Projects that do not drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 are required to implement one of the following: a. Project sites may discharge to the downstream private property (e.g., projects located above BNSF property) with approval from the downstream property owner(s). b. Project sites may discharge runoff to an on -site system. For sites located within earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers, a geotechnical design, analysis, and report by a geotechnical engineer is required for the on -site system. On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.I in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d shall be evaluated for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. Projects are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility. The project applicant may be subject to an extra permit processing fee for City review of the geotechnical analysis. Projects are required to comply with all other applicable City requirements, such as ECDC 19.10 (earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas). ii. For sites located outside earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their buffers, ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.ii and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.iii shall be followed to evaluate site appropriate BMP's. Subject to prior approval by the City, project sites may pump on -site runoff to the City's MS4. A quantitative downstream analysis in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 4 and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum will be required. If the City's MS4 does not have adequate capacity to receive the applicant's pumped flows, the applicant is required to install an on -site detention system to store runoff and pump it to the MS4 at an approved rate. c. LID Performance Standard For projects that elect to meet the LID Performance Standard to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii) and (iii), Stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 8 percent of the 2-year peak flow to 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow from the project site. Refer to the Standard Flow Control Requirement section in Minimum Requirement No. 7 for information about the assignment of the pre -developed condition. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 143 4.5.b Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 15/23 Project sites that must also meet Minimum Requirement No. 7 shall match flow durations between 8 percent of the 2-year flow through the full 50-year flow. d. List No.I for Category 1 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. For projects that elect to use List No. 1 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii), for each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for each BMP in the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. Lawn and landscaped areas: Roofs: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW, or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5. I OA in Section 3.1.1 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. ii. Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter 5 of Volume V, or Bioretention in accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it. iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1 OB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The City may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial. Other Hard Surfaces: Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW ii. Permeable Pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW, or Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter 5 of Volume V, or Bioretention in accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it. iii. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. iv. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The City may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial. e. List No.2 for Category 2 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 144 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 16/23 For projects that elect to use List No. 2 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (iii), for each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for each BMP in the SWMMWW; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. Lawn and landscaped areas: Roofs: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW, or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5. I OA in Section 3.1.1 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. ii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total surface area draining to it. iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1OB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial. Other Hard Surfaces: Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW ii. Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. iii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total surface area draining to it. iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 145 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 6. Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment Page 17/23 a. Project Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider those hard and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. The following require construction of stormwater treatment facilities: Projects in which the total of pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS) is 5,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area of the project, or ii. Projects in which the total of pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) — not including permeable pavements — is 0.75 acres or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which there will be a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site. b. Treatment -Type Thresholds and Facility Sizing: Treatment -Type Thresholds in accordance with Step 2 (Oil Control), Step 4 (Phosphorus Treatment), Step 5 (Enhanced Treatment), and Step 6 (Basic Treatment) of Chapter 2, Section 2.1, Volume V of the SWMMWW. Phosphorus treatment shall be required for projects draining to Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger. ii. Treatment Facility Sizing, including Water Quality Design Storm Volume, Water Quality Design Flow Rate, and Downstream Facilities, of Chapter 2, Section 2.5.6, Volume I of the SWMMWW. c. Treatment Facility Selection, Design, and Maintenance Stormwater treatment facilities shall be: i. Selected in accordance with the process identified in Chapter 4 of Volume I, and Chapter 2 of Volume V of the SWMMWW, ii. Designed in accordance with the design criteria in Volume V of the SWMMWW, and iii. Maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedule in Volume V of the SWMMWW. d. Additional Requirements The discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution -generating surfaces to ground water will not be authorized by the City. All associated runoff must be treated using On -site Stormwater Management BMPs designed to provide the required level of treatment in accordance with Chapter 5, Volume V and Chapter 7, Volume V of the SWMMWW; or by infiltration through soils meeting the soil suitability criteria in Chapter 3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control a. Applicability: Flow control is required on projects meeting the thresholds summarized below to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff from hard surfaces and land cover conversions. Flow control in accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 7 is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound (other minimum requirements may still apply). See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv and Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for additional restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound. If the discharge drains to a stream that leads to a wetland, or to a wetland that has an outflow to a stream, both this minimum requirement (Minimum Requirement No. 7) and Minimum Requirement No. 8 apply. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 146 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 18/23 b. Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider only those impervious, hard, and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. The following circumstances require achievement of the standard flow control requirement for western Washington: Projects in which the total of effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area, or ii. Projects that convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscape, or convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site, or iii. Projects that through a combination of hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas cause a 0.10 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase or greater in the 100-year flow frequency from a threshold discharge area as estimated using the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other approved model and one -hour time steps (or a 0.15 cfs increase or greater using 15-minute time steps). Standard Flow Control Requirement (applies to discharges directly or indirectly to the City's MS4, except for projects that meet the direct discharge requirements outlined in "a" above): Stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. The pre -developed condition to be matched shall be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is available that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement (modeled as "pasture" in the Western Washington Hydrology Model). This standard requirement is waived for sites that will reliably infiltrate all the runoff from hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. d. Additional Requirement: Flow Control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume III of the SWMMWW or an approved equivalent. 8. Minimum Requirement No. 8 — Wetlands Protection a. Applicability: The requirements below apply only to projects whose stormwater discharges into a wetland, either directly or indirectly through a conveyance system. b. Thresholds: The thresholds identified in Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment, and Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control shall also be applied to determine the applicability of this requirement to discharges to wetlands. c. Standard Requirement: Projects shall comply with Guide Sheets No. 1 through No. 3 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition to determine the existing hydrologic conditions unless directed otherwise by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction. d. Additional Requirements: Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a natural vegetated buffer, except for: i. Necessary conveyance systems as approved by the City; or ii. As allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification or treatment in accordance with Guide Sheet 2 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW. An adopted and implemented basin plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of Appendix 1 of the Phase II NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 147 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 9. Minimum Requirement No. 9 — Operation and Maintenance Page 19/23 An operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provisions in Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW is required for proposed Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/facilities. The party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified in the operation and maintenance manual. For private facilities approved by the City, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site, and shall be transferred with the property to the new owner. For public facilities, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained in the appropriate department. A log of maintenance activity that indicates what actions were taken shall be kept and be available for inspection. 18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeals. A. Exceptions. 1. The Director may approve a request for an exception to the minimum requirements of this chapter following legal public notice of an application for an exception and of the Director's decision on the application. All legal public notice related to this request for an exception shall be in the manner prescribed in ECDC 20.03.002 and the applicant shall pay all costs to publish the legal public notices required by this provision. The Director shall provide and keep written findings of fact of the decision. 2. The approval of the exception shall only be granted when the applicant demonstrates that the requirement would cause a severe and unexpected economic hardship. To determine whether the requirement imposes a severe and unexpected economic hardship on the project applicant, the applicant must document for City review and approval, all of the following, at a minimum: a. The current, pre -project use of the site; and b. How application of the requirement(s) for which an exception is being requested restricts the proposed use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of this chapter; and c. The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted; and d. The possible uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of this chapter; and e. A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the requirements versus the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to adoption of the requirements of this chapter; and f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to apply the requirements of this chapter. 3. Any exception must meet the following criteria: a. The exception will not increase risk to the public health and welfare, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state; and b. The exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the minimum requirements. 4. An exception to the requirements shall only be granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the economic hardship as determined by the Director, to alleviate the harm or threat of harm to the degree that compliance with the requirement becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency work that the Director determines is warranted. 5. The Director may require an applicant to provide additional information at the applicant's expense, including (but not limited to) an engineer's report or analysis. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 148 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 20/23 6. When an exception is granted, the Director may impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate harm or the threat of harm that may be caused by granting the exception, or that would have been prevented if the exception had not been granted. B. Adjustments. 1. The Director may approve a request for adjustments to the requirements of this chapter when the Director finds that: a. The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection; and b. The objectives of safety, function, environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met, based on sound engineering practices. During construction, the Director may require, or the applicant may request, that the construction of drainage control facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical conditions are discovered on the site that are inconsistent with the assumptions on which the approval was based, including (but not limited to) unexpected soil or water conditions, weather -generated problems, or changes in the design of the improved areas; and A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall be submitted to the Director for review and approval prior to implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide facts substantiating the requirements of subsection (C)(1) of this section, and if made during construction, the factors in subsection (C)(2) of this section. Any such modifications made during the construction of drainage control facilities shall be included with the final approved drainage control plan. C. Appeal. 1. The Director's decision on an application for an exception or adjustment may appeal to the hearing examiner in accordance with a Type II appeal process in ECDC Chapter 20.06. 2. The applicant shall carry the burden of proof. 3. The decision of the hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.080 Access and Covenants. A. Access. Proper ingress and egress shall be provided to the City to inspect or perform any duty imposed upon the City by this Title. The City shall notify the responsible party in writing of a failure to provide access. If the responsible parry fails to respond within seven days from the receipt of notification, the City may order the work required completed or otherwise address the cause of improper access. The obligation for the payment of all cost that may be incurred or expended by the City in causing such work to be done shall be imposed on the person holding title to the subject property B. Covenants. Maintenance covenants shall be required for each site/lot that will be maintained by a private entity such as an individual, corporation, or homeowner's association. The maintenance covenant shall address or append requirements and responsibilities for long-term management and maintenance the applicable BMP(s). Maintenance covenants shall be as specified in City Engineering Division documents or approved by the Director, and recorded with Snohomish County and on all proper deeds [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010]. 18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities. Proper construction inspection and maintenance of stormwater facilities is essential for the protection of the City's MS4 and the environment. A. Stormwater Maintenance and Inspection Standards. Stormwater facilities shall be inspected and maintained per the requirements of Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW. For systems which do not have a maintenance standard, the owner shall develop a standard based on guidelines from the manufacturer, designer, or a registered professional Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 149 4.5.b Edmonds Page 21/23 Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT engineer and submit the standards to the Director for approval. The purpose of the maintenance standard is to determine if maintenance is required. The maintenance standard is not a measure of the facility's required condition at all times between inspections. Exceeding the maintenance standard between inspections is not a violation of this chapter. B. Ownership. Stormwater facilities are either privately or publicly owned and maintained. All stormwater facilities that serve private property are private, unless an agreement between the property owner and the City states otherwise. Stormwater facilities that are privately owned by a homeowner's association or similar organization also are private. The City may offer an incentive program to owners to support the proper maintenance of private storm drainage facilities. C. Public Stormwater Facilities. The City shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing public stormwater facilities as funded through the Stormwater Utility. D. Maintenance and Inspection of Permanent Facilities. All privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls shall be maintained by the owner, or the homeowner or owner association ("owner") if one is established as part of a residential or commercial development. All private storm drainage facilities shall be regularly inspected to ensure proper operation and shall monitor the facility or control as required or as set forth in the SWMMWW. The Owner shall maintain records of inspection and maintenance, disposal receipts, and monitoring results. The records shall catalog the action taken, the person who took it, the date said action was taken, how it was done, and any problems encountered or follow-up actions required. The records shall be made available to the City upon request. The Owner shall maintain a copy of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual (if required) on site, and shall make reference to such document in real property records filed with Snohomish County, so others who acquire real property served by the privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls are notified of their obligation to maintain such facilities or controls. E. City Inspection of private stormwater facilities. The City shall have the authority to periodically inspect private stormwater facilities, including low impact development stormwater facilities, for compliance with this chapter. F. Right of Entry. An authorized representative of the City may enter private property at all reasonable times to conduct inspections, tests or to carry out other duties imposed by the a state or Federal program provided that the City makes a good faith effort to notify the property owner or person responsible for the premises prior to entering and presents proper credentials to that person. If entry is refused or cannot be obtained, the Director shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including but not limited to, obtaining an administrative warrant for entry. G. Right of Entry for Illicit Discharge. In the event of an illicit discharge from a privately -owned stormwater facility caused by improper maintenance or operation or other circumstance, the provisions of ECC 7.200 shall apply. H. Maintenance Responsibilities. Upon written notice by the City, a private stormwater facility shall be promptly repaired and/or brought up to applicable standards by the property owner or the person responsible for said facility. If a private stormwater facility serves multiple lots and the responsibility for maintenance has not been specified on a recorded subdivision plat, short plat, or other legal document, maintenance, operation and repair responsibility shall rest with the homeowners' association, if one exists, or otherwise with the properties served by the facility, or finally, with the owners of the property on which the facilities are located. I. Disposal of Waste from Maintenance Activities. Disposal of waste from maintenance activities shall be conducted in accordance with the minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, Chapter 173-304 WAC, guidelines for disposal of waste materials from storm water maintenance activities, and where appropriate, the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. 18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures. A. General enforcement action shall be in accordance with this chapter whenever a person has violated any provision of this chapter. The choice of enforcement action is at the discretion of the City. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 150 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 22/23 B. Civil Penalties Adopted. ECDC Chapter 20.110 enforcement procedures are herein adopted in full, as modified in this chapter, with the proviso that repeat offenders or violations deemed an immediate public hazard shall be subject to compliance and appeal timelines as deemed appropriate by the Director based on the specific nature of the violation. C. Maintenance Orders. The Director shall have the authority to issue to an owner or person an order to maintain or repair a component of a stormwater facility or BMP to bring it into compliance with this chapter, the SWMMWW, the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum, and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The order shall include: 1. A description of the specific nature, extent and time of the violation and the damage or potential damage that reasonably might occur; 2. A notice that the violation or the potential violation cease and desist and, in appropriate cases, the specific corrective actions to be taken; and 3. A reasonable time to comply, depending on the circumstances. D. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter, who fails to conform to an approval or order issued, who undertakes development without first obtaining approval, or who fails to comply with a stop work order issued under these regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty levied in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110; provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a notice of violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040.13. 1. Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110; provided, however, that in addition to the penalties set forth in that chapter, the hearing examiner is authorized to levy a penalty of up to twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per occurrence based upon an assessment of the following factors. Where such factors are present, the hearing examiner is authorized to levy such penalty after taking into consideration the full impact of the violation and any mitigating circumstances (see subsection (2) below): a. The violation created a risk to public health and the significance of the risk. b. The violation damaged the environment and the significance of the damage. c. The violation caused damage to public and private property and the significance of such damage. d. A history of similar violations, if any. e. The economic benefit of the violations, if any, to the person or entity responsible for the violations. 2. Mitigating circumstances which may be used to offset or reduce the time resulting from the application of the preceding factors are limited to: a. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and no history of similar violations. b. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and a history of one or two similar violations (lesser reduction). c. A "voluntary compliance agreement" is defined as a legally binding agreement entered into between the City and the alleged violators, by which the violator(s) acknowledge the existence of the violation, waive all appeal rights, and agree to and do pay a fine in an amount stipulated to between the violator and the City. 3. If the violation(s) are not corrected as ordered, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within that time period and no appeal is filed, the penalty for the next 15-day period shall be 150 percent of the initial penalties, and the penalties for the next 15-day period shall be 200 percent of the initial penalties. The intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the maximum penalties stated as an additional means to achieve timely compliance. Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 151 Edmonds Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Page 23/23 Unless otherwise provided in a voluntary compliance agreement, civil penalties shall be paid within 30 days of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed under this chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to correct the violation or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to this chapter. The City may suspend immediate payment of civil penalties if the person responsible for a code violation has entered into a voluntary compliance agreement. Penalties shall begin to accrue again pursuant to the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied, canceled or not pursued, if corrective action identified in the voluntary compliance agreement is not completed as specified, or if the property is allowed to return to a condition similar to that condition which gave rise to the voluntary compliance agreement; provided, however, that additional penalties shall not be imposed until additional notice and opportunity for hearing have been provided in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110. Civil penalties assessed create joint and several personal obligations in all persons responsible for a code violation. E. The determination of the hearing examiner issued in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110 shall be appealable to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW. F. The remedies provided for in this section shall not be exclusive. The City may also use other civil and administrative remedies available to it, including but not limited to the remedies provided in ECDC Title 19 and the state building and dangerous buildings codes I Version: August 23, 2016 Packet Pg. 152 4.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with MIG for the ADA Transition Plan Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On September 27, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the October 4th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement. Narrative As a recipient of federal funds, the City is required to follow federal requirements related to the Americans with Disabilities Act. One of the requirements is to have a Transition Plan that, at a minimum, includes the following items: Identification of the physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit accessibility to its programs or activities by individuals with disabilities, including those within the public right of way. A description of the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible. A schedule for each facility and/or obstacle to be retrofitted. Identification of the official responsible for implementation of the plan. The City completed a Transition Plan in the 1990's. The proposed professional services will update the Plan to meet current requirements. The City has approximately 72 miles of public sidewalks and 23 traffic signals. Many of the existing pedestrian curb ramps do not comply with ADA requirements and some intersections have sidewalk with no curb ramp at all. Five consultants submitted Statement of Qualifications (SOQ's) for this project. MIG and Perteet were invited to an interview, following a review of the SOQ's by the Selection Committee. MIG was the final selection, based on their qualifications and experience in preparing similar Plans. Staff and the consultant have agreed on a scope of services and fee proposal for $96,121. The contract consists of the evaluation of the City right-of-way (sidewalk, curb ramps, and traffic signals) for ADA compliance, public outreach, and completion of the plan. A $4,500 management reserve is included, for changes that may be required during the development of the Plan. The project is scheduled to start in October 2016 and be completed by spring 2017. This project is in the 2016 Budget and will be funded by REET funding. Packet Pg. 153 4.6 Attachments: MIG Agreement Packet Pg. 154 4.6.a s CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov l890 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and MIG, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide consulting services with respect to the ADA Transition Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $96,121. B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 1 Packet Pg. 155 4.6.a 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the term of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Packet Pg. 156 4.6.a Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the City. The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City's prior written consent. Packet Pg. 157 4.6.a 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and Packet Pg. 158 licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: MIG, Inc. 815 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204-3022 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. 19. Critical areas. To the extent that the Scope of Work under this Agreement requires the Consultant to perform work in an environmentally critical area, the Consultant shall comply with any and all applicable provisions of ECDC 23.40 ("Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions"). If such work falls within the definition of "minor site investigative work" authorized under ECDC 23.40.220(C)(9), the Consultant shall consult with the City regarding appropriate procedures to follow, and obtain separate written permission from the City to proceed before undertaking this work. DATED THIS DAY OF , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS MIG, INC. By By David O. Earling, Mayor Its ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Packet Pg. 159 4.6.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 160 4.6.a EXHIBIT A ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way Scope of Work The following scope of work addresses the requirements for developing an ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way. TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION Task 1.1: Project Initiation — City Meeting #1 Following the execution of a contract, MIG will meet with the City Project Manager and core project staff to refine the proposed tasks and schedule, including options and recommendations for staff and community involvement during the preparation of the ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way. MIG will identify all necessary documents, GIS data, and materials to support the evaluation process and transition plan development. The final report format and proposed content will be reviewed and confirmed (RFQ Task 10). MIG: MIG project manager and civil engineer, and Transpo Group will attend the meeting in person. MIG principal will participate via conference call. City Staff: City Project Manager and key staff members will attend a 1-1/2 to 2-hour meeting with MIG. Task 1.2: Public Information Portal MIG recommends that the City designate a page on the City's website to ADA Title II topics and the ADA Transition Plan. The webpage will serve as an information portal for the Transition Plan process, meeting summaries, the project schedule, and more generally the City's ADA Title II Program. The public review draft of the plan will be posted on the page for public comment before the final presentation to Council. At the end of the project, the website will serve as the City's public information portal for the identification of the ADA Coordinator, the ADA grievance procedure, and requests for accommodations. MIG: MIG will provide city staff with planning project announcements and updates for the web page throughout the duration of the project. City Staff City staff will designate a page on the City's website dedicated to the Transition Plan and will update information as needed. TASK 2: EVALUATION OF THE RIGHT- OF-WAY (ROW) Task 2.1: Review City ROW Policies and Design Standards MIG will review existing policy documents related to pedestrian facilities to identify issues that should be addressed to ensure that policies are non- discriminatory to people with disabilities. Documents to be reviewed will include the City's design standards and other written City policy documents relating to the pedestrian environment such as the City's practices for construction, maintenance management practices for ensuring pedestrian accessibility, and project/program notifications. Based on the review MIG will make recommendations to modifications of the design standards and policies. This task is a required element of an ADA Transition Plan. Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way— 9.20.2016 I PAGE 1 Packet Pg. 161 4.6.a MIG: Standards - MIG will provide the City of Edmonds with a redlined set of their standard plans. Where a standard plan is substantially non -compliant and the detail requires replacement in its entirety, MIG will note to replace the standard plan instead of redlining all of the non -compliant items. Policies — MIG will review the planning and engineering policy documents regarding the right- of-way and provide recommendations for changes to meet ADA requirements. City Staff: Staff will provide MIG with direction on the various policy documents for review. Task 2.2: Conduct ROW Evaluation Strategy Session — City Meeting #2 MIG will conduct a ROW evaluation strategy session with City staff responsible for sidewalks, curb ramps and pedestrian signals. The strategy session will identify the areas of highest priority for pedestrian improvement based on the Federal ADA criteria and discuss specific prioritization criteria for the City of Edmonds. We will identify the areas of highest priority for pedestrian improvement which will inform the timeframe for the removal of barriers. At this meeting we will also discuss the process for evaluating the right-of-way which will inform Task 2.4. Documents to be reviewed prior to the workshop will include capital improvement plans, maintenance plans and any planning documents relating to future projects (RFQ Task 10). MIG: MIG principal, project manager and civil engineer will attend the meeting in person. MIG will facilitate the meeting. After the meeting MIG will provide a meeting summary. This meeting will be held on the same day as Task 2.3. City Staff.' City Project Manager and key staff members will attend a 1-1/2 to 2-hour meeting with MIG. Task 2.3: Stakeholder Advisory Committee — Public Meeting #1 MIG will work with the City's Project Manager to identify a preliminary Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) to provide review and perspective for the project in order to meet the requirements of a transition plan. A major task of the SAC is to spread the word about the Transition Plan to members and partners of the disabilities community, to provide insights during the barrier prioritization process, and to review the draft Transition Plan. The MIG team will facilitate two stakeholder meetings through the planning process. During the first meeting, the MIG team will present the City's work plan for the Transition Plan. MIG: MIG principal, project manager and civil engineer will attend the meeting in person. MIG will facilitate the meeting and collect information from the stakeholder committee for inclusion in the barrier removal priorities. MIG will prepare a meeting summary after the meeting that will be ready for posting on the City's website. City Staff.The City will provide any materials or meeting accommodations requested by the attendees, including ASL interpreters, alternative format documents or other program modifications. The City will provide the venue for meetings. Task 2.4: Develop Procedures for ROW Evaluation In coordination with City staff, MIG will prepare and customize the procedures needed to conduct the evaluation of the City's curb ramps, sidewalks including clearance hazards, rail crossings, and signalized intersections along the City's pedestrian PAGE-2 Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way — 9.21.2016 Packet Pg. 162 4.6.a access routes. The ROW evaluation process will be scaled to be the most efficient with available City resources for completing the project. MIG: The MIG Team will meet with City staff to review the draft procedures. City Staff. The City will review and provide feedback on evaluation procedures. Task 2.5: Conduct Facility Evaluations MIG will conduct evaluations of curb ramps, sidewalks, and pedestrian signals. Barrier data will be collected using tablets and stored in a real-time cloud database for immediate review. The data dictionary structure, which will include sidewalk, curb ramps, and pedestrian signals, will be updated in coordination with FHWA and WSDOT. Where possible, existing data like sidewalk shapefiles will be built upon to increase the speed of data collection. MIG: The results of the evaluation will be included in a summary report of the identified barriers which will identify whether curb ramps, pedestrian signals and clearances meet ADA standards (RFQ Tasks 1, 2, 5 and 6). Barrier data will be mapped and summarized to easily show where and how many barriers exist within the public right-of-way. City Staff. The City will review the results of the evaluations. Task 2.6: Develop Curb Ramp Inventory and Matrix MIG will develop a list of all existing curb ramps and identify whether or not they meet ADA standards as well as necessary upgrade(s) to make them ADA compliant. MIG will also identify curb ramps that cannot be made ADA compliant without curb ramp replacement based on site specific conditions (RFQ Tasks 3 and 4). a. c MIG: Based on the data collection process established in Task 2.4, MIG will identify the types c of upgrades needed for the inventory of curb ramps, and will apply the City's MEF information o to the inventory of curb ramps. Q City Staff.The City will review the inventory and matrix and provide comments. E Task 2.7: Barrier Removal Actions & Priorities Each identified barrier will have a recommended barrier removal action and priority with an associated cost estimate (RFQ Tasks 7 and 8). MIG will use the field evaluation data to prepare a spreadsheet listing recommended barrier mitigation options for the specific ADA deficiencies and apply the prioritization criteria discussed in Task 2.2. The spreadsheet will contain preliminary priorities, barrier removal actions and cost estimates for barrier mitigation including hard and soft costs. MIG: MIG will provide the recommendations and priorities for all barriers identified during Task 2.5. City Staff The City will review the spreadsheet of recommendations and priorities. Task 2.8: Transition Plan Phasing Schedule — City Meeting #3 MIG will facilitate a meeting with City staff to review the barrier removal actions and priorities provided in Task 2.6. The meetings will assist City staff to determine appropriate responses to mitigating barriers within the ROW and to develop a Transition Plan schedule for the removal of barriers (RFQ Tasks 8 and 10). It is not intended Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way— 9.20.2016 I PAGE 3 Packet Pg. 163 4.6.a that the recommendations included in this Transition Plan will be absolute or unconditional. It is expected that shifting programs, funding, facility improvements, and other factors will influence the prioritization and scheduling of access improvements. MIG: MIG project manager and civil engineer, attend the meeting in person. MIG principal will participate via conference call. City Staff. City Project Manager and key staff members will attend a 1-1/2 to 2-hour meeting with MIG. Task 2.9: ADA Implementation Data Upon the completion of Task 2.7, MIG will provide the City with GIS readable data containing all the barrier information collected in the public right-of-way, including relevant codes and barrier priorities (RFQ Task 9). The implementation data has proven effective in monitoring and reporting the removal of ADA barriers over time. If desired, the consultant team will work with City staff to develop procedures to maintain up-to-date data. MIG: MIG will provide the City with the GIS containing the results of Task 2.5 through 2.8. The City (if desired) will also receive the evaluation tool for maintaining the City's inventory. TASK 3: PREPARE THE ADA TRANSITION PLAN Task 3.1: Prepare the Draft ADA Transition Plan Based on the policy and design review, the ROW evaluations and the prioritization and scheduling process, MIG will prepare a Draft of the ADA Transition Plan. MIG will work with City Staff to prepare the schedule of barrier removals based on the facility prioritization and cost estimate information. The Draft plan will include: ADA Transition Plan requirements and process including: o The methodology employed for Plan development o Prioritization and scheduling process o Estimated budget for barrier removal ■ Identification of the ADA Coordinator ■ ADA grievance procedure ■ Public outreach process for Plan development ■ Transition plan phasing schedule ■ Program accessibility guidelines, standards, and resources ■ Appendices MIG: MIG will provide the Draft Plan in PDF format. City Staff Review the Draft Plan and provide comments for development of the public review draft. Task 3.2: Review Draft Transition Plan — City Meeting #4 MIG will meet with City Staff to review the edits to the Draft Plan. After City edits are incorporated into the plan, MIG will submit a preliminary Public Review Draft of the Plan to the Stakeholder Advisory Committee identified in Task 2.3 for review and comment (RFQ Task 10). MIG: MIG principal and project manager will meet with City staff via conference call to discuss revisions to the Draft Transition Plan. MIG will revise the draft prior to submitting the plan to the Stakeholder Advisory Committee. PAGE-4 Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way — 9.21.2016 Packet Pg. 164 4.6.a City Staff Attend a conference call to review the plan. Task 3.3: Stakeholder Advisory Committee — Public Meeting #2 During the second Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting, the MIG team will present the Draft Transition Plan and receive comments and direction on the Plan. MIG will facilitate the meeting and collect information from the SAC for inclusion in the Transition Plan. MIG: MIG principal and project manager will attend the meeting in person. MIG will facilitate the meeting and collect information for inclusion in the Plan. MIG will prepare a meeting summary after the meeting that will be ready for posting on the City's website. City Staff: The City will provide any materials or meeting accommodations requested by the attendees, including ASL interpreters, alternative format documents or other program modifications. The City will provide the meeting venue. Task 3.4: Public Review Draft Transition Plan After City and SAC edits are incorporated into the plan, MIG will submit a Public Review Draft of the Plan for public distribution and comment on the City's website. MIG: MIG will provide a tagged PDF and Word document of the Plan for posting to the City's website. City Staff: The City will post the Public Review Draft to the website for comments. Task 3.5: Prepare the Final ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way After the receipt of the public comments, MIG will coordinate with City staff on additional edits to the Draft Plan and prepare the Final ADA Transition Plan. MIG: MIG will provide a final Word and PDF format of the plan for distribution. Task 3.6: On -going Management of Communication, Budget and Schedule MIG will maintain project files, invoicing, records of meetings, reports, and recommendations. MIG principal and Project Manager will be available and in communication with the City of Edmonds Project Manager and team throughout the project. The MIG Team will manage the project and schedule as well as provide quality assurance to deliver an exceptional product that meets the City's needs — on time and on budget. MIG: MIG project manager will communicate with the City at a minimum every two weeks. Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way— 9.20.2016 I PAGE 5 Packet Pg. 165 4.6.a Schedule The schedule on the following page anticipates this project being completed over a seven -month time period. Fee Proposal MIG's estimate of costs for the ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way is provided on the last page. As in all of our projects, we anticipate working closely with the City to revise and tailor the scope and budget to ensure that they reflect the City's needs, resources and goals. Fees for any additional services outside the negotiated scope of work will be calculated based on the hourly personnel rates per staff person plus any reimbursable expenses. The hourly rates are included in the attached fee spreadsheet. Sub - consultant Transpo Group's fee includes the following positions: • Data Collection/Principal $120 • Data Collection/Manager $80 • Data Collection/Field Technician $60 Reimbursable expenses will be billed at cost plus 5%. These include travel expenses; delivery charges and mailings; printing; supplies and phone. The mileage charge for personal autos will be the currently applicable mileage rate established by the Internal Revenue Service. PAGE-6 Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way — 9.21.2016 Packet Pg. 166 4.6.a Estimated -. EFProject Tasks ♦ PROJECT ♦ • 1.1: Project Initiation — City Meeting #1 (D 1.2: Public Information Portal ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ - 2.1: Review City ROW Policies and Design Standards 2.2: Conduct ROW Evaluation Strategy Session — City Meeting #2 2.3: Stakeholder Advisory Committee — Public Meeting #1 2.4: Develop Procedures for ROW Evaluation 2.5: Conduct Facility Evaluations 2.6: Develop Curb Ramp Inventory and Matrix 2.7: Barrier Removal Actions & Priorities 7 2.8: Transition Plan Phasing Schedule — City Meeting #3 2.9: ADA Implementation Data 3.1: Prepare the Draft ADA Transition Plan 3.2: Review Draft Transition Plan — City Meeting #4 3.3: Stakeholder Advisory Committee — Public Meeting #2 3.4: Public Review Draft Transition Plan 3.5: Prepare the Final ADA Transition Plan 3.6: On -going Management of Communication, Budget and Schedule. 2 CV G M LO LO r w c a� E 0 aD Q C9 c aD E t V r Q Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way— 9.20.2016 I PAGE 7 Packet Pg. 167 sv 0 X m rt ts? co City of Edmonds ADA EXHIBIT B Cost Categories Direct Labor Classification(s): Maximum Hourly Rate Task Project Hours 1.1� Initiation Amount■ Task ublic Information Portal Hours 1.2 Amoun77—Amount Task 2.1 Review City ROW Policies and d Design Standards Task Conduct ROW Strategy Meeting Hours 2.2 Evaluation Session — City #2 �� Amount ' Task 2.3 It Stakeholder Advisory Committee —Public Meeting #1 11 ours Amount 11� Task 2.4 �� Develop Procedures f ROW Evaluation 'ours Amount lo' 11f Task Conduct Evaluations Hours 2.5 Facility AmounAJMILHours Task Develop Inventory 2.6 Curb Ramp and Matrix AS. Amo.-Nmkffours Task 2.7 Barrier Removal Actions & Priorities Amount Task 2.8 Transition Plan Phasing Schedule — City Meeting #3 IOU Hours,lLAmount Project Associate 11 Project Associate I Project Assistant 11 Project Assistant I Direct Labor Fixed Fee 15%: Direct Costs Project Subtotal Administrative M!1!L-M JL Mk... $2,255 $9,83 MM $2,67JJMNh $3,33dMk1 U"NL $24,330 J& $2,570 $7,297 $2,487 Management Reserve PROJECT TOTAL W$3,419 26 $2,368 90 $10,326 20 $2,828 28 $3,521 24 $7,676 18 $26,653 21 $2,698 58 $7,662 20 $2,623 Attachment: MIG Agreement (1559 : MIG Agreement - ADA Transition Plan) City of Edmonds ADA (a) (b) (g) (h) (1) 0) (1) (i) (1) 0) 0) 0) (1) (i) 0) W (W) (X) Task 1 Task 3.1 Task 3.2 Task 3.3 Task 3.4 Task 3.5 Task3.60§ qq Grand Cost CategoriesTotal Maximum Hourly Rate - 1 i i i • i. 1 I- Review Draft Stakeholder Advisory i Draft i. 1. On -going Management (All tasks) 1.ta TransitiiTransition Transition Plan — City #4 Committee Meeting — Public #2 Communication, Budget Direct Labor ClassiricationLsL- Hours AmountMeeting iurs Amount HoursHours EngineeringPrincipal-in-Charge $ 88.46 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Tim Gilbert, ADA Principal -in -Charge $ 57.10 0 $0 4 $228 2 $114 8 $457 2 $114 1 $57 12 $685 49 $2,798 Vanessa Hostetter, Civil Engineer $ 42.10 0 $0 8 $337 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 $84 0 $0 129 $5,431 Heather Buczek, Project Manager $ 38.46 4 $154 20 $769 2 $77 8 $308 6 $231 4 $154 34 $1,308 160 $6,154 ADA Access Specialist $ 29.81 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Project Associate II $ 27.17 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12 $326 Project Associate I $ 25.24 0 1 $0 40 $1,010 2 1 $50 6 $151 12 $303 8 $202 6 $151 148 $3,736 Project Assistant II $ 25.00 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Project Assistant I $ 14.00 2 $28 8 $112 2 $28 2 $28 8 $112 4 $56 2 $28 46 $644 Direct Labor 6 $182 80 $2,456 8 $270 24 $944 28 $760 19 $553 54 $2,172 544 $19,088 Overhead & Fringe (ine G&A) 173.5%: $315 $4,261 $4681 $1,638 $1,318 $960 $3,769 0 $33,118 Fixed Fee 15%: $75 IL 1 $1,008 1 $111 1 $387 $312 1 $227 $891 0 $0 Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $600 $0 $0 0 S1,675 Subconsultant: Transpo Group $1,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $28,400 Direct Costs: $0 $600 ' $0 ' 1 $0 I ;25 $30,075 $0 1 i Administrative Mark-up 5% $65 SO $0 S30 $0 $0 i $1,504 Management Reserve 5% $93.60 S386.24 $42.40 S178.44 $119.49 $86.98 $342.87 1 $4,506 Attachment: MIG Agreement (1559 : MIG Agreement - ADA Transition Plan) 4.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater Management Code Update Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On September 27, 2016, staff presented this item to Council it was forwarded to the October 4th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Narrative The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in January 2015 to hire a consultant to provide consulting engineering services to Update the Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents. The City received statements of qualifications from four engineering firms and the selection committee chose Herrera Environmental Consultants to provide consulting engineering services to the Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents. On May 11, 2015 the City entered into a $97,932 contract with Herrera Environmental Consultants. The City proposes entering into a $123,236 Professional Services Supplemental Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants. The contract includes: developing LID standard details, developing checklists and educational handouts, Phase 2 staff training, and Phase 2 project management and contract administration. The supplemental portion of the contract is scheduled to be completed by mid-2017. Completion of the tasks in the 2015 Professional Services Agreement will be predicated upon finalizing the Stormwater Code Supplement. The total fee for the Professional Services Agreement is $221,168, including a management reserve of $11,000 for any unexpected tasks that may come up during the supplemental work. Attachments: Herrera Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 170 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 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Update the Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Herrera Environmental Consultants, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Update the Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents project, dated May 11, 2015; and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified to develop LID standard details, developing checklists and educational handouts, Phase 2 staff training and Phase 2 project management and contract administration; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of May 11, 2015 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 $97,932 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $123,236 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 $221,168 ($97,932 plus $123,236). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Packet Pg. 171 4.7.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 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS By: _ Title: SAStati\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5FB.Stm Code Update\Herrera.Supp Ldoc Packet Pg. 172 4.7.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: SAStati\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5FB.Stm Code Update\Herrera.Supp Ldoc Packet Pg. 173 EXHIBIT A SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK City of Edmonds Update Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents On May 11, 2015, the City of Edmonds (City) issued a contract (#6522) to Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) for updating the City's Stormwater Management Code (currently ECDC Chapter 18.30) and the 2010 Stormwater Code Supplement. The scope of work for this contract included the following tasks: ■ Task 1 — Background Information Review and Working Sessions ■ Task 2 — Technical Analysis, Options, and Opportunities ■ Task 3 — Develop a New Supplement/Addendum/Manual ■ Task 4 — Expand and Refine Stormwater Management Code ■ Task 5 — City Council and Public Outreach Support ■ Task 6 — Staff Training Resources ■ Task 7 — Project Management/Contract Administration On August 1, 2016, the City requested Herrera to prepare a supplemental scope of work under this contract to provide additional support and technical assistance during the City's code adoption process (designated Phase 2 of the project). This supplemental scope of work includes a discussion of the activities, assumptions, and deliverables associated with the following tasks: ■ Task 8 — Develop LID Standard Details ■ Task 9 — Develop Checklists and Educational Handouts ■ Task 10 — Phase 2 Staff Training Resource ■ Task 11 — Phase 2 Project Management/Contract Administration ■ Task 12 — Unanticipated Task Reserve CPD Solutions will work with Herrera staff on this project (referred to in this scope of work as the Herrera team). Task 8 — Develop LID Standard Details The Herrera team will develop a suite of standard construction details for low impact development (LID) BMPs to support projects on private parcels in the City. The details will meet Washington State Department of Ecology standards and be tailored for the City's needs. We will work with the City to develop a set of design details that result in constructible, functional, maintainable, and aesthetic facilities. Interagency workshops will be held with public works, design review, inspection, transportation, and maintenance staff to get early and on -going input on the details. September 21, 2016 1 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 174 4.7.a SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK The suite of LID standard details will include all of Ecology's "On -site Stormwater Management" BMPs. Details will include up to 44 detail sheets: Number Detail BMP Details Sheets • Material Sections — Pervious Concrete • Material Sections — Porous Asphalt Permeable • Material Sections — Permeable Pavers 8 Pavement • Subsurface Check Dams • Subsurface Outlets • Edge Treatments 3 sheets Bioretention • Bioretention Sections with Optional Underdrain and Rain (adjacent to multiple surface types — landscape, paved) Gardens • Rain Garden Sections (adjacent to multiple surface types — landscape, paved) • Inlet — Curb Cut • Inlet — Downspout Conveyance • Inlet — Vegetated Conveyance 12 • Outlet — Overflow Structures • Outlet — Vegetated Conveyance • Check Dams (2 sheets) • Planting Zones — Plan/Section • Edge Treatments • Outlet — Orifice Controls Bioretention • Rain Garden Plan/Section for Sidewalk Mitigation and Rain • Roadside Bioretention Planter with Parking (Step -out Gardens in the Zone) — Plan/Section (2 sheets) Right -of -Way • Roadside Planter without Parking— Plan/Section (2 9 sheets) • Roadside Curb bulb Planter — Plan/Section (2 sheets) • Planter Edge Treatments • Inlets — Trench Drain Curb Cut Dr ell • Dr ell Plan/Section 1 Infiltration . Infiltration Trench Plan/Section I Trench Downspout • Plan for Dispersion Trench/Splashblock Options (with Dispersion setbacks) 2 • Plan/Detail for dispersion trench Sheet Flow . Plan/Detail for flat to moderately sloping driveways I Dispersion Concentrated • Plan/Detail for steep driveways 1 Dispersion Perforated . Plan/Profile/Section 1 Stub -out September 21, 2016 2 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 175 4.7.a SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK Connection Post - Construction Soil Quality • Section I and Depth Vegetated . Section showing layers I Roof General • Utility Crossings (2 sheets) • Utility Conflicts (3 sheets) 6 • Cleanouts Assumptions ■ The City will provide the CAD files for the existing set of standard details (Attachment I of #E72B). ■ The drawings will be developed as 8 1/2 x I I sheets using the City's CAD standards. ■ Standard details will be developed based on existing CAD files including the City's standard details (Attachment I of #E72B), City of Seattle Stormwater Manual figures, City of Seattle RainWise details, City of Seattle standard plans, and San Francisco LID typical details. ■ Details will reference existing specifications (e.g., City of Edmonds, Ecology, WSDOT, Seattle, and regional permeable pavement specifications). ■ While the level of effort required will vary by detail, it is assumed that 14 of the 44 details will simply require conversion of existing details to City of Edmonds CAD standards (assuming 2 hours per detail on average). Revisions for the remaining 30 details assume: 0 2 hours of engineer time will be required to markup existing LID details for interagency input (on average). 0 5 hours of engineer time and 5 hours of CAD time will be required per detail (on average). ■ One 2-hour meeting will be held with City staff to kick-off work on this task and confirm selected details for development. ■ One 2-hour coordination meeting will be held with interagency staff to review existing standard drawings (with mark-ups) and discuss how best to tailor the drawings to suit the city's needs. ■ Four 2-hour coordination meeting will be held with interagency staff to address technical issue and/or review the draft LID BMP details. ■ For each meeting/workshop, up to 4 hours of engineer time is assumed to develop meeting minutes, document decisions, and provide other follow- up support. ■ Comments on the mark-ups of existing LID BMP details and draft LID BMP details will be compiled and reconciled by city staff. September 21, 2016 3 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 176 4.7.a SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK Deliverables ■ Mark-ups of existing LID BMP details for interagency input (PDF files) ■ Draft set of LID BMP details (PDF files) ■ Final set of LID BMP details (CAD and PDF files) Task 9 — Develop Checklists and Educational Handouts Based on the revised Stormwater Code (Task 4) and new Stormwater Code Addendum (Task 3), the Herrera team will prepare checklists or educational handouts on the following topics for the general public, private developers, and/or City plan review staff to help facilitate the City's code implementation process: ■ Submittal Requirements for Category 1 Projects ■ Submittal Requirements for Category 2 Projects ■ Submittal Requirements for Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans ■ Field and Design Procedures for Bioretention, Permeable Pavement, Rain Gardens, and Downspout Infiltration ■ Field and Design Procedures for Infiltration Basins and Trenches ■ Methods for Determining Infiltration Rates ■ Design/Review checklists for specific BMPs: o Soil Preservation and Amendment o Sheet Flow Dispersion o Concentrated Flow Dispersion o Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Boxes o Permeable Paving o Rain Gardens o Downspout Infiltration o Downspout Dispersion o Perforated Stub -out Connections In addition to these topics, the budget for this task includes resources for the development of checklists or educational handouts for up to five additional topics to be identified at a later date. Assumptions ■ One 2-hour meeting will be held with Edmonds staff to kick-off work on this task and confirm selected topics for the development of checklists or education handouts. ■ Up to two additional 2-hour meetings will be held with Edmonds staff to review and discuss draft checklists or education handouts. ■ Additional review and coordination will occur via phone and email ■ Checklists or educational handouts for each topic will be 1 to 6 pages in length. September 21, 2016 4 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 177 4.7.a SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK Deliverables ■ Draft set of checklists or educational handouts for up to twenty topics ■ Final set of checklists or educational handouts for up to twenty topics Task 10 — Phase 2 Staff Training Resources Building on previously developed project case studies (Task 6) and newly developed checklists and educational handouts (Task 9), the Herrera team will develop a series of internal and external trainings on the revised Stormwater Management Code and new Addendum. Herrera will then participate in up to four training sessions: ■ Overview of stormwater code (1 hour) — internal staff training covering how we got here and what's new ■ Applying the stormwater code to development projects (3 hours) — internal staff training focusing on roadway project requirements during first 30-45 minutes ■ Applying the stormwater code to development projects (3 hours) — internal staff training ■ Stormwater code and available resources/tools (1 hour) — external training/public meeting Assumptions ■ Up to two staff from the Herrera team will participate in the 3-hour training sessions with City staff and the external training/public meeting. ■ One staff member from the Herrera team will participate in the 1-hour stormwater code overview for City staff. ■ Up to two training sessions (Applying the Stormwater Code to Development Projects) will last up to three hours. ■ Up to two training sessions (Stormwater Code Overview) will last up to one hour. Deliverables ■ Draft and final PowerPoint slides for stormwater code overview training ■ Draft and final training exercise handouts based on the Task 6 case studies and PowerPoint slides for applying the stormwater code to development projects trainings ■ Draft and final PowerPoint slides for external training/public meeting Task 11— Phase 2 Project Management/Contract Administration Herrera will be responsible for ongoing management and contract administration of this project, including tracking and updating the project schedule, preparing invoices, and coordinating work efforts with the City's project manager. Herrera's project manager (John Lenth) will have phone and e-mail contact with the City's project manager on an as -needed basis. September 21, 2016 5 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 178 4.7.a SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK Deliverables ■ Monthly invoices and progress reports ■ Project schedule Task 12 — Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed) A reserve budget amount has been included in the fee estimate for work under this task, which may include additional unanticipated labor or expenses not specifically identified in the scope of work tasks defined above. Such work items will be undertaken only after separate written authorization from the City. Assumptions The reserve budget amount for this task is capped at $11,000. September 21, 2016 6 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 179 EXHIBIT B HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Cost Estimate for City of Edmonds Update Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents - Phase 2 Herrera Project No. 15-05994-001 Update Stormwater Management and Associated Documents - Phase 2 Task 8.0 Task 9.0 Task 10.0 Task 11.0 Task 12.0 TOTAL Number of Tasks: 5 Develop LID Standard Develop Checklist and Phase 2 Staff Training Project Management / Unanticipated Task Details Handouts Resources Contract Administration Reserve COST SUMMARY Labor $70,833 $19,760 $6,250 $6,180 $0 $103,023 Travel and per diem $136 $39 $78 $0 $0 $253 Other direct costs (ODCs) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subconsultants $0 $5,120 $3,840 $0 $0 $8,960 Analytical laboratory $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Unanticipated task reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 $11,000 GRAND TOTAL $70,969 $24,919 $10,168 $6,180 $11,000 $123,236 COST ITEMIZATION Labor (2016 rates) Personnel Rate/Hour Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost P7 Lenth, John Vice President $61.90 8 $495 4 $248 4 $248 24 $1,486 0 $0 40 $2,476 P5 Lancaster, Alice Engineer V $61.06 54 $3,297 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 54 $3,297 P4 Dugopolski, Rebecca Engineer IV $44.97 0 $0 48 $2,159 24 $1,079 0 $0 0 $0 72 $3,238 P3 Feller, Meghan Engineer III $39.56 248 $9,811 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 248 $9,811 P3 Prescott, Todd CAD Technician III $36.50 184 $6,716 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 184 $6,716 P3 Forester, Kathryn Landscape Architect III $35.00 16 $560 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 16 $560 P3 Sytsma, Anneliese Engineer III $32.21 0 $0 96 $3,092 16 $515 0 $0 0 $0 112 $3,608 F3 Saavedra, Robin Accounting Administrator III $28.00 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12 $336 0 $0 12 $336 3 Wadkins, Shannon Administrative Coordinator III $27.19 0 $0 12 $326 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12 $326 Subtotal Direct Labor 510 $20,879 160 $5,825 44 $1,842 36 $1,822 0 $0 750 $30,368 Labor Overhead (OH) @ 195.00% $40,715 $11,358 $3,592 $3,552 $0 $59,217 Fee on Burdened Labor @ 15% $9,239 $2,577 $815 $806 $0 $13,438 SUBTOTAL LABOR (Direct Labor+OH+Fee) $70,833 $19,760 $6,250 $6,180 $0 $103,023 TRAVEL AND PER DIEM COSTS Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Auto Use Mile $0.54 252 $136.08 72 $38.88 144 $77.76 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 468 $253 SUBTOTAL TRAVEL AND PER DIEM $136 $39 $78 $0 $0 $253 SUBCONSULTANT COSTS Rate/Hour Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost CPD Solutions $160 0 $0.00 32 $5,120.00 24 $3,840.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 56 $8,960 SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT $0 $5,120 $3,840 $0 $0 $8,960 v iu Attachment: Herrera Supplemental Agreement (1555 : Herrera Supplement - Stormwater Code) 4.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles and surplus city equipment Staff Lead: Mike Adams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History The city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment for several years. We have consistently received the best prices and gotten quality service using this approach. It has proven to be the most cost effective option to manage our larger surplus items like vehicles and large equipment. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell (4) surplus city vehicles and (1) emergency power generator. Narrative The city would like to utilize the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items. The following equipment: Unit# G-20-FAC 1992 20KW Generator SN# 92A-01588S (Removed from Fire Station 20) The following vehicles: Unit# 30-STM 1999 Chevrolet C10 Pickup Vin# 1GCEC19V1XZ166812 Unit# 447-POL 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BV6BX149447 Unit# 86-PRK 1999 Dodge 3500 Flatbed Vin# 3B6MC652XM557551 Unit# 90-PRK 1999 Dodge 3500 Flatbed Vin# 3B6MC3653XM5658700 Packet Pg. 181 4.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Authorization to contract with Pick-N-Pull to scrap totaled city vehicles Staff Lead: Mike Adams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History Previously, the city has utilized the services of Pick-N-Pull to scrap totaled surplus city vehicles. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage totaled vehicles. Staff Recommendation It is recommend that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with Pick-N Pull to scrap (2) totaled city vehicles. Narrative The City currently has two Police patrol vehicles that have been involved in accidents severe enough to be declared a total loss, i.e. the cost to repair exceeds the repaired value of the vehicle. It is recommended the City again utilize the services of Pick-N-Pull to scrap these totaled and surplused city vehicles. This has proven over many years to be the most cost effective method to manage scrapping of totaled vehicles. The following vehicles: Unit # 651-POL 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Vin # 2FAHP71V18X145651 (Total) Unit # K93-POL 2007 Ford Crown Victoria Vin # 2FAHP71W27X125433 (Total) Packet Pg. 182 4.10 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Confirm Appointment of Betty Lou Gaeng to the Cemetery Board Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History Betty Lou Gaeng applied for open position #4 on the Cemetery Board. The Board reviewed her application and put her name forward to Mayor Earling for interview and appointment to the Board. Staff Recommendation Appoint Betty Lou Gaeng to the Cemetery Board. Narrative Mayor Earling has interviewed Cemetery Board candidate Betty Lou Gaeng and is recommending her appointment to the Cemetery Board. Attachments: Betty_Lo u_Gaeng_Redacted 2 Packet Pg. 183 4.10.a 'Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application (PLEASE PfiiiVT OR TYPE) NOTE. 'this farm Is a pubBc record and maybe subject to disdosure upon request (Board or Commission) Name:_Bg.-r-u Lou _ _ � IZ � �Q Date: ;Z 5- J L ' L. V Z0 L 6- Day Phone: Even! Phone: Occupational status and background: I A M A R k Il X 15 R L i� 6 0 L. a 55 Id `i hl of W Q V61, 01a 'p, we/Z K I SEE dT l jjS r'S t 0 4E Organizational affiliations: S a o CT 1� Ei i2 5 (, to Why are you seeking this appointment? C /I U S it D F Lie �1 g d R r �r4 (- 11 !.ti [� T 1-Q '1� b - What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? Qr Please list any other Board, Commission, Committee, or official positions you currently hold with the City of Edmonds:, NO OTMEMs 16 i H E AaE Cid-1 Additional comments: Please return this compfPb ` I V ` D Edmonds City Hall 1215' Avenue North �� Edmonds. WA 98020 2016 carolvn.lafave@edmondswa.gov Phone: 425.771.024f)FMiE2Cff1 MAYOR f Signotu Revised 4130114 Packet Pg. 184 4.10.a Occupational status and background: Even though I am retired, and have been so for many years, I am writer and researcher of history and genealogy. Locally, I am a contributing writer with my column Looking Back for the online news outlets: My Edmonds News and Lynnwood Today. In addition, I share the writing with other Snohomish County historians for the Perspective on the Past columns which appears in Senior Focus, the quarterly newspaper published by Senior Services of Snohomish County. For several years I have worked with Dale Hoggins and the Edmonds Cemetery Board providing research for special programs at Edmonds Memorial Cemetery. I have appeared in the Walk Back in Time event as well as the Veterans Day programs. Even though I live in Lynnwood, my heart always remains in Edmonds. I came to this area in 1933, moving to downtown Edmonds in 1937. I attended Edmonds Grade School and graduated from Edmonds High School. I raised my four children in Edmonds —they all graduated of Edmonds High School. Or anizational affiliations: Member of — Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society & Museum; Lynnwood, Alderwood Manor Heritage Association (LAMHA) Sno-Isle Genealogy Society (SIGS) League of Snohomish County Historical Organizations (LOSCHO) Packet Pg. 185 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Domestic Violence Awareness Proclamation (5 min.) Staff Lead: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History Staff Recommendation Narrative Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM) evolved from the "Day of Unity' held in October 1981 and conceived by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The intent was to connect advocates across the nation who were working to end violence against women and their children. The Day of Unity soon became an entire week devoted to a range of activities conducted at the local, state, and national level. The activities conducted were as varied and diverse as the program sponsors but had common themes: Mourning those who have died because of domestic violence Celebrating those who have survived Connecting those who work to end violence These three themes remain a key focus of DVAM events today. In October 1987, the first Domestic Violence Awareness Month was observed. That same year marks the initiation of the first national domestic violence toll -free hotline. In 1989, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 101-112 designating October of that year as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Such legislation has passed every year since with NCADV providing key leadership in this effort. Each year, the Day of Unity is celebrated the first Monday of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Attachments: DVAM_2016 Packet Pg. 186 O JJr101rf amattian City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Domestic Violence Awareness Month October M 6 WHEREAS, October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month; and WHEREAS, domestic violence is a pattern of physical, emotional, verbal, and sexual abuse, which includes, but is not limited to, threats, intimidation, isolation, and/or financial control. Domestic Violence is an intentional pattern of behavior that is used by one person as a means to harm and take power and control over another person in the context of a dating, family, roommate or caretaker relationship; and WHEREAS, domestic violence is an epidemic affecting all communities, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, educational background, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, ability, sexual orientation, or gender; and WHEREAS, 1 in 4 women in the United State are victims of domestic violence; and WHEREAS, children that grow up in violent homes are believed to be abused and neglected at a higher LO r rate than the national average; WHEREAS, domestic violence costs the national billions of dollars annually in medical expenses, police and r Ni court costs, shelters, foster care, sick leave, absenteeism and non -productivity; a WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is working to improve the overall response to and the reduction of domestic violence in our region; NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor of the City of Edmonds, in honor of the women, children and r men who are or have been victims, do hereby proclaim October 2o16 as Q Domestic Violence Awareness Month and call upon public officials, educators, businesses, communities, volunteers, and all the people of Edmonds, Washington to observe this week and this month, and to join together to end violence in our communities. David O. Earling, Mayor October 4, 2o16 Packet Pg. 187 5.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Presentation by Diversity Commission (15 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background Appointed last October, the Diversity Commission is just completing its first year and wishes to provide an update on its programs and activities to the City Council, as well as a look forward to next year. The last time the Diversity Commission addressed City Council was in January 2016, when its 2016 Work Plan was presented. A brief presentation will be made at the 10/4/16 Council meeting. Staff Recommendation No action required. Narrative <Type or insert text here> Packet Pg. 188 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Public hearing regarding Intent to Dissolve the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (15 min.) Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History The Transportation Benefit District (TBD) was formed in November 2008 following procedures outlined in Revised Code of Washington 36.73 and in accordance with Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.65. In February 2009 a $20 local license fee was established by its Board of Directors, the Edmonds City Council. It is requested that Council consider the option of absorbing the ETBD and incorporating its mission into that of the general City government. Staff Recommendation Hold a public hearing to receive citizens' comments on the proposal to dissolve the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District. This item was presented to the City Council on September 13, 2016. Council passed the Resolution of Intent on September 20, 2016, setting the date of the public hearing on October 4, 2016. Narrative The 2015 State legislature adopted 2ESSB 5987 concerning Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD). Among other things, the bill allows cities and counties with TBD boundaries that are contiguous with the city/county boundary to assume control over the TBD. The new law sets forth a process for the assumption of a TBD. Specifically, the assumption of the TBD may be initiated by the adoption of an ordinance or resolution by the city council indicating an intent to conduct a public hearing to consider the assumption of rights, powers, functions and obligations of the TBD, and specifying a time and place for said public hearing. The resolution or ordinance must be published at least two times during the two weeks preceeding the scheduled hearing pursuant to Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987. At the time of the public hearing, all persons interested may appear and be heard. If after the public hearing the Council concludes "public interest or welfare would be satisfied" by the assumption of the TBD, Council would adopt a resolution or ordinance abolishing the TBD governing body vesting the city with all rights, powers, functions and obligations the TBD governing body possessed. Dissolution of the TBD would mean that the vehicle license fees received each month would be credited to the City rather than the TBD. This money would continue to be transferred -out to the annual street overlay program. The Resolution is the first step of the process in which Council indicates an intent to conduct a public hearing to consider the assumption of the TBD, specifying the time and place for said public hearing. Packet Pg. 189 7.1 Attachments: Chapter 3.65 ECC regarding ETBD Chapter 36.73 TBD procedures Resolution 1370 Packet Pg. 190 7.1.a Chapter 3.65 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT Sections: 3.65.010 Establishing transportation benefit district. 3.65.020 Governing board. 3.65.030 Functions of the district. 3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded. 3.65.050 Dissolution of district. 3.65.010 Establishing transportation benefit district.O SHARE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ There is created a transportation benefit district, to be known as the Edmonds transportation benefit district or "district," with geographical boundaries comprised of the corporate limits of the city as they currently exist or as they may exist following future annexations. [Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008]. 3.65.020 Governing board. SHARE _� ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. The governing board of the transportation benefit district shall be the Edmonds city council acting in an ex off icio and independent capacity, which shall have the authority to exercise the statutory powers set forth in Chapter RCW. B. The treasurer of the transportation benefit district shall be the city finance director. C. The public records officer of the transportation benefit district shall be the city clerk D. The board shall develop a material change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery or the ability to finance the plan, pursuant to the requirements set forth in RCW (1). At a minimum, if a transportation improvement exceeds its original cost by more than 20 percent, as identified in the district's original plan, a public hearing shall be held to solicit public comment regarding how the cost change should be resolved. E. The board shall issue an annual report, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.73.16, (2). [Ord. 3872 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008]. 3.65.030 Functions of the district.,D SHARE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. The district board may authorize a vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle as provided for by RCW . When authorized by the voters pursuant to the requirements of Chapter RCW, other Packet Pg. 191 7.1.a taxes, fees, charges and tolls or increases in these revenue sources may be assessed for the purposes provided for in the subsections of this section. 1. Pursuant to the initial authorization of Ordinance 3707, the district board may and has authorized a vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle as provided for by RCW 82.80.140 for the purpose of the preservation, maintenance and operations of the city streets. 2. As authorized by the voters pursuant to the requirements of Chapter RCW, additional taxes, fees, charges and tolls or increases in those revenue sources may be assessed for the construction, reconstruction, updating or improvement of public transportation facilities shown on the Edmonds comprehensive plan and transportation improvement plan. This additional function of the district has been authorized by ordinance amendment in compliance with the provisions of Chapter RCW. These additional transportation projects authorized pursuant to the vote of the transportation benefit district shall be deemed funded and effective when approved by a vote of the people in accordance with the provisions of state law. The projects authorized shall be limited to those specifically identified in the proposition put to the voters. B. Additional transportation improvements may be added to the functions of the district upon compliance with Chapter RCW. C. The board shall have and exercise all powers and functions provided for by Chapter RCW in order to fulfill the functions of the district. [Ord. 3804 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008]. 3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded.O SHARE Two separate sets of functions have been established by ordinance for the transportation benefit district. The funds generated by a vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle authorized by the board in accordance with RCW 82.80.140 shall be used solely for transportation improvements that preserve, maintain and operate the existing transportation infrastructure of the city, consistent with the requirements of Chapter RCW. Upon authorization by the voters, additional funds from other taxes, fees, charges and tolls or increases in these revenue sources may be utilized for the construction of transportation improvements specifically described in the proposition submitted to the voters. Funds raised from either revenue source may be utilized for any lawful purpose under Chapter 36.73 RCW, but all funds raised through the TBD shall be expended only for the purposes specified, i.e.: Packet Pg. 192 7.1.a A. For the preservation, maintenance and operation of the existing city street transportation improvement infrastructure; or B. For projects specifically designated in a ballot proposition approved by the voters and utilizing the funding source approved by the voters Such improvements are intended to comply with the provisions of the Growth Management Act and the city's comprehensive plan and reduce the risk of transportation facilities' failure, improve safety, continue the cost effectiveness of the city's infrastructure improvements and to encourage the optimum use of the transportation system. Additional transportation improvement projects may be funded only after compliance with the provisions of RCW 36.73.050(B) following notice, public hearing and enactment of an additional authorizing ordinance. [Ord. 3804 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3707 § 2, 20081. 3.65.050 Dissolution of district. SHARE _J .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The transportation district has been authorized to fulfill two separate functions. Each function of the district shall expire and be dissolved upon its completion A. Street preservation, maintenance and operation are ongoing, long-term obligations of the city. In order to comply with the dissolution requirement of RCW 36.73.050, a street resurfacing cycle of 20 years was adopted and the district shall be deemed authentically dissolved with respect to the function of street preservation, maintenance and operation 18 years from the effective date of the original Ordinance 3707, to wit, November 28, 2026. B. Upon authorization by the voters, the additional transportation improvements specifically described in the proposition shall be deemed authorized. In accordance with the dissolution requirements of RCW 36.73.050, the powers, duties and functions of the district shall be deemed dissolved with respect to such voter -approved projects when all indebtedness of the districts with regard to such projects has been retired and all transportation improvements described in such project list have been completed. Upon dissolution with respect to these functions, the voters' authorization for funding to construct such funding shall be deemed to automatically expire. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit the Edmonds city council on the recommendation of the Edmonds transportation benefit district to dissolve the district in whole or in part and/or reformulate it in accordance with the provisions of RCW 36.73.050. [Ord. 3804 § 3, 2010; Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008] Packet Pg. 193 Chapter 36.73 RCW TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICTS Chapter Listing Sections 36.73.010 nt. 36.73.015 initions. 36.73.020 blishment of district by county or city —Participation by other jurisdictions. 36.73.030 �blishment of district by city. 36.73.040 eral powers of district. 36.73.050 blishment of district —Public hearing —Ordinance. 36.73.060 hority to levy property tax. 36.73.065 es, fees, charges, tolls, rebate program. 36.73.067 icle fee rebate program —Low-income individuals —Report to legislature. 36.73.070 hority to issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds. 36.73.080 al improvement districts authorized —Special assessments —Bonds. 36.73.090 ting of bonds. 36.73.100 of bond proceeds. 36.73.110 eptance and use of gifts and grants. 36.73.120 osition of fees on building construction or land development. 36.73.130 per of eminent domain. 36.73.140 hority to contract for street and highway improvements. 36.73.150 artment of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may fund transportation improvements. 36.73.160 isportation improvement projects —Material change policy —Annual report. 36.73.170 ipletion of transportation improvement —Termination of district operations —Termination of taxes, fees, charges, and tollsDissolution of district. 36.73.180 plemental transportation improvements. 36.73.900 ;ral construction. NOTES: Roads and bridges, service districts: Chapter 36.81, RCW. 36.73.010 Intent. The legislature finds that the citizens of the state can benefit by cooperation of the public and private sectors in addressing transportation needs. This cooperation can be fostered through enhanced capability for cities, towns, and counties to make and fund transportation improvements necessitated by economic development and to improve the performance of the transportation system. It is the intent of the legislature to encourage joint efforts by the state, local governments, and the private sector to respond to the need for those transportation improvements on state highways, county roads, and city streets. This goal can be better achieved by allowing cities, towns, and counties to establish transportation benefit Packet Pg. 194 districts in order to respond to the special transportation needs and economic opportunities resulting from private sector development for the public good. The legislature also seeks to facilitate the equitable participation of private developers whose developments may generate the need for those improvements in the improvement costs. [ 2005 c 336 § 2; 1987 c 327 § 1.] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.015 Definitions. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "City" means a city or town. (2) "District" means a transportation benefit district created under this chapter. (3) "Low-income" means household income set by the district creating the rebate program that is at or below seventy-five percent of the median household income, adjusted for household size, for the district in which the fees, taxes, or tolls were imposed. (4) "Rebate program" means an optional program established by a transportation benefit district that includes a city with a population of five hundred thousand persons or more for the purpose of providing rebates to low-income individuals for fees, taxes, and/or tolls imposed by such transportation benefit district for: (a) Vehicle fees imposed under RCW 36.73.040(3)(b); (b) sales and use taxes imposed under RCW 36.73.040(3)(a); and/or (c) tolls imposed under RCW 36.73.040(3)(d). (5) "Supplemental transportation improvement" or "supplemental improvement" means any project, work, or undertaking to provide public transportation service, in addition to a district's existing or planned voter -approved transportation improvements, proposed by a participating city member of the district under RCW 36.73.180. (6) "Transportation improvement" means a project contained in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, city, county, or eligible jurisdiction as identified in RCW 36.73.02, (2). A project may include investment in new or existing highways of statewide significance, principal arterials of regional significance, high capacity transportation, public transportation, and other transportation projects and programs of regional or statewide significance including transportation demand management. Projects may also include the operation, preservation, and maintenance of these facilities or programs. Packet Pg. 195 [ 2015 3rd sp.s. c 44 § 311; 2012 c 152 § 1. Prior: 2010 c 251 § 2, 2010 c 105 1 2006 c 311 24; 2005 c 336 § 1.] NOTES: Effective date-2015 3rd sp.s. c 44: See note following RCW 46.68.395. Findings-2006 c 311: See note following RCW 36.120.020. Effective date-2005 c 336: "This act takes effect August 1, 2005." [ 2005 c 336 26 ] 36.73.020 Establishment of district by county or city —Participation by other jurisdictions. (1) The legislative authority of a county or city may establish a transportation benefit district within the county or city area or within the area specified in subsection (2) of this section, for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding a transportation improvement within the district that is consistent with any existing state, regional, or local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. The transportation improvements shall be owned by the county of jurisdiction if located in an unincorporated area, by the city of jurisdiction if located in an incorporated area, or by the state in cases where the transportation improvement is or becomes a state highway. However, if deemed appropriate by the governing body of the transportation benefit district, a transportation improvement may be owned by a participating port district or transit district, unless otherwise prohibited by law. Transportation improvements shall be administered and maintained as other public streets, roads, highways, and transportation improvements. To the extent practicable, the district shall consider the following criteria when selecting transportation improvements: (a) Reduced risk of transportation facility failure and improved safety; (b) Improved travel time; (c) Improved air quality; (d) Increases in daily and peak period trip capacity; (e) Improved modal connectivity; (f) Improved freight mobility; (g) Cost-effectiveness of the investment; (h) Optimal performance of the system through time; (i) Improved accessibility for, or other benefits to, persons with special transportation needs as defined in *RCW 47.06B.012; and 0) Other criteria, as adopted by the governing body. Packet Pg. 196 (2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the district may include area within more than one county, city, port district, county transportation authority, or public transportation benefit area, if the legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction has agreed to the inclusion as provided in an interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to chapter RCW. However, the boundaries of the district need not include all territory within the boundaries of the participating jurisdictions comprising the district. (3) The members of the legislative authority proposing to establish the district, acting ex off icio and independently, shall constitute the governing body of the district: PROVIDED, That where a district includes area within more than one jurisdiction under subsection (2) of this section, the district shall be governed under an interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to chapter RCW, with the governing body being composed of (a) at least five members including at least one elected official from the legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction or (b) the governing body of the metropolitan planning organization serving the district, but only if the district boundaries are identical to the boundaries of the metropolitan planning organization serving the district. (4) The treasurer of the jurisdiction proposing to establish the district shall act as the ex officio treasurer of the district, unless an interlocal agreement states otherwise. (5) The electors of the district shall all be registered voters residing within the district (6) Prior to December 1, 2007, the authority under this section, regarding the establishment of or the participation in a district, shall not apply to: (a) Counties with a population greater than one million five hundred thousand persons and any adjoining counties with a population greater than five hundred thousand persons; (b) Cities with any area within the counties under (a) of this subsection; and (c) Other jurisdictions with any area within the counties under (a) of this subsection. [ 2010 c 250 4 1; 2009 c 515 14; 2006 c 311 25; 2005 c 336 4 3, 1989 c 53 § 1 1987 c 327 § 2.] NOTES: *Reviser's note: RCW 47.061B.01; was repealed by 2011 c 60 § 51. Findings-2006 c 311: See note following RCW 36.120.020. Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. Severability-1989 c 53: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 53 § 5.] Transportation benefit district tax authority: RCW 32.47.020. 36.73.030 Establishment of district by city. Packet Pg. 197 See RCW 35.21.225. 36.73.040 General powers of district. (1) A transportation benefit district is a quasi -municipal corporation, an independent taxing "authority" within the meaning of Article VI I, section 1 of the state Constitution, and a "taxing district" within the meaning of Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution. (2) A transportation benefit district constitutes a body corporate and possesses all the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes as well as all other powers that may now or hereafter be specifically conferred by statute, including, but not limited to, the authority to hire employees, staff, and services, to enter into contracts, to acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal property, and to sue and be sued. Public works contract limits applicable to the jurisdiction that established the district apply to the district. (3) To carry out the purposes of this chapter, and subject to the provisions of RCW ,56.73.06: , a district is authorized to impose the following taxes, fees, charges, and tolls: (a) A sales and use tax in accordance with RCW 32.14.0455; (b) A vehicle fee in accordance with RCW 2.80.140; (c) A fee or charge in accordance with RCW 36.73.120. However, if a county or city within the district area is levying a fee or charge for a transportation improvement, the fee or charge shall be credited against the amount of the fee or charge imposed by the district. Developments consisting of less than twenty residences are exempt from the fee or charge under RCW 36.73.126; and (d) Vehicle tolls on state routes, city streets, or county roads, within the boundaries of the district, unless otherwise prohibited by law. However, consistent with RCW 47.56.82C, the vehicle toll must first be authorized by the legislature if the toll is imposed on a state route. The department of transportation shall administer the collection of vehicle tolls authorized on state routes, unless otherwise specified in law or by contract, and the state transportation commission, or its successor, may approve, set, and impose the tolls in amounts sufficient to implement the district's transportation improvement finance plan. The district shall administer the collection of vehicle tolls authorized on city streets or county roads, and shall set and impose the tolls in amounts sufficient to implement the district's transportation improvement plan. However, consistent with RCW 47.56.850, the vehicle toll, including any change in an existing toll rate, must first be reviewed and approved by the tolling authority designated in Packet Pg. 198 RCW t7.56.85I if the toll, or change in toll rate, would have a significant impact, as determined by the tolling authority, on the operation of any state facility. [ 2008 c 122 § 17; 2005 c 336 § 4; 1989 c 53 § 3; 1987 c 327 § - ] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. Severability-1989 c 53: See note following RCW 36.73.020. 36.73.050 Establishment of district —Public hearing —Ordinance. (1) The legislative authorities proposing to establish a district, or to modify the boundaries of an existing district, or to dissolve an existing district shall conduct a hearing at the time and place specified in a notice published at least once, not less than ten days before the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation within the proposed district. Subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.170, the legislative authorities shall make provision for a district to be automatically dissolved when all indebtedness of the district has been retired and anticipated responsibilities have been satisfied. This notice shall be in addition to any other notice required by law to be published. The notice shall, where applicable, specify the functions or activities proposed to be provided or funded, or the additional functions or activities proposed to be provided or funded, by the district. Additional notice of the hearing may be given by mail, by posting within the proposed district, or in any manner the legislative authorities deem necessary to notify affected persons. All hearings shall be public and the legislative authorities shall hear objections from any person affected by the formation, modification of the boundaries, or dissolution of the district. (2)(a) Following the hearing held pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the legislative authorities may establish a district, modify the boundaries or functions of an existing district, or dissolve an existing district, if the legislative authorities find the action to be in the public interest and adopt an ordinance providing for the action. (b) The ordinance establishing a district shall specify the functions and transportation improvements described under RCW 36.73.015 to be exercised or funded and establish the boundaries of the district. Subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.160, functions or transportation improvements proposed to be provided or funded by the district may not be expanded beyond those specified in the notice of hearing, unless additional notices are made, further hearings on the expansion are held, and further determinations are made that it is in the public interest to so expand the functions or transportation improvements proposed to be provided or funded. [ 2007 c 329 4 3; 2005 c 336 4 5; 1987 c 327 4 5.1 NOTES: Packet Pg. 199 7.1.b Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.060 Authority to levy property tax. (1) A district may levy an ad valorem property tax in excess of the one percent limitation upon the property within the district for a one-year period whenever authorized by the voters of the district pursuant to RCW 84.52.052 and Article VII, section 2(a) of the state Constitution. (2) A district may provide for the retirement of voter -approved general obligation bonds, issued for capital purposes only, by levying bond retirement ad valorem property tax levies in excess of the one percent limitation whenever authorized by the voters of the district pursuant to Article VII, section 2(b) of the state Constitution and RCW .4.52.056. [ zuu5 c 336 § 6; 1 yu i c sz t s u.] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.065 Taxes, fees, charges, tolls, rebate program. (1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, taxes, fees, charges, and tolls may not be imposed by a district without approval of a majority of the voters in the district voting on a proposition at a general or special election. The proposition must include a specific description of: (a) The transportation improvement or improvements proposed by the district; (b) any rebate program proposed to be established under RCW ;6.73.06; and (c) the proposed taxes, fees, charges, and the range of tolls imposed by the district to raise revenue to fund the improvement or improvements or rebate program, as applicable. (2) Voter approval under this section must be accorded substantial weight regarding the validity of a transportation improvement as defined in RCW (3) A district may not increase any taxes, fees, charges, or range of tolls imposed or change a rebate program under this chapter once the taxes, fees, charges, tolls, or rebate program takes effect, except: (a) If authorized by the district voters pursuant to RCW gib. /3.16u; (b) With respect to a change in a rebate program, a material change policy adopted pursuant to RCW .6.73.16U is followed and the change does not reduce the percentage level or rebate amount; Packet Pg. 200 (c) For up to forty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 by the governing board of the district if a vehicle fee of twenty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months; or (d) For up to fifty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 by the governing board of the district if a vehicle fee of forty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months and a district has met the requirements of subsection (6) of this section. (4)(a) A district that includes all the territory within the boundaries of the jurisdiction, or jurisdictions, establishing the district may impose by a majority vote of the governing board of the district the following fees and charges: (i) Up to twenty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 32.80.140; (ii) Up to forty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle fee of twenty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months; (iii) Up to fifty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle fee of forty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months and a district has met the requirements of subsection (6) of this section; or (iv) A fee or charge in accordance with RCW �6.73.120. (b) The vehicle fee authorized in (a) of this subsection may only be imposed for a passenger -only ferry transportation improvement if the vehicle fee is first approved by a majority of the voters within the jurisdiction of the district. (c)(i) A district solely comprised of a city or cities may not impose the fees or charges identified in (a) of this subsection within one hundred eighty days after July 22, 2007, unless the county in which the city or cities reside, by resolution, declares that it will not impose the fees or charges identified in (a) of this subsection within the one hundred eighty -day period; or (ii) A district solely comprised of a city or cities identified in RCW 36.73.020(6)(b) may not impose the fees or charges until after May 22, 2008, unless the county in which the city or cities reside, by resolution, declares that it will not impose the fees or charges identified in (a) of this subsection through May 22, 2008. (5) If the interlocal agreement in RCW 82.80.140(2)(a) cannot be reached, a district that includes only the unincorporated territory of a county may impose by a majority vote of the governing body of the district up to: (a) Twenty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140, (b) forty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 92.80.14r if a fee of twenty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months, or (c) fifty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle fee of forty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months and a district has met the requirements of subsection (6) of this section. (6) If a district intends to impose a vehicle fee of more than forty dollars by a majority vote of the governing body of the district, the governing body must publish notice of this intention, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the district, by April 1 st of the year in which the vehicle fee is to be imposed. If within ninety days of the date Packet Pg. 201 of publication a petition is filed with the county auditor containing the signatures of eight percent of the number of voters registered and voting in the district for the office of the governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, the county auditor must canvass the signatures in the same manner as prescribed in RCW 29A.72.230 and certify their sufficiency to the governing body within two weeks. The proposition to impose the vehicle fee must then be submitted to the voters of the district at a special election, called for this purpose, no later than the date on which a primary election would be held under RCW 29A.04.311. The vehicle fee may then be imposed only if approved by a majority of the voters of the district voting on the proposition. [ 2015 3rd sp.s. c 44 § 309; 2012 c 152 § 3; 2007 c 329 4 1; 2005 c 336 § 17.] NOTES: Effective date-2015 3rd sp.s. c 44: See note following RCW 46.68.395. Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.067 Vehicle fee rebate program —Low-income individuals —Report to legislature. (1) A district that: (a) Includes a city with a population of five hundred thousand persons or more; and (b) imposes a vehicle fee under RCW 6.73.040(3)(b), sales and use taxes under RCW36.73.040(3)(a), or tolls under RCW 36.73.040(3)(d), may establish a rebate program for the purposes of providing rebates of up to forty percent of the actual fee, tax, or toll paid by a low-income individual. (2) Funds collected from a vehicle fee under RCW 36.73.040(3)(b), sales and use tax under RCW 36.73.040(3)(a) or tolls under RCW 36.73.040(3)(d) may be used for a rebate program established under this section. (3) A district that establishes a rebate program is responsible for the development and administration of the program and all functions and costs associated with the rebate program. (4) A district that establishes a rebate program under this section must report back to the legislature two years after the program takes effect. The report must include, but is not limited to, a detailed description of the structure of the program, the average rebate, the total amount of rebates issued, and the number of people that received rebates. [2012c152§1] 36.73.070 Authority to issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds. Packet Pg. 202 (1) To carry out the purposes of this chapter and notwithstanding RCW j9.36.02, (1), a district may issue general obligation bonds, not to exceed an amount, together with any other outstanding nonvoter -approved general obligation indebtedness, equal to one and one-half percent of the value of taxable property within the district, as the term "value of taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015. A district may additionally issue general obligation bonds for capital purposes only, together with any outstanding general obligation indebtedness, not to exceed an amount equal to five percent of the value of the taxable property within the district, as the term "value of taxable property" is defined in RCW 49.36.015, when authorized by the voters of the district pursuant to Article Vill, section 6 of the state Constitution, and may also provide for the retirement thereof by excess property tax levies as provided in RCW 36.73.06C (2). The district may, if applicable, submit a single proposition to the voters that, if approved, authorizes both the issuance of the bonds and the bond retirement property tax levies. (2) General obligation bonds with a maturity in excess of forty years shall not be issued. The governing body of the district shall by resolution determine for each general obligation bond issue the amount, date, terms, conditions, denominations, maximum fixed or variable interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, redemption rights, registration privileges, manner of execution, manner of sale, callable provisions, if any, covenants, and form, including registration as to principal and interest, registration as to principal only, or bearer. Registration may include, but not be limited to: (a) A book entry system of recording the ownership of a bond whether or not physical bonds are issued; or (b) recording the ownership of a bond together with the requirement that the transfer of ownership may only be effected by the surrender of the old bond and either the reissuance of the old bond or the issuance of a new bond to the new owner. Facsimile signatures may be used on the bonds and any coupons. Refunding general obligation bonds may be issued in the same manner as general obligation bonds are issued. (3) Whenever general obligation bonds are issued to fund specific projects or enterprises that generate revenues, charges, user fees, or special assessments, the district may specifically pledge all or a portion of the revenues, charges, user fees, or special assessments to refund the general obligation bonds. The district may also pledge any other revenues that may be available to the district. (4) In addition to general obligation bonds, a district may issue revenue bonds to be issued and sold in accordance with chapter RCW. [ 2005 c 336 4 7; 1987 c 327 4 7.1 NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. Packet Pg. 203 7.1.b 36.73.080 Local improvement districts authorized —Special assessments —Bonds. (1) A district may form a local improvement district to provide any transportation improvement it has the authority to provide, impose special assessments on all property specially benefited by the transportation improvements, and issue special assessment bonds or revenue bonds to fund the costs of the transportation improvement. Local improvement districts shall be created and administered, and assessments shall be made and collected, in the manner and to the extent provided by law to cities and towns pursuant to chapters " ", 35.44, 35.49, 35.50, 35.51, 35.53, and 35."` RCW. However, the duties devolving upon the city or town treasurer under these chapters shall be imposed upon the district treasurer for the purposes of this section. A local improvement district may only be formed under this section pursuant to the petition method under RCW 15.43.120 and 35.43.125. (2) The governing body of a district shall by resolution establish for each special assessment bond issue the amount, date, terms, conditions, denominations, maximum fixed or variable interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, redemption rights, registration privileges, if any, covenants, and form, including registration as to principal and interest, registration as to principal only, or bearer. Registration may include, but not be limited to: (a) A book entry system of recording the ownership of a bond whether or not physical bonds are issued; or (b) recording the ownership of a bond together with the requirement that the transfer of ownership may only be effected by the surrender of the old bond and either the reissuance of the old bond or the issuance of a new bond to the new owner. Facsimile signatures may be used on the bonds and any coupons. The maximum term of any special assessment bonds shall not exceed thirty years beyond the date of issue. Special assessment bonds issued pursuant to this section shall not be an indebtedness of the district issuing the bonds, and the interest and principal on the bonds shall only be payable from special assessments made for the improvement for which the bonds were issued and any local improvement guaranty fund that the district has created. The owner or bearer of a special assessment bond or any interest coupon issued pursuant to this section shall not have any claim against the district arising from the bond or coupon except for the payment from special assessments made for the improvement for which the bonds were issued and any local improvement guaranty fund the district has created. The district issuing the special assessment bonds is not liable to the owner or bearer of any special assessment bond or any interest coupon issued pursuant to this section for any loss occurring in the lawful operation of its local improvement guaranty fund. The substance of the limitations included in this subsection (2) shall be plainly printed, written, or engraved on each special assessment bond issued pursuant to this section. (3) Assessments shall reflect any credits given by a district for real property or property right donations made pursuant to RCW 4i.-i4mik . Packet Pg. 204 7.1.b (4) The governing body may establish, administer, and pay money into a local improvement guaranty fund, in the manner and to the extent provided by law to cities and towns under chapter 35.t RCW, to guarantee special assessment bonds issued by the district. [1005c336§19yc32748.] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.090 Printing of bonds. Where physical bonds are issued pursuant to RCW 36.73.071 or 36.73.08u, the bonds shall be printed, engraved, or lithographed on good bond paper and the manual or facsimile signatures of both the treasurer and chairperson of the governing body shall be included on each bond. [ iud/ c'5'Zi s ] 36.73.100 Use of bond proceeds. (1) The proceeds of any bond issued pursuant to RCW 36.73.070 or 36.73.080 may be used to pay costs incurred on a bond issue related to the sale and issuance of the bonds. These costs include payments for fiscal and legal expenses, obtaining bond ratings, printing, engraving, advertising, and other similar activities. (2) In addition, proceeds of bonds used to fund capital projects may be used to pay the necessary and related engineering, architectural, planning, and inspection costs. [ 2005 c 336 § 9, 1987 c 327 § 1 u.] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.110 Acceptance and use of gifts and grants. A district may accept and expend or use gifts, grants, and donations. [ 200E 36 4 10. 1987 c 327 4 11 ] NOTES: Packet Pg. 205 7.1.b Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.120 Imposition of fees on building construction or land development. (1) Subject to the provisions in RCW 36.73.06! , a district may impose a fee or charge on the construction or reconstruction of commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other commercial or industrial building or building space or appurtenance, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land for commercial purposes, only if done in accordance with chapter 39.91 RCW. (2) Any fee or charge imposed under this section shall be used exclusively for transportation improvements as defined in RCW 36.73.01E. The fees or charges imposed must be reasonably necessary as a result of the impact of development, construction, or classification or reclassification of land on identified transportation needs. (3) If a county or city within the district area is levying a fee or charge for a transportation improvement, the fee or charge shall be credited against the amount of the fee or charge imposed by the district. [ 1U'I U C l Ub � 1; 1UU I C JZ9 q 4; 1UU5 C ;J;Jb t I 'I ; 'I ytttt C 'I 1U I 19ti t C ;31 / 'I -] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. Severability—Prospective application —Section captions-1988 c 179: See RCW 5u.uz.uu and 39.92.901. 36.73.130 Power of eminent domain. A district may exercise the power of eminent domain to obtain property for its authorized purposes in the same manner as authorized for the city or county legislative authority that established the district. [ LUU0 c 550 4 "I L; "I Uts / c 3L "13.] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. Packet Pg. 206 7.1.b 36.73.140 Authority to contract for street and highway improvements. A district has the same powers as a county or city to contract for street, road, or state highway improvement projects and to enter into reimbursement contracts provided for in chapter35.72 RCW. [ 2005 c 336 § 13; 19P7 c 327 § 14.] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.150 Department of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may fund transportation improvements. The department of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may give funds to districts for the purposes of financing transportation improvements under this chapter. [ 2005 c 336 § 14; 19R7 c 327 § 11 ] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.160 Transportation improvement projects —Material change policy —Annual report. (1) The district governing body shall develop a material change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery or the ability to finance the plan. The policy must at least address material changes to cost, scope, and schedule, the level of change that will require governing body involvement, and how the governing body will address those changes. At a minimum, in the event that a transportation improvement cost exceeds its original cost by more than twenty percent as identified in a district's original finance plan, the governing body shall hold a public hearing to solicit comment from the public regarding how the cost change should be resolved. (2) A district shall issue an annual report, indicating the status of transportation improvement costs, transportation improvement expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules, to the public and to newspapers of record in the district. [ 1005 c 336 § 18.] NOTES: Packet Pg. 207 7.1.b Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.170 Completion of transportation improvement —Termination of district operations —Termination of taxes, fees, charges, and tolls —Dissolution of district. Within thirty days of the completion of the construction of the transportation improvement or series of improvements authorized by a district, the district shall terminate day-to-day operations and exist solely as a limited entity that oversees the collection of revenue and the payment of debt service or financing still in effect, if any and to carry out the requirements of RCW 36.73.160. The district shall accordingly adjust downward its employees, administration, and overhead expenses. Any taxes, fees, charges, or tolls imposed by the district terminate when the financing or debt service on the transportation improvement or series of improvements constructed is completed and paid and notice is provided to the departments administering the taxes. Any excess revenues collected must be disbursed to the participating jurisdictions of the district in proportion to their population, using population estimates prepared by the office of financial management. The district shall dissolve itself and cease to exist thirty days after the financing or debt service on the transportation improvement, or series of improvements, constructed is completed and paid. If there is no debt outstanding, then the district shall dissolve within thirty days from completion of construction of the transportation improvement or series of improvements authorized by the district. Notice of dissolution must be published in newspapers of general circulation within the district at least three times in a period of thirty days. Creditors must file claims for payment of claims due within thirty days of the last published notice or the claim is extinguished. [ 2005 c 336 § 19.] NOTES: Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.180 Supplemental transportation improvements. (1) In districts comprised of more than one member city, the legislative authorities of any member city that is located in a county having a population of more than one million five hundred thousand may petition the district to provide supplemental transportation improvements. Packet Pg. 208 (2) Upon receipt of a petition as provided in subsection (1) of this section for supplemental transportation improvements that are to be fully funded by the petitioner city, including ongoing operating and maintenance costs, the district must: (a) Conduct a public hearing, and provide notice and opportunity for public comment consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.73.05 (1); and (b) Following the hearing, if a majority of the district's governing board determines that the proposed supplemental transportation improvements are in the public interest, the district shall adopt an ordinance providing for the incorporation of the supplemental improvements into any existing services. The supplemental transportation improvements must be in addition to existing services provided by the district. The district shall enter into agreements with the petitioner city or identified service providers to coordinate existing services with the supplemental improvements. (3) Upon receipt of a petition as provided in subsection (1) of this section for supplemental transportation improvements proposed to be partially or fully funded by the district, the district must: (a) Conduct a public hearing, and provide notice and opportunity for public comment consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.73.05, (1); and (b) Following the hearing, submit a proposition to the voters at the next special or general election for approval by a majority of the voters in the district. The proposition must specify the supplemental transportation improvements to be provided and must estimate the capital, maintenance, and operating costs to be funded by the district. (4) If a proposition to incorporate supplemental transportation improvements is approved by the voters as provided under subsection (3) of this section, the district shall adopt an ordinance providing for the incorporation of the supplemental improvements into any existing services provided by the district. The supplemental improvements must be in addition to existing services. The district shall enter into agreements with the petitioner city or identified service providers to coordinate existing services with the supplemental improvements. (5) A supplemental transportation improvement must be consistent with the petitioner city's comprehensive plan under chapter 36.70A RCW. (6) Unless otherwise agreed to by the petitioner city or by a majority of the district's governing board, upon adoption of an ordinance under subsection (2) or (4) of this section, the district shall maintain its existing public transportation service levels in locations where supplemental transportation improvements are provided. [2010c251 §; ] 36.73.900 Liberal construction. Packet Pg. 209 The rule of strict construction does not apply to this chapter, and this chapter shall be liberally construed to permit the accomplishment of its purposes. [ igdl c 31i q ib,] Packet Pg. 210 7.1.c RESOLUTION NO. 1370 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RIGHTS, POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the 2015 Legislature adopted Second Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (2ESSB) 5987, the majority of which became effective on July 15, 2015; and WHEREAS, Section 301 of 2ESSB 5987 authorizes any city in which a transportation benefit district ("TBD") has been established pursuant to Chapter 36.73 RCW within boundaries coterminous with the boundaries of the city, to assume the rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the TBD, by way of adoption of an ordinance or resolution of the city legislative authority; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance and codified in Chapter 3.65 of the Edmonds Municipal Code, the City of Edmonds City Council established a transportation benefit district to be known as the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District, with geographical boundaries comprised of the corporate limits of the City of Edmonds at the time the ordinance was adopted or as they may exist after future annexations; and WHEREAS, Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987 provides that the assumption of the o ti M rights, powers, functions, and obligations of a transportation benefit district may be 0 w initiated by the adoption of an ordinance or resolution by the city legislative authority c a� indicating its intention to conduct a hearing concerning the assumption of such rights, c a� powers, functions, and obligations, setting a time and place at which the city legislative authority will consider the proposed assumption of the rights, powers, functions and Q 1 Packet Pg. 211 7.1.c obligations of the transportation benefit district, and stating that all persons interested may appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, section 302 of 2ESSB 5987 provides that the ordinance or resolution of intention must be published at least two times during the two weeks preceding the scheduled hearing in newspapers of daily general circulation printed or published in the city in which the transportation benefit district is located; and WHEREAS, Section 303 of ESSB 5987 provides that if, after receiving testimony, the city legislative authority determines that the public interest or welfare would be satisfied by the city assuming the rights, powers, immunities, functions, and obligations of the TBD, the city legislative authority may declare that to be its intent and assume such rights, powers, immunities, functions, and obligations by ordinance or resolution, providing that the city is vested with every right, power, immunity, function and obligation currently granted to or possessed by the TBD; and WHEREAS, upon assumption of the rights, powers, immunities, functions, and obligations of the TBD by the City, the governing body established by RCW 36.73.020 must be abolished; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of Edmonds to consider the assumption of rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the Edmonds TBD, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set a public hearing as required by Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AS FOLLOWS: 2 Packet Pg. 212 1. The City of Edmonds intends to consider the assumption of the rights, 7.1.c powers, functions, and obligations of the Edmonds TBD. 2. A public hearing concerning the assumption of the rights, powers, functions and obligations of the Edmonds TBD shall be held on October 4th, 2016. 3. All persons interested, including those with protests and objections to the assumption of rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the TBD, may appear and be heard at said public hearing. 4. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that the public interest or welfare would be satisfied by the City assuming the rights, powers, immunities, functions, and obligations of the TBD, the City Council may declare that to be its intent, and assume such rights, powers, immunities, functions and obligations by way of ordinance or resolution, providing that the City is vested with every rights, power, immunity, function and obligation currently granted to or possessed by the TBD. 5. The City Clerk shall give notice of the public hearing set herein in the manner so required by Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987. RESOLVED this 20t" day of September, 2016. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CLERK, ASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. VED: MA September 16, 2016 September 20, 2016 1370 3 0 CO) C 0 :r 3 O N N C N M U 2 a Packet Pg. 213 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Set Public Hearing for 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation (10 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History Westgate Chapel and one other property owner have submitted a petition to vacate that portion of 92nd Avenue W lying south of 228th Street SW. The City Council is required to consider street vacations in a public hearing set by resolution. Staff Recommendation Adopt the Resolution in Exhibit 1 setting a public hearing for November 1, 2016. Narrative The portion of 92nd Avenue W that extends south of 228th Street SW for approximately 375 feet is the subject of this vacation request. The width of the right-of-way varies from 30 feet at the southerly terminus to 60 feet over the northerly 290 feet. The City of Edmonds has a storm water drainage conveyance system within the westerly half of the roadway and Olympic View Water and Sewer District has sanitary sewer and water lines within the right-of-way. Westgate Chapel owns the majority of the property along this portion of 92nd Avenue W with the only other property owner addressed at 9126 228th Street SW (in the southwest corner of the intersection of 92nd Ave. W and 228th St. SW) also signing the petition for this street vacation. The application materials submitted with this vacation request are attached. The City Council is to consider the vacation request at a public hearing set by resolution. The attached resolution will set a public hearing date of November 1, 2016 and staff will prepare a staff report for the Council's consideration at the November 1, 2016 Council meeting. Attachments: Exhibit 1- Draft Resolution Setting November 1, 2016 Public Hearing Exhibit 2 - Land Use Application Form Exhibit 3 - Application Cover Letter Exhibit 4 - Legal Description of Property for Vacation Exhibit 5 - Survey of Proptery Exhibit 6 - Petition for Vacation Exhibit 7 - Appraisal Packet Pg. 214 8.1.a RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SETTING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF 92N�D AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTH WEST WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.050 authorizes a street vacation process to be initiated by the petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has received a petition from all of the property owners abutting the portion of 92" d Avenue West lying south of 2281h Street Southwest; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.070 requires the city council to fix a time by resolution for public hearing on any proposed street vacation; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.070 requires that such hearing occur no less than twenty days and no more than sixty days after the passage of the resolution fixing the hearing date; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington as follows: Section 1. A public hearing on the proposed street vacation shall be scheduled for November 1, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. before the Edmonds City Council. Section 2. The city clerk shall provide notice of the public hearing as required pursuant to RCW 35.79.020 and ECDC 20.70.090 to the extent that such notice requirements are applicable. RESOLVED this 4th day of October, 2016. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 1 APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE O. EARLING Packet Pg. 215 8.1.b City of Edmonds Land Use Application IM ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ■ ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT n ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7D7ATE. �] ONE K O IN ❑ HOME OCCUPATION REC'D BY C❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION . RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB kC M STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THATA LL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 92nd Ave W. south of 228th St. S.W. and north of Edmonds Way PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) 92nd Ave W Street Vacation PROPERTY OWNER City of Edmonds, Washington PHONE # 425-771-0220 ADDRESS 121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 E-MAIL michaelclugston@edmondswa.gov FAX # 425-771-0221 31 27N 4 EWM & TAX ACCOUNT # None. It is a public right-of-way. SEC. 36 TWP. 27N RNG. 3 EWM DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See attached project description DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Street vacations are governed by Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.70. The following criteria are both met by the proposal. 20.70.020 A. The vacation is In the public interest; and B. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. Refer to cover letter. APPLICANT Westgate Chapel, Inc. PHONE # 425-775-2776 ADDRESS 22901 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020-5038 E-MAIL bmcatee@westgatechape.com FAX# CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Jim Egge c/o James Egge & Associates PHONE # 425-388-1698 ADDRESS 10807 25th St. S.E., Lake Stevens, WA 98258 E-MAIL )a-9Qmsn•wm FAX# The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below, SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT g� _DATE 6/20/16 I SIX Property Owner's Authorization I, )#&;y A. HwgPxe3� 3, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspecti n sli atlrindant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE 6/20/16 s? Call (425) 771-0220, Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Page I of l Packet Pg. 216 8.1.c JAMES EGGE & ASSOCIATES 425-388-1698 Land Use Planning ♦ Project Management ♦ Development Analysis ♦ Agency Representation June 20, 2016 Development Services Department / Planning Division City of Edmonds, Washington 121 51h Ave. N. RECEIVED Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Michael Clugston, Associate Planner JUN 2 0 2016 Re: Street Vacation — 92nd Ave. W. DEVELOMEN- - Dear Mr. Clugston, The proposed action: I herewith submit the enclosed (both paper and electronic copied) documents on behalf of my client, Westgate Chapel, Inc. related to proposed vacation of a portion of 92nd Ave. W. south of 228th St. S.W. You and I have previously reviewed the required exhibits in support of the vacation request. Subject site: 92nd Ave W. lying south of 228th St. S.W. Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds, Washington Area: Approximately 0.46 acre (20,323 sq. ft.) Current status: 92nd Ave W. currently serves as paved public roadway which extends southerly from 228th St. S.W. for approximately 375 feet. It is a two-lane roadway with a paved width of 20 feet with gravel shoulders of varing width along portions of both east and west margins. Right-of-way varies in width from 30' at the southerly terminus to 60' over the northerly 290 feet (+/-). The City of Edmonds maintains a storm drainage conveyance system withini the westerly half of the roadway, which will remain and be provided with permanent easement following right-of-way vacation. There are also other utilities (sanitary sewer, water) within the right-of-way, and overhead elecrical powelines and poles situated along the east margin of the right-of-way which are owned and maintained by utility purveyors. Access: 92nd Ave W. currently serves as legal access to four single family properties along the easterly margin, and also serves as one several access points to "Westgate Chapel" to the west. Permanent access easements to each property east of 92nd Ave. W. will be preserved as part of vacation proceedings. Westgate Chapel currently owns all abutting properties which take access from 92nd Ave. W, except tax parcel 00555300200106 which lies at the southeast corner of 92nd Ave. W. and 228th St. S.W. The existing single family detached home on said lot is addressed as 9126 228th St. S.W., although it takes vehicular access from 92nd Ave. W. All other properties southerly of the existing terminus of 92nd Ave. W. take access from either Edmonds Way, or other public roadways to the east.The Sequoyah Condominiums - Phases 1 and 5 lie directlly south of the subject site. Three smaller individual tax parcels lie west of the Sequoyah development and take access from Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel owns all remaining property directly west and south of 92nd Ave. W., along with Lots 8,9 and 10, Belt Add No 6 which abut the east margin of said roadway. The aforementioned tax parcel at the southwest corner of the intersection of 228th St. S.W. and 92nd Ave. W. is owned by Claudia Marie Walters and Larry Wayne according to county assessor tax records. The Walters have signed the vacation petition. 10807 25th Street SE ♦ Lake Stevens, Washington 98258 ♦ jamese-a@msn.com Packet Pg. 217 8.1.c 92nd Ave. W. proposed street vacation Westgate Chapel, Inc. June 20, 2016 Zoning/Comprehensive Plan: Incorporated city limits abut the east margin of 92nd Ave W. with lands immediately east under jurisdiction of Snohomish County. The county zoning designation for properties immediately east of 92nd Ave W. is R-8400, a single family low density urban residential zone. Lands to the north of 228th St. S.W. lying easterly of 92nd Ave. W. are similarly zoned. The Sequoyah Condominiums to the east of 92nd and south are zoned PRD-MR (Planned Residential Development — Multifamily Residential). A small portion of the Westgate Chapel property which abuts the southerly margin of 228th St. S.W. west of 92nd Ave. W is zoned RS-8 (8,000 sq. ft. lots), as are lands to the north. That portion of the church ownership north of 228th St. S.W. is part of an existing parking lot which serves the church. The remainder of the church ownership south of 228th St. S.W. within the city is zoned RM-1.5 Multi Family (1,500 sq. ft. of lot area per unit), as are the three smaller tax parcels which abut Edmonds Way that are not church owned. The Future Land Use Map for Snohomish County's Comprehensive Plan depicts lands to the immediate east of 92nd Ave W. as Urban High Density Residential. Land west of 92nd Ave W. lies within the City of Edmonds. City comprehensive plan maps designate lands west of 92nd Ave. W as follows: South of 228th St. S.W. — This is the main church site which is designated within the Edmonds Way Corridor which lists compatible zoning categories as BP BN, BC or similar commercial zones; and RM zones; North of 228th St. S.W. — This area is shown as Single Family — Urban 1, which is consistent with existing RS-8 zoning. The proposed action: As they represent all properties which front the proposed portion of 92nd Ave. W., Westgate Chapel and the Walters mutually propose vacation of 92nd Ave. W. south of 228th St. S.W. where it abuts their respective ownerships. Permanent access easements will be provided to all affected existing ownerships at the time of formal approval of the vacation. Easements will also be granted in favor of all existing purveyors who maintain facilities within the existing right-of-way. Finally, the accompanying exhibits are hereby submitted for consideration by the city as provided for in Edmonds Municipal Code. Please contact me as the primary contact for the vacation request as things progress. Thank you. Jim Egge, Project Planner JAMES EGGE & ASSOCIATES ENCL. Cc Westgate Chapel, Inc. (attn: Pastor Brent McAtee) Packet Pg. 218 8.1.d RECEIVED EXHIBIT A JUN 2 ® 2016 LEGAL DESCRXPTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS STREET VACATI2H EVELOPMENTSERACES THAT PORTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228TH STREET S.W. AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92ND AVENUE W., SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIDGE ACRES, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 262998; THENCE SOUTH 0013'09" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN OF 92ND AVENUE W., A DISTANCE OF 375.41 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY OF SEQUOYAH, A CONDOMINIUM, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200704125001; THENCE NORTH 88042'29" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A" OF CITY OF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO, LL 2006-026, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200703025001; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 91.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61049'47" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 33.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A A DISTANCE OF 310.46 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A", SAID NORTHEASTERLY CORNER ALSO BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228TH STREET S.W. AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92"' AVENUE W.; THENCE SOUTH 88022'55" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 92ND AVENUE W., SAID POINT LYING SOUTH 0°13'09" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.01 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 0013'09" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88041'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 20,323 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. 1 OF 1 Packet Pg. 219 8.1.e 1 31 } -T 01 I ' 1 rr= 1 00,1 AF NCO. 982137 I � � JUN 2 0 2016 ,- - --� - - !_(PMENtr I42 I 41 40 I _ r_L_ 02 I I � T 33 I 32 AF NO. E. T687 N0. 14 30' 30' ] I AF N0. 1214687 34 !I 43 I 44 I 45 2287H STREET S.W. N 25 3o M 10.00' N S013'09"E 20.0]` 3s 31 a .�... f �.._.. T._.. �. _ b 1 I I P.O.8 S88'22'55"E I II 4 I 130, 30' S88'41'25"E 30.02' I 30.01' TAX 06 04 I 05 I 03 "WESTGATE CHAPEL I "05553002-1 LOT 1, BiX 2, RIDGE ACRES -- D0106 AF NO. 262998 / TAX #0054620000100 #0054520000101 I J Y � AREA OF YACATTO J� / PARCEL A. CITY OF o �u 20,323 SF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJT. TAX 8 3 N0, LL 2006-026 /iwP 391000000800 m / GAF NO, 200703025001 / z �-- — - TAX 9 z 30' 1 #04391000000900 C3 TAX #00391000001000 400 S61'49'47°W 10 s / 33.96' III 5 / � ° NO'13'09"W / 91.85' L _ ljN "•88'42'29"W 30.01' \ I SEQUOCONDOMINIUM �s AF NO.. 200704125001 ISHEETJOF STREET VACATION GROUP FOURln. 1 ESTGATE CHAPEL Ad-ACITY OF EDMONDS P.°.BOX 104g1�111� AK(W6M13411 vwGRP�m WA Packet Pg. 220 ,, : ECEIVED PETITION FOR STREET OR ALLEY VACATION JUN 2 0 2016 TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASIIINNGTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES We, the undersigned owners of two-thirds of the real property abutting upon that public right-of-way described below, pursuant to RCW 35,79.010, do hereby petition the City of Edmonds to vacate said public right-of-way, described as follows: A portion of City of Edmonds existing public right-of-way for 92nd Ave. W as described on attached EXHIBIT A. all situate in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and request that said City Council by Resolution fix a time and place when this Petition shall be heard and determined by that authority, which time shall not be more than sixty (60) days nor less than twenty (20) days after the passage of such Resolution. These pages are a group of pages containing an identical text and prayer intended by the signers of this Petition to be presented and considered as one Petition and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Petition. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he. or she is otherwise not qualified to sing, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PRAYER OF PETITION: For the vacation of public right -of -Way —�� Brent McAtee vvestgate unapei Inc. zzuui tamonas way Edmonds, WA 98020-5039 Larry Wayne Walters 9126 228th St SW, Edmonds, WA 98026-8463 Claudia Marie Walters (same) Page_,__ of-1— Mvw=Xorna-sov-N Attachment: Exhibit 6 - Petition for Vacation (1560 : Resolution setting a Public Hearing on a proposal to Vacate a Portion of 92nd Ave W) 8.1.g APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Appraisal of the Westgate Chapel Right of Way Acquisition located at 22901 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 for Mr. James Egge Right of Way Consultant James Egge & Associates 10807 25th St SE Lake Stevens, WA 98258 by James B. Price, MAI, SR/WA Glenn L. Price, Appraiser Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP 1409 140th Place NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98007 V. A-5183 JUN 20 �016 DEVELOPMENT SEpMCES Packet Pg. 222 8.1.g Mr. James Egge Right of Way Consultant James Egge & Associates 10807 25th St SE Lake Stevens, WA 98258 Parcel No.: 005462000001E00, 00546200000101 Owner: West ate Cha el Inc. Federal Aid No: N/A Proiect: 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation R/W Plan Title: N/A Mau Sheet: 1 of 1 Map Approval Date: Date of Last Mau Revision: Certificate of Appraiser I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: ♦ The statements of fact contained in this appraisal are true and correct; ♦ The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; ♦ I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this appraisal, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; ♦ My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event; ♦ My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this appraisal has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; ♦ I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. I have made a personal exterior inspection of the comparable sales contained in the report addenda; ♦ I have afforded the owner or a designated representative of the property that is the subject of this appraisal the opportunity to accompany me on the inspection of the property; ♦ No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report; ♦ I have disregarded any increase in Fair Market Value caused by the proposed public improvement or its likelihood prior to the date of valuation. I have disregarded any decrease in Fair Market Value caused by the proposed public improvement or its likelihood prior to the date of valuation, except physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner; ♦ This appraisal has been made in conformity with the appropriate State and Federal laws and requirements, and complies with the contract between the agency and the appraiser; ♦ The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute regarding review by its duly authorized representatives; ♦ The appraisal report was prepared in conformity with the Appraisal Foundation's Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. ♦ We have performed no appraisal services for this parcel in the last three years. The property has been appraised for its fair market value as though owned in fee simple, or as encumbered only by the existing easements as described in the right of way diagram dated 9/9/2014. The opinion of value expressed below is the result of, and is subject to, the data and conditions described in detail. I made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report on 2/25/2016. The Date of Value for the property that is the subject of this appraisal is 2/25/2016. Per the FAIR MARKET VALUE definition herein, the value conclusions for the property that is the subject of this appraisal are on a cash basis and are: FAIR MARKET VALUE BEFORE ACQUISITION $2,166,000 FAIR MARKET VALUE AFTER ACQUISITION $2,369,000 DIFFERENCE $203,000 Notice to Proceed Date: Date Signed: May 23, 2016 Signature: Washington State Certified General Real Estate Certification Number Date Signed: May 23, 2016 Signature: Washington State Certified General Real Estate Certification Number February 13, 2014 James B. Price, MAI, SR/WA Cert. # 1100229 I PIJIU Glenn L. Price, Appraiser Cert. # 1101927 Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 00546200000101 A-5 Packet Pg. 223 Page 2 Assignment Scope of Work The client of this report is James Egge & Associates . In the event of conflict or dispute in determining correct appraisal procedures that are not addressed in the standards noted above, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) will be the determining authority. Eminent Domain Appraisal Information and Definitions The intended use of this appraisal is to provide information to the client, James Egge & Associates , as a basis for acquiring the portion of the subject property needed for the proposed project. Unless stated otherwise in the report, the property rights appraised constitute the fee simple interest. "Fair Market Value" is defined as: the amount in cash which a well-informed buyer, willing but not obliged to buy the property, would pay, and which a well-informed seller, willing but not obligated to sell it would accept, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied (Washington Pattern Instruction 150.08). The intended user of this report is primarily the client, James Egge & Associates . Additionally, its funding partners may review the appraisal as part of their oversight activities. A copy of this report may be provided to the property owner as a courtesy and part of the good faith bargaining process. However, this does not imply that the property owner has standing as an intended user and is not authorized to publish or use the report for any other purpose. In condemnation, the larger parcel is the portion of a property that has unity of ownership, contiguity, and unity of use, the three conditions that establish the larger parcel for consideration of severance damages. This is also known as the "parent parcel." A review of the tax records indicate that the two Subject parcels have unity of ownership, contiguity, and use; therefore, we conclude the subject's two parcels is the larger or "parent parcel." Though there is also another parcel to the north that has unity of ownership and contiguity, the improvements are separate and not associated with the same tenants, therefore are not considered to be part of the larger parcel as they do not share unity of use. Extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions include, but may not be limited to, the following: State and Federal standards require the appraiser to disregard any decrease or increase in the fair market value of the subject caused by the project. The appraiser may cite the Jurisdictional Exception Rule to comply with this requirement which is found in RCW 8.26.180 and WAC 468-100-102 (2). The after value is based on the assumption that the project has been constructed as proposed on the Right of Way plans as of the date of value. The subject has been appraised as if there were no environmental hazards or contamination. However, any apparent environmental hazards or contamination observed or discovered during the appraisal process must and will be noted in the report. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 00546200000101 A Packet Pg. 224 Page 3 8.1.g APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The property description supplied to the appraiser is assumed to be correct. 2. No survey of the property has been made or reviewed by the appraiser, and no responsibility is assumed in connection with such matters. Illustrative material, including maps and plot plans, utilized in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Property dimensions and sizes are considered to be approximate. 3. No responsibility is assumed for matters of a legal nature affecting title to the property, nor is any opinion of title rendered. Property titles are assumed to be good and merchantable unless otherwise stated 4. Information furnished by others is believed to be true, correct, and reliable. However, no responsibility for its accuracy is assumed by the appraiser. 5. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitude have been disregarded unless so specified within the report. The property is assumed to be under responsible, financially sound ownership and competent management. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render the property more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies which may be required to discover them. 7. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. However, the appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea -formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value conclusions in this report are predicated on the assumption that there are no such materials on or in the property that would cause a loss of value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for the expertise required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field if desired. The analysis and value conclusions in this report are null and void should any hazardous material be discovered. 8. It is assumed that, if hazardous materials, substances or waste are known or suspected to exist, the property to be acquired will be delivered clean and free of any such hazardous materials, substances or waste, unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report. It is assumed that the grantor(s), or any party of interest, agrees to indemnify the acquiring agency and hold harmless the acquiring agency for any costs or liabilities associated with the removal or remediation of any hazardous substances that have been released, or otherwise come to be located on the site, during the grantor's ownership or operation of the site, including those that may have migrated from the site through water or soil to other properties. "Hazardous substances" shall include all those substances identified as hazardous under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. and the Washington Model Toxics Control Act, RCW 70.105.010 et seq.; and shall include gasoline and other petroleum products. "Costs" shall include but not be limited to all response costs, disposal fees, investigatory costs, monitoring costs, civil or criminal penalties, and attorney fees and other litigation costs incurred in complying with state or federal environmental laws, which shall include but not be limited to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601; the Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. Section 1251; the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. Section 7401; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901; and the Washington Model Toxics Control Act, RCW 70.105D.010. It is further assumed that the grantors shall retain any and all liabilities arising from the offsite disposal, handling, treatment, storage, or transportation of any hazardous substances, including petroleum products, removed from the site by the grantors or their employees or agents. 9. Unless otherwise stated in this report, no environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this report. The appraiser reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any opinions of value based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies, research, or investigation. 10. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is specified, defined, and considered in this report. 11. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless non -conformity has been specified, defined and considered in this report. 12. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or federal governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate is based. 13. The appraiser will not be required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made this report, unless arrangements have previously been made. 14. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not cant' with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the client without the written consent of the appraiser and, in any event, only with properly written qualification and only in its entirety. 15. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other media without written consent and approval of the appraiser. Nor shall the appraiser, client, firm, or professional organization of which the appraiser is a member be identified without the written consent of the appraiser. 16. The liability of the appraiser, employees, and subcontractors is limited to the client only. There is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraiser is in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiencies of the property. 17. It is assumed that the public project, which is the object of this report, will be constructed in the manner proposed and in the foreseeable future. 18. Acceptance and/or use of this report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing assumptions and limiting conditions. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 0054620000010 Packet Pg. 225 Page 4 8.1.g SUBJECT PARCEL MAP The subject whole property, access frontages, "North arrow", camera location and direction of each subject photo on the following pages are shown below. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 0054620000010 Packet Pg. 226 Page 5 8.1.g RIGHT OF WAY EXHIBIT tit 12 13 37 30 I I L f , 36 j 31 I; 1 M �� 38 110 t I�39 {2 s1 40 AF 01 I ROBERT E. THOMAS NO. 14 N0 952137 ICz ' AF N0. 5214¢87 , 35 34 C I'� 33 02 0 T 1 32 30 1 3Q 1 43 44 45 4S 47 L�� - r J__ � - 50'13'09"E 00, R S03'09,E 20.01 • x 3, - �1- - - - I I S88'22'55`E P-0.8 �- I 3a'13o' S88'4125'E 30.02' D6 30.v1' 1WESTCAS CHAPEL" o i °+ t a5 03 I D+ I a� — — vi LOT 1, SUL. 2, RIDGE ACRES / A L AF ND. 262448� — i / TAX /00546200D0100 , / JW546200DOIDI EA OF VAS;A� - / / I" TAX 20,8323 SF � � 3 z , / PARCEL A, CITY OF :., $ 10aouao6m a EOMONDS LOT UNE ADJT. / M x!2 NO. LL 2006-026 AF NO 2007 25001 TAX 9 I4 Y / 1� W91000OW900 x Te • ' T S81'49'47'1hf TAX 10 . �0.e 33.96, /00391000001000 5 6 7 !� 91.85, \ - I N88'42'29"W - 30.01' SEOWYAH CONDOMINIUM PHASES I - 5. AF NO 200704125001 SHEET of STREET VACATION 1 1 ESTATE CHAPEL GRC][IPFC3UI�1�. J1 cnE.,nr� CITY OF EDMONDS P� O BOX /059 / l911 VERNON ROAD SUITE it ; LAKE STEVENS,WA BB � � OTA � O 3 258 SNOHOMISH CO. WASHINGTON n2s)4M.1152 • FAX(42S)677.1341 • ~..GOPl.com a Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 0054620000010 Packet Pg. 227 Page 6 8.1.g PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALL PRINCIPAL IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR FEATURES AFFECTING VALUE 1. Looking West along 228th St SW from across the Street from the NE Corner of the Subject L. Looxmg aoutn along Acquisition Area of YL Taken By: Glenn L. Price Ave w trom the iv w i.orner Date Taken: 4/20/2016 Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 005462000001 Packet Pg. 228 Page 7 8.1.g 3. Looking North along 92" d Ave W from the Southern Edge of the Acquisition Area 4. Looking SW at the Church Land from the NE Corner of the Acquisition Area Taken By: Glenn L. Price Date Taken: 4/20/2016 Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 00546200000101 Packet Pg. 229 Page 8 APPRAISAL REPORT 1. OWNER: Westgate Chapel, Inc. 2. LOCATION OF SUBJECT: The subject is located adjacent to and east of 22901 Edmonds Way in the City of Edmonds. According to a survey completed by Group Four for the client, there is approximately 20,323 SF of land in 92"d Ave W to be vacated. Since the vacated street cannot be valued in itself, the value will be determined after being added to the value of the adjacent parcel to the west, which is our Subject. 3. SUBJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Refer to the Addenda. The Subject has Tax Parcel Numbers 00546200000100, 00546200000101 according to Snohomish County property records. 4. DELINEATION OF TITLE (10 years): According to public record, the subject has not transferred between parties in the last 10 years. There is no evidence that the subject property has been offered for sale in the past 3 years. 5. THE APPRAISAL PROBLEM AND APPRAISER'S SCOPE OF WORK: This appraisal is for the 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation project. 92"d Ave West will be vacated by the City of Edmonds below 228th Street Southwest. This appraisal is for a fee acquisition of 20,323 square feet within the existing right of way along the east side of the Subject property that includes the Westgate Chapel and parking area. The value of improvements situated within the acquisition area including gravel and asphalt installed by the city of Edmonds will be reimbursed. The value of the vacated street is predicated upon the across -the -fence value of the property to the west (owned by the Westgate Chapel). The amount to be paid for the street is based on its value as additional land to the property to the west with the same highest and best use. 6. PROPERTY RIGHTS TO BE ACQUIRED AND EFFECTS OF ACQUISITION/ PROJECT: This is the full acquisition of the ROW (Right of Way) inside 92nd Avenue W. based on the exhibit provided earlier. The public street will be vacated into private hands and all easements will remain in place (including some that must be created subsequent to this appraisal for existing utilities). All of the site improvements that have been installed by the City of Edmonds must be reimbursed. 7. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Neighborhood: A neighborhood can be defined as an area of complementary land uses. A neighborhood's boundaries identify the area that influences the value of the subject property. The subject is located in the city of Edmonds in a suburban area of Snohomish County. Edmonds is located approximately equidistant between Seattle to the south and Everett to the northeast, both of which are about 12 miles away. It is surrounded by the cities of Woodway, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood. The subject's immediate neighborhood is situated in a south central area of the City of Edmonds, just to the west of a pocket of unincorporated Snohomish County completely surrounded by Edmonds. This area consists primarily of single- and multi -family housing with neighborhood commercial development at key intersections. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 0054620000010 packet Pg. 230 Page 9 8.1.g Primary access is provided by Interstate 5 and Highway 99, both of which are generally north/south arterials, and by Highway 104, the main NW/SE arterial that leads from I-5 to the southeast to the Edmonds CBD (Central Business District) to the northwest. Subject: The Subject has a total site area in the Valuation -Before of 3.93 acres or about 171,191 SF with the majority of the level site at grade with the frontage streets. The subject is zoned RM 1.5 which allows for multifamily development. The highest and best use for the overall site as vacant would be for a multifamily development. A. Present Use: The lot is currently developed with a church that was constructed in 1979 and is currently in operation. B. Accessibility and Road Frontages: The Subject is a corner lot with access along its frontage streets of 228th Street SW to the north and 92na Ave W to the south. C. Land Contour and Elevations: The lot has a level topography and is at the grade of the fronting streets. D. Land Area: The lot size is 171,191 SF in the before. E. Land Shape: The lot is an irregularly shaped parcel, but the shape is not restrictive to development. F. Utilities: All utilities are reported to be available to the site at the street. These include water, sewer, electricity, and telephone. G. Present Zoning: Since the ROW currently functions as a public street, it does not a have a zoning designation. However, if it were added to the adjacent land to the west M rn (the Subject), the vacated street would most likely be rezoned to the same zoning as that E W parcel. The adjacent lot is zoned RM 1.5 (Multifamily Residential 1,500 SF/Unit), a y designation to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of c greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment. It also provides for those additional uses which N complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. There is a minimum setback from the street of 15 feet, 10 feet from the sides, and 15 feet from the rear. The maximum building height is 25 feet and maximum lot coverage ratio is 45%. The minimum lot area for each unit is 1,500 SF. Though there is technically a strip of single-family zoning along the northern edge of the adjacent land, the comprehensive plan will allow this area to be rezoned RM 1.5 according to the City of Edmonds planning department, therefore this adjacent zoning was not considered. The land to the east of the subject is not in the City of Edmonds, but rather unincorporated Snohomish County. Zoning cannot carry over across the city boundary since Edmonds and Snohomish County have different zoning codes, so only adjacent zonings within the Edmonds City Limits can be considered. Number of Potential Units in the Before In order to estimate how many units are possible for the Subject land, we will use the SF before the acquisition of 171,191 SF. Now we must divide by the base density Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 0054620000010 packet Pg. 231 Page 10 8.1.g allowed by zoning, which is 1,500 SF/potential dwelling unit, to figure out how many units would theoretically be allowed by zoning. 171,191 SF / 1,500 SF/DU = 114 Potential Dwelling Units H. Highest and Best Use As If Vacant: Introduction: The Highest and Best Use is defined as that reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present fair market value as of the effective date of the appraisal. The highest and best use of a property must meet four criteria: physically possible; legally permissible; financially feasible and maximally productive. There are two types of highest and best use: that of the property as if vacant and of the property as improved. In each situation, the highest and best use must meet four criteria. Physically Possible — Uses of the property that are physically possible; Legally Permissible — Uses of the property allowed by land use and deed restrictions; Financially Feasible — Possible and legitimate uses, which produce a net return to the property's owner; Maximally Productive — The feasible use of the property, which produces the highest net return or highest present worth, the Highest and Best Use. The highest and best use concept is based upon traditional appraisal theory and reflects the attitudes of typical buyers and sellers who recognize that value is predicated on future benefits. This theory is based upon wealth maximization of the owner. The highest and best use of the property as if vacant and available for use may be different from the highest and best use of the improved property, if applicable. This is valid when the improvement is not a suitable one, but still makes a contribution to the total property value in excess of the land value. In estimating the highest and best use, the following tests must be satisfied to meet the above criteria: the use must be legal; it needs to be probable, not speculative or surmised; and there must be a profitable demand for such use giving the highest net return for the longest period of time. Highest and Best Use — Unimproved: Physically Possible: The use to which a site can be developed can be affected by its size, shape, topography, access, and soil type. The Subject site is an irregularly shaped parcel containing an area of 171,191 square feet. The site has a level topography that is at the grade of its fronting street. All utilities are reported to be available to the site or available in the street. Legally Permissible: The ROW currently does not have a zoning category as it is being used as a public street. However, if it were available on the open market, it would be rezoned for private use. Based on land uses in the area and the adjacent RM-1.5 zoning of the Subject to the west, we are making the extraordinary assumption that the Subject Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 005462000001 Packet Pg. 232 Page 11 8.1.g would be zoned RM-1.5. Based on our calculations above, the site could be developed with 114 dwelling units. Financially Feasible: A financially feasible use of the subject site, if vacant, would be development for a multi -family use. The current market conditions for multi -family development in the greater Puget Sound region have been strong, even through the recent recession. The expected continued growth within the neighborhood indicates a financially feasible option for the Subject. Maximally Productive: The subject site is suited for a variety of development possibilities that would be maximally productive. The size, location, and supporting infrastructure indicate a multi -family development, which would maximize the development as allowed by the RM-1.5 zoning. Conclusion of Highest and Best Use as "if vacant": The highest and best use of the subject site if vacant is for a multi -family development. I. Improvements: No improvements must be addressed in the Before condition. J. Specialty Items: N/A K. Real Estate Taxes: The following is the county's indication of assessed value. The Adjacent Land is being used for religious purposes so no taxes are assessed. TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION 2016 Assessed Value: Land Improvements Total Taxes (2016) P/N 00546200000100, 00546200000101 L. Assessments Current and Pending: N/A M. Existing Lease or Rental Data: N/A $3,386,500 $6,644,400 $10,030,900 Exempt N. Highest and Best Use of the Whole Property As Improved: The subject improvements provide a significant contribution to the land as it is currently being used as a public street. The cost to install the road must be reimbursed to the City of Edmonds as the road will remain usable after the acquisition. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 0054620000010 Packet Pg. 233 Page 12 8.1.g 8. APPROACHES TO VALUE: There are three accepted methods of evaluating all types of real property: the cost approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income capitalization approach. All three approaches are used when applicable. When sufficient information is not available, only those approaches or that approach containing the most information is used and/or relied upon. Cost Approach The cost approach to value arises from the economic concept of objective value. This concept implies that the value of anything is the cost incurred to create it. This approach is based upon the estimated reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements. The cost is then reduced in value by the accrued depreciation, if any. The depreciated value of site improvements, if any, and estimated land value are then added to the depreciated reproduction cost of the improvements to develop an indication of value by the cost approach. Sales Comparison Approach The sales comparison approach method of valuation reflects the opinion of buyers and sellers of comparable property about the value of the subject property. The sales comparison approach is based on the principle of substitution: no well-informed, prudent buyer is going to pay more for any property than is necessary to buy another equally desirable substitute property. The sales comparison approach requires the appraiser to assume the role of a typical buyer; gather sufficient data; and analyze, weigh, and adjust the data in such a manner as to properly apply this information to the property being appraised. Income Capitalization Approach The income capitalization approach method of valuation is used primarily in the appraisal of investment property. Therefore, the appraiser must analyze the rental value of the comparable properties and, in addition, obtain background information on what a prudent investor in this type of property expects as a return on investment. From this information, a return on the invested capital can be ascertained and then applied to the subject property's market rent to develop a reliable indication of value based on income. The rent paid or income received, commonly known as contract rent, is not always market rent for a given property. In other words, a survey of comparable properties must be made for the purpose of obtaining rental information to ascertain the going or market rent for comparable properties and the subject property. This information must then be related to the subject property being appraised. The income capitalization approach is the primary approach used in arriving at the indicated market value for income -producing property. Approaches to Value Used All three approaches to value have been considered in estimating the market value of the subject. However, the cost and income capitalization approaches, although considered, are not applicable to the valuation of the subject property: the cost approach, because the valuation is for land only, and the income capitalization approach, because these kinds of properties do not normally produce ground rent. Only the most appropriate approach to value, the sales comparison approach, has been utilized. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 005462000001 Packet Pg. 234 Page 13 8.1.g 9. VALUATION -BEFORE: (A) Site Valuation: (1) Sales Comparison Approach: In the sales comparison approach, the value of a property is estimated by comparing it with similar properties in its market area. This approach is based on the premise that the value of a property is set by the prices of equally desirable substitute properties in the same area. In the Before, we will value the Adjacent Lot to the west of the Subject. In this section, the market value of the fee simple interest of the site, as vacant, will be estimated by comparing it with recent sales of vacant land located in the subject property's neighborhood or in surrounding neighborhoods having similar characteristics. Comparable sales were selected with consideration given to the subject's current attributes, which include zoning, size, amenities, and location. (a) Scope of Data Search: The data search was accomplished using public records, NWMLS, CBA, and CoStar. The search period included sales occurring in the city of Edmonds and surrounding neighborhoods of Snohomish and King Counties. In order to reflect current market conditions, the search included sales from the last three years and the closest in proximity to the subject property with similar site sizes and highest and best use considerations. Sale Idendficatkm Sale Date Sale PdM U lk / hits Sue (SF) ` vp, Sub 22901 Ednrnnds Way, Edmonds 85 171.191 1,511 1 2130548th Ave W, Mountlake Tenace 12/31/13 $500,000 $18,519/lot 27 59,219.00 1,645 2 7907230th St SW, FdnDnds 6115/15 $625,000 $3Z895/lot 19 39204.00 1548 3 1 14615 Madison Way, Lynn"ood 4/1/16 $3,200,000 $17,77WIot 180 472,625.00 1,969 4 17xocNE205th, Shoreline 1211/14 $1,725,000 $15,972/lot 108 32.200.00 224 (b) General Discussion: N/A (c) Comparative Analyses: Unit of Comparison The most prevalent indicator of value for multifamily land is the $/Unit (Price per Unit). Adjustments The limited number of sales in the subject's immediate area and lack of uniformity within this market prevent direct extraction of reliable paired -sale adjustments from the marketplace. Any attempt to apply paired -sales adjustments for this property is somewhat subjective and unreliable. Therefore, a general bracketing analysis reflecting market behavior is utilized to determine which Sales are generally superior or inferior to the subject site. This analysis establishes value parameters for the subject allowing for a final conclusion of value. A brief discussion of the various adjustments applied to the comparable sales is presented below: Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 00546200000101 Packet Pg. 235 Page 14 8.1.g Time of Sale — This adjustment is caused by changes in market conditions between the time of sale of a comparable and the date of the appraisal of the subject. Changes in market conditions may be caused by inflation, deflation, fluctuations in supply and demand, or other factors. The sales utilized are fairly recent, dating back to late 2013. Rents in the greater Seattle metro area rose about 12% last year and the apartment market in the Seattle area is one of the strongest in the nation, fueled in part by skyrocketing single-family values. We have made an adjustment of 12% per year to all Sales. Adjustments to Market Corrected Sales Prices The bracketing analysis will be based on the values of the Sales including a market adjustment for sale date. Total Site Area — The Subject gross site area is 171,191 square feet. For multifamily land, we have not found a reliable correlation between the size of the lot and the $/Unit, so we have made no adjustments. Zoning — The zoning of the Subject and the Sales have similar highest and best uses, so no adjustments have been made. While there are inherent differences between zoning regulations between municipalities, the differences are primarily due to allowable density, which is adjusted for later in this analysis. Location —We have only made a downward adjustment to Sale 3 since it is in a statistically inferior market compared to the Subject. Access — Sale 4 has superior access to the freeway compared to the Subject and all of the Sales, so a downward adjustment has been made. Shape — None of the Sales or the Subject have a restrictive shape so no adjustments have been made. Critical Areas — When environmentally critical areas are present it can distort the density calculation for the analysis. Sale 2 does have environmentally sensitive areas, reflected in the lowest density of development for all of the Sales. We have made no adjustment as discussed below in the Density section. Topography — All of the Sales and the Subject are considered to have similar topography so no adjustments have been made. Utilities — All of the Sales have similar access to utilities. Other — Sales 1 and 2 will be developed with townhomes instead of apartments. We have not made an adjustment, but due to this fact, Sales 1 and 2 are given lower reliance in the final reconciliation. Preliminary Approval — Multifamily properties often sell with preliminary approval for a project that drastically reduces the time from sale of the property until breaking ground on the project compared to those properties that sold without preliminary design approval in place. The Subject does not currently have a development plan in place that has been given preliminary approval by the City of Edmonds, but all of the sales do have preliminary approval. We have used a paired sales analysis to analyze the difference in sales price for properties that sold with Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 005462000001 Packet Pg. 236 Page 15 8.1.g approval verses those that did not, and an appropriate downward adjustment has been made. Density (SF/Unit) — This accounts for the difference in density of development for all of the Sales compared to the Subject. On a unit basis, far denser developments tend to achieve a lower $/Unit, so we have made an upward adjustment to Sale 4. Though Sale 2 has a higher density compared to the other Sales, this is due in part to the presence of critical areas as discussed earlier, so it is likely that the effective density is significantly lower, therefore we have made no adjustment. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 0054620000010 Packet Pg. 237 Page 16 COMPARABLE LAND SUMMARY GRID Subject Comparable Sale 1 A ' Comparable Sale 2 Adj. Comparable Sale 3 A ' Co able Sale 4 A ' Location 22901 Edmonds Way, Edmonds 21305 48th Ave W, Mountlake Terrace 7907 230th St SW, Edmonds 14615 Madison Way, Lynnwood 17xxNE 205th St, Shoreline Sale Price $500,000 $625,000 $3,200,000 $1,725,000 Sale Price/Unit $18,519 $32,895 $17,778 $15,972 Date of Sale 12/31/2013 28% 6/15/2015 11% 4/1/2016 1% 12/1/2014 17% Adj. Price / Unit $23,724 $36,399 $17,971 $18,703 # of Units 114 Potential Units 27 Potential Units - 19 Potential Unils -- 180 Potential Units + 108 Potential Units Total Site Area 171,191 59,219 39,204 472,625 32,200 Zonis RM-1.5 Park West Condo. Conplex MR MR CB Location Average Similar I Similar Inferior + Similar Access Average Similar Similar Similar Good - Shape Irregular -Unrestricted i Irregular -Unrestricted Rectangular Irregular -Unrestricted Rectangular Critical Areas None Known None Known None Known Yes None Known To r Level Similar Similar Similar Similar Utilities All Availlable Same Same Same Same Prelim Approvai No Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Density SF/Unit 1,502 2,193 2,063 2,626 298 ++ Other Potential A artments Townhomes Townhomes Apartments Apartments Net Lot A '. Superior -- Far Superior --- Slightly Inferior I + Inferior + F0 Attachment: Exhibit 7 - Appraisal (1560 : Resolution setting a Public Hearing on a proposal to Vacate a Portion of 92nd Ave W) Page 17 8.1.g Comparable Analysis A search for similar sites conducted in the subject's neighborhood produced a relatively limited number of sales. The selected land sales, including competitive neighborhoods, are detailed in the Addenda of this report. Each sale will be briefly described. It should be recognized that the comparable sales vary from the subject in several factors, but allow a bracketing process to be developed to establish a reasonable value range for the subject. (d) Correlation and Conclusions of Sales Comparison Approach to Land Value Before: The sales, taken as a whole, indicate an unadjusted sale price of $15,972 to $32,895 per Unit. The bracketing analysis is based on the market adjusted sale prices that have an adjusted range of $17,971 to $36,399 per unit. Most emphasis was placed on Sale 3 since it will be developed with apartments and sold very recently in 2016. Sale 4 was given secondary weight since the density allowed is so much higher, but a similar quantity of potential units compared to the Subject. Sales 1 and 2 were given tertiary weight since they are being developed with townhomes, though apartments would also have been potentially allowed. Based on the bracketing analysis, we estimate that a fair market unit value for the Subject is $19,000 per potential multifamily dwelling unit. The Subject has the potential for the development of 114 multifamily apartment units. Accordingly, based on the above analysis, it is our opinion that the market value of the subject site in the Before is calculated as follows: 114 Units x $19,000/Unit = $2,166,000 (2) Income Approach to Land Value (if appropriate): N/A (3) Correlation and Final Conclusions of Land Value Before: $2,166,000 B. Whole Property Valuation Before: (1) Sales Comparison Approach to Value of Whole Property: N/A (2) Income Approach to Value of Whole Property Before: N/A (3) Cost Approach to Value of Whole Property (if appropriate): N/A C. Correlation and Final Conclusion from All Approaches: The sales comparison approach was the only approach utilized to estimate the subject property's value, as the other approaches were not considered to provide credible or reliable value indications for this acquisition. The land value in the Before condition is estimated at $2,166,000. 10. REMAINDER EVALUATION: (1) Assumptions and Limiting Conditions: General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions remain unchanged. (Refer to Appraisal Assumptions and Limiting Conditions in this report.) Packet Pg. 239 Page 18 8.1.g (2) Neighborhood Factors: The neighborhood factors remain unchanged. (3) Description of Subject Remainder: The proposed fee acquisition consists of 20,323 SF in fee in the ROW to the east of the Subject. When added to the existing 171,191 SF, the new size of the Subject will become 191,514 SF. After the acquisition, the subject's access will remain the same for as long as the ROW corridor is preserved at the discretion of the client. After the acquisition, the subject will continue to have a generally level topography, an irregular, but non-restrictive shape, and access to all available utilities. As is common with public streets, there are a number of utilities within the ROW including water (blue), sewer (orange), electric (yellow), and storm sewer (green) as shown in the following exhibit. (Not to scale) Though some of the utilities within the ROW lack legal easements, we are making the assumption that the City of Edmonds will record appropriate easements from each one based on the requirements of the particular utility. In the case of storm sewer, the City of Edmonds requires an easement of 5 feet on either side of the line. Snohomish PUD requires 5.5 feet from either side of the electric line. A setback of 7.5 feet on either side of the water and sewer line is required by Olympic View Water and Sewer. The location of all of the utilities constrains development to such a degree that placing an improvement anywhere in the vacated street would be impractical. Only about 2,000 SF of land is unconstrained by the easements located in the northwest and southwest corners of the acquisition area based on our calculations using Google Earth Pro. Though the ROW will not add additional area for buildings, there is substantial real estate value since all of the area within the ROW can be used to increase the density of Packet Pg. 240 Page 19 8.1.g development on other areas of the lot. This has been confirmed with the City of Edmonds planning department. If the Subject was vacant and this land was added to the existing lot, an even greater quantity of potential dwelling units could be developed. In the After condition the size of the Subject lot will now be 191,514 SF. As discussed earlier, the ROW will very likely be zoned RM-1.5. Dividing the new site area by 1,500 SF per dwelling unit allows for development of 127 units (rounded down) in the After condition, as opposed to 114 in the Before condition. (4) Highest and Best Use Analysis: The zoning will remain Multiple Residential. As in the Before, the highest and best use of the Subject site as if vacant is for a multifamily development, which is consistent with the current City of Edmonds zoning. (5) Valuation - Remainder A. Land as Though Vacant Scope of Data Search The site analysis and evaluation that was conducted for the property in the Before in Section 9 is relied upon for the Remainder. Thus, the scope of data search is identical to that used to value the subject property in the Before. Discussion of Approaches to Value Remainder: Approaches to Value Remainder Used All three approaches to value have been considered in estimating the market value of the subject. However, income capitalization approach, although considered, is not applicable to the valuation of the subject property since the property is not typical of income -producing properties that rely on ground rent. A small cost approach was used to value the site improvements within the ROW. The only applicable approach to valuation of the land is the Sales Comparison approach. (For additional comments about approaches to value, refer to Section 8.) Comparative Analyses Other than the Subject being a slightly larger parcel, in is the appraisers' opinion, the function of the Subject site is essentially unchanged from the Before. B. Whole Property Valuation in the Remainder: (1) Sales Comparison Approach to Value of Whole Property: The best conclusion from the available data is to apply the subject's Before value of $19,000 per unit to the subject's Remainder area: The addition of the ROW allows for 127 units. $19,000/unit x 127 units = $2,413,000 Since it is not practical to build any substantial improvements with the acquisition area due to the presence of utilities, this area is less valuable than unencumbered land. The loss of value associated with land that can be used for density and site Packet Pg. 241 Page 20 8.1.g improvements (parking areas or landscaping) is fairly small, given the constraints of this particular area can be designed around if a development was planned. The estimate of the loss of value due to the reduction of some property rights cannot typically be obtained from sales directly, but has been loosely standardized by entities who purchase large quantities of right of way for infrastructure projects. Typically a loss of value is calculated based on the $/SF of the underlying land value. A reduction of value of 100% is typically reserved for land that is so encumbered that it is very difficult to use in any meaningful way. A reduction of 50% is typical for an easement that disallows improvements, but the encumbered area can still be used for landscaping or parking, but the land is constrained in an inconvenient way. A reduction of 25% is typical for properties where the encumbered area could conveniently be utilized for a use that supports the highest and best use of the land (such as parking or landscaping area for the church), even if it cannot be improved with a building. This is the case that best matches the S Subject. Smaller reductions of value less than 25% are typically reserved for encumbrances that have minimal effect on the uses of the underlying land, such as buying an easement on top of a preexisting easement that already constrains development, or buying an easement within buildings setbacks where construction was already not permitted. The value of the land in the After condition is $2,413,000 without taking the easements into account. After dividing by the 191,514 SF of the increased site area, the $/SF of land is $12.60/SF. Out of the total 20,323 SF of acquisition area, only about 2,000 SF is feasibly able to be improved in conjunction with the Subject land due to the easements that are (or will be) in place. Taking the Before land area of 171,191 SF and adding 2,000 of unencumbered acquisition area means that a total of 173,191 SF of unencumbered land will be valued at full fee value. 173,191 SF (Unencumbered Land) x $12.60/SF = $2,182,207 (Unencumbered Land Value) The remaining 18,323 of encumbered land will be valued at 25% less on a $/SF basis. $12.60/SF — 25% _ $9.45/SF 18,323 SF (Encumbered Land) x $9.45/SF = $173,152 (Encumbered Land Value) $2,182,207 (Unencumbered Land) + $173,152 (Encumbered Land) _ $2,355,359. Thus, the concluded land value in the After is $2,355,000 (Rounded to nearest $1,000) (2) Income Approach to Value of Whole Property in the Remainder: N/A (3) Cost Approach to Value of Whole Property: The acquisition area has been paved at the expense of the City and the value of a this asphalt must be taken into account and added to the After land value. We have estimated the footprint of the existing asphalt paving at about 10,100 SF based on our estimates using Google Earth Pro. Using cost information provided by the Marshall and Swift Cost Handbook, we have found that an average Packet Pg. 242 Page 21 8.1.g residential subdivision street can be built for about $.75/SF for the rock base and an additional $2.20/SF for paving using asphalt for a total of $2.95/SF. From the date of publication of the data, a multiplier of 1.06 must be used to account for higher construction costs since publication for a result of 3.13/SF. Since costs in the Seattle area are higher than the national average, a multiplier of 1.18 must be used to account for this difference, for a result of $3.69/SF. 10,100 SF (Existing Asphalt Paving) x $3.69/SF = $37,269 (Cost of New Asphalt) We must depreciate the value of the paving because while it appears in serviceable condition, there are obvious signs of wear and tear including a fair amount of cracking and patches. Average quality residential streets have an average lifespan of about 8 years until they must be resealed. There are no dramatic potholes on the existing road, but the pavement is obviously distressed and some of the cracks have started to grow vegetation. Of the original 8 years, I estimate that there is no more than 3 years of economic life to the existing road before steps to rehabilitate the asphalt must be taken. Using straight line depreciation, we apply the $37,269 cost of a new road by 3/8 (remaining life/total life) = $14,000 (rounded to nearest $100). $2,355,000 (Value of Land in the After) + $14,000 (Value of depreciated Asphalt) = $2,369,000 Correlation and Conclusion from All Approaches of Land and Improvements Values Remainder: $2,369,000 (6) Recapitulation: A. Value of property "Before" acquisition B. Value of property "After" acquisition $2,166,000 2 3$ 69,000 C. Difference between "Before" and "After" values $203,000 11. EXPLANATION, MEASUREMENT, and ALLOCATION of DAMAGES/SPECIAL BENEFITS: Damages: There are no damages to the owner of the underlying land. Benefits: The appraisers have not found any special benefit to the subject property remainder. Packet Pg. 243 Page 22 12. SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL CONCLUSIONS Indicated Value Before Acquisition Highest andBest Use Before: Subdivision Type Size Unit Value Land value before Fee Land 114 Lots $19,000 perUnitl $ 2,166,000 Total Area: 114 Lots Total Land: Total Subject Value Before Project Indicated Subject Value After Project Highest and Best Use After: Subdivision $ 2,166,000 Total hnprowments $ - $ 2,166,000 Land Unencumbered Land 173,191 SF $12.60 er SF $ 1182,207 Encumbered Land 18,323 SF $9.45 per SF $ 173,152 Total Area: 173,191 SF (It to $1,000) Total Land: hn owments Depreciated Asphalt $ 14,000 Total hn ovements: Less Cost to Cure if an Total Subject Value After Project $ 2,355,000 14,000 $ 2,369,000 8.1.g N L Q Q Q K W r E 0 2 a Packet Pg. 244 �a yOew- CO UAttachment: Exhibit 7 - Appraisal (1560 : Resolution setting a Public Hearing on a proposal to Vacate a Portion of 92nd Ave W) 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 25 Comparable Land Sale No. 1 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: 21309 481h Ave W, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 (2) SALE SKETCH and PHOTO are on following page. (3) a. Access: Private drive off 481h Ave West b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: High Density Residential/Multifamily d. Zoning: RMM (Park West Condo. Complex), Mountlake Terrace f. Area: 59,219 SF g. Sale Date: 12/17/2013 h. Sale Price: $500,000 i. Instrument Type: Statutory Warranty Deed j. Terms: Cash k. Ex. Tax # or AF #:E033083 1. Seller: HDCCBG LLC m. Buyer: Park West LLC p. Date Inspected: 5/5/2016 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: Tax Parcel No. 01 080100 0002 00, Snohomish County, Washington (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): Property Description: This is the sale of multifamily -zoned land on the eastern edge of an established complex of condos and apartments. The new project is called Terrace at Park West Townhomes and will consist of 27 fee simple townhomes in 5 buildings. The preliminary plat had already been approved before the sale date. (6) ANALYSIS: Land: 59.219 SF CONTRIBUTION MARKET UNIT VALUE $ $500,000 $ $18,519/Unit Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ F19 TOTAL SALE PRICE $ $500,000 $ Sale No. 1 Packet Pg. 247 Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa 8.1.g 26 Comparable Land Sale No. 1 (cont.) ,u � • sr r y +y� ! crrar� or ant .-ter• y� ia.1 71 Sale No. 1 Taken By: Glenn Price Date Taken: 5/5/2016 Packet Pg. 248 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 27 Comparable Land Sale No. 2 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: 7907 230" St SW, Edmonds, WA (2) SALE SKETCH and PHOTO are on following page. (3) a. Access: 2301h St SW off of Highway 99 b. Use at Sale: Single Family c. H & B Use: High Density Residential/Multifamily d. Zoning: MR, Snohomish County f. Area: 39,204 SF g. Sale Date: 6/15/2015 h. Sale Price: $625,000 i. Instrument Type: Statutory Warranty Deed j. Terms: Cash Equivalent k. Ex. Tax or AF #: 1077722 1. Seller: IFF Holding LLC m. Buyer: Mietzner Brothers Properties LLC o. Confirmed by: GLP p. Date Inspected: 5/5/2016 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: Tax Parcel No. 00 576700 0004 03, Snohomish County, Washington (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This is the sale of a lot that previously had a small single-family home on the site but is now being improved with 19 townhomes. Plans had undergone pre -approval at the time of sale. The home was given no value in the transaction, and the rental income over the course of approvals likely offset much, if not all, of the demolition costs to remove it. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM Land: 39,204 SF $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ CONTRIBUTION MARKET UNIT VALUE $625,000 $ $32,895/Unit TOTAL SALE PRICE $ $625,000 $ Sale No. 2 Packet Pg. 249 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 28 Comparable Land Sale No. 2 (cont.) it Sale No. 2 Taken By: Glenn Price � �J L Date Taken: 5/5/2016 w a Packet Pg. 250 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 29 Comparable Land Sale No. 3 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: 14615 Madison Way, Lynnwood, WA 98087 (2) SALE SKETCH and PHOTO are on following page. (3) a. Access: Madison Way b. Use at Sale: Vacant (Forested) c. H & B Use: Multifamily d. Zoning: MR, Snohomish County f. Area: 472,971 SF g. Sale Date: 4/1/2016 h. Sale Price: $3,200,000 i. Instrument Type: Special Warranty Deed j. Terms: Cash Equivalent k. Ex. Tax or AF #: 8650375 1. Seller: The Nichols, LLC m. Buyer: Madison Management, LLC o. Confirmed by: GLP p. Date Inspected: 5/5/2016 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 003733 003 002 00 and 003733 003 003 00, Snohomish County, Washington. (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: The sale consists of two parcels in an area that has seen relatively rapid growth of apartment units. At sale, plans for 180 apartment units had already received pre - approval. The site does have a stream running through the middle with associated building setbacks, lowering the amount of usable area for units. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION MARKET UNIT VALUE Land: 472,625 SF $ $3,200,000 $ $17,778/Unit $ $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ $3,200,000 $ Sale No. 3 a Packet Pg. 251 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 30 Comparable Land Sale No. 3 Sale No. 3 Taken By: Glenn Price T y�r��.1'M 7- I�Ir�� 4 �`�'.., Date Taken: 5/5/2016 a Packet Pg. 252 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 31 Comparable Land Sale No. 4 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: 17xx NE 205t", Shoreline, WA (2) SALE SKETCH and PHOTO are on following page. (3) a. Access: NE 2051h Street b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: Multifamily d. Zoning: CB, City of Edmonds f. Area: 32,200 SF g. Sale Date: 12/1/2014 h. Sale Price: $1,725,000 i. Instrument Type: Statutory Warranty Deed j. Terms: Cash k. Ex. Tax # or AF #:2703746 1. Seller: Woodland Park Ave Apartments LLC in. Buyer: GRE 205"' LLC o. Confirmed by: GLP p. Date Inspected: 5/5/2016 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 741770 0552, King County, Washington. (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This property could be used for several permitted uses, but the most profitable is as a multifamily apartment complex. Though commercial uses are allowed, the value for such a use is not the economic highest and best use for the site. Preliminary plat approval was granted for 108 units prior to closing with a first level parking garage. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION MARKET UNIT VALUE Land: 32,200 SF $ $1,725,000 $ $15,972/Unit Other (Site, Yard, etc.): TOTAL SALE PRICE $ $1,725,000 $ Sale No. 4 a Packet Pg. 253 Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa 8.1.g 32 Comparable Land Sale No. 4 ❑zoc A 4+ , Sale No. 4 Taken By: Glenn Price i Date Taken: 5/5/2016 Packet Pg. 254 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 33 Market Data LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLANTZ ADDITION BLK 000 D-00 - SEGD FOR TX PURP ONLY - PAR A, ADJUSTED, CITY OF EDM LLA NO. LL-99-46 ACCORDING TO LLA THOF REC AFN 9905170971 TGW LOTS 62-65 INC PLAT OF PINECREST AKA PAR A CITY OF EDM LLA #LL-2006-026 REC AFN 200703025001 EXC SELY 1.33 AC THOF SD ADJ PAR A & LOTS 62-65 INC PLAT OF PINECREST - REFER TO 005462-000-001-01 FOR TXBL PORTION (EXEMPT PER ST OF WA REG #03280-001) Packet Pg. 255 Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 34 8.1.g ACQUISITION FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHXBXT A LZOLL MSCRIBTIM OF ClTr OF E,tHc bmg STREVAGATXON= THAT PORTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, RRIXG A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, AND THE MRTNEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36. TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W,X., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERS'F771014 OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228" STREET S.W. AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92- AV'ENUiE W. , SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIDGE ACRES, PER PLAT RECORDED 1UNDEiR AUDITOR'S FILE NUXBER 262998; THENCE SOUTH 0';13' 09" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN OF 92N° AVENUE WY., A DISTANCE OF 375.41 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY FLAT CRY OF SEDUOYAH, A CO'NDOMINI'UM, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200704225001; THENCE NORTH $0*42'29' WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINC OF PARCEL •A' OF CITY OF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJUS•I1(ENT NO, LL 2006-026, RROORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200703025001; THENCE NORTH 0"13'09• WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LIME OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 91.85 PEET; TRUCE SOUTH 61049'47' WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL *A", A DISTANCE OF 33.95 PEET; THENCE NORTH 0013'o9• WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 320.46 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A', SAID NORTHEASTERLY CORNER ALSO H'EINO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228`" STREET S.W. AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY KARGIN 9211° AV31NUE W . ! THENCE SOUTIR $8022155' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CEMERLINE OF 92"0 AVENUE W. , SAI-D POINT LYING 9C347M 0°13'09' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20,01 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST COMER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 00131090 FAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 10,00 FBETI THENCE SOUTH 88"41'25' EAST, A DISTANCE Or 30,01 FEET To THE POINT OF RFr-' TNMT rdr- _ SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMOUDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, CONTAINING 20,323 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. I OF] Packet Pg. 256 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 35 ACQUISITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION 37 r . 39 42 41 40 ppd"9eirl7 dK � r f I Ar &u. � � ifoa Na 14 er tin�ur4 i 35 34 1 33 09. c L zill7c- �i* W22VOE 7.oaT' �' I I I 30�2' �sR xt sR�a�+'z•,� 1 I � 43DA�4+ CS d5 Qi OY _ — 1 � 11 a'tI �.L� i .... r7 arts I IL4I 1 �. Ao1F�. Jrf ntt 3 P �, C1Fr OF rlLk w l g i%L x "617M-M 51— i Ar Pic. i(qR 1 fI 33,9E ►iiiiROR34D4EW0 5 G 7 I rye,rf2'26'W I "HEETI01STREET VACATION ESTGATE CHAPE 14-403 CITY OF EDMONDS SNOkQMISH CO. 'WASHIHGUM 6EUM M FT1FM9—i of oil 'twhwr2sw ORMP FOUR*R R�OYQYi109A dP!f4M4baklEGMP5619�'A;lrL1�SSC1�51y*LNISI 132 . Auc4wff-M#j I whwraoun Packet Pg. 257 8.1.g Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 36 QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER .TAMES B. PRICE, MAI, SR/WA www.APPRAISALGROUPNW.COM ; JPRICE@APPRAISALGROUPNW.COM PHONE No.: (425) 453-9292; FAx No. (425) 455-9740 1409140TIl PLACE NE, STE 105, BELLEVUE, WA 98007-3963 EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Finance, Real Estate Emphasis; Northern Illinois University/ University of Illinois. Appraisal Institute courses include Capitalization Theory, Residential Valuation, Easement Valuation, and Standards of Professional Practice. Seminars and Classes include: Al Course 833- Fundamentals of Separating Real Property, Personal Property, and Intangible business Assets, Real Estate Feasibility, Business Valuation, Valuation of Easements and Litigation Skills, Appraising for Pension Funds, and Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Appraisal Institute Membership: MAI Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute since 1979 Formerly: President, Director, and Vice President, Seattle Chapter and Alaska Chapter International Right of Way Association Designation: SR/WA (Senior Right of Way Agent) Position: International Right of Way Association Valuation Committee, past chair Formerly: Regional Chair, Region 7, International Right of Way Association International Right of Way Association Director, President, and Vice President; Seattle, Washington and Fairbanks, Alaska Chapters EXPERIENCE: Over 43 years Currently: General Partner, APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Developer of subdivision, office building, and residences Owner of office buildings and apartments Formerly: Proprietor, APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST Appraiser, Schueler, McKown & Keenan Partner, Price & Associates, Alaska Senior Appraiser, First State Bank of Oregon Appraiser, Pacific First Federal Savings Bank Appraiser, U.S. Small Business Administration Appraiser, Washington State Dept. of Transportation Qualified as an expert witness in Superior Court, Federal Court Master's Hearings, and Federal Bankruptcy Court. Served as an arbitrator in property valuation and lease renewals Washington State Department of Transportation approved appraiser. Fee reviewer; Washington Dept. of Transportation, major banks, and governmental clients. Qualified as a Master; held Master's Hearings in Alaska. Currently certified under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Currently certified in Washington State as a General Appraiser (Certificate No. 1100229) Vice President- Newcastle Trails Packet Pg. 258 8.1.g CLIENTS SERVED Abeyta & Associates, R/W Company Benson & McLaughlin, Accountants Boston Private Bank Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffinan; Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management Camp Korey Cathay Bank Center Bank Certified Land Services Chevron Products Company Church of God, Western Washington City of Auburn City of Bellevue City of Des Moines City of Issaquah City of Maple Valley City of Mount Vernon City of Newcastle City of Port Angeles City of Redmond City of SeaTac City of Seattle City of Shoreline City of Tacoma Coldwell Banker Relocation Columbia Bank Costco Eastman, Scott, Attorney, Bellevue El Centro De La Raza, Felicia Gonzales Enumclaw Public Schools First Sound Bank HDR Engineering John Lynch, CPA, Bellevue Johns Monroe Mitsunaga, Attorneys; Michael Monroe, Darrell Mitsunaga Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Attorneys Kent Schools Appraisers: Watts & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP A-5183 Packet Pg. 259 Qualifications of GLENN L. PRICE, APPRAISER 8.1.g Paee KeyBank of Washington King County Library System Korea Exchange Bank Lane & Associates, Inc., R/W Company O. R. Colan Associates, Inc. (Acquisition Specialists) Ogden Murphy Wallace, Attorneys Pharos Corporation (R/W Company) Port of Friday Harbor Port of Orcas Port of Seattle Puget Sound Energy Reid Middleton, Engineers Saehan Bank Seattle City Light Seattle School District Sound Transit Tacoma Utilities U.S. Bank U.S. Fidelity & Guarantee U.S. Postal Service Union Bank Universal Field Services, Inc. Washington Dept. of Transportation -Approved Appraiser & Reviewer Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission Waste Management Williams Northwest Pipeline Wilshire State Bank APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Packet Pg. 260 o b � a � o c � o z H z z x � � tin y b 'ti tr" b 90 Attachment: Exhibit 7 - Appraisal (1560 : Resolution setting a Public Hearing on a proposal to Vacate a Portion of 92nd Ave W) Qualifications of GLENN L. PRICE, APPRAISER 8.1.g Paae APPRAISAL GROUP "NORTHWEST EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER GLENN L. PRICE 1yw%N,.APPRAISALGROLI PN W.cahi; GPRIceCk)APPRAISAI,GRotjPN W.coni PHONE No. (425) 453-9292 #126 FAx No. (425) 455-9740 1409140TH PLACE NE, SUITE 105, BELLEVUE, WA 98007-3963 Bachelor of Science from University of Washington, Geology major, Architecture minor CONTINUING EDUCATION Appraisal Principals, Appraisal Institute, 2005 USPAP & Ethics, Standards of Professional Practice, Appraisal Institute, 2005 Basic Income Capitalization, Appraisal Institute, 2005 Appraisal Procedures, Appraisal Institute, 2006 Right of Way: 100, IRWA, 2007 General Applications, 2007, Appraisal Institute, 2007 Advanced Income Capitalization, Appraisal Institute, 2007 General Market Analysis & Highest and Best Use, Appraisal Institute, 2008 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, Appraisal Institute, 2008 General Appraiser Report Writing and Case Studies, Appraisal Institute, 2010 Principles of Real Estate Engineering, IRWA, 2012 Advanced Concepts and Case Studies, Appraisal Institute, 2013 EXPERIENCE: Currently:Appraiser, Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP, Bellevue, WA 2003 — 2009, 2012 - Current Past: Hage & Associates Appraisers, Fairbanks, AK 2009 - 2012 AFFILIATIONS: Candidate for Designation of the Appraisal Institute, Seattle Chapter Washington State General Certified Real Estate Appraiser (Certification No. 1101927) SPECIALTIES Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Land Sensitive Areas and Conservation Easements and Acquisitions Right of Way Acquisitions Litigation Consulting APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Packet Pg. 262 8.1.g CLIENTS SERVED Abeyta & Associates Alaska Department of Fish & Game Alaska Department of Transportation Bellevue College Bluefield Holdings Brandt Law Group Bullivant, Houser, Bailey Attorneys Catherine Janicki, Atty. Certified Land Services City of Arlington City of Auburn City of Edmonds City of Lake Stevens City of Lynden City of Kenmore City of Kennewick City of Milton City of Mountlake Terrace City of Port Townsend City of Redmond City of Richland City of Sammamish City of Shoreline City of Tacoma City of Woodinville Chase Bank Citywide Mortgage Cook Schuhmann & Groseclose, Inc. Core Business Bank Davis & Jonas, CAP Denali State Bank Dynasty Mortgage Evangelical Christian Credit Union Fairbanks North Star Borough Financial Advantage Forterra (Cascade Land Conservancy) HDR, Inc. Howe, Cunningham & Lowe, PLC H.W. Lochner, Inc. Joseph DePalma Administrative Trust John H. O'Rourke Law Offices Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Attorneys Johnson River Enterprises Kent Schools Keller Williams Real Estate KeyBank National Association Lummi Nation Pacific Christian Center Pacific City Bank Puget Sound Energy King County Library System King County Water District #1 O.R. Colan Associates, Inc. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company Plaza Bank Port of Seattle Prime Pacific Bank Ronald Wastewater District Schwartz, Kales, Accountants Snohomish County PUD Sound Transit Suburban North Wealth Management Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority Tahoma School District Terry Brink, Atty. Umpqua Bank Unibank Union Bank Universal Field Services US Bank Wilshire State Bank Weichert Relocation Company W.W. Grainger Inc. Appraisers: Watts & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP A-5183 Packet Pg. 263 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program (25 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead) 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- 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.) Packet Pg. 264 8.2 As the required first step in considering implementation of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program, the City Council passed Resolution 1368 on August 16, 2016 designating the Westgate Mixed Use Zone as a Residential Targeted Area where this tax exemption program could be implemented. (Resolution attached.) Staff Recommendation Place on 10/18/16 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Narrative The attached draft code language creates a new Chapter 3.38 that sets out the provisions necessary to implement the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program in Edmonds, initially in the Westgate Mixed Use Zone. These draft code provisions mirror the State statute found at RCW 84.14, as well as several cities' code provisions where local implementation provisions are necessary to augment the State statute. A brief description of the proposed code provisions follows: 3.38.010 - Purpose. The purpose essentially is to stimulate construction of new multifamily housing, including affordable housing opportunities, in urban centers designated by the City Council as having been planned for growth in housing. 3.38.020 - Definitions. Only a few definitions clarified in addition to those provided for in the State statute. 3.38.030 -Tax Exemption - Duration - Valuation - Exceptions. Two key provisions stipulated here: 1) while the State statute provides for two tax exemption options - one for 8 years with no affordable housing requirement, and one for 12 years with a 20% affordable housing requirement - the Edmonds proposal is to provide only the 12-year exemption option that requires 20% of the proposed multifamily units to be affordable, as defined in the RCW. 2) The property tax exemption applies only to the value of the multifamily component of a project. The land value is not exempt, and any commercial component is not exempt. 3.38.040 - Residential targeted areas - Designation. This sets out the Westgate Mixed Use Area as the applicable area for this tax exemption program, while also referencing the procedures in the RCW for designating potential future areas within the city. 3.38.050 - Project eligibility. This section lays out the basic eligibility requirements. Key among these provisions are the following: 1) While the State statute applies the program to as little as four multifamily units, in order to encourage development of more housing stock to meet growing demand, the Edmonds proposal is to make this tax exemption program available to projects containing at least 20 units. 2) Projects must comply with all applicable codes and regulations and have no violations during the exemption period. Packet Pg. 265 8.2 3) The multifamily or mixed -use projects must be completed within 3 years of approval of the application, or by an extended deadline approved by the director. 4) The project owner must enter into a contract approved by the mayor once the application has been approved. 3.38.060 - Application Procedure. Sets out application process, required materials and fees. 3.38.070 - Application review - Approval - Required Findings - Issuance of conditional certificate - Denial - Appeal. This section sets out the application review criteria and process; cause for denial of an application; contract requirements; and appeal procedures to the hearing examiner in case of denial. 3.38.080 - Amendment of contract. This sections sets out the procedures for amendment of the mayor - approved contract. 3.38.090 - Extension of conditional certificate - Required findings - Denial - Appeal. If a project has been stalled by the economy or other factors beyond the control of the applicant, and the conditions of the original contract are still satisfied, the director may issue an extension of up to 24 months for completion of the project construction. Conditions for denial and process for appeal of a denial are set out. 3.38.100 - Final certificate - Application - Issuance - Denial - Appeal. Once the project is constructed, certain information is required of the applicant about the project's value, certification that the affordable units have been provided, etc. In exchange a final certificate of tax exemption may be issued by the director and recorded with the county. If the conditions are not met, the director may withhold the final certificate. This decision is appealable to the hearing examiner. 3.38.110 - Annual certification. This section requires annual certification of the occupancy and vacancy of the multifamily units, whether the project has continued to meet the affordability requirements, and whether any additional improvements have been made to the property. 3.38.120 - Cancellation of tax exemption - Appeal. If the project fails to meet the requirements of the contract, including no longer complying with the affordability requirements, the director may cancel the tax exemption. This decision may be appealed to the hearing examiner. Attachments: Proposed MFTE code language Resolution 1368 Packet Pg. 266 8.2.a NEW CHAPTER 3.38 MULTI -FAMILY TAX EXEMPTION 3.38.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter, pursuant to Chapter 84.14 RCW, is to stimulate the construction of new multifamily housing and the rehabilitation of existing vacant and underutilized buildings for multifamily housing, which may include affordable housing opportunities, in keeping with the goals and mandates of the Growth Management Act (particularly Chapter 36.70A RCW), within urban centers designated as Residential Targeted Areas where the City has found insufficient housing opportunities, including affordable housing opportunities. To achieve these purposes, this chapter provides for special valuations in residentially deficient urban centers for eligible improvements associated with multiunit housing, which may include affordable housing 3.38.020 Definitions Unless expressly provided for below, in construing the provisions of this chapter, definitions of key terms in this chapter shall follow the definitions as set out in RCW 84.14.010. A. "City" means the city of Edmonds, Washington. B. "Director" means the director of the city's department of development services or authorized designee. C. "Residential targeted area" means any urban center so designated by the Edmonds city council in accordance with this chapter and Chapter 84.14 RCW, and which has been found by the city council to be lacking sufficient available, convenient, attractive, livable, and desirable residential housing to meet the needs of the public. D. "Urban center" means any district or subarea of the City of Edmonds designated as a mixed -use center through a subarea or comprehensive planning process, where urban residents may obtain a variety of products and services including several business establishments, such as shops, offices, banks, restaurants, medical facilities, governmental agencies and a mixture of uses and activities that may include housing, recreation, and cultural activities in association with either commercial or office uses, or both uses. Packet Pg. 267 8.2.a 3.38.030 Tax exemption — Duration — Valuation — Exceptions A. The value of new housing construction, conversion, and rehabilitation improvements qualifying under this chapter is exempt from ad valorem property taxation for 12 successive years beginning January 1 st of the year immediately following the calendar year of issuance of the certificate if the property otherwise qualifies for the exemption under this chapter and the applicants commits to renting or selling at least 20 percent of the multifamily housing units as affordable housing units to low- and moderate -income households, and the property must satisfy that commitment. B. The exemption does not apply to the value of land or to the value of nonhousing improvements not qualifying under ECC 3.38.050, nor does the exemption apply to increases in assessed valuation of land and nonqualifying improvements. This article also does not apply to increases in assessed valuation made by the assessor on nonqualifying portions of building and value of land, nor to increases made by lawful order of a county board of equalization, the Department of Revenue, or a county, to a class of property throughout the county or specific area of the county to achieve the uniformity of assessment or appraisal required by law. 3.38.040 Residential targeted areas — Designation A. The following area is designated by the City Council as a residential targeted area, consistent with the requirements of RCW 84.14.040: 1. Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) Zoning District. B. If part of any legal lot is within a residential targeted area, the entire lot shall be deemed to lie within the residential targeted area C. The area(s) designated in subsection A of this section may be amended and other areas may be added by action of the City Council consistent with requirements of RCW 84.14.040. Any amendment to the residential targeted areas shall not affect the status of a project for which the City has received a complete application for property tax exemption under this chapter. 3.38.050 Project eligibility To qualify for temporary exemption from property taxation under this chapter, the property shall satisfy all of the following requirements. A. The property must be located in a designated residential targeted area. Packet Pg. 268 8.2.a B. The project must consist of at least twenty dwelling units of multifamily housing, located within a residential structure or a mixed -use development, in which at least 50 percent of the space within such residential structure or mixed -use development is intended for permanent residential occupancy. C. The project must comply with all zoning requirements, land use regulations, and building code requirements contained in the Edmonds City Code and applicable upon land use permit approval or submittal of a complete building permit application, whichever occurs sooner D. For the duration of the exemption granted under this chapter, the property shall have no violations of applicable zoning requirements, land use regulations, or building code requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code for which the development services department shall have issued an order to correct ("OTC') or notice of violation ("NOV") that are not resolved by a voluntary correction agreement, vacation by the hearing examiner, or action of the property owner in compliance with the applicable code requirements as determined by the director, within the time period for compliance provided in such OTC or NOV and any extension of the time period for compliance granted by the director. E. New construction multifamily housing must be completed within three years from the date of approval of the application or by any extended deadline granted by the director pursuant to ECC 3.38.090. F. The owner must enter into a contract with the city, approved by the mayor, under which the owner has agreed to the implementation of the development on terms and conditions satisfactory to the city and in compliance with this chapter.. 3.38.060 Application Procedure The owner of property applying for exemption under this chapter shall submit an application to the director on a form established by the director. The owner shall verify the correctness of the information contained in the application by his/her signature and affirmation made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. The application shall contain such information as the director may deem necessary or useful, which at a minimum shall include: A. A completed City of Edmonds application form, including information setting forth the grounds for tax exemption; B. A brief written description of the project, and schematic site and floor plans of the multifamily units and the structure(s) in which they are proposed to be located; Packet Pg. 269 8.2.a C. Floor and site plans of the proposed project, which plans may be revised by the owner provided such revisions are made prior to the city's final action on the exemption application; D. A statement from the owner acknowledging the potential tax liability when the property ceases to be eligible for exemption under this chapter; E. At the time of initial application under this section, the owner shall pay to the city an initial application fee of $1,000.00, plus an amount necessary to cover recording fees as set out in the City's Development Fee Table; F. Except as otherwise provided for in subsection G, the application shall be submitted any time before a complete application for a building or other construction permit is submitted; G. If, on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the owner has applied for a permit identified in subsection F of this section, then application for exemption under this section may be submitted any time prior to issuance of a building permit. 3.38.070 Application review — Approval — Required findings — Issuance of conditional certificate — Denial — Appeal A. The director may approve an application if he or she finds that: 1. A minimum of twenty new units are being constructed; 2. The proposed project is or will be, at the time of completion, in conformance with all approved plans, and all applicable requirements of the Edmonds City Code or other applicable requirements or regulations in effect at the time the application is approved; 3. The owner has complied with all of the requirements of this chapter, including but not limited to project eligibility requirements contained in ECC 3.38.050 and application requirements contained in ECC 3.38.060; 4. The project site is located within a designated residential targeted area; and 5. If applicable, the proposed multiunit housing project meets the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030. B. The director shall deny an application if the foregoing criteria are not met. Packet Pg. 270 8.2.a C. If the application is approved, the owner shall enter into a contract with the city, approved by the mayor, who is hereby authorized to approve such contracts, regarding the terms and conditions of the project under this chapter. D. Following mayor approval of the contract, the director shall issue a conditional certificate of acceptance of tax exemption. The conditional certificate shall expire three years from the date of approval unless an extension is granted as provided in ECC 3.38.090. E. If the application is denied, the director shall state in writing the reasons for the denial and send notice of denial to the owner's last known address within 10 days of the denial. F. An owner may appeal a denial of a tax exemption application to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 30 calendar days of receipt of notice of the denial. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall follow the procedures for appeal of Type II decisions, shall be based upon the record before the director, and the director's decision will be upheld unless the owner can show that there is no substantial evidence on the record to support the director's decision. The hearing examiner's decision on appeal shall constitute the final action of the city. 3.38.080 Amendment of contract A. Any owner seeking amendment(s) to the contract approved by the mayor may do so by submitting a request in writing to the director at any time within three years of the date of the mayor's approval of the contract. B. Any owner seeking amendments to the approved form of contract shall pay to the city an amendment application fee of $200.00 for administrative costs, plus any amount necessary to cover recording fees as set out in the City's Development Fee Table. C. The director may approve amendments to the contract that comport with the intent of the original contract approved by the mayor. 3.38.090 Extension of conditional certificate — Required findings — Denial — Appeal A. The conditional certificate may be extended by the director for a period not to exceed 24 consecutive months. The owner shall submit a written request stating the grounds for the extension together with a fee of $300.00 for the city's administrative cost to process the request. The director may grant an extension if the director finds that: Packet Pg. 271 8.2.a (a) The anticipated failure to complete construction within the required time period is due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner; and (b) The owner has been acting, and could reasonably be expected to continue to act, in good faith and with due diligence; and (c) All the conditions of the original contract between the owner and the city will be satisfied upon completion of the project. B. If an extension is denied, the director shall state in writing the reason for denial and shall send notice to the owner's last known address within 10 calendar days of the denial. An owner may appeal the denial of an extension to the hearing examiner, using the process for appeals of Type II decisions. 3.38.100 Final certificate — Application — Issuance — Denial — Appeal A. Upon completion of the construction as provided in the contract between the owner and the city, and upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner may request a final certificate of tax exemption. The owner shall file with the director such information as the director may deem necessary or useful to evaluate eligibility for the final certificate, which shall at a minimum include: 1. A statement of expenditures made with respect to each multifamily housing unit and the total expenditures made with respect to the entire property; 2. A description of the completed work and a statement of qualification for the exemption; 3. If applicable, a statement that the project meets the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030; 4. A statement that the work was completed within the required three-year period or any approved extension. B. At the time of application for final certificate under this section, the owner shall pay to the city a fee of $300.00 to cover the city's administrative costs, in addition to recording costs. C. Within 30 days of receipt of all materials required for a final certificate, the director shall determine whether the completed work, and the affordability of the units if applicable, is consistent with the contract Packet Pg. 272 8.2.a between the city and owner, whether all or a portion of the completed work qualifies for exemption under this chapter and, if so, which specific improvements satisfy the requirements of this chapter D. If the director determines that the project has been completed in accordance with the contract between the owner and the city and the requirements of this chapter, the city shall file a final certificate of tax exemption with the assessor within 10 days of the expiration of the 30-day period provided under subsection C of this section. E. The director is authorized to cause to be recorded, or to require the owner to record, in the real property records of the Snohomish County Auditor's Department, Recording Division, the contract with the city required under ECC 3.38.070.C, or such other document(s) as will identify such terms and conditions of eligibility for exemption under this article as the director deems appropriate for recording. F. The director shall notify the owner in writing that the city will not file a final certificate if the director determines that the project was not completed within the required three-year period or any approved extension, or was not completed in accordance with the contract between the owner and the city and the requirements of this chapter, or, if applicable, the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030 were not met, or the owner's property is otherwise not qualified for the limited exemption under this chapter. G. The owner may appeal the director's decision to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 14 calendar days after issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall follow the provisions for appeals of Type II decisions. The owner may appeal the hearing examiner's decision to the Snohomish County superior court according to the procedures contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.090(6), within 30 days of notification by the city to the owner of the decision. 3.38.110 Annual certification A. Within 30 days after the first anniversary of the date the city filed the final certificate of tax exemption and each year thereafter during the tax exemption period, the property owner shall file a certification with the director, verified upon signed affirmation under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. The certification shall contain such information as the director may deem necessary or useful, and shall at a minimum include the following information: 1. A statement of occupancy and vacancy of the multifamily units during the previous year; Packet Pg. 273 8.2.a 2. A certification that the property has not changed use and, if applicable, that the property has been in compliance with the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030 since the date of filing of the final certificate of tax exemption, and continues to be in compliance with the contract with the city and the requirements of this article; 3. A description of any improvements or changes to the property made after the filing of the final certificate or most recent certification, as applicable. B. Failure to submit the annual certification may result in cancellation of the tax exemption. 3.38.120 Cancellation of tax exemption — Appeal A. If at any time the director determines that the property no longer complies with the terms of the contract or with the requirements of this chapter, or the use of the property is changed or will be changed to a use that is other than residential, or if the owner intends to discontinue compliance with the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030, or the property for any reason no longer qualifies for the tax exemption, the tax exemption shall be canceled and additional taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to state law. B. If the owner intends to convert the multifamily housing to another use or intends to discontinue compliance with the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030, the owner must notify the director and the Snohomish County assessor within 60 days of the change in use. Upon such change in use, the tax exemption shall be canceled and additional taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to state law. C. Upon determining that a tax exemption shall be canceled, the director shall notify the property owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. The property owner may appeal the determination by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk, within 30 days after issuance of the decision by the director, specifying the factual and legal basis for the appeal. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall follow the procedures set forth for appeals of Type II decisions. At the appeal hearing, all affected parties may be heard and all competent evidence received. The hearing examiner shall affirm, modify, or repeal the decision to cancel the exemption based on the evidence received. The hearing examiner shall give substantial weight to the director's decision to cancel the exemption, and the burden of proof and the burden of overcoming the weight accorded to the director's decision shall be upon the appellant. An aggrieved party may appeal the hearing examiner's decision to the Snohomish County superior court in Packet Pg. 274 8.2.a accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.110(2), within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner Packet Pg. 275 8.2.b RESOLUTION NO. 1368 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 uses, in a walkable community center with a variety of amenity and open spaces. The intent is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the larger Westgate district with a distinctive character. B. Create mixed -use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community -friendly. C. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. D. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. E. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green features. F. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form. G. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. H. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. 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. 276 8.2.b 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 16th day of August, 2016. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, S ASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. August 12, 2016 August 16, 2016 1368 Packet Pg. 277 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 Shoreline Master Program Update (45min.) 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 is reviewing Ecology's conditional approval and considering alternatives in response to Ecology's conditional approval. Staff Recommendation For the October 4th meeting: Review the remaining changes proposed by Ecology and, as time allows, consider the draft changes previously presented for the critical area section of the SMP. Overall: 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 10/4 FOCUS: At the October 4th Council Meeting, the focus of the discussion will be on the remaining required change and recommended change, which the Council has yet to discuss. As time allows, staff will also review draft changes to the critical area section of the SMP given Council's votes and direction on required changes 1 - 5. OVERVIEW: 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, Packet Pg. 278 8.3 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. The Council has taken preliminary votes on seven of the eight required changes. Below is a summary and discussion of Ecology's required and recommended changes and preliminary decisions by the Council thus far. The remaining items, which will be the focus for October 1, are: Item B.8 and Item C from the list below. 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 preliminary votes or discussion by the Council on each of the required changes. A. CRITICAL AREA REQUIRED CHANGES 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. 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. 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. City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 3. Packet Pg. 279 8.3 4. Revise the exceptions section. This section includes provisions of the City's critical area regulations that do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction. Council AUEUst 2. 2016 Preliminary Vote and Discussion The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 4. Staff reviewed the list of exceptions again to see if some of the exceptions should be retained with the incorporation of Ecology's 2016 wetland guidance (see Council preliminary vote and required change number 5 below). As a result of using the 2016 wetland guidance in the SMP, there are some conflicts with the wetland section of the City's wetland critical area regulations (Chapter 23.50 ECDC) which should be excepted from the SMP. Four exceptions should be noted in the SMP, these are: a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.2: Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands d. ECDC 23.50.040.K: Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands It should also be noted that when staff was reviewing the exceptions list, a couple of the exceptions in the Council approved SMP where left out of Ecology's required changes table. These are highlighted in the redline/strikeout version of the SMP's critical area section included in presented during the September 13, 2016 Council meeting. The exceptions left out of the table were ECDC 23.40.130.D Monitoring Program and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 Minor Site Investigation Work. As needed, this can be further discussed at a later City Council meeting. 5. Remove the wetland section from the SMP. City Council Discussion and August 16, 2016 Preliminary Vote 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. At the August 16, 2016 Council meeting, the council voted not to accept required Ecology's required change number 5 and incorporate the 2016 wetland guidance into the SMP. A redline/strikeout version of SMP 24.40.020 incorporating the City Council's direction on the required changes related to critical areas within the SMP is included as Exhibit 3. 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. Packet Pg. 280 8.3 Each of the general categories are summarized briefly below and followed by preliminary votes or discussion by the Council on each of the required changes. 6. Remove the "interim" designation for the UMU IV shoreline environment. Council Aueust 2"d and Aueust 16th. 2016 Discussion At the August 2"d meeting, the Council decided to reach out to stakeholders to gauge interest in developing a work plan to submit to Ecology as an alternate approach and maintain the interim designation for the UMU IV shoreline environment. It was reported at the August 16th Council meeting that not all of the stakeholders were interested in maintaining the interim designation. Given not all of the stakeholders were interested in pursuing the interim designation, the Council voted to accept required change number 6 and remove the interim designation for the UMU IV shoreline environment. 7. Change the setback/buffer around the marsh from 100/50 to 65/50 (essentially a 50-foot vegetated buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback from the buffer). City Council Discussion and September 27, 016 Preliminary Vote At the August 16, 2016 Council meeting, the Council voted not to accept Ecology's required change number 7 and to develop an alternative approach for the UMU IV setback/buffer. At the September 13, 2016 Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an evaluation of the possible scientific and regulatory considerations to help prepare an alternative to the Department of Ecology's required change for buffers and setbacks in the UMU IV shoreline environment. At the September 27th Council meeting, the Council reviewed the City Attorney memorandum and voted to prepare an alternative response to Ecology that would include a 110-foot buffer with an additional 15-foot setback for a total setback of 125 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Edmonds Marsh. 8. Change a footnote related to the setback/buffer to note that the buffer establishment will be required if more than 50% of the Harbor Square property within shoreline designation is redeveloped. Discussion: The City Attorney's September 23, 2106 memorandum included the following discussion regarding required change number 8: According to the city's comprehensive plan, Harbor Square is intended to be redeveloped as part of a master plan. If the city council selects on the buffer options that makes the existing improvements legal nonconforming, the cleanest alternative to Required Change 8 would be to allow maintenance and repair indefinitely, without triggering the planting of a buffer, and to have the buffer planted in conjunction with a master planned redevelopment. The City Council has not yet voted on this issue, but it will be a focus for October 4. Packet Pg. 281 8.3 C. URBAN MIXED USE IV RECOMMENDED CHANGE The one recommended change for the UMU IV shoreline environment relates to residential uses. Ecology is recommending that the City consider allowing multi -family residential development in the UMU IV shoreline environment. Ecology's reasoning behind this recommended change is that including residential development as a permitted use in the UMU IV environment 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 City is not required to accept the recommended change or offer an alternative as with the required changes. The City may simply acknowledge the recommendation in our response to Ecology. NEXT STEPS After the City Council directs a general response to the remainder of the proposed changes from Ecology, 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 October 31, 2016. Attachments: Exhibit 1- Department of Ecology Conditional Approval with Attachments Exhibit 2 - Council SMP Approved 20141118 Exhibit 3 - Redline/Strikeout Version of SMP 24.40.020 (Critical Areas) Exhibit 4 - Paul Anderson Memo: Principal Changes to Wetland Guidance for Critical Area Ordinance Updates Exhibit 5 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) Staff PowerPoint Presentation Packet Pg. 282 auijaJoyS Z956) S4u9uay3e;4d 44inn 1enoiddd jeuoi;ipuo3 ABoloa3;o;u9w:Ped9a - ;igiyx3 :;u9uay3e;4d M N i Co 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. auijaJoyS : Z996) S4u9uay3e;4d 44inn 1enoiddd jeuoi;ipuo3 ABoloo3;o;u9w:Ped9a - ;igiyx3 :;u9wLI3844d le ev 00 04 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. 285 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. 286 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. 287 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. 288 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. 289 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. 290 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. 291 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. 292 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. 293 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= elevation 112/11 No change in water t ,elevation 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 N W Packet Pg. 294 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. 295 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. 296 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 L O L N W LO r Packet Pg. 297 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. 298 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. 299 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. 300 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 hat The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the Shoreline project prepeses 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. as c a� L 0 a n :V n Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 301 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+GtieR� Specifically ECDC prep 72 nn nnn a.P.PI Crnr c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance e. €CSC �3..n0cRQ: P-wizmptoeRs 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 RecreatiGn 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 :V n 2 Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 302 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) N LO 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. 303 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 . N W LO r c as E 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. 304 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 c14 amendments should the city modify zoning for that area. LO r Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 305 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. m L O t W N W LO Packet Pg. 306 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 N W LO a W E 0 a 3 0 0. a Q Packet Pg. 307 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 N W LO c a) E M 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 308 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 N W LO c as E 0 a 3 0 0. a Q Packet Pg. 309 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 N W LO N c aD E 0 a 3 0 L 0. a Q Packet Pg. 310 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. 311 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 m _ `o Cn N W LO c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 312 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. 313 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 m _ `o Cn N W LO c as E 0 a 3 0 Q. a x w m E s c� Q Packet Pg. 314 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 as _ `o Cn N W LO c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 315 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 N W LO c W E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 316 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. 317 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 as _ `o Cn N W LO c as E U M a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 318 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- as _ `o Cn N W LO c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 319 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. 320 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 m _ 0 Cn N W LO c a� E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 321 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 as _ `o Cn N W LO c as E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 322 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. 323 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. m _ `o W N m LO c as E 0 a 3 0 Q. a z x w m E s c� Q Packet Pg. 324 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. 325 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. m _ `o Cn N W LO c a� E U M a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 326 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 as _ `o W N W LO c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 327 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. as _ `o W N W LO c as E 0 M a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 328 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 as _ `o Cn N W LO c as E 0 Q z 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 329 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. as _ `o Cn N W LO c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 330 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 as _ `0 Cn N W c as E a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 331 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. as _ `o Cn N W LO c as E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 332 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 as _ `o Cn N W LO c a� E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 333 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 as _ `o Cn N W LO N c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 334 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. a� _ `o W N W LO c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 335 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. as _ `o Cn N W LO c as E a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 336 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) as _ `0 Cn N W c as E a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 337 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 as _ `o Cn N W LO c as E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 338 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 as _ `o z Cn N W LO _ a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 339 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. 340 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. 341 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. as _ `o Cn N W LO c as E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 342 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. 343 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 as _ `o Cn N W LO c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 344 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. as _ `o Cn N m LO c a) E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 345 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 as c `o Cn N W LO c m E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 346 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. 347 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. as _ `o Cn N W LO c as E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 348 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. as _ `o Cn N W LO _ as E 0 a 3 0 Q. a Q Packet Pg. 349 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. as _ `0 W N m LO c as E U M Q 3 0 0. a z x w m E s c� Q Packet Pg. 350 auiJaJoyS Z956) s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euoi;ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - ;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d ev LO 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 aulla.aogS : Zqq�) s;uauagoejjV q;Inn IenoiddV Ieuol;lpuoa A601033 fo;uau:pedea - 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 auiJaJoyS : Z996) s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euoi;ipuo3 Aftloog to;uew:Pedea - 6;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d 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 auiJaJoyS : Z996) s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd Ieuog!puo3 Aftloog Io;u9w:Pedea - 6;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d ev LO 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 8ulJ8J0yS : Z996) s;uauayoe;;d 44Inn lenoiddd 1euoi;Ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - ;Igl4x3 :;uauayoe;;d LO LO 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. 356 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 m M 0. E 0 L 0 L a L M m c L 0 t N c0 m City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 1 of 160 Packet Pg. 357 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 m 0 0. E 0 L 0 L a L M m c L 0 z N c0 m City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 2 of 160 Packet Pg. 358 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 N W Ln City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 3 of 160 Packet Pg. 359 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. 360 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. 361 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. 362 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. 363 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. 364 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. 365 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. 366 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. 367 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. 368 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. 369 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. 370 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. 371 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. 372 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. 373 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. 374 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. 375 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. 376 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. 377 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. 378 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. 379 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. 380 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. 381 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. 382 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. 383 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. 384 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. 385 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. 386 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. 387 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. 388 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. 389 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. 390 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. 391 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. 392 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. 393 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. 394 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. 395 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. 396 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. 397 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. 398 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. 399 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. 400 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. 401 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. 402 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. 403 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. 404 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. 405 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. 406 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. 407 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 N W Ln 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 cc a Packet Pg. 408 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. 409 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. 410 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 N w Ln CO T 0 N m 0 0. Q. a a N c 0 0 V s K w c d E z cc a Packet Pg. 411 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. 412 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. 413 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. 414 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. 415 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. 416 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. 417 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. 418 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. 419 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. 420 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 as 0 a E M 0 L a L 0 d c L 0 z N w Ln City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 65 of 160 Packet Pg. 421 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. 422 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. 423 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. 424 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. 425 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. 426 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. 427 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. 428 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. 429 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. 430 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. 431 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. 432 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. 433 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. 434 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. 435 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. 436 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. 437 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. 438 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. 439 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. 440 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. 441 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. 442 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. 443 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. 444 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. 445 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. 446 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 co Ln 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. 447 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. 448 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. 449 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. 450 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. 451 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. 452 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. 453 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. 454 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. 455 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. 456 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. 457 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. 458 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. 459 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. 460 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. 461 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. 462 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. 463 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. 464 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. 465 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. 466 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. 467 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. 468 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. 469 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. 470 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) N W Ln City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 115 of 160 Packet Pg. 471 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. 472 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 N W Ln City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 117 of 160 Packet Pg. 473 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. 474 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. 475 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. 476 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. 477 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. 478 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. 479 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. 480 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. 481 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. 482 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. 483 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. 484 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. 485 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. 486 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. 487 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. 488 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. 489 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. 490 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. 491 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. 492 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. 493 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. 494 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. 495 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. 496 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. 497 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. 498 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. 499 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. 500 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. 501 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. 502 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. 503 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. 504 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. 505 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. 506 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. 507 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. 508 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. 509 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. 510 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. 511 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. 512 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. 513 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. 514 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. 515 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. 516 8.3.c 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- May 3, 2016, Ord. 4026), are herein adopted as a part of this Program, except for the specific subsections 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. ■ A. Iris ■ . . a IN D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction. Packet Pg. 517 8.3.c 1. General Provisions: b CDC 23.40.130.D: Monitoring Program[kpii] Fb.ECDC 23.40.210: Variance d c CDC 23.40.220.C.8: Minor Site Investigation Worl{[kp12] 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.2: Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands b d.ECDC 23.50.040.K: Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands e. ECDC 23.50.040.F.4: Wetland Buffer Width Averaging.- 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas: a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.I & 2: Allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas E. Development limitations. 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. Packet Pg. 518 8.3.c 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: 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, Packet Pg. 519 8.3.c 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. 1. Wetlands shall be fated aeeefding to the Washington State wetland m4ing system fef E �vis-ed, Eeology Ptiblieation#04-06-825)-or- evise eelegy. This doettmeH4 i 0 00 tains the definitions and methods for detennining the criteria and parameters defining L the following wetland rating e to,.,,Wetlands shall be rated accordingto o the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 URdate (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and c methods for determining whether the criteria below are met.: L - o M a. Category I. Categer-y Iwetlands , 1 ` relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands U) larger- than 1 aef e; 2) wetlands that are identified by seiefftists of the Washington N t0 LO Natural Heritage Pt!ogfam/DNR as high quality wetlands; 3) begs; 4) matufe and old r etlands that per-f ,.,,,, many functions well (seef!in . 70 points of ffiefe) Category I a L • wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) a wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural HeritageProgram/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old -growth v forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal o wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands o that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1 represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than N most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are a impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of <n functions. o c 0 b. Category II. Category 11 1) than 1 wetlands are: estuarine wetlands smaller- aer-e, of distu-Fbed lar-geF than 1 2) intef:dianal 1 > estuarine wetlands aer-e; wetlands 3) distur-bed lagoons 4) high level aer-es; eeastal or- wetlands with a moderately o functions (see, -inn between G1 69 points) Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine Y wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) L i interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points). M C. Category III. Gatege e wetlands d moderate le .0 M x and 1 aer-e in sizo Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of w functions scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequately replaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and (3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 E acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points _ generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in a the landscape than Category II wetlands. Packet Pg. 520 8.3.c d. Category IV. fewer- than 30 points) and are often heavily disturbed Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree. 2. Development in designated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction shall be regulated in accordance with the following: 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. i. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in 24.40.020.F.2.b 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 b, 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: hqp://wdfw.wa. ovg /hab/phshabs.htm ) The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat by some We of legal protection such as a conservation easement. Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed byqualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, 24.40.020.F.2.b may be used with the required measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c alone.2 • The measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. ii. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are required for the use of 24.40.020.F.2.b iii. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then 24.40.020.F.2.d must be used. iv. The buffer widths in 24.40.020.F.2.b and 24.40.020.F.2.d assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community ppropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive N W LO �a a� L a L 0 N O 0 N a Cn 4- 0 c 0 .y L d 0 as Y CO as c as a Packet Pg. 521 8.3.c 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. b. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are Implemented and Corridor Provided. Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: Based on total score 75 105 165 225 Category Bogs and wetlands of 190 225 High Conservation Value Category I: Coastal Lagoons 150 165 225 Category I: Interdunal 225 Category I: Forested 75 105 165 225 Category L• Estuarine 150 (buffer width not based on habitat score) Category II: Based on score 75 105 165 225 Category II: Interdunal wetlands 110 165 225 Category II: Estuarine 110 (buffer width not based on habitat score) Category III (all) 60 105 165 225 Category IV (all) 40 Packet Pg. 522 8.3.c MCI -Mal a Z c. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required, where 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 Packet Pg. 523 8.3.c 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 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 eefrider-s o rJ 0 Maintain to that eamaeetiens eff-site areas are- undid h b itatR b Restore , ,-,-ider-s to o eenneefiefis off -site y r-eplanting d. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT Provided. Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score Wetland Cate2ory 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 100 140 220 300 Based on total score Category Bogs and wetlands of 250 300 Hig,h Conservation Value Category I: Coastal Lagoons 200 220 300 Category I: Interdunal 300 N W LO U) M a� L Q U 0 N O O N a Cn 4- 0 a 0 .y L d 0 a� Y -L co as a Packet Pg. 524 8.3.c Category 1: Forested 100 140 220 300 Category Estuarine 200 (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category IT: Based on score 100 140 220 300 Category 11: Interdunal wetlands 150 220 300 Category II: Estuarine 150 (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category IllLall) 80 140 220 300 Category IV (all) 50 RM ��s�ssfrssir»:PRTM. pI�n�•r�. �:e�s�s:reTsM. provided, � - �:lSSlTTd4 N t0 LO r m a� L Q n U 0 N O O N a 2 Cn 4- 0 c O .y N 7 O d Y �L Co d Q Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Redline/Strikeout Version of SMP 24.40.020 (Critical Areas) (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) 8.3.c is HRH... .i eeeas.NMUR .re:ss!sres!�sazsrs�s�:rrsse�sr..�r�!rs:r.�ee�:ssr�!�e!�sts=�sa f. Exemptions in wetlands. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts (24.40.020.E.3.a.), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in 24.40.020.E.3.b through 24.40.020.E.3.e. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. In order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the reauirements in 23.50.030 must be submitted. i. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that: 1. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers 2. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers 3. Are not part of a wetland mosaic 4. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecolo 5. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Areal for a Priority Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or species of local importance identified in Chapter 23.90 ECDC. ii. Wetlands less than 1.000 sauare feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this Chapter. �g_Additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers may be permitted pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.14I. 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: Packet Pg. 527 8.3.c 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. 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; 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 Packet Pg. 528 8.3.c habitat assessment of the site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions. I. Critical Freshwater Habitats. 1. 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. J. Additional authority. In addition to any other authority the city may have, the city is hereby authorized to condition or deny a proposed use, modification or activity or to require site redesign because of hazards associated with the use, modification or activity on or near an environmentally sensitive and/or critical area, and/or the effect of the proposal on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area. Packet Pg. 529 8.3.d N Principal Changes to the Wetland Guidance for Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Updates o U) August 10, 2016, Paul S. Anderson, Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor, Ecology NWRO W 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. 530 8.3.d The change to the format for the recommended buffer widths in the CAO Guidance from the N c Small Cities Guidance has been to include a table of required buffer widths if minimization c measures (or a wildlife corridor) are not incorporated into site design (Table XX.3). The buffer U) widths listed in Table XX.1 Small Cities Guidance were dependent upon application of the N minimization measures listed in Table XX.2 and if those measures weren't applied, the buffer LO 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 r measures) was a challenge for Ecology and local jurisdictions to implement; people simply a referred to the buffer widths listed in Table XX.1 and believed those were the recommended D buffer widths. U c In 2013, Ecology published an update to the 2005 wetland BAS synthesis specific to buffers =a (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 a literature review concluded that the Wetlands in Washington State recommendations were still 76 valid. One key findings in the 2013 literature review was on the importance of corridors and L habitat connectivity for wildlife. That finding is the basis for including wildlife corridors as a v L 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 a) U for Category II estuarine wetlands; 110 and 150 feet, respectively, regardless of habitat score. -a 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 as 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 �a 2- 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 L a within shoreline jurisdiction that would trigger the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer along E the perimeter of Edmonds Marsh, in combination with a 15-foot structural setback. Packet Pg. 531 8.3.e DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version June 2016 Publication No. 16-06-001 N LO r 0 O w O w r Packet Pg. 532 8.3.e Publication and Contact Information N to This report is available on the Department of Ecology's website at https:/ /fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummarPages/1606001.html 0 W 0 to For more information contact: 6 Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6600 Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. Packet Pg. 533 8.3.e Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Donna Bunten, Rick Mraz, Lauren Driscoll and Amy Yahnke Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington June 2016 Publication No. 16-06-001 N w LO O O w O w r Packet Pg. 534 1-9 v FC, I Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1562 8.3.e N Table of Contents LO r Summary.......................................................................................... 1 r 0 O Introduction...................................................................................... 2 to 0 r Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection ............................. 3 Relationship between the GMA and the SMA................................ 4 Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter ................................ 4 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 4 DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................... 4 IDENTIFYING, DESIGNATING, AND RATING WETLANDS .................................................... 5 REGULATED USES AND ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. 7 EXEMPTIONS.................................................................................................................... 7 FORESTPRACTICES.......................................................................................................... 9 AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES............................................................................................. 9 Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts .......................... 10 WETLANDS INVENTORY................................................................................................. 10 ABCs............................................................................................................................. 10 BUFFERS......................................................................................................................... 1 1 BUFFER AVERAGING...................................................................................................... 13 MITIGATION................................................................................................................... 13 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................... 14 MitigationBanking............................................................................................... 15 In -Lieu Fee (ILF).................................................................................................. 15 Off -Site Mitigation................................................................................................ 16 AdvanceMitigation............................................................................................... 16 Conclusion..................................................................................... 16 Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter ...................................... 19 Appendix B - Wetland Definitions ................................................ 51 Packet Pg. 536 1-9 v FC, I V � Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1562 8.3.e 1-4 Summary This publication replaces Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Western c Washington Version), Publication No. 10-06-002, January 2010. It also replaces the I" c revision dated July 2011 and the 2nd revision dated October 2012. to This new publication, for the most part, contains the same guidance as the "small cities guidance" referenced above. Over the last few years, it became obvious that the information in that document could apply to all cities and counties, not just small cities. However, the wetland buffer table may be too restrictive for county use because it assumes that adjacent land use intensity is high. Counties and larger cities generally have more staff and resources that allow more sophisticated approaches to assigning wetland buffers. In addition, these jurisdictions may be able to provide additional protection for habitat function by requiring protected wildlife corridors between the wetland and other priority habitats in exchange for buffer reduction —something that is often impossible in small, urban jurisdictions. Check with Ecology wetland staff for more information about using this guidance in your particular jurisdiction http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm. Specific changes to this new publication include: • Reference to the updated 2014 wetland rating system • Updated definitions based on the updated 2014 wetland rating system • Buffer tables that include habitat scores from the updated 2014 wetland rating system • Addition of buffer table to be used if minimizing measures are not used • Emphasis on the requirement to provide wildlife corridors where possible in exchange for buffer reduction • Guidance on using wetlands for stormwater management facilities • Revisions to exemptions for small wetlands • Recommended language addressing agricultural activities in non-VSP jurisdictions • Addition of recent mitigation documents and guidance • Corrected links to resource documents and web pages Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page I Packet Pg. 538 8.3.e Introduction This document is intended to provide guidance and tools useful in developing a wetland protection program for jurisdictions that are in the process of updating their critical areas ordinances (CAOs) to meet the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements. Wetlands are one of the five types of critical areas identified in the GMA. We recognize that many local governments lack the planning staff and resources necessary to develop and implement wetland standards that are both locally appropriate and based on best available science (BAS). Nonetheless, they must comply with the GMA requirement to designate and protect wetlands. The first part of this document describes the important topics that should be addressed in the wetlands section of your CAO. It includes recommendations for wetland protection based on BAS. Appendix A is a sample CAO chapter for wetlands that incorporates these recommendations into a format similar to that found in many local CAOs. (Please note that the sample CAO will need to be tailored to your jurisdiction's naming and numbering system. There are several generic "XX" references throughout the text.) Appendix B contains definitions that are commonly used in wetlands regulations. This document does not include the more general provisions typically found in regulations related to all critical areas. These can be found in Appendix A of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce (formerly the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development) in November 2003 hgp://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS- Critical-Areas-Appendix-A-Sample-Code-Provisions.pd£ This document revises the wetland -specific provisions in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook. The recommendations in this document and the sample ordinance may not be appropriate for use by rural county governments. Factors to consider are the county's rate of growth, the nature and intensity of land uses in the county, the wetland resources at risk, and the ability of the county to implement its CAO. We suggest that you contact us to determine whether this guidance is applicable to your county. Please use the following link to find Ecology's wetland specialist for your area: http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 2 Packet Pg. 539 8.3.e Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection N W Ecology has produced several different tools that can help local governments develop a -- comprehensive wetlands protection program for their jurisdictions. The Washington c Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have published a c two -volume guidance document to help local governments protect and manage wetlands: to • 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. 540 8.3.e Ecology has also developed a wetland ratings system for western Washington. The rating N system is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for to protection. 77 0 • Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 0 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, 9 Olympia, WA, October 2014). Links to all of these documents can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/index.html. Relationship between the GMA and the SMA You may be planning to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that will rely on the CAO for protection of wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the local government requiring Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the CAO must meet the "no net loss of ecological functions" requirement (WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)(i)). You should be aware that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) may preclude or alter the administration of your CAO. For example, certain activities exempted under the CAO will not qualify for exemption under the SMP. In addition, activities allowed without permits under the CAO may require permits under the SMP. For assistance with CAO-SMP integration, please use the following link to find the shoreline planner for your area: http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/sma/contacts/index.html. Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter Your wetlands chapter will exist as one of several in your critical areas ordinance. Below we describe some of the important subsections in the wetlands chapter and include our recommendations for protecting wetlands based on the best available science. Purpose The chapter typically begins with a purpose statement, followed by designation criteria, which include a definition of wetlands and the methods by which they are identified and rated and other details listed below. The purpose statement may also state that this chapter is intended to be consistent with the requirements of 36.70A RCW and to implement the goals and policies of your Comprehensive Plan for protecting wetlands. Definitions Your wetlands chapter may include a separate list of definitions, or the definitions may be included in the general definitions section of the CAO. Appendix B is a list of Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 4 Packet Pg. 541 8.3.e definitions relevant to your wetlands chapter. This list includes terms identified in state law and agency guidance documents. Clarity and consistency in the use of these terms will make ordinance implementation easier. Identifying, Designating, and Rating Wetlands The first steps in regulating wetlands are to define what is being regulated and specify how these areas will be identified. The GMA requires the use of the following definition of wetlands and specifies how to identify and delineate them. In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, counties and cities are required to use the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(21): "Wetland " or "wetlands " means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland 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 non -wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. Wetlands are subject to a local government's regulatory authority if they meet the criteria in this definition. This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and isolated wetlands. These wetlands can provide critical functions and habitat and should be regulated. The GMA does not allow flexibility in adopting a modified definition of wetlands. Irrigation practices, such as the Irrigation District ditches in Sequim, can result in human - created wetlands. More frequently, however, irrigation practices may augment natural sources of water to a wetland. Wetlands that form along irrigation ditches that were intentionally created in uplands may be exempted from regulation. However, if a wetland is the unintentional by-product of irrigation activities, the wetland should be regulated. If a wetland disappears as the result of a change in irrigation practice, it will not be regulated in the future. However, most wetlands will not disappear completely as a result of local changes in irrigation practices because of natural sources of water or regional irrigation influences. Please see htt2://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/irrigation.httni for more information on how Ecology regulates irrigation -influenced wetlands. Ecology is most concerned about those changes in land use that would eliminate wetlands as the result of fill or grading, such as a conversion to commercial or residential use. These activities should be regulated by the CAO, and appropriate protection standards Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 5 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 542 8.3.e (such as buffers and mitigation) should be required in order to minimize the loss of wetland area and function. Many jurisdictions use the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to determine whether wetlands exist within their boundaries. Since the NWI is based on photographs that are over 30 years old and provides only a general approximation of wetland location, it cannot be used alone to designate wetlands. Wetlands are those areas that meet the above definition of "wetland." Wetlands are also dynamic systems that change over time. It is important to adopt the GMA definition and to have regulations in place to protect wetland functions and values, should wetlands that do not currently appear on the NWI or other maps be identified in the future. State laws require that wetlands protected under the GMA and the SMA be delineated using a manual that is developed by Ecology and adopted into rules (RCW 36.70A.175; RCW 90.58.380). The Department of Ecology adopted a wetland delineation manual in 1997 (WAC 173-22-080) that was based on the original 1987 Corps of Engineers manual and subsequent Regulatory Guidance Letters. During the last few years the Army Corps of Engineers has updated and expanded their delineation manual with regional supplements. To maintain consistency between the state and federal delineations of wetlands, Ecology has repealed WAC 173-22-080 (the state delineation manual) and replaced it with a revision of WAC 173-22-035 that states that delineations should be done according to the currently approved federal manual and regional supplements. The changes became effective March 14, 2011. The GMA states that "wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380." RCW 90.58.380 allows the Department of Ecology to adopt rules that incorporate changes to the manual. Therefore, the currently approved federal manual and regional supplements should be used for delineating wetlands in GMA jurisdiction. See: http://www.ecy.wa.jzovL/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html. Local governments are not required to rate or classify wetlands when regulating them. However, methods that classify, categorize, or rate wetlands help target the appropriate level of protection to particular types of wetlands and avoid the "one -size -fits -all" approach. If a local government uses a wetland rating system, it must consider the criteria described in WAC 365-190-090(3). The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Effective January 2015), (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, October 2014) is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. The revised rating system represents the best available science, as it is based on a better understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect them. It provides a quick "snapshot" characterization of a particular wetland. In many cases, it will provide enough information about existing wetland functions to allow Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 6 Packet Pg. 543 8.3.e adequate plan review and land use decisions to be made without the additional expense of a separate wetland functional assessment. While local governments are not required to use Ecology's revised rating system, we strongly encourage you to adopt wetland regulations that require its use. Most qualified wetland specialists are using the revised rating system. In cases where state and federal permits are required, the use of this rating system would benefit applicants by eliminating the need to rate wetlands according to a different local standard. If you choose not to use the state's wetland rating system, you must provide a rationale for this decision according to WAC 365-190-090(3). We recommend that you include language that describes the four categories of wetlands. This text is different for eastern and western Washington jurisdictions. Please refer to Appendix A, Section XX.020.13.1-4 for the specific category descriptions. Regulated Uses and Activities Your wetland section should list those uses and activities that are regulated under the critical areas ordinance. Some of these items include: removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of material of any kind; draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland, water level, or water table; the construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; etc. More extensive examples are provided in the sample ordinance. Wetlands are often impacted by unauthorized clearing and grading that takes place before application for development permits. You should make sure your CAO adequately regulates clearing and grading. If it doesn't, you should adopt a separate clearing and grading ordinance. The Department of Commerce (formerly Community, Trade and Economic Development) published technical guidance on developing a clearing and grading ordinance: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS- Clearing-and-Grading-Technical-Guidance-Final-2005.pdf. Most forest practices (as defined in RCW 76.09 are exempted from the provisions of a wetlands chapter in the CAO. However, those forest practices that are Class IV general should be regulated. These activities constitute a conversion from forestry to some other use. As such, buffers and wetland protections are appropriate. Exemptions Your wetlands section should identify those activities in or near wetlands that are regulated and those that are exempt from regulation. Exemptions include activities that will have little or no environmental effect or are an emergency that threatens public health or safety. In the case of emergency response activities that affect wetlands and buffers, the responsible party should be required to obtain after -the -fact permits and to rectify impacts. Some jurisdictions place the exemptions or exceptions in a general exemptions section near the front of the CAO. However, some exemptions or exceptions may apply only to wetlands, so it may be more practical to have these specific exemptions in the wetlands section. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 7 Packet Pg. 544 8.3.e Exempt activities should be limited to those that will not have a significant impact on a wetland's structure and function (including its water, soil, or vegetation) and those that are expected to be very short term. Local governments should, however, also consider the cumulative impacts from exempted activities. They can result in a loss of wetland acreage and function that are not replaced through compensatory mitigation. The scope, coverage, and applicability of a critical areas ordinance should capture the full range of activities that are detrimental to wetland functions. Therefore, exemptions should be supported by the scientific literature and be carefully crafted to minimize the potential for adverse impacts. However, a local government should not assume that an exemption is appropriate in the absence of science to refute the exemption. The language should clearly state whether a given activity is exempt from applicable standards in the code or whether it is exempt from needing a permit but still must comply with the code. Exemptions should be limited and construed narrowly. For more information on this topic, please refer to Chapter 8 of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication #05-06-008, Olympia, WA, April 2005: hgps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/summMages/0506008.html . The GMA, in RCW 36.70a.030(21), requires local governments to regulate wetlands that meet the GMA-required definition of "wetland" (see the definition of "wetland" in the previous section). This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and hydrologically isolated wetlands, two types of wetlands that have been exempt from federal regulation at times. PCCs are wetlands that have been ditched and drained for active agricultural use before December 23, 1985. Isolated wetlands are those wetlands that have no surface hydrologic connection to waters of the United States. These wetlands must be regulated by your CAO. Please see hqp://www.ecy.wa.go) /programs/sea/wetlands/isolated.html for more information on how the state of Washington currently regulates isolated wetlands. The scientific literature does not support exempting wetlands that are below a certain size. While we recognize an administrative desire to place size thresholds on wetlands that are to be regulated, you need to be aware that it is not possible to conclude from size alone what functions a particular wetland may be providing. Ecology has developed a strategy for exempting small wetlands when additional criteria are considered. This language is present in the sample ordinance. However, impacts to small wetlands are NOT exempt from the requirement to provide compensatory mitigation for those impacts. If an in -lieu fee (ILF) program or a mitigation bank is available in your area (see page 15), these mitigation alternatives can help prevent a net loss of wetland function from impacts to small wetlands in your jurisdiction. Exceptions are typically addressed in a CAO in the context of reasonable use of property. For more information about this regulatory tool, see Section VII of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf . You should keep in mind that the Shoreline Management Act does not allow reasonable Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 8 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 545 8.3.e use exceptions, providing instead a variance pathway to afford regulatory relief. If you N decide to incorporate your CAO into your SNIP when the latter document isto updated, you will need to address this potential inconsistency. 0 Forest Practices o W Class I, II, and III forest practices should be exempted from the wetlands section of your to CAO. These activities are regulated through RCW 76.09, the Forest Practices Act. Agricultural Activities In 2011 the Washington Legislature created the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) as an alternative for meeting GMA requirements related to protecting critical areas and agricultural lands. In 2015 the state provided funding for participating counties to begin the VSP planning process. For more information on this program, see http://www.scc.wa.gov/voluntqa-stewardship/. For the GMA update cycle beginning 2015, some counties will begin addressing critical area issues related to agriculture through a VSP work plan. If your jurisdiction is not in a participating county or not in a participating watershed, then you must review and revise your development regulations for protecting wetlands as they apply to agricultural activities (see RCW 3 6.70A.7 10). If your jurisdiction is in a VSP watershed designated by a participating county, your GMA responsibilities to protect critical areas from agricultural activities in or near wetlands will be achieved through the VSP work plan. However, it is important to keep in mind that federal and state regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the State Water Pollution Control Act are still applicable in all jurisdictions regardless of participation or non -participation in the VSP. The VSP does not alter the responsibility of property owners to meet water quality standards, protect wetlands, and comply with state and federal environmental regulations. Ecology recommends the following for non-VSP jurisdictions: "Existing and ongoing agricultural activities" are often exempted from the provisions of a CAO. These activities should be clearly defined and should not include removing trees, diverting or impounding water, excavation, ditching, draining, culverting, filling, grading, or similar activities that introduce new adverse impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources. Maintenance of agricultural ditches should be limited to removing sediment in existing ditches to a specified depth at date of last maintenance. Conversion of wetlands that are not currently in agricultural use to a new agricultural use should be subject to the same regulations that govern new development. Ecology encourages the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), farm conservation plans, and incentive -based programs to improve agricultural practices in and near wetlands. The goal of the BMPs should be to ensure that ongoing agricultural activities Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 9 Packet Pg. 546 8.3.e minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and wildlife habitat. Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts Wetlands Inventory You may wish to pursue accurate identification and rating of all wetlands in your planning area based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14- 06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014) and the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. These documents can be downloaded at: • http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/ratingsystems/index.html (rating systems) • http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html (delineation manual and supplements) While this approach may initially be more labor intensive and expensive, such information will allow rapid review of development proposals and can help your jurisdiction prioritize areas for preservation or acquisition. This approach is consistent with BAS. It can help with the development of a landscape - analysis approach to protecting wetlands in your jurisdiction. Landscape analysis for critical areas facilitates and informs long-range planning. The City of Aberdeen used this approach in their CAO update. (See Section XX.050.13 in the sample ordinance.) ABCs The most basic approach to protecting wetland functions and values can be summarized as the A-B-C Approach, or Avoid -Buffer -Compensate. This means that a CAO should contain language to ensure that: 1. Wetlands impacts are avoided to the extent practicable. 2. Wetlands are buffered to protect them from adjacent land -use impacts. 3. Unavoidable impacts are compensated, or replaced. Your CAO should provide requirements on how to reduce the severity of impacts to wetlands. When an alteration to a wetland is proposed, impacts should be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 10 Packet Pg. 547 8.3.e 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Buffers Establishing standards for wetland buffers is usually the most challenging part of developing a CAO. However, developing a predictable, reasonable approach for establishing buffers that includes the best available science is not as difficult as it may seem. The scientific literature is unequivocal that buffers are necessary to protect wetland functions and values. The literature consistently reports that the primary factors to evaluate in determining appropriate buffer widths are: The wetland type and functions needing protection (buffers filter sediment, nutrients, or toxics; screen noise and light; provide forage, nesting, or resting habitat for wetland -dependent species; etc.). 2. The types of adjacent land use and their expected impacts. 3. The characteristics of the buffer area (slope, soils, vegetation). The widths of buffers needed vary widely, depending on these three factors. For example, providing filtration of coarse sediment from residential development next to a low -quality wetland would require only a relatively flat buffer of dense grasses or forest/shrub vegetation in the range of 20 to 30 feet. However, providing forage and nesting habitat for common wetland -dependent species such as waterfowl, herons, or amphibians in a high -quality wetland adjacent to residential development would require a buffer vegetated with trees and shrubs in the range of 200 to 300 feet. This illustrates the necessity of using an approach to buffers that incorporates wetland type and functions (based on an appropriate rating system), types of land use, and the environmental characteristics of the existing buffer. Your CAO should require buffers for activities that will impact wetland functions. Ecology's complete buffer recommendations are presented in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 11 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 548 8.3.e in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014). We recommend using the tables shown in the sample ordinance. Tables XX.1 and XX.3 are derived from the more -detailed tables in Volume 2. They are easy to use and are based on BAS. This approach provides the important balance of predictability and flexibility. Determination of buffer size is simply a matter of applying the results of the wetland rating system score to the buffer matrix, based on the wetland category and wildlife habitat score. It generally requires smaller buffers for those wetlands that do not have much wildlife use. Table XX.1 requires the use of the minimizing measures in Table XX.2. These measures are intended to reduce the impacts of the adjacent land use on the wetland. If impacts are reduced, the size of the buffer required to protect the wetland's functions can be reduced. The buffer widths in Table XX.1 represent a 25% reduction in our recommended buffers in Volume 2. Table XX.1 also requires the protection of a wildlife corridor between wetlands that score 5 or more habitat points and any other Priority Habitat. This requirement is particularly applicable in large or rural jurisdictions where species need to have access to other habitats to meet their life needs. A buffer is the usual means of providing this necessary habitat. However, if buffer reduction is allowed, we cannot ensure that these species will have adequate access to habitat without providing a connective corridor. In urban areas, the best solution is a landscape -based approach that takes into account actual species use and spatial arrangement and connectivity of habitats. Without such an approach, jurisdictions should use the guidance provided in the sample wetland chapter. If your jurisdiction is small and urban, providing a wildlife corridor may not be an option. You should consult with Ecology wetland staff to determine whether using Tables XX.1 and XX.2 alone will provide adequate protection for your wetland functions. Table XX.3 shows the buffer widths required if the minimizing measures in Table XX.2 are not implemented and if a wildlife corridor is not protected. These buffers are wider than those in Table XX.1, because the impacts to the wetland functions are potentially greater. The buffer tables XX.1 and XX.3 do not consider land -use intensity in the buffer calculation, since it is presumed that most urban land uses will be high or moderate intensity. However, if your jurisdiction has an activity that can be considered low intensity, such as a passive recreation area or nature park with undeveloped trails, you may wish to prescribe a smaller buffer for that area only. The buffer for an area should be no less than 75% of the otherwise required buffer. Such a "low -intensity" buffer is not appropriate for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Of course, if your jurisdiction includes rural land uses, you should consider using the buffer tables in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014). Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 12 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 549 8.3.e Some wetland types listed in the buffer tables may not be present in your jurisdiction (e.g., coastal lagoons, bogs, interdunal wetlands, etc.). If you are certain that these wetlands do not occur within your jurisdiction and would not be introduced by future annexations, you may remove those wetland types from the buffer tables. You may wish to adopt an even simpler approach to wetland buffers, one based only on wetland category. In this case, buffers must be large enough to protect the most -sensitive wetlands from the most -damaging land -use impacts. Please refer to Table 8C-1 of Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014) for this example. Ecology's buffer recommendations are based on a moderate -risk approach to protecting wetland functions. This means that there is a moderate risk that wetland functions will be impacted. Adopting smaller buffers represents a high -risk approach, and you need to be prepared to justify why such an approach is necessary and to offer alternative means of protecting wetland functions that help reduce the risk. Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased. Buffer Averaging Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain 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. If you choose to adopt narrower buffer widths than those supported by BAS, then further reductions to the buffer width should not be allowed under any circumstances. Mitigation Applicants are required by state and federal permitting agencies to show that they have followed mitigation sequencing and have first avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands wherever practicable. Your CAO should include the definition of mitigation sequencing and require applicants to demonstrate that they have applied avoidance and minimization. For more information and sample checklists, see http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/avoidance.html. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 13 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 550 8.3.e Unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset by compensatory mitigation. Your CAO should include standards for the type, location, amount, and timing of the mitigation. It should also include clear guidance on the design considerations and reporting requirements for mitigation plans. Ecology's recommendations for the amount of mitigation (ratios) are based on wetland category, function, and special characteristics. Requiring a greater area for mitigation than the wetland area that will be impacted helps offset both the risk that compensatory mitigation will fail and the temporal loss of functions that may occur. We recommend using the ratio table shown in the sample ordinance. It is derived from the more -detailed tables in Part I of the joint agency guidance on mitigation: Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Parts I and 2 (Ecology Publications #06-06-011a & b, March 2006). As an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance, Ecology has developed a credit -debit tool for calculating when a proposed wetland mitigation project adequately replaces the functions and values lost when wetlands are impacted. The tool is designed to provide guidance for both regulators and applicants during two stages of the mitigation process: 1. Estimating the functions and values lost when a wetland is altered (debits), and 2. Estimating the gain in functions and values that result from the mitigation (credits). The Department of Ecology, however, does not require the use of this credit -debit method. It provides one method for determining the adequacy of compensatory wetland mitigation. It does not set any new regulatory requirements. The document and worksheets can be downloaded at: http : //www. ecy. wa. goy/pro grams/sea/wetlands/miti gation/creditdebit/index. html. In 2008 the Corps and the EPA issued a rule governing compensatory mitigation. The rule establishes performance standards and criteria to improve the quality and success of compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in -lieu fee programs. For more information on the federal rule, see: http://water.0a.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmiti ag tion_index.cfm. By adopting mitigation standards based on the state and federal guidance and rules, you will be providing consistency for applicants who must also apply for state and federal permits. Mitigation Alternatives Various options are available for mitigation, in addition to the traditional on -site concurrent option. These options include placing the mitigation away from the project site (off -site mitigation), building mitigation in advance of project impacts, and using third -party mitigation providers such as wetland banks and in -lieu -fee programs. Deciding which option should be used depends on what works best for the applicant and Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 14 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 551 8.3.e for the environment. Some of these options may not be available in your area at this time. However, we recommend that your CAO allow these options. They can be effective and valuable tools in preventing a net loss of wetland functions. Some project applicants may propose mitigation that is consistent with sound ecological principles but is located outside of your jurisdiction. You may wish to include language in your CAO that enables your government to allow such out -of -jurisdiction mitigation opportunities. In addition to the following options, you might want to consider allowing transfer of development rights (TDR) as a tool for protecting wetlands. The Department of Commerce is working with four Puget Sound counties in a pilot TDR program. For more information, contact the Commerce planner for your jurisdiction or see: Commerce Regional Assistance Teams. Mitigation Banking A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands, streams, and/or other aquatic resource areas have been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A mitigation bank may be created by a government agency, corporation, nonprofit organization, or other entity. The bank sells its credits to permittees who are required to compensate for wetland impacts. Mitigation banks allow a permittee to simply write a check for their mitigation obligation. It is the bank owner who is responsible for the mitigation success. Mitigation banks require a formal agreement with the Corps, Ecology, and the local jurisdiction to be used for federal or state permits. Ecology adopted the final Wetland Mitigation Banks Rule (WAC 173-700) in 2009. The purpose of the rule is to provide a framework for the certification, operation, and monitoring of wetland mitigation banks. To learn more about wetland banking and the rule, see Ecology's website at http: //www. ecy.wa. goy/programs/sea/wetlands/miti gationibanking/index.html. In -Lieu Fee (ILF) In this approach to mitigation, a permittee pays a fee to a third party in lieu of conducting project -specific mitigation or buying credits from a mitigation bank. ILF mitigation is used mainly to compensate for impacts to wetlands when better approaches to compensation are not available or practicable, or when the use of an ILF is in the best interest of the environment. An ILF represents the expected costs to a third party of replacing the wetland functions lost or degraded as a result of the permittee's project. Fees are typically held in trust until sufficient funds have been collected to finance a mitigation project. Only a nonprofit organization such as a local land trust, private conservation group, or government agency with demonstrated competence in natural resource management may operate an ILF program. All ILF programs must be approved by the Corps to be used for Section 404 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 15 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 552 8.3.e permits. To learn more about ILF programs, see Ecology's website at N http://www.ecy.wa.aov/mitiaation/ilf html. to Off -Site Mitigation o This refers to compensatory mitigation that is not located at or near the project that o generates impacts to wetlands. Off -site mitigation is generally allowed when on -site 9 mitigation is not practicable or environmentally preferable. The 2008 federal rule on compensatory mitigation requires that some type of watershed approach be used in siting mitigation. Ecology, the Corps of Engineers, and EPA have developed guidance to help applicants select potential off -site mitigation sites. To download a copy of this guidance, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication #09-06-032, December 2009), please see https:Hfortress.wa. _ og v/ecy//publications/summg.Waaes/0906032.html. Advance Miti ag tion When compensatory mitigation is implemented before, and in anticipation of, future known impacts to wetlands, it is referred to as "advance mitigation." Advance mitigation has been used mostly for large mitigation projects that are constructed in distinct phases where the unavoidable impacts to wetlands are known. Advance mitigation lets an applicant provide all of the compensation needed for the entire project affecting wetlands at one time, which may result in more favorable mitigation ratios. Although similar to mitigation banking, advance mitigation is different in several ways. Most importantly, advance mitigation is used only to compensate for the permittee's specific project (or projects) with pre -identified impacts to wetlands. Wetland banks provide mitigation for unknown future impacts within a specific "service" area. The advance mitigation can be used only by the permittee. Advance mitigation may not be sold unless it is changed to a wetland bank. Ecology, WDFW, and the Corps have developed guidance to help applicants develop advance mitigation proposals. To download a copy of this guidance, Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee- Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, December 2012), please see h!tps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/Summgn Pages/1206015.html Conclusion We hope you find this information helpful. If you have questions about this document or need additional assistance with the wetlands section of your critical areas ordinance update, please call Donna Bunten at (360) 407-7172 or donna.buntengecy.wa. -og_v. You may also contact one of Ecology's regional wetland specialists. They are available to work with you during your update process. For example, they can offer presentations to elected officials and planning commissions. They can also provide technical assistance including help with wetland delineation, wetland rating, ordinary high water Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 16 Packet Pg. 553 8.3.e mark determination, and project review. Please use the following link to find the wetland N specialist for your area:to http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm. 0 For assistance with other aspects of your critical areas ordinance update, please contact o the Department of Commerce at (360) 725-3000. 9 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 17 Packet Pg. 554 � O � O � R Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1562 : r I 8.3.e Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter (Western Washington) Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 19 N O O O w O to T- Packet Pg. 556 CZ o O R v 0 X M Fool V � Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1562 8.3.e Subchapter XXAX N Wetlands Sections: o XX.010 Purpose o XX.020 Identification and Rating co XX.030 Regulated Activities 6 XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands Z XX.050 Wetland Buffers g XX.060 Critical Area Reports XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement a XX.010 Purpose The purposes of this Chapter are to: A. Recognize and protect the beneficial functions performed by many wetlands, which include, but are not limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and discharging ground water; contributing to stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks and shorelines; storing storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; and improving water quality through biofiltration, adsorption, and retention and transformation of sediments, nutrients, and toxicants. B. Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the functions and values of wetlands throughout (name of jurisdiction). C. Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to wetlands. 1. Compliance with the provisions of the Chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, HPA permits, Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, NPDES permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this Chapter. XX.020 Identification and Rating A. Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplement. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Wetland delineations are Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 21 Packet Pg. 558 8.3.e valid for five years; after such date the City shall determine whether a revision or N additional assessment is necessary. B. Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of 0 Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating o System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as 9 revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met. z° 1. Category L Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old -growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions. 2. 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 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points). 3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequately replaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and (3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. 4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree. C. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 22 Packet Pg. 559 8.3.e XX.030 Regulated Activities N A. For any regulated activity, a critical areas report (see Chapter XX.060 of this Chapter) may be required to support the requested activity. 0 B. The following activities are regulated if they occur in a regulated wetland or o its buffer: 9 1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind. 2. The dumping of, discharging of, or filling with any material. 3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table. 4. Pile driving. 5. The placing of obstructions. 6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure 7. The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland. 8. "Class IV - General Forest Practices" under the authority of the "1992 Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations," WAC 222- 12-030, or as thereafter amended. 9. Activities that result in: a. A significant change of water temperature. b. A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of the sources of water to the wetland. c. A significant change in the quantity, timing, or duration of the water entering the wetland. d. The introduction of pollutants. C. Subdivisions. The subdivision and/or short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers are subject to the following: Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 23 Packet Pg. 560 8.3.e 2. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be N subdivided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new ;° lot is: 77 0 a. Located outside of the wetland and its buffer; and o 0 to b. Meets the minimum lot size requirements of Chapter XX.XX. XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands A. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts (Chapter XX.070.A.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in Chapter XX.070.A.2 through 6. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. In order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the requirements in Chapter XX.060 must be submitted. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that: a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic d. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology) e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Areal for a Priority Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or species of local importance identified in Chapter XX.XX. 2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this Chapter. 'See page 6 of "Priority Habitat and Species List," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 24 Packet Pg. 561 8.3.e B. Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in N wetlands. These activities do not require submission of a critical area report, except u where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland 77 buffer. These activities include: o 1. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, provided that they implement 0 to 9 applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the latest T_ editions of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Z Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG); or develop a farm conservation c plan in coordination with the local conservation district. BMPs and/or farm plans should address potential impacts to wetlands from livestock, nutrient and farm chemicals, soil erosion and sediment control and a' agricultural drainage infrastructure. BMPs and/or farm plans should ensure that ongoing agricultural activities minimize their effects on water N quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and wildlife habitat. 2. Those activities and uses conducted pursuant to the Washington State Forest Practices Act and its rules and regulations, WAC 222-12-030, where state law specifically exempts local authority, except those developments requiring local approval for Class 4 — General Forest Practice Permits (conversions) as defined in RCW 76.09 and WAC 222- 12. 3. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. 4. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. 5. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a wetland, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer, provided that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column will be disturbed. 6. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of non-native invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to 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 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 25 Packet Pg. 562 8.3.e disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed N Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of to according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Re - vegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in o conjunction with removal of invasive plant species. o 0 to 7. Educational and scientific research activities. 8. 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. 9. Stormwater management facilities. A wetland or its buffer can be physically or hydrologically altered to meet the requirements of an LID, Runoff Treatment or Flow Control BMP if ALL of the following criteria are met: a. The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 3-4 points, and b. There will be "no net loss" of functions and values of the wetland, and c. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species, and d. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of Chart 5 in the "Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach," (available here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0906032.html); or the wetland is part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals identified in a Shoreline Master Program or other local or regional watershed plan, and e. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the discharge follows the natural routing, and f All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management are followed, including but not limited to local and state wetland and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits, and g. Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils will require permits. Existing functions and values that are lost would have to be compensated/replaced. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 26 Packet Pg. 563 8.3.e Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of New and Redevelopment N projects can be considered within wetlands and their buffers. However, to these areas may contain features that render LID BMPs infeasible. A site- v specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is o feasible at the project site. o 0 to T- 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://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. 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.2 • 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. 564 8.3.e 4. The buffer widths in Table XX. I and XX.3 assume that the buffer is N vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If to the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with v invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should o either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer o should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are 9 provided. Table XX.I 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 I: 75 105 165 225 Based on total score Category L• 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 I: 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. 565 8.3.e 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 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 566 8.3.e 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 I: 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: 300 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 II: 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. 567 8.3.e 5. Increased Wetland Buffer Area Width. Buffer widths shall be increased N on a case -by -case basis as determined by the Administrator when a larger to buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing o that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the o wetland. The documentation must include but not be limited to the 9 following criteria: a. The wetland is used by a state or federally listed plant or animal species or has essential or outstanding habitat for those species, or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion -control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 30 percent. 6. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when all of the following conditions are met: a. 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. b. 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 as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland professional. c. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging. d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 3/4 of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category IIl, and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater. 7. Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following are met: a. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 31 Packet Pg. 568 8.3.e b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's N functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a to qualified wetland professional. v c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required 0 o without averaging. 9 T_ d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 3/4 of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater. B. To facilitate long-range planning using a landscape approach, the Administrator may identify and pre -assess wetlands using the rating system and establish appropriate wetland buffer widths for such wetlands. The Administrator will prepare maps of wetlands that have been pre -assessed in this manner. C. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. Buffers must be fully vegetated in order to be included in buffer area calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations. D. Buffers on Wetland Mitigation Sites. All wetland mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter. Buffers shall be based on the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site. E. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this Chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. In the case of compensatory mitigation sites, removal of invasive non-native weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond (Section XX.070.J.2.a.x). F. Impacts to Buffers. Requirements for the compensation for impacts to buffers are outlined in Section XX.070 of this Chapter. G. Overlapping Critical Area Buffers. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer applies. H. Allowed Buffer Uses. The following uses may be allowed within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this Chapter, provided they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 32 Packet Pg. 569 8.3.e 1-4 2. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved to critical area report, including: v a. Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways are limited to 0 0 minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They 9 should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located T_ only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the wetland buffer area, Z and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be c limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing non -treated pilings may be acceptable. a' b. Wildlife -viewing structures. 3. Educational and scientific research activities. 4. 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 increase the footprint or use of the facility or right-of-way. 5. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. 6. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a buffer, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer boundary, provided that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column would be disturbed. 7. Enhancement of a wetland buffer through the removal of non-native invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to hand removal. 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. Revegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 33 Packet Pg. 570 8.3.e 8. Repair and maintenance of non -conforming uses or structures, where legally established within the buffer, provided they do not increase the degree of nonconformity. I. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Buffers: Temporary markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland buffer and the clearing limits identified by an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field with temporary "clearing limits" fencing in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. The marking is subject to inspection by the Administrator prior to the commencement of permitted activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter, the Administrator may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another non -treated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one (1) every fifty (50) feet, or one (1) per lot if the lot is less than fifty (50) feet wide, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the Administrator: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact [Local Jurisdiction] Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship b. The provisions of Subsection (a) may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Fencing a. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the wetland or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site. b. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this Subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 34 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 571 8.3.e XX.060 Critical Area Report for Wetlands N W A. If the Administrator determines that the site of a proposed development includes, is likely to include, or is adjacent to a wetland, a wetland report, prepared by a o qualified professional, shall be required. The expense of preparing the wetland report o shall be borne by the applicant. 9 B. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum: 1. The written report shall include at a minimum: a. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland -related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project. b. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic data, etc. d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, wetland ratings, or impact analyses, including references. e. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate conditions within 300 feet of the project boundaries using the best available information. f. For each wetland identified on site and within 300 feet of the project boundary, provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and score for each function, per Wetland Ratings (Section XX.020.13) of this Chapter; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on -site portion or estimate entire wetland area including off -site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 35 Packet Pg. 572 8.3.e algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates, N classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, notto only the portion present on the proposed project site. v g. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of 0 o acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field 9 delineation and survey and an analysis of site development T_ alternatives, including a no -development alternative. Z h. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development. i. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing (Chapter XX.070.A) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas. j. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land -use activity. k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland functions. 1. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and its buffer. Include references for the method used and data sheets. 2. A copy of the site plan sheet(s) for the project must be included with the written report and must include, at a minimum: a. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and required buffers on site, including buffers for off -site critical areas that extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical areas; grading and clearing limits; and areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates). b. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s) associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 36 Packet Pg. 573 8.3.e XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation. A. Mitigation Sequencing. Before impacting any wetland or its buffer, an applicant shall demonstrate that the following actions have been taken. Actions are listed in the order of preference: Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. 3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations. 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 6. Monitor the required compensation and take remedial or corrective measures when necessary. B. Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06- 01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009). 2. Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with Subsection H of this Chapter. 3. Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) consistent with subsection H of this Chapter. C. Compensating for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 37 Packet Pg. 574 8.3.e compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when N either: to u� I. The lost wetland provides minimal functions, and the proposed o compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions o or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through 9 a formal Washington state watershed assessment plan or protocol; or 2. Out -of -kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet watershed goals formally identified by the City, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types. D. Approaches to Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland and buffer functions shall rely on the approaches listed below. Wetland mitigation banks. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the mitigation bank instrument. Use of credits from a wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC is allowed if: a. The approval authority determines that it would provide appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts; and b. The impact site is located in the service area of the bank. c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified mitigation bank instrument. d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits is consistent with replacement ratios specified in the certified mitigation bank instrument. 2. In -Lieu Fee Mitigation: Credits from an approved in -lieu -fee program may be used when all of the following apply: a. The approval authority determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts. b. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved in -lieu -fee program instrument. Projects using in -lieu -fee credits shall have debits associated with the proposed impacts calculated by the applicant's qualified wetland professional using the credit assessment method specified in the approved instrument for the in -lieu -fee program. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 38 Packet Pg. 575 8.3.e d. The impacts are located within the service area specified in the N approved in -lieu -fee instrument. to 3. Permittee-responsible mitigation. In this situation, the permittee performs o the mitigation after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for o implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible 9 mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off -site location within the same watershed. Permittee-responsible mitigation z° shall be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland professional c demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that the proposed approach is ecologically preferable to use of a bank or ILF program, consistent with the criteria in this section. ,? E. Types of Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland and buffer functions shall rely on a type listed below in order of preference. A lower - preference form of mitigation shall be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland professional demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that all higher -ranked types of mitigation are not viable, consistent with the criteria in this section. 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: a. 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. b. 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. 2. Establishment (Creation): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site 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. a. If a site is not available for wetland restoration to compensate for expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the approval authority may Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 39 Packet Pg. 576 8.3.e authorize creation of a wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the N applicant's qualified wetland professional that: to i. The hydrology and soil conditions at the proposed mitigation site o are conducive for sustaining the proposed wetland and that o creation of a wetland at the site will not likely cause hydrologic 9 problems elsewhere; ii. Adjacent land uses and site conditions do not jeopardize the viability of the proposed wetland and buffer (e.g., due to the presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds, stormwater runoff, noise, light, or other impacts); and iii. The proposed wetland and buffer will eventually be self- sustaining with little or no long-term maintenance. 3. 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 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. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or associated buffers shall demonstrate how the proposed enhancement will increase the wetland's/buffer's functions, how this increase in function will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland functions at the mitigation site will be protected. 4. 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, or repairing water control structures or fences. This term also includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres. Permanent protection of a Category I or II wetland and associated buffer at risk of degradation can be used only if: a. The approval authority determines that the proposed preservation is the best mitigation option; b. The proposed preservation site is under threat of undesirable ecological change due to permitted, planned, or likely actions that will not be adequately mitigated under existing regulations; Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 40 Packet Pg. 577 8.3.e 1-4 c. The area proposed for preservation is of high quality or critical for the to health of the watershed or basin due to its location. Some of the following features may be indicative of high -quality sites: o 0 W i. Category I or II wetland rating (using the wetland rating system for 9 western Washington) ii. Rare or irreplaceable wetland type (for example, bogs, mature forested wetlands, estuarine wetlands) or aquatic habitat that is rare or a limited resource in the area; iii. The presence of habitat for priority or locally important wildlife species; or also list has provides biological and/or hydrological connectivity; iv. Provides biololgical and/or hydrological connectivity; v. Priority sites in an adopted watershed plan. d. Permanent preservation of the wetland and buffer will be provided through a conservation easement or tract held by an appropriate natural land resource manager, such as a land trust. e. The approval authority may approve other legal and administrative mechanisms in lieu of a conservation easement if it determines they are adequate to protect the site. f. 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. F. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall generally be conducted within the same sub -drainage basin and on the site of the alteration except when the applicant can demonstrate that off -site mitigation is ecologically preferable. The following criteria will be evaluated when determining whether the proposal is ecologically preferable. When considering off -site mitigation, preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an in -lieu -fee program, or advance mitigation. There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub -drainage basin (e.g., on -site options would require elimination of high -functioning upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub -drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 41 Packet Pg. 578 8.3.e include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer N conditions and required widths, available water to maintain anticipatedto hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood v storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife o impacts (such as connectivity); q m 2. On -site mitigation would require elimination of high -quality upland 0 T_ habitat. c 3. Off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the altered wetland. 4. Off -site locations shall be in the same sub -drainage basin unless: a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or b. Credits from a state -certified wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the certified bank instrument; c. Fees are paid to an approved in -lieu -fee program to compensate for the impacts. 5. The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore, compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of an atypical wetland. G. Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will impact wetlands. At the least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. The Administrator may authorize a one-time temporary delay in completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified wetland professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 42 Packet Pg. 579 8.3.e delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the N public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written to justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification o must be verified and approved by the City. o 0 to H. Wetland Mitigation Ratios3: Category and Creation or Rehabilitation Enhancement Type of Wetland Re-establishment Category I: Not considered Bog, Natural possible Case by case Case by case Heritage site Category I: Mature 6:1 12:1 24:1 Forested Category I: Based on 4:1 8:1 16:1 functions Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 L Credit/Debit Method. To more fully protect functions and values, and as an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Parts I and II (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a-b, Olympia, WA, March 2006), the administrator may allow mitigation based on the "credit/debit" method developed by the Department of Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report, (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised). 3 Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment. See Table 1 a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised). See also Paragraph DA for more information on using preservation as compensation. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 43 Packet Pg. 580 8.3.e J. Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or N buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall to be required, meeting the following minimum standards: v 1. Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area report for wetlands must 0 o accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include 9 the minimum parameters described in Minimum Standards for Wetland T- Reports (Section XX.060.13) of this Chapter. Z 2. Compensatory Mitigation Report. The report must include a written report and plan sheets that contain, at a minimum, the following elements. Full guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication #06-06- 01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised). a. The written report must contain, at a minimum: The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland -related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project. ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. iii. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be altered. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating, based on Wetland Ratings (Section XX.XX) of this Chapter. iv. Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation actions are NOT undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress through natural succession?). V. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 44 Packet Pg. 581 8.3.e Include illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic N conditions were used to determine the estimates of future to hydrologic conditions v vi. A description of the proposed actions for compensation of o wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall o goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the T_ targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and categories of wetlands. z° c vii. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities. viii. Performance standards (measurable standards for years post - installation) for upland and wetland communities, a monitoring schedule, and a maintenance schedule and actions proposed by year. ix. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the development project has been implemented, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands). X. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation, plant materials, construction materials, installation oversight, maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring. xi. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation areas. b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum: i. Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed wetland and/or buffer compensation actions. ii. Existing topography, ground -proofed, at two -foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area(s). Also include existing cross -sections (estimated one -foot intervals) of wetland areas on the development site that are proposed to be altered and for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer compensation. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 45 Packet Pg. 582 8.3.e iii. Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including N future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by to dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water v regimes. o iv. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed 0 o compensation areas. Also identify any zones where buffers are T_ proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards identified in this Chapter. z6 r_ V. A planting plan for the compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, and timing of installation. K. Buffer Mitigation Ratios. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory buffer mitigation shall replace those buffer functions lost from development. L. Protection of the Mitigation Site. The mitigation area and any associated buffer shall be located in a critical area tract or a conservation easement consistent with Chapter XX.XX. M. Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five years. If a scrub -shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring may be required for ten years or more. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring elements that ensure certainty of success for the project's natural resource values and functions. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial five-year period, the applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved. N. Advance Mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre -identified impacts to wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts if the mitigation is implemented according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality regulations consistent with Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee- Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, Olympia, WA, December 2012). O. Alternative Mitigation Plans. The Administrator may approve alternative wetland mitigation plans that are based on best available science, such as priority restoration plans that achieve restoration goals identified in the SMP. Alternative mitigation proposals must provide an equivalent or better level of protection of wetland functions and values than would be provided by the strict application of this chapter. The Administrator shall consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal: Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 46 Packet Pg. 583 8.3.e 1-4 1. The proposal uses a watershed approach consistent with Selecting Wetlandto Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) v (Ecology Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009). o 2. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open 0 W 9 space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas. 3. Mitigation according to Section E is not feasible due to site constraints such as parcel size, stream type, wetland category, or geologic hazards. 4. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed mitigation site. 5. The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. A monitoring plan shall, at a minimum, meet the provisions in Section J. 6. The plan shall be reviewed and approved as part of overall approval of the proposed use. 7. A wetland of a different type may be justified based on regional needs or functions and values; the replacement ratios may not be reduced or eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental alternative. 8. Mitigation guarantees shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in Section J.2.a.viii. 9. Qualified professionals in each of the critical areas addressed shall prepare the plan. 10. The City may consult with agencies with expertise and jurisdiction over the critical areas during the review to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard critical areas. XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement A. When a wetland or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Chapter, all ongoing development work shall stop, and the critical area shall be restored. The City shall have the authority to issue a "stop -work" order to cease all ongoing development work and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or other responsible party's expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this Chapter. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 47 Packet Pg. 584 8.3.e B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain N stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the City. Such a plan shall to be prepared by a qualified professional using the currently accepted scientific principles and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in o Subsection C below. The Administrator shall, at the applicant or other responsible o party's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate 9 plans shall be returned to the applicant or other responsible party for revision and re - submittal. Z C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. The following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a wetland, provided that if the applicant or other responsible party can demonstrate that greater functions and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: 1. The historic structure, functions, and values of the affected wetland shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions. 2. The historic soil types and configuration shall be restored to the extent practicable. 3. The wetland and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration. 4. Information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of this Chapter shall be submitted to the Administrator. D. Site Investigations. The Administrator is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Chapter. The Administrator shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property. E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day or portion of a day during which a violation of this Chapter is committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the statutes of the state of Washington. The City may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter. The civil penalty shall be assessed at a maximum rate of $XX dollars per day per violation. 2. If the wetland affected cannot be restored, monies collected as penalties shall be deposited in a dedicated account for the preservation or Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 48 Packet Pg. 585 8.3.e restoration of landscape processes and functions in the watershed in which N the affected wetland is located. The City may coordinate its preservation u or restoration activities with other cities in the watershed to optimize the 77 effectiveness of the restoration action. o 0 to 0 to Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 49 Packet Pg. 586 1z � co CZ o O v n X M LO Fool V � Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1562 8.3.e Appendix B - Wetland Definitions (Western Washington) Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 51 N to O O w O to T- Packet Pg. 588 � O � do O Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1562 : r I 8.3.e Appendix B — Wetland Definitions Agricultural Activities, Existing and Ongoing — Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops and livestock, including but not limited to operation, maintenance and conservation measures of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, irrigation systems, changes between agricultural activities, and normal operation, maintenance or repair of existing serviceable structures, facilities or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing activity. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area in which it was conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conversation program. Alteration — Any human -induced change in an existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading, filling, channelizing, dredging, clearing of vegetation, construction, compaction, excavation, or any other activity that changes the character of the critical area. Best Available Science — Current scientific information used in the process to designate, protect, or restore critical areas; that is, derived from a valid scientific process as defined by WAC 365-195-900 through 925. Best Management Practices (BMPs) — Conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that: (a) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high concentrations of nutrients, animal waste, toxics, or sediment; (b) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and ground water flow and circulation patterns and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands; (c) Protect trees, vegetation, and soils designated to be retained during and following site construction and use native plant species appropriate to the site for re -vegetation of disturbed areas; and (d) Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical areas. Bog — A low -nutrient, acidic wetland with organic soils and characteristic bog plants, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Buffer or Buffer Zone — The area contiguous with a critical area that maintains the functions and/or structural stability of the critical area. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 53 Packet Pg. 590 8.3.e Coastal Lagoon — A shallow body of water partly or completely separated from the sea by a barrier beach that receives periodic influxes of salt water, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Critical Areas — Critical areas include any of the following areas or ecosystems: critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands, as defined in RCW 36.70A and this Chapter. Creation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Creation results in a gain in wetland acreage and function. A typical action is the excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod and hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species. Cumulative Impacts or Effects — The combined, incremental effects of human activity on ecological or critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions. Development — A land use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; grading, dredging, drilling, or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving of pilings; or any project of a temporary or permanent nature which modifies structures, land, wetlands, or shorelines and which does not fall within the allowable exemptions contained in the City Code. Enhancement — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland 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 habitat. Enhancement results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Examples are planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, and modifying site elevations to alter hydroperiods. Estuarine Wetland — A vegetated wetland with a water regime that is predominately tidal, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14- 06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Functions and Values — The services provided by critical areas to society, including, but not limited to, improving and maintaining water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitat, supporting terrestrial and aquatic food chains, reducing flooding and erosive Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 54 Packet Pg. 591 8.3.e flows, wave attenuation, historical or archaeological importance, educational opportunities, and recreation. Growth Management Act — RCW 36.70A and 36.70B, as amended. Hazardous Substances — Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the physical, chemical, or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303- 100. Impervious Surface — A surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under pre -development or pre -developed conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. In -Kind Compensation — To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose characteristics and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. In -Lieu -Fee Program — An agreement between a regulatory agency (state, federal, or local) and a single sponsor, generally a public natural resource agency or non-profit organization. Under an in -lieu -fee agreement, the mitigation sponsor collects funds from an individual or a number of individuals who are required to conduct compensatory mitigation required under a wetland regulatory program. The sponsor may use the funds pooled from multiple permittees to create one or a number of sites under the authority of the agreement to satisfy the permittees' required mitigation. Infiltration — The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil. Interdunal Wetland — A wetland that forms in the deflation plains and swales that are geomorphic features in areas of coastal dunes, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology. Isolated Wetland — A wetland that is hydrologically isolated from other aquatic resources, as determined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Isolated wetlands may perform important functions and are protected by state law (RCW 90.48) whether or not they are protected by federal law. Mature and Old -Growth Forested Wetland — A wetland having at least 1 contiguous acre of either old -growth forest or mature forest, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 55 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 592 8.3.e Mitigation — Avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts. Mitigation, in the following sequential order of preference, is: (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 to avoid or reduce impacts; (c) Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to 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 to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (f) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. Monitoring — Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological, hydrological, and geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of required mitigation measures through the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the purpose of understanding and documenting changes in natural ecosystems and features. Monitoring includes gathering baseline data. Native Vegetation — Plant species that occur naturally in a particular region or environment and were present before European colonization. Off -Site Compensation — To replace critical areas away from the site on which a critical area has been impacted. On -Site Compensation — To replace critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a critical areas has been impacted. Ordinary High Water Mark — That mark which is found by examining the bed and banks of water bodies and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, that the soil has a character distinct from that of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 56 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 593 8.3.e Preservation — The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This term includes the purchase of land or conservation easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural protection. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres but may result in a gain in functions over the long term. Project Area — All areas, including those within fifty (50) feet of the area, proposed to be disturbed, altered, or used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed structures. When the action binds the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan, planned unit development, or rezone, the project area shall include the entire parcel, at a minimum. Prior Converted Croplands — Prior converted croplands (PCCs) are defined in federal law as wetlands that were drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated, including the removal of woody vegetation, before December 23, 1985, to enable production of an agricultural commodity, and that: 1) have had an agricultural commodity planted or produced at least once prior to December 23, 1985; 2) do not have standing water for more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season, and 3) have not since been abandoned. Qualified Professional — A qualified professional for wetlands must be a professional wetland scientist with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands professional, including delineating wetlands using the federal manual and supplements, preparing wetlands reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and implementing mitigation plans. 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 rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in wetland acres and functions. Activities could include removing fill, 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 and processes 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 returning tidal influence to a wetland. Repair or Maintenance — An activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter critical areas are not included in this definition. Restoration — Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature, including: Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 57 N to u� 0 0 W 0 to Packet Pg. 594 8.3.e (a) Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat, N or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an to unauthorized alteration; and 0 (b) Actions performed to re-establish structural and functional characteristics o of a critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management c activities, or catastrophic events. to SEPA — Washington State Environmental Policy Act, 43.21C RCW. Service Area — The geographic area within which impacts can be mitigated at a specific mitigation bank or an in -lieu -fee program, as designated in its instrument. Soil Survey — The most recent soil survey for the local area or county by the National Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Species — Any group of animals or plants classified as a species or subspecies as commonly accepted by the scientific community. Species of Local Importance — Those species of local concern designated by the City in Chapter XX.XX due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation. Species, Listed -- Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or state endangered, threatened, and sensitive, or priority lists (see WAC 232-12-297 or page 6 of "Priority Habitat and Species List," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.) Stream — An area where open surface water produces a defined channel or bed, not including irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, unless they are used by salmonids or are used to convey a watercourse naturally occurring prior to construction. A channel or bed need not contain water year-round, provided there is evidence of at least intermittent flow during years of normal rainfall. Unavoidable Impacts — Adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved. Washington Administration Code (WAC) — Administrative rules implementing state laws. Wetlands — Those areas 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 generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland 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 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 58 Packet Pg. 595 8.3.e of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands N intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.to Wetland of High Conservation Value — A wetland that has been identified by scientists o from the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WHNHP) as an important ecosystem for o maintaining plant diversity in Washington State. See hqp://www.dnr.wa.gov/data- 9 information -natural -heritage -features . Wetland Mitigation Bank — A site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved, expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources that typically are unknown at the time of certification to compensate for future, permitted impacts to similar resources. Wetland Mosaic — An area with a concentration of multiple small wetlands, in which each patch of wetland is less than one acre; on average, patches are less than 100 feet from each other; and areas delineated as vegetated wetland are more than 50% of the total area of the entire mosaic, including uplands and open water. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 59 Packet Pg. 596 C' r A b a S FO W h Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update) CO W Attachment: Staff PowerPoint Presentation (1562 : Shoreline Master Program Update)